Theory Of Evolution

[gevo27]

Well it is "unofficial" you realize...so are you sure? LOL

yes i realized, but if someone has gone through the work and hassle to make such site, then it should have some significance.... if noone at all i will atleast read it. and use it as knowledge, or useless knowledge.. we'll see..

[THOTH]

Well gevo - i would suggest being more concerned with the quality of the information as opposed to the medium or slickenss of such...and in fact the first Gould post in quite good and recommended...thoguh soem of it is repeated in the latte rin parts (if not in toto...not sure...)

[axel]

it is a very serious post/link and not just internet opinion/garbage

Kind of ironic to hear that from you. I tend to consider your posts/opinions as belonging to that very category.

[THOTH]

Kind of ironic to hear that from you. I tend to consider your posts/opinions as belonging to that very category.

Well shows what (little) you know....

[gurgen]

Are we gonna turn this into a flam thread again?

[gevo27]

Well gevo - i would suggest being more concerned with the quality of the information as opposed to the medium or slickenss of such...and in fact the first Gould post in quite good and recommended...thoguh soem of it is repeated in the latte rin parts (if not in toto...not sure...)

THOT jan, your missing my point, i dont judge whats written by whats written, i judged those sites by the very simple fact, if they were importnant enough, and if it was good enough, then it would atleast be on some more reliable site... The information might be the same, that doesnt matter here...

[Anonymouse]

I can't believe this thread is goin'. Man I'm churning out some 'quality' threads, eh?

[Anonymouse]

Okay, Thoth states evolution is "fact". Now he must prove how that is.

[Armat]

Barev Anon

the only reason you think it is a belief because some missing links in species chain how about the rest of the picture? I am not a scientist but if I look at a skeleton which has a tail, backbone, ribs, legs four of them and has very long teeth then the wolfs,cats,dogs,foxes etc. fit that image but rationally why should I discard all these because one skeleton out of few thousand is missing and claim that it is a belief and not fact.

I was in natural science museum yesterday and marveled the similarity of species and even whales which were once land animals. One thing strikes me from curiosity perspective that so much in nature they are similarities for example. The head of the animal is attached at the end of the body and usually not extruded from the middle and dual ears and eyes for most animals is solid facts to conclude a common DNA evolution. In short there is too much data to dismiss evolution as fact.

[gurgen]

But there is also too much data missing and doubt to establish it as a fact.

[Sasun]

Armat, there are many similarities in nature but they do not necessarily mean evolution. An example, all atoms look similar, should we conclude that there was an evolution?

 

Note: I am not arguing against evolution

[Anonymouse]

Barev Anon

the only reason you think it is a belief because some missing links in species chain how about the rest of the picture? I am not a scientist but if I look at a skeleton which has a tail, backbone, ribs, legs four of them and has very long teeth then the wolfs,cats,dogs,foxes etc. fit that image but rationally why should I discard all these because one skeleton out of few thousand is missing and claim that it is a belief and not fact.

I was in natural science museum yesterday and marveled the similarity of species and even whales which were once land animals. One thing strikes me from curiosity perspective that so much in nature they are similarities for example. The head of the animal is attached at the end of the body and usually not extruded from the middle and dual ears and eyes for most animals is solid facts to conclude a common DNA evolution. In short there is too much data to dismiss evolution as fact.

I understand what you're saying. In fact, many evolutionists say the same thing. The point is, just because they might appear similar doesn't mean anything at all. For all we know they were created by Aliens, or God, or it's like that movie The Truman Show. In any event, evolutionists say "we evolved". This may seem comforting and explains alot, but it doesn't. They point out how people need to believe in God because it is comforting and soothing and it "answers questions" for them, via faith. Evolution engages in a similar pattern. When we observe the fossil record, I myself have admitted we see a progression. To go beyond that and cover with a vague statement that asserts "we evolved" isn't very scientific. It doesn't make a case, it doesn't prove it, it doesn't test it, it doesn't show it. That we all have a head, and ears, aligned, again, means nothing. How would that be a solid fact to suggest common DNA evolution? What if God or Aliens decided to create species, no matter how different, all having ears aligned to the head. That's what most of the evolutionary community does. They state things, without having to reproduce their works and proof.

