Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-18-2019 9:28 PM
27 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, jar (3 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 859,974 Year: 15,010/19,786 Month: 1,733/3,058 Week: 107/404 Day: 107/43 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   Parable of the candle - should million/billion year dating be taught as fact?
Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 4126 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 46 of 98 (433691)
11-12-2007 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
11-12-2007 7:03 PM


Re: Canyon
Like I've said before, and I'll say it a thousand times, if God made man a mature man instantly, He could make a mature earth (wilh all evidence pointing toward a mature earth) instantly.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2007 7:03 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by DrJones*, posted 11-12-2007 7:23 PM Aquilegia753 has responded
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2007 7:27 PM Aquilegia753 has responded
 Message 55 by subbie, posted 11-12-2007 7:45 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 9:21 PM Aquilegia753 has responded
 Message 80 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2007 1:34 AM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1915
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 47 of 98 (433694)
11-12-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 7:19 PM


Re: Canyon
if God made man a mature man instantly, He could make a mature earth (wilh all evidence pointing toward a mature earth) instantly.

Which fully supports the idea that the Earth was created last Thorsday and any memories you have prior to that were created along wth the Earth.


Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:19 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 8:10 PM DrJones* has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 98 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 48 of 98 (433695)
11-12-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 4:00 PM


Re: Canyon
Aquilegia753 writes:

quote:
But people walk around stating evolution as fact.

That's because it is. Evolution is both a fact AND a theory.

You cannot have a theory unless you have a fact to base it upon. That's why it's called the theory [I][B]OF[/i][/B] evolution. We have observed evolution happening right before our eyes, therefore we develop a theory to explain the fact.

Is gravity a fact or a theory?

When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground. We call the force that pulls it to the ground "gravity." That's an observed fact...after all, the ball fell.

But what is gravity? How does it work? What causes it? That's where the theory part comes in. It is only after a great deal of experimentation and testing do we come up with F = Gm1m2/r2. That's the theory of gravity.

And it turns out, it's wrong. The Pioneer spacecraft are leaving the solar system and they're moving at a rate that isn't consistent with our current understanding of gravitational theory.

But notice that despite any changes we make with our theories of gravity, the original observation still holds: When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground.

The same thing exists with evolution. When we watch organisms over time, they change. We call the process by which those organisms change "evolution." That's an observed fact...after all, the organisms changed.

But what is evolution? How does it work? What causes it? That's where the theory part comes in. It is only after a great deal of experimentation and testing do we come up with mutation and selection. That's the theory of evolution.

Notice that despite any changes we may make with our theories of evolution, the original observation still holds: When we watch organisms over time, they change.

The point? You can't have a theory without a fact to back it up. A theory is an analysis of a set of facts. Just as gravity is both a fact and a theory, so is evolution. If you aren't going to complain about all the other theories in science, why are you picking on evolution? In fact, evolution is more solidly grounded than our theories of gravity: We have a mechanism. When Darwin first formulated his theory of evolution, he still thought that there was some form of pangenesis going on. That is, the gametes in sexually reproducing species were created by taking material from the entire body. This was used by Lamarck in his description of evolution that traits acquired by an organism during its lifetime could be passed onto the next generation, thus giraffes got their long necks because the first generation physically stretched their necks reaching for leaves and this acquired trait was passed to their children who stretched them even more, etc.

Darwin didn't agree with this idea...acquired traits are obviously not passed on or parents who had lost a limb would be more likely to have children without that limb. But still, he thought that whatever was used to transfer morphological traits from one generation to the next was distilled from the entire body. Remember, the chromosome hadn't been discovered yet. It turns out he was wrong. The gonads create the gametes by taking a single cell and subjecting it to meiosis.

We found the direct cause of evolution: The chromosome and how it mutates over time. We are still discovering the various types of selective pressures that exist, but we have actually found some.

What is gravity? Is it as Einstein described, a folding of space-time? Is it a force carried on a particle much like the other forces of electromagnetism, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear? We have absolutely no idea. We've got some great information about how it behaves, but we don't know what it is! We have no mechanism for gravity.

