Has Evolution Been Proven to be True ?

[Lumie]

Creationism and Evolution are both true and the Bible does not say that Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth nor does it say the Earth is 6,000 years old and nor does it say that Dinosaurs never existed.

[earthfell]

Originally Posted by Dr. Funkenstein

And your answer states that people who don't practice the scientific method have no business speaking about science unless they learn all the practices and terminology involved.

Pretty much. Not because it's some high and mighty club, but rather when someone who doesn't know shit about science starts talking smack they usually can't handle the ass rape that deservedly follows. Now we get to listen to the nonstop sobbing.

Also, bad science is very very dangerous, and people like flight love to fling their bad science everywhere. It needs to be corrected... with an iron fist.

[OneofOne]

Originally Posted by Vatoreus

How am I being bigoted? I'm bigoted against stupidity, yes. You sit here and talk about things ''just being a theory'' when in science, a theory is about as close to fact as it gets. I don't give a shit you're asking for info, by all means do, it's called learning. Just don't sit here and be retarded at the same time by mucking up the definitions of scientific terms. If you're coming to learn, come with the correct tools to learn.

Sorry but you are wrong. A theory is just that - a best guess. Regardless if we are talking about the theory of gravity (something we all accept) or the theory of evolution (something not everyone agrees with).

As per science, a theory is our attempt at explaining something we can't prove. However, to be an actual theory it has to be testable and make (accurate) predictions. We even have different theories for the same stuff, but we can't discard them because they are all testable and all make accurate predictions. But they can't all be correct, as they contradict each other at different levels. (Science is interesting, you should get your "learn on" sometime)

Science isn't very good at "proving" anything, but it is great at DISproving ideas. If you want "proof" you hit up mathematicians and philosophers.

Sorry, but it really bothers me when people don't understand what a "theory" actually is, and what "proof" actually is. Any real scientist has long removed the word "proof" and "prove" from their vocabulary.

*Edit

I really shouldn't even use the would "disprove". The scientific method actually finds evidence for or against ideas, or looks for evidence and fails to find it.

[Torvon]

Originally Posted by earthfell

Pretty much. Not because it's some high and mighty club, but rather when someone who doesn't know shit about science starts talking smack they usually can't handle the ass rape that deservedly follows. Now we get to listen to the nonstop sobbing.

Also, bad science is very very dangerous, and people like flight love to fling their bad science everywhere. It needs to be corrected... with an iron fist.

It seems like to me any scientist that knows what he is talking about would be a little more open minded and inviting of others to learn about science. The good scientists leave room for error in everything, not saying that evolution isn't real by any means. I'm simply saying the attitude of "I'm right and everything else is wrong" doesn't seem like much of a scientific attitude.

Of course, I also don't think we have any real scientists posting here, just a lot of people that think they know a lot more than they actually do.

[TheMarauder]

Had to post this:

Evolution - Conservapedia

[Torvon]

Originally Posted by OneofOne

Sorry but you are wrong. A theory is just that - a best guess. Regardless if we are talking about the theory of gravity (something we all accept) or the theory of evolution (something not everyone agrees with).

As per science, a theory is our attempt at explaining something we can't prove. However, to be an actual theory it has to be testable and make (accurate) predictions. We even have different theories for the same stuff, but we can't discard them because they are all testable and all make accurate predictions. But they can't all be correct, as they contradict each other at different levels. (Science is interesting, you should get your "learn on" sometime)

Science isn't very good at "proving" anything, but it is great at DISproving ideas. If you want "proof" you hit up mathematicians and philosophers.

Sorry, but it really bothers me when people don't understand what a "theory" actually is, and what "proof" actually is. Any real scientist has long removed the word "proof" and "prove" from their vocabulary.

I'll be the first to admit I am no scientist, so here is a quick question for you. Speaking strictly about the origin of life, how does science come up with a "testable" theory of such a thing? We obviously haven't found a way to recreate life, so are the "theories" about the origin of life not really scientific?

[Menoz]

Originally Posted by TheMarauder

Had to post this:

Evolution - Conservapedia

Hohohoho, even better is Social effects of the theory of evolution - Conservapedia. Hitler on the first page is awesome.