 

The DNA is an ordered sequence aligned with millions of nucleotides in a specific manner. When there is change in these nucleotides, it is mostly bad, i.e. negative mutation. Most mutations are harmful, with some exceptions. That doesn't leave much of a probability for anything to have happened. There are blueprints in the DNA for the ear, the eye, etc. To suggest that this would change through species is to suggest that these millions of nucleotides arranged in a specific sequence would haphazardly reorganize themselves into another purposeful ordered pair.

 

Evolution was originally a theory to my knowledge, yet somehow people are saying now it's a "fact". Well, this goes back to my statement of scientific theories. Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, stated that all scientific theories are falsifiable. The problem I have is that many evolutionists treat this as a religion. It has become a dogma for them. Based on the bitter defense of evolution by the scientists themselves, and people like Thoth or Domino or others who rely on this theory for their world view, it would seem that evolutionary theory is non-falsifiable. Why should we not believe in God or creationism? Because it is not falsifable, it is belief, they allege, yet they themselves have engaged in the same mental gymnastics.

[THOTH]

I will believe in evolution as the best explanation for life (and the history of life on this planet) as we see it until some better explanation - based on better knowledge/understanding comes along....just as with other scientific theories and understandings of reality and the world around us...but until some better explanation come s along - and its got to be better then "the good book says" or "this is what i beleive because I choose to - with no evidence or as you say potential for proof one way or another - ultimate falsibility of you ask me) - well then I will more or less accept it as such - and I will also more or less laugh at your ignorance in the meantime...next...

[Anonymouse]

I will believe in evolution as the best explanation for life

Thank you, that is all I wanted to see. That contradicts evolution as being a "fact", since you just stated that you believe in it. So it is faith based after all.

[THOTH]

Thank you, that is all I wanted to see. That contradicts evolution as being a "fact", since you just stated that you believe in it. So it is faith based after all.

Is that the best you can do? Silly semantics? You aren't worth the argument rat - your just not. I'm suprised that you even know how to read - as you certainly haven't shown the capacity for it. Ok - so again - you tell us you reject science and scientific knowledge - that "believeing" in such is the same thing as faith (not) - well I just want to give you one bit of advice...I hope that what you save on medical costs by going to yoru local shaman versus an MD might be put to use getting yourself a proper education....

[Anonymouse]

Why the need to resort to personal attacks and justify yourself? You just confirmed evolution is a belief, that is all I wanted from you.

[Twilight Bark]

I really don't want to take part in this discussion. But I just wanted to say that I believe Anonymouse exists. In case Thoth feels left out, I believe in Thoth's existence as well.

[Sip]

Reminds me of a something a very good friend of mine used to say ... "I think, therefore you are."

[THOTH]

Why the need to resort to personal attacks and justify yourself? You just confirmed evolution is a belief, that is all I wanted from you.

Ok so Gravity is a belief, I also believe in magnetism, in the fact that if I don't eat, drink and breath I will die...etc etc...I totally fail to see your point...other then you have no real point.

[Anonymouse]

Hahahaha, that was funny, thank you for that. This thread needed a good laff.

 

But on a more serious note. My whole point I suppose was to show evolution as a belief system. Maybe I wasn't clear on that in the beginning, nor during the discussion, but that was my intent. Perhaps I failed to show that, but nonetheless I will continue. It doesn't take much to show evolution as a belief system. Science is supposed to be about observations, about our senses, what we see, taste, touch, feel, and hear, to gain knowledge of the world around us. It is not about make belief models of how we came to be. As soon as it engages in that, it becomes a metaphysical assumption.

 

We can only observe the present. We cannot observe the past. What we have of the past are conjectures and guesses based on what others have said, and based on evidence from the present. What we observe only exists in the here and now, and the past is the present. No one was able to observe the big bang, or organisms morphing from simple to complex over millions of years, etc. These were not observable and they are not repeatable or testable, therefore, I'm left wondering about evolution being more about belief, than "true science" as Thoth likes to endlessly claim.

[THOTH]

Some (perhaps) useful excerpts worth reading...(note also the direct references to Popper's falsibility argument....did you happen to read this when i posted it the first time rat?)

 

Evolution as Fact and Theory

 

by Stephen Jay Gould

 

...

 

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

 

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

 

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

 

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."