So yes, let's teach evolution for the theory that it is. But that doesn't mean creationism gets to be considered a theory. In science, a theory is something that has been tested a great deal and not found wanting. It might be wrong since theories can never be proven correct, but the theory is as accurate as we can possibly make it precisely because theories are tailored to fit all the facts that we know.

If you don't like what a theory says, then you need to find new data that the theory cannot be reconciled with. Note that this does not make creationism "true" just because our current theory of evolution is false. Again, the fact of evolution is still there: When we watch organisms over time, they change and that change is called "evolution." While the theories about the mechanism of evolution might change, evolution itself will always be the case.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:00 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:27 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 4126 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 49 of 98 (433698)
11-12-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Rrhain
11-12-2007 7:14 PM


Re: Canyon
Yes, I beilieve that if I came home and found my television gone, I would guess that somebody broke in. I would call the police, and they would do an investigation, and they probably would catch a criminal. However, you can hardly be 100% sure that the person is the one who stole your television. They have put innocent people in jail before. The justice system isn't perfect. And, possibly, neither is science.

p.s. Please capitolize 'God' and I don't believe in the rapture.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 7:14 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 9:31 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20032
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 50 of 98 (433702)
11-12-2007 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 7:19 PM


Re: Canyon
if God made man a mature man instantly, He could make a mature earth (wilh all evidence pointing toward a mature earth) instantly.

In other words ALL evidence is a lie. There is NO reality, even the basis for your faith is false.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:19 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:30 PM RAZD has responded

  
Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 4126 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 51 of 98 (433703)
11-12-2007 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Rrhain
11-12-2007 7:23 PM


Re: Canyon
Yes, I believe that we see evolution happening, micro evolution (the fact). Macro evolution, on which the theory of evolution is based on, isn't happening. We don't see any man-monkeys, or winged horses.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 7:23 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 7:34 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded
 Message 69 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 9:43 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

  
Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 4126 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 52 of 98 (433706)
11-12-2007 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
11-12-2007 7:27 PM


Re: Canyon
No. I'm saying that it could be that evidence is a lie. It might not. I believe that God did make the earth old, or that the earth was created with the universe (Gen. 1:1). But there is no distinction between 'God created the heavens and the earth' and 'the earth was formless and void...' (Gen. 1:2). Maybe in that time, the earth aged. Maybe, life was sprung up in the water, which died during creation week. I don't know. I wasn't there. I believe that when Jesus does come again, I'll know when I ask Him.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2007 7:27 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2007 8:00 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 98 (433712)
11-12-2007 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 7:27 PM


Re: Canyon
Macro evolution, on which the theory of evolution is based on, isn't happening.

It is happening; we observe evidence of it happening now as well as abundant evidence that it happened in the past. The creationist canard that "macroevolution is a myth" is simply false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:27 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 98 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 54 of 98 (433718)
11-12-2007 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 4:06 PM


Re: The philosophy of science
Aquilegia753 writes:

quote:
Yes, it may predict which is closer to which, but what about in-transition macro evolution?

We see it all the time. You seem to forget: Everything is a transitional. You are transitional between your parents and your children.

quote:
A horse has generally the same limb bones as a human, but they have hoofs.

And if you look at the fossil record of the horse, you can watch as the toes start to merge into a single, central toe right before your eyes. And if you look at modern horses, you see that every now and then you get a horse born with more than one.

It's called an "atavism."

quote:
Where are the half-foot, half-hoofs now, if evolution existed/still exists?

Because that isn't how it developed. The horse didn't have a "half-hoof." Instead, it had a foot with three toes and before that, it had a foot with five toes. Over time, the outer toes fused with the inner one. In modern horses, you can still see the laminar splints that lie alongside the central bone shaft if you were to surgically open the leg and look. And sometimes, a horse is born with atavistic side toes.

Gould wrote an article about it, "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes." You can find a copy of it in the book of the same name.

quote:
Where are the half-man, half-apes?

