What is evolution?

You make a good Point,Wumpini. The Theory of Evolution is often confused with evolution: the facts. There is a planet out there with neither finches, horses, peppered moths, nor Darwin. Yet on that planet the ToE still functions with it’s own set of facts.On Earth the set of facts does include life becoming cellular some time before 3.5 billion years ago, becoming multi-cellular further on and then broadly diversifying some 500 million years ago. All this well before the ToE was explained by Darwin using the facts around him.The ToE is today, for obvious reasons, still learned using the facts at hand even though it is independent of them. But there is really no cause to try to separate them when we are still battling the Crocaduck.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

It is statements like these where I see the communication problem between scientists and ordinary folks such as myself.If you had said something like:Based upon observations and scientific methods, scientists theorize that life became cellular 3.5 billion years ago, later became multicelluar, and then broadly diversifying some 500 million years ago.Then, I would think scientists had given a good try at trying to figure things out, and they were telling me what they thought had happened based upon their view of the evidence. Communication would take place. I may not agree with their conclusions, but I could accept the explanation.However, when you say these statements are the facts, that makes me skeptical about anything that scientists claim to be factual. I do not know if it is because we have different mental images of the words that are being used, or we do understand each other and are not in agreement on the capability of modern science to make these factual claims about events that supposedly happened millions and billions of years ago.Scientists can't even seem to predict what the weather is going to be next week. It is always a 50% chance of this or that. How can scientists possibly claim something as factual that they say happened billions of years ago?

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I'm not sure if you have a point or not, lyx2no's use of the vague term 'becoming' could encompass almost anything from the traditional evolutionary scenario up to multiple rounds of wholesale divine de novo creation. It is a fact that we see changes in the composition of biospheres over time reflected in the geological/fossil record. It is a fact that the progression is as lyx2no states, with unicellular then multicellular then more complex multicellular forms appearing along a specific timeline.Regardless of how the different forms of life got there, evolution or divine creation, it is a fact that they first appear in the geologic record in those specific time frames, unless you want to throw pretty much all modern geology out along with evolutionary theory I'm not sure how you could argue against that.I may be misinterpreting lyx2no, they may be making a much stronger statement about evolutionary history, but just from what was written I don't see it.TTFN,WK

Hi Wumpini, I think you're splitting hairs somewhat here, but you do nonetheless have a point.Look at it this way; evolution is a fact. It has been observed both in the lab and in the field. The explanatory framework used by scientists to explain this fact is the Theory of Evolution. The theory is subject to doubt and tentativity, but the events observed are real.Also, scientists can't predict the weather because of Chaos Theory. Weather is innately unpredictable because it is an unbelievably complex and interconnected system. Chaos isn't a consideration when digging up fossils.Edited by Granny Magda, : Tidying up.

---

Mutate and Survive

Wumpini writes, Well, if you are 'regular folk' like you said you are, for what reason would you disagree with their conclussions? Seems by your statement you are not qualified to determine which conclusions are good ones and which conclusions are bad ones.you said, The problem is that thats exactly what is said however, the word theorize is being used in scientific terms here and a Scientific Theory is a facts based theory. Species evolved, that parts the fact, the part that is theorized is 'how' it evolved. Using facts gathered through scientific methods they can better piece togther exactly what the evolutionary course was, but at no point is evolution not the understood process.You could use your same statement for gravity or atoms. Science is a field of theories. Whats so conflicting about that?you write, I would like to say in reply to this statement, assuming that you take God to be a better explanation, ask yourself, how credible are those religious folk who tell you 'their' stuff is true? How good are those old school religious folk with their 'method' for gathering facts?Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

All great truths begin as blasphemies

I think there for I am. All else is tentative. And it’s bloody well boring to have to qualify every statement one makes to include that. If the word fact has any meaning at all then it is legitimate to apply it to data that one has absolutely no reason to doubt except the possibility that we are in the Matrix.The people who can’t figure that one out for themselves have bigger fish to fry then whether modern science is sensitive to the fears of the laity.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

I used the word “becoming” so as to not state the how of it. However it happened . it happened. I believe it was through workaday Darwinian evolution, but we can quibble about that after we get the history under our belts.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

What makes a person qualified to determine whether a conclusion is good or bad. We are talking about conclusions that scientists make based upon their observation of evidence. These conclusions could be correct or incorrect depending upon how they interpret the evidence. In my opinion, some of their conclusions contradict what I consider to be the inspired word of God. I respect the inspired word of God more than I respect the uninspired word of man. Therefore, I made the statement, "I may not agree with their conclusions." I understand this. However, my definition of fact and your definition of fact is different. It is a fact when you find a fossil. It is an interpretation of that fact when you calculate how old you believe that fossil to be. To state that you have observed a fossil is a fact. To state that you have observed a fossil that is 3.5 billion years old is not a fact. That is an opinion based upon many variables and calculations. If you state that it is a fact that life became cellular 3.5 billion years ago based upon your interpretation of that fossil evidence, I would disagree in your use of terminology.It seems that scientists made a hypothesis that life evolved, then they found a fossil that they determined was part of this evolutionary chain, then somehow (which I still have a lot of work to do to figure out) they calculated that this fossil was 3.5 billion years old, then they say it is a fact based upon our observation of the evidence that life evolved from this little old fossil 3.5 billion years ago. Can you not see it takes more faith for me to believe in that conclusion than it does for me to believe in what God said He did? Therefore, I will continue to be skeptical about what scientists say are facts until I come to a much better understanding of how they are interpreting the evidence. I would trust the common sense judgment of many of these non-scientific people over the blind faith that I am seeing taking place in much of the scientific world. These ordinary folk may not exercise scientific methods for gathering facts, but if they see an old chewed up cow bone in the pasture, they do not need a lab to figure out what chewed it up and when. And, they are surely not going to try to piece it together into some sort of prehistoric dinosaur.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I really do not mean to bore you with my lack of understanding. Maybe if someone could explain what is meant by the word "fact" in very simple terms (because I understand things better that way) it could help me to communicate with scientists in the future.I looked up this definition on the internet.Fact - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