 

Thus Darwin acknowledged the provisional nature of natural selection while affirming the fact of evolution. The fruitful theoretical debate that Darwin initiated has never ceased. From the 1940s through the 1960s, Darwin's own theory of natural selection did achieve a temporary hegemony that it never enjoyed in his lifetime. But renewed debate characterizes our decade, and, while no biologists questions the importance of natural selection, many doubt its ubiquity. In particular, many evolutionists argue that substantial amounts of genetic change may not be subject to natural selection and may spread through the populations at random. Others are challenging Darwin's linking of natural selection with gradual, imperceptible change through all intermediary degrees; they are arguing that most evolutionary events may occur far more rapidly than Darwin envisioned.

 

Scientists regard debates on fundamental issues of theory as a sign of intellectual health and a source of excitement. Science is—and how else can I say it?—most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information might be explained in surprisingly new ways. Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.

 

Secondly, creationists claim that "the dogma of separate creations," as Darwin characterized it a century ago, is a scientific theory meriting equal time with evolution in high school biology curricula. But a popular viewpoint among philosophers of science belies this creationist argument. Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.

 

The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among its supporters. Their brand of creationism, they claim, is "scientific" because it follows the Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution. Yet Popper's argument must apply in both directions. One does not become a scientist by the simple act of trying to falsify a rival and truly scientific system; one has to present an alternative system that also meets Popper's criterion — it too must be falsifiable in principle.

 

 

(skiped a bit)

 

Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments. First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest. (Moths gain protection from sharp-sighted bird predators by blending into the background.) Creationists do not deny these observations; how could they? Creationists have tightened their act. They now argue that God only created "basic kinds," and allowed for limited evolutionary meandering within them. Thus toy poodles and Great Danes come from the dog kind and moths can change color, but nature cannot convert a dog to a cat or a monkey to a man.

 

The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology.

 

The second argument—that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution—strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms—the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past history—the evidence of descent—is the mark of evolution.

 

Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the etymology of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months.

 

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

 

and more follows....

[THOTH]

(and another excerpt from the work of an eminant biologist) ..so Mouse tell us - is science just all bullshit?

 

Douglas Futuyma

 

Evolution as Fact and Theory

 

Is evolution a fact, a theory, or a hypothesis? In science, words are often used with precise meanings and connotations that differ from those in everyday life. This is an exceedingly important point, and we will encounter many examples in this book (e.g., fitness, random, correlation). Among such words are hypothesis and theory. People often speak of a "mere" hypothesis (as in "it is merely a hypothesis that smoking causes cancer") as if it were an opirtion unsupported by evidence. In science, however, a hypothesis is an informed statement of what might be true. It may be poorly supported, especially at first, but as we have seen, it can gain support to the point at which it is effectively a fact. For Copernicus, the revolution of the earth around the sun was a hypothesis with modest support; for us, it is a hypothesis with strong support.

 

Likewise, a theory in science is not an unsupported speculation. Rather, it is a mature, coherent body of interconnected statements, based on reasoning and evidence, that explains a variety of observations. Or, to quote the Oxford English Dictionary, a theory is "a scheme or system of ideas and statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are known to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." Thus atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of plate tectonics are not mere speculations or opinions, nor are they even well-supported hypotheses (such as the hypothesis that smoking causes cancer). Each is an elaborate scheme of interconnected ideas, strongly supported by evidence, that accounts for a great variety of phenomena.

 

Because a theory is a complex of statements, it usually does not stand or fall on the basis of a single critical test (as simple hypotheses often do). Rather, theories evolve as they are confronted with new phenomena or observations; parts of the theory are discarded, modified, added. The theory of heredity, for instance, consisted at first of Mendel's laws of particulate inheritance, dominance, and independent segregation of the "factors" (genes) that affect different characteristics. Exceptions to dominance and independent segregation were soon found, but the core principle of particulate inheritance remained. Building on and adding to this core throughout the twentieth century, geneticists have developed a theory of heredity far more complex and detailed than Mendel could have conceived. Parts of the theory are exceedingly well established, other parts are still tentative, and we may expect many additions and changes as the mechanisms of heredity and development are plumbed further.

 

In light of the preceding discussion, evolution is a scientific fact. But it is explained by evolutionary theory. In The Origin of Species, Darwin propounded two large hypotheses. One was descent, with modification, from common ancestors, or, for simplicity, the hypothesis of descent with modification. I will also refer to this as the "historical reality of evolution." The other large hypothesis was Darwin's proposed cause for descent with modification: that natural selection sorts among hereditary variations.