[OneofOne]

Originally Posted by Torvon

I'll be the first to admit I am no scientist, so here is a quick question for you. Speaking strictly about the origin of life, how does science come up with a "testable" theory of such a thing? We obviously haven't found a way to recreate life, so are the "theories" about the origin of life not really scientific?

The theory of evolution predicts sustained beneficial changes in life forms based on random crap (radiation, bad DNA transcription, etc) and reactions to the environment, among others. Beneficial changes don't always spread to the entire population and lifeforms with these traits will simply die out, but there have been enough observed occurrences of this to provide evidence for this theory (Darwin and the finches, and how each different finch fed itself from different, non-competing parts of the eco-system, or the brown/white moth study in industrial England, etc) There's a lot more that real biological scientists can get into, but my field isn't biology. There should be quite a bit available even from just googling.

[Baazl]

Flight:

If you're genuinely interested, I'd suggest starting here: The Talk.Origins Archive: Must-Read FAQs

I agree with the above post about how impossible it is to really "get" evolution without an unreasonable amount of study. I felt like I understood it. Then I learned a little bit more and was completely lost. Then, months of reading later, I feel like I understand a lot more. I still don't understand all of it.

But that archive is a good way to get started. It's aimed at debunking creationism, but in doing so, they've accumulated a lot of great and lay-readable information.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by earthfell

Pretty much. Not because it's some high and mighty club, but rather when someone who doesn't know shit about science starts talking smack they usually can't handle the ass rape that deservedly follows. Now we get to listen to the nonstop sobbing.

Also, bad science is very very dangerous, and people like flight love to fling their bad science everywhere. It needs to be corrected... with an iron fist.

Flight is asking a question. He's trying to understand. Doesn't sound like he's setting up to hit you. Sounds like he's interested in learning. Hence my post.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

The one aspect of evolution that's almost completely missing is "speciesization". When and how do different species split off from each other? Why do certain animals have x amount of genetic material while others have x+y and when does such a thing occur.

As far as I know, there is very few information related to this. It's barely even theory. Pure speculation. Life changes over time:There are a lot of different species::Life must change so much that new species spring up from old ones via the same mechanic. There is the fish linked above, as well as different species that can still interbreed resulting in sterile offspring (horse+donkey=mule, lion+tiger=liger, etc.)...but very few observable evidence that speciesization occurs via the same mechanics as evolution.

Unless I'm mistaken, in which case I'm always up for new learnins!

[Rune]

Yeah you're mistaken.

Speciation is a holistic idea you can only really discriminate against with hindsight.

There is still no good, workable definition of species.

Like Baazl said, you really don't know how complicated evolution is until you get into it. There's no good way to just launch into it. I tried, but I really feel like nobody is even reading what I write. Funny, reminds me of when I was teaching the undergrad class.

I study bacteria, and it's the one field in which evolution could not be clearer. Viruses are even better, and if you read up on HIV you can see how it has evolved and influenced human evolution as well.

There's also a lot of plant / insect coevolution, which is another clear-cut example of organisms like ants and flowers moving into directions away from a general species into niches.

Coevolution and Pollination

[brekk]

Originally Posted by Dr. Funkenstein

Science is right about scientific things.

Religion is right about spiritual things.

Which one? There are like umpteen hundred religions. Most of them contradict each other. Which one is right about spiritual things?

Religion needs to and usually does stay out of scientific matters. Science needs to and usually does stay out of religious matters. Both of them need to learn how to get along, not tell each other who is right or wrong.

No. They do not deserve to be placed on an equal level. One is supported the world over by experimentation, research, and empirical study with minimal bias. The other is not even unified. Religion A could be completely contradictory to religion B. When you refer to religion i assume you actually mean Creationist believing christians. Why don't you attack the other religions that don't support creationism?

I know you hate and fear religion. We hate and fear what we don't understand. It's perfectly normal.

I don't fear the unknown. I fear and hate people so steadfast in their ideas that there is no open mindedness.