---

I also noted these two little tidbits of information regarding scientific fact.

quote:

---

Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent from the observer in that no matter which scientist observes a phenomenon, all will reach the same necessary conclusion.

---

quote:

---

Fact does not always mean the same thing as truth. Fact is a generally agreed-upon and seemingly obvious observation. It is a fact that things stick to the earth, without regard to why that happens. It was once a fact that the planets changed direction from time to time, and that the sun, planets and stars circled the earth once daily. This seemed obvious, and was generally agreed to be the case.

​

In time, the fact was changed, and it was then said that the earth circles the sun, and the planets only appear to change direction as they are passed by the earth in their orbits, or vice versa.

---

If I understand this correctly then a fact is something that scientists observe. The definition makes a contrast between a theory and a fact. Therefore, I would conclude that a fact is not a theory, and a theory is not a fact.It also says that all scientists making an observation of a phenomenon would reach the same necessary conclusion. An example would be the sun circling the earth. All the scientists agreed that the sun was circling the earth so that made it an observed fact. Later the scientists changed their minds and all agreed that the earth was circling the sun so that made it an observed fact. So it seems that what is a scientific fact can change over time depending upon what everyone agrees upon.I don't know how this ties into the evolutionary theory regarding events that took place millions and billions of years ago. No one observed it, and it cannot be repeated so how can something that took place that long ago be an observable scientific fact? Is it possible that the Theory of Evolution as it is being used to explain all of these unobservable past events is not even science?I also thought it was interesting that in the scientific world it appears that fact does not equal truth. That seems a contradiction to me. If you state something is a fact, and learn later that it is not true, then in my opinion, it was never a fact in the first place. It was a lie (a statement that deviates from the truth) whether it was believed to be true by the scientists or not.If I understand what is being said on this forum, people are trying to tell me that interpretations and theories regarding observations at the present time which are applied to the past are facts. It seems they are also trying to say that these facts are true. And these all relate to events that could never have been observed by anyone because they took place millions and billions of years ago. Then everything is topped off with the impression that only the scientific world can understand these facts, and observations, and theories, and truths, and untruths. This is confusing Wumpini's little old brain.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I have a list of definitions of terms as they are used in science on the following page (scroll down):DefinitionsThe definition of "fact" is:

​

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become recognized as a fact.

I’d not say you’re boring me with your lack or understanding; that’s for sure. I as amused as all get out at at what wonderful use you’re getting out of it. Curiously, that’s not necessarily a fact either. I’ve actually seen folks who were so sure that they had a fossil in the rock that they carved one of their own imagining getting it out.The ToE is pretty much a fact. However, many people who think ToE is a fact are just not comfortable with such an aggressive word to describe it thinking it hubris. Me? I’m not to concerned if folks mistake a five-nines fact for for hubris.Sorry short.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

Just because a bunch of people agree. Does that make it a fact?If so there are millions of competent observers who have confirmed repeatedly that there is a God. You say what was observed? Changed lives.Just because a bunch of people agree. Does that make it a fact?Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Wumpini writes, Why don't you apply the same skepticism to the theory of gravity or the atomic theory? Why only evolution? The same methods of gathering and interpreting evidence that is used in the field of Evolutionary Biology, is the same method that is used throughout the entire scope of science, to include medicine. By your standards all of science is a field of misguilded conclusions, do you really feel that way?you write, I'll reverse the arguement to you now, you had a religious experience and interpreted it to be God, which God then do you credit it to? Is it only based on your geographical location and what your current culture thinks God is? Or did you, like science, run a series of tests to establish the proper validity of the God you choose to have faith in? Did you subject your experience to peer review and have them try to confirm your experience? Did you do any double blind tests of more experiences to determine if your 'interpretation' is the right one? Or did you just go with your gut on that one?you write, No, I can see how you make that distinction. And again, which God are you talking about?you write, So then your skepticism is bias? An honest person would subject all things to skeptical inquiry and not be one sided. Remember all cultures were under the God theory, it was skepticism that drew a new hypotheses. We have now, as a globally united people, removed the God theory simply because it is faith based and not because it is factual. Even if science is wrong with its theories, God doesn't just step in as a better theory, all the work is still ahead of you to prove a God. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

All great truths begin as blasphemies

Not even one.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

I see you haven't been to church lately.Then maybe you think those millions are delusional like I think all those that think the universe could come from an absence of anything is.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."