 

Darwin provided abundant evidence for the historical reality of evolution—for descent, with modification, from common ancestors. Even in 1859, this idea had considerable support. Within about 15 years, all biological scientists except for a few diehards had accepted this hypothesis. Since then, hundreds of thousands of observations, from paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, embryology, genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology, have confirmed it. Like the heliocentric hypothesis of Copernicus, the hypothesis of descent with modification from common ancestors has long held the status of a scientific fact. No biologist today would think of publishing a paper on "new evidence for evolution," any more than a chemist would try to publish a demonstration that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. It simply hasn't been an issue in scientific circles for more than a century. Darwin hypothesized that the cause of evolution is natural selection acting on hereditary variation. His argument was based on logic and on interpretation of many kinds of circumstantial evidence, but he had no direct evidence. More than 70 years would pass before an understanding of heredity and the evidence for natural selection would fully vindicate his hypothesis. Moreover, we now know that there are more causes of evolution than Darwin realized, and that natural selection and hereditary variation themselves are more complex than he imagined. Much of this book will be concerned with the complex body of ideas—about mutation, recombination, gene flow, isolation, random genetic drift, the many forms of natural selection, and other factors—that together constitute our current understanding of the causes of evolution.

 

This complex of interrelated ideas about the causes of evolution is the theory of evolution, or "evolutionary theory." It is not a "mere speculation," for all the ideas are supported by evidence. It is not a hypothesis, but a body of hypotheses, most of which are well supported. It is a theory in the sense defined in the preceding section. Like all theories in science, it is incomplete, for we do not yet know the causes of all of evolution, and some details may turn out to be wrong. But the main tenets of evolutionary theory are so well supported that most biologists accept them with confidence.

[DominO123]

Thoth the articles you posted are irrelevent here. Anon is using Berkeley type of philosophy to reject evolution...

 

Here we are back to square one. The problem with anon logic is not to question evolution, his problem is lack consistency, the alternatives he proposes are less supported by material evidences than evolution. In order to divert this fact he uses a cheap trick, he question all the notion of "evidences" in science...(see Berkeley), but how would it be more acceptable to propose a hypotheses that can not be supported by observations against one that is supported? This is one of the weakest points that anon brings...

 

secondly, if you question the foundation of science, you can possibily not use scientific materials to question itself... Anon more than once did just that.

 

First anon must explain us how a hypotheses that is not supported by any observations could be more valid than one that is. Secondly anon has yet to explain us how come you can use science when you reject its foundations to support your own arguments. Like I said previously, anon is trying to detect x-rays by using an infrared detector.

[Anonymouse]

Thoth the articles you posted are irrelevent here. Anon is using Berkeley type of philosophy to reject evolution...

 

Here we are back to square one. The problem with anon logic is not to question evolution, his problem is lack consistency, the alternatives he proposes are less supported by material evidences than evolution. In order to divert this fact he uses a cheap trick, he question all the notion of "evidences" in science...(see Berkeley), but how would it be more acceptable to propose a hypotheses that can not be supported by observations against one that is supported? This is one of the weakest points that anon brings...

 

secondly, if you question the foundation of science, you can possibily not use scientific materials to question itself... Anon more than once did just that.

 

First anon must explain us how a hypotheses that is not supported by any observations could be more valid than one that is. Secondly anon has yet to explain us how come you can use science when you reject its foundations to support your own arguments. Like I said previously, anon is trying to detect x-rays by using an infrared detector.

This assumes I have substituted creationism. I have not. In fact, all I have is argue regarding evolution, as the thread is properly titled. I have not once offered an alternative, nor have I argued for it. In fact, I am taking on an atheist/agnostic approach, and requiring the strictest evidence per the rules of science. That is all. You don't have to make this any more confusing than it really is.

 

As far as Thoth, well, you can post articles all you want, like Stormig, but that doesn't give your position any more weight.

[THOTH]

Just wanted to put this somewhere - couldn't figure where - but thought here - since its another example of rejecting science and substituting dogma. Note in the Faq # 13 - on gravity

 

13. What about gravity?

Gravity is a lie invented by the purveyors of the inherently false spherical Earth theory. The theory of gravity has never been proven. There is no gravity, only inertia. The Earth moves through space like a giant elevator. We do not fall off because we are kept down by inertia. The Earth has inertia.

There is a school of thought which states, however, that the Earth does not move through space, but rather that it rests on the back of a giant turtle, and that what we call gravity is, in fact, the turtle's animal magnetism.

 

 

http://www.flat-earth.org/