Here:

Fossil Hominids

Do not confuse your ignorance of the evidence as a universal trait.

quote:
How come we don't see things with three eyes (if eyes came from freckles).

We do. Some species of spiders have eight eyes. Scallops have more than a hundred. And in the fish ancestors of modern vertebrates, they had a third eye. In modern humans, it's our pineal gland. You can still see the third eye in some amphibians and in Tuatara lizards.

quote:
How come all things have eyes on their heads, when people get freckles on their arms.

Because eyes didn't evolve from freckles. Where did you get this silly idea?

quote:
How come things don't have legs on their legs, when people get warts on their legs?

Because warts are a virus and legs didn't evolve from them. Where did you get this silly idea?

To tie this back into the OP, this is precisely the same logic used by the creationist creator of the parable: Assumption that the scientist is a complete, blithering idiot, incapable of understanding the very subject he or she is trained in. The creationist simply makes ridiculous pronouncements (eyes evolved from freckles, legs evolved from warts) and expects the scientist to respond as if the pronouncement made any sort of sense.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:06 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 55 of 98 (433721)
11-12-2007 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 7:19 PM


Re: Canyon
Like I've said before, and I'll say it a thousand times, if God made man a mature man instantly, He could make a mature earth (wilh all evidence pointing toward a mature earth) instantly. Like I've said before, and I'll say it a thousand times, if God made man a mature man instantly, He could make a mature earth (wilh all evidence pointing toward a mature earth) instantly.

The god described in the old and new testaments could have done anything. The question isn't what he could have done. The question is what does the evidence say he did do? Earlier in this thread, you didn't argue against the point that science shouldn't promote theories with no evidence just to protect the views of certain religious minorities. Therefore I ask what scientific evidence is there that god created a "mature earth" that appears to be billions of years older than it actually is?


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:19 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20032
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 56 of 98 (433730)
11-12-2007 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 7:30 PM


truth and evidence
Message 51
Yes, I believe that we see evolution happening, micro evolution (the fact). Macro evolution, on which the theory of evolution is based on, isn't happening.

Care to define evolution, microevolution and macroevolution so that we can see whether you really understand what these terms mean?

Note that if you are not using the same definitions as used in science then you are not discussing the science but some fantasy instead.

We don't see any man-monkeys, or winged horses.

Which evolution predicts WON'T happen. If you think otherwise you are misinformed. Do you think that the people that told you can be trusted to tell the truth?

No. I'm saying that it could be that evidence is a lie. It might not.

By assuming that some evidence can be false means you can believe any possible concept you want to believe, and there is no way to distinguish between any that are true from those that are false.

The earth is flat, 6,000 years old, the center of the universe and the sun orbits the earth. Any evidence that says otherwise is false evidence.

The earth is round, 4.5 billion years old, orbits the sun in the outer arm of a rather nondescript galaxy. Any evidence that says otherwise is false evidence.

How do you tell which is true?

I believe that God did make the earth old, or that the earth was created with the universe (Gen. 1:1). But there is no distinction between 'God created the heavens and the earth' and 'the earth was formless and void...' (Gen. 1:2). Maybe in that time, the earth aged. Maybe, life was sprung up in the water, which died during creation week. I don't know. I wasn't there. I believe that when Jesus does come again, I'll know when I ask Him.

So is the evidence true or not? It's simple: either the evidence is all true, or there is no reality, no truth.

Are you in middle school? Homeschooled? The reason is to understand the level of education and ignorance involved and tailor replies to your level.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : personal questions

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:30 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 8:31 PM RAZD has responded

  
Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 4126 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 57 of 98 (433734)
11-12-2007 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by DrJones*
11-12-2007 7:23 PM


Re: Canyon
No, that would be considered lieing, and my God isn't a lier. He can make a young earth look old without lieing. These 'memories' you refer to were never created by God. I believe that the fossils, the records, everything, happened after creation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by DrJones*, posted 11-12-2007 7:23 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by DrJones*, posted 11-12-2007 9:10 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

  
Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 4126 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 58 of 98 (433743)
11-12-2007 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by RAZD
11-12-2007 8:00 PM


Re: truth and evidence
Care to define evolution, microevolution and macroevolution so that we can see whether you really understand what these terms mean?