Creationism's biggest fight against evolution is that theories are not fact.

That right there is why I hate religion. The idea of a theory is to leave room for change if new evidence surfaces. Science does not like to deal in absolutes, because you never know what you might find. This interest in not labelling things as fact even if they pretty much are is key to the scientific method and learning. Religion is the anti-thesis of this. Not only taking things as fact rather then theory. But taking as fact stories in an ancient book.




I stand by my same simple argument. Survival of the fittest is simple logic. It's not special science, or magic. It's just an absolute truth of life. It's also the most basic concept of how evolution works. To deny it is just being retarded.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by Rune

Yeah you're mistaken.

Speciation is a holistic idea you can only really discriminate against with hindsight.

There is still no good, workable definition of species.

Like Baazl said, you really don't know how complicated evolution is until you get into it. There's no good way to just launch into it. I tried, but I really feel like nobody is even reading what I write. Funny, reminds me of when I was teaching the undergrad class.

I study bacteria, and it's the one field in which evolution could not be clearer. Viruses are even better, and if you read up on HIV you can see how it has evolved and influenced human evolution as well.

There's also a lot of plant / insect coevolution, which is another clear-cut example of organisms like ants and flowers moving into directions away from a general species into niches.

Coevolution and Pollination

Now we get to the disconnect. It always ends up like this. Once you hit a part of scientific knowledge that isn't crystal clear the argument becomes "you wouldn't understand, just trust that I know and I'm right".

So are you saying that speciation is well postulated and has a lot of evidence or not? It sounds like you said "it's too complicated for mere mortals to understand" which sounds a lot like religion to me.

I understand the concepts of speciation. A bunch of marsupials stuck on the continent of Australia diverged from their mainland cousins. Eventually the slight differences become large differences. Geological time multiplies these splits etc. etc. etc.

But really...is there observable proof of speciation or not? Or is there some other version of fact that I, as a layman, just can't understand?

Originally Posted by brekk

Which one? There are like umpteen hundred religions. Most of them contradict each other. Which one is right about spiritual things?

No. They do not deserve to be placed on an equal level. One is supported the world over by experimentation, research, and empirical study with minimal bias. The other is not even unified. Religion A could be completely contradictory to religion B. When you refer to religion i assume you actually mean Creationist believing christians. Why don't you attack the other religions that don't support creationism?

I don't fear the unknown. I fear and hate people so steadfast in their ideas that there is no open mindedness.

Creationism's biggest fight against evolution is that theories are not fact.

That right there is why I hate religion. The idea of a theory is to leave room for change if new evidence surfaces. Science does not like to deal in absolutes, because you never know what you might find. This interest in not labelling things as fact even if they pretty much are is key to the scientific method and learning. Religion is the anti-thesis of this. Not only taking things as fact rather then theory. But taking as fact stories in an ancient book.

I stand by my same simple argument. Survival of the fittest is simple logic. It's not special science, or magic. It's just an absolute truth of life. It's also the most basic concept of how evolution works. To deny it is just being retarded.

Couple things: you quoted me, so I assume you're talking to me. I'm attacking no one. I'm not saying evolution is wrong and Christians are right to try to teach religious concepts in science class.

You, in the mind of a scientist, seem to be confused by the concept of "right" and religion. A religion is right if it spiritually satisfies its followers. This doesn't jive with the scientific concept of right. Hence why the extremists from both sides just can't understand.

Science's domain is facts. Religion's domain is truth. In science there is no truth...all facts are deemed incomplete since any current observable fact can be usurped by facts that aren't yet known or observable. In religion there are no facts...all elements are taken on faith.

You can avoid religion all you want. Religious followers/nuts should avoid you, as well. You'd be none the wiser if they did. Unfortunately, there are idiots on both sides who insist on trying to overlap the two, starting pointless arguments in two different grammars.

[Tuco]

Evolution didn't create life (nor does it claim to). Aychamo is full of shit and fucks monkeys hoping to evolve into his advanced form, Riachamo. God invented evolution and used it to evolve man so man would create the internet and bring about an infinite supply of porn.