Macro evolution-the physical change from one species to another (man to human). The distinctive visible 'evolution' with large effects. Webster's-major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa

Micro evolution-very small changes of plants and animals to adapt to new environments (ants are attacking a plant, so the plant grows special food for the ants, which in turn defend the plant against other predators. Soon, neither can live without the other. Plants developing pestacide on their leafs to ward off bugs, which develope and immunity to the pesticide. No species change at all). Webster's-Evolutionary change below the level of the species, resulting from relatively small genetic variations.

(taken from http://dictionary.reference.com)

Edited by Aquilegia753, : Lack of credit given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2007 8:00 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 10:01 PM Aquilegia753 has responded
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2007 10:48 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2007 8:02 AM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 98 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 59 of 98 (433746)
11-12-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by mike the wiz
11-12-2007 5:12 PM


Re: Canyon
mike the wiz writes:

quote:
This is why evolution isn't a fact to me. Usually I define a fact as none-negotiable.

And yet, evolution is precisely that: It is a fact. You can watch it happen right in front of your very eyes. You know this, mike. I've posted this same experiment multiple times and you can probably recite it by heart:

Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost very much and the materials can be acquired from any decent biological supply house.

Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.

What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.

But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.

How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.

But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.

Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.

But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.

What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.

But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they shold all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.

Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.

So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.

There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.

You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.

Evolution is a fact.

It is also a theory.

That is because theories are based upon fact. You cannot have a theory unless you have a fact to base it upon. Theories seek to explain facts. That's why it's called the theory OF evolution: We had to have the fact of evolution first in order to develop the theory OF it.

quote:
I see a theory as an explanation of facts

And since evolution is a fact, that's why we have a theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] it.

quote:
Evolution is largely inductive.

Incorrect. Evolution, like the rest of science, is largely deductive.

quote:
Birds' feathers, and their whole flight system is so fe**ing incredible that they must be designed mustn't they?

No, because we can directly see that they weren't. That's what the fossil record shows us. There is no other deductive conclusion to make given the evidence that we have.

If you wish to make a leap of faith and declare that there is some evidence somewhere that we don't have which would change everything, then you are perfectly free to insist that it was magic. But you will understand if the rest of us who insist upon evidence don't quite come along for the ride.

quote:
If theories are negotiable I don't understand why evolutionists care so much about creationists, and get so hot under the collar.

Because creationists don't even have a theory. In science, a theory is not simply wishful thinking. You actually need to be able to explain all current observations and make predictions of observations that have yet to be made.

Nothing out of creationism comes close to either criteria. Creationsim neither explains nor predicts. Since "god did it" is applicable to every single outcome of every single experiment that could ever be carried out, then it doesn't actually tell us anything. Any claim that explains everything actually explains nothing.

quote:
The rational few will see that they are merely exersizing their right to not believe in a theory, even if there is a lot of evidence that suggests it is true.

Do you seriously not see the problem with this? How very telling that you're trying to frame this as a "freedom of conscience" issue as if creationism were akin to not eating meat on Friday. The problem is that you are insisting that we lie to people with regard to the way things work...and not regarding something innocuous but rather something basic and fundamental.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Just how do you expect there to be any progress in biology if you are going to insist that every fanciful opinion is just as good as any other? We are on the verge of genetic breakthroughs with regard to the treatment of disease and you want us to ignore the underlying biology that makes it possible in the first place?

quote:
It strikes me as plain weird that Christians are expected to treat evolution as fact.

Then it should strike you as just as weird that Christians are expected to treat gravity as fact.

Is gravity a fact or a theory?

When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground. We call the force that pulls it to the ground "gravity." That's an observed fact...after all, the ball fell.

But what is gravity? How does it work? What causes it? That's where the theory part comes in. It is only after a great deal of experimentation and testing do we come up with F = Gm1m2/r2. That's the theory of gravity.

And it turns out, it's wrong. The Pioneer spacecraft are leaving the solar system and they're moving at a rate that isn't consistent with our current understanding of gravitational theory.

But notice that despite any changes we make with our theories of gravity, the original observation still holds: When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground.

The same thing exists with evolution. When we watch organisms over time, they change. We call the process by which those organisms change "evolution." That's an observed fact...after all, the organisms changed.

But what is evolution? How does it work? What causes it? That's where the theory part comes in. It is only after a great deal of experimentation and testing do we come up with mutation and selection. That's the theory of evolution.

Notice that despite any changes we may make with our theories of evolution, the original observation still holds: When we watch organisms over time, they change.

The point? You can't have a theory without a fact to back it up. A theory is an analysis of a set of facts. Just as gravity is both a fact and a theory, so is evolution. If you aren't going to complain about all the other theories in science, why are you picking on evolution? In fact, evolution is more solidly grounded than our theories of gravity: We have a mechanism. When Darwin first formulated his theory of evolution, he still thought that there was some form of pangenesis going on. That is, the gametes in sexually reproducing species were created by taking material from the entire body. This was used by Lamarck in his description of evolution that traits acquired by an organism during its lifetime could be passed onto the next generation, thus giraffes got their long necks because the first generation physically stretched their necks reaching for leaves and this acquired trait was passed to their children who stretched them even more, etc.

Darwin didn't agree with this idea...acquired traits are obviously not passed on or parents who had lost a limb would be more likely to have children without that limb. But still, he thought that whatever was used to transfer morphological traits from one generation to the next was distilled from the entire body. Remember, the chromosome hadn't been discovered yet. It turns out he was wrong. The gonads create the gametes by taking a single cell and subjecting it to meiosis.

We found the direct cause of evolution: The chromosome and how it mutates over time. We are still discovering the various types of selective pressures that exist, but we have actually found some.

What is gravity? Is it as Einstein described, a folding of space-time? Is it a force carried on a particle much like the other forces of electromagnetism, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear? We have absolutely no idea. We've got some great information about how it behaves, but we don't know what it is! We have no mechanism for gravity.

So yes, let's teach evolution for the theory that it is. But that doesn't mean creationism gets to be considered a theory. In science, a theory is something that has been tested a great deal and not found wanting. It might be wrong since theories can never be proven correct, but the theory is as accurate as we can possibly make it precisely because theories are tailored to fit all the facts that we know.

If you don't like what a theory says, then you need to find new data that the theory cannot be reconciled with. Note that this does not make creationism "true" just because our current theory of evolution is false. Again, the fact of evolution is still there: When we watch organisms over time, they change and that change is called "evolution." While the theories about the mechanism of evolution might change, evolution itself will always be the case.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by mike the wiz, posted 11-12-2007 5:12 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 8:52 PM Rrhain has responded
 Message 82 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2007 8:39 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 4126 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 60 of 98 (433751)
11-12-2007 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Rrhain
11-12-2007 8:39 PM


Re: Canyon
Yes, that evolution is microevolution, not the macro on which the theory is based. For the macro to take place, that E. Coli has to become something that's not E. Coli.

My mother is a cath lab techician. She grew up on a dairy farm in central western Oregon, so I don't think she went to church. However, the more she studies life, the more she's convinced that something so complicated like a single cell had the ability to be made. Sure, expiraments have made amino acids from non-living matter, but carry on further. Have they made a cell? Have they actually made life? Evolutionists continue to say that life doesn't need an Intelligant Creator/Designer, yet the smartest people in the world (which I hope are smarter than a bolt of lightning) can't make life! If you show me when an expirament creates cells from non-living matter, then, I might start thinking about possibly getting close to the thought of perhaps, under very strange circumstances, start believing that life didn't need a Creator. Until then, I'll trust and follow God wherever He teaches me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 8:39 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Rrhain, posted 11-12-2007 10:21 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019