On September 14 2009 03:18 Kwark wrote: I don't get how evolution doesn't seem self evident. Mutations are evident. Characteristics being passed to descendants are evident. That a good mutation would be passed to more descendants than a bad mutation makes sense. This doesn't have to contradict faith in a God, just that God made all species the way they are today. Unless you take the bible literally I see no problem here.
yeah but it kinda does contradict faith in the old testament god because it contradicts the whole adam and eve falling from paradise story. And if you throw away the adam and eve and original sin, then you've basically made everything that follows meaningless.
Evolution is not a theory. Natural selection is the theory of how evolution occurs. The process of evolution is proven and accepted, but how its mechanisms work is a theory.
On September 14 2009 04:11 Kaialynn wrote: Maybe I should have clarified my points here.
1) I believe in the theory of evolution.
2) A scientific theory can never explore all hypotheses. Yes, there is a TON of evidence that supports Evolution, but either way, at the end of the day, you can never explore *every* possibillity and theory, that is why scientific theories can never be proven. Is obvious evolution exists? Yes. Is it obvious that it's happening the way we think it is? Maybe. But no matter how much evidence we gather, there will still be other posibillities that exist within a theory.
Correct: theories can never be proven. However, the reason they are considered theory still is because any evidence that goes against it has been relatively non-existent.
However: You confuse Theory with Hypothesis.
A hypothesis is what you believe a set of observations means, and is necessary for the scientific method (upon which you will conduct tests and follow up on your hypothesis to see whether your hypothesis matches the set of data or does not).
Example: "The reason we found these rocks that look like crabs is because of evolution," is not a hypothesis. An actual hypothesis is: "The reason we found these rocks that look like crabs is because crabs are genetically related to these fossilized species" upon which DNA tests and the like can be conducted to show whether it is right or wrong. Evolution is a theory, which essentially collects the results from many hypotheses, both right and wrong, and puts them together as an explanation.
On September 14 2009 04:11 Kaialynn wrote: Maybe I should have clarified my points here.
1) I believe in the theory of evolution.
2) A scientific theory can never explore all hypotheses. Yes, there is a TON of evidence that supports Evolution, but either way, at the end of the day, you can never explore *every* possibillity and theory, that is why scientific theories can never be proven. Is obvious evolution exists? Yes. Is it obvious that it's happening the way we think it is? Maybe. But no matter how much evidence we gather, there will still be other posibillities that exist within a theory.
Correct: theories can never be proven. However, the reason they are considered theory still is because any evidence that goes against it has been relatively non-existent.
However: You confuse Theory with Hypothesis.
A hypothesis is what you believe a set of observations means, and is necessary for the scientific method (upon which you will conduct tests and follow up on your hypothesis to see whether your hypothesis matches the set of data or does not).
Example: "The reason we found these rocks that look like crabs is because of evolution," is not a hypothesis. An actual hypothesis is: "The reason we found these rocks that look like crabs is because crabs are genetically related to these fossilized species" upon which DNA tests and the like can be conducted to show whether it is right or wrong. Evolution is a theory, which essentially collects the results from many hypotheses, both right and wrong, and puts them together as an explanation.
A theory is the result of a hypothesis, no? Maybe i'm confusing theory with another term, but i'm fairly sure that a theory is a conclusion drawn from the data collected from testing a hypothesis.
ah I want to see this movie now lol. Especially after I just watched the Dawkins documentary on Darwin (The Genius of Charles Darwin).
it really is depressing how many people don't understand evolution. Schools really need to reboot their evolution teaching. I remember in my school when I learned about it it was so bad that I felt only like 10% of my class actually understood and accepted it. Too many people are going into learning about it as "ok this is just a THEORY and is just as crazy as my stupid religion so I'm just going to assume its wrong."
On September 14 2009 03:34 Weaponx3 wrote: some people dont agree with the scientific premise of evolution, it is very flawed. evolution is construied story we all accept, even though it uses alot of double speak. just beacuse something grows doesnt mean that it is evolving. and the mutation thing if you can point to one beneficial human mutation please do because every mutation isnt beneficial at all yet in fact it is quite the opposite.. but im not here to argue. i disagree on scientific basis and i think many others do as well. i just wanted to point that..
On September 14 2009 03:35 aRod wrote: I always laugh at people who label evolution a theory. Evolution has been objectively observed and verified to occur in bacterial species (genetic drift occuring in bacterial populations). Evolution no longer fits the definition of a theory.
evolution is a scientific theory... the scientific definition of a theory vs. the layman's definition of a theory has led to a lot of confusion.
More importantly, evolution is a blanket name for several concepts. Just because genetic drift has been demonstrated does not necessarily mean that other portions of evolution are true, or that genetic drift is true for non-bacterial populations, etc. Hence, it is a theory. Just like most other scientific discoveries are still categorized as theory.
A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:
1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and 2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.
QED
This is a great post. You've identied many of the subtleties behing the languistics of evolution. A little bit more should add to the discussion. Modern biologists no longer refer to evolution as a theory. Biologists now define evolution as changes in the genetic makeup of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. There are various theories including natural selection and genetic drift to explain the causes of evolution or why certain genetic traits accumulate, but the fact these mutations accumulate is no longer debatable. We have enough genetic data from populations of dolphins and humans to amoebas that document genetic differences that have accumulated in populations to state evolution occurs from a biological perspective.
On September 14 2009 03:18 Kwark wrote: I don't get how evolution doesn't seem self evident. Mutations are evident. Characteristics being passed to descendants are evident. That a good mutation would be passed to more descendants than a bad mutation makes sense. This doesn't have to contradict faith in a God, just that God made all species the way they are today. Unless you take the bible literally I see no problem here.
Essentially, there are two reasons to not accept evolution:
1: Ignorance. Hollywood Evolution is very prevalent in society. Indeed, a lot of people who accept evolution don't really understand what it is. It is very easy to doubt the veracity of evolution if you think it means Hollywood Evolution.
2: Dogma. You believe in the inerrancy of <insert religious text here>, and therefore cannot accept any scientific theory against it no matter the evidence.
The real problem is that fixing #1 requires good education. And the people who belong to #2 are sufficiently numerous and powerful that they inhibit science education, this creating #1. The real problem is Texas.
Texas is very much right-wing. It is also the second most populous state in the country. Those who control the Texas boards of education control the textbooks that get written, because no textbook publisher would dare write a book on a subject that such a market would be unwilling to purchase. Therefore the fight over the books that Texas purchases is the front line in the war on ignorance.
On September 14 2009 03:25 uNiGNoRe wrote: I don't see how you can "believe" in evolution. It's a fact... I don't "believe" that earth isn't flat, I know it.
Because Evolution is a theory. Theory in scientific terms implies a hypothesis. Hypotheses can ONLY be proved wrong, they can NEVER be proven right, according to the science world.
That's why.
Not so much. Evolution is both theory and fact.
It is a fact that species evolved. We have observed seen it, both in the laboratory and in the wild (both below and above the species line). So it is very clear that it does happen.
The Theory of Evolution states that evolution is the primary force creating biodiversity on the planet Earth. This is much bigger than any individual fact of observed evolution.
Gravity is self-evident. It is an observable and verifiable fact that things fall down. The Theory of Universal Gravitation states that all matter attracts other matter via a specific equation. That's more than just the fact of gravity.
On September 14 2009 03:34 Weaponx3 wrote: some people dont agree with the scientific premise of evolution, it is very flawed. evolution is construied story we all accept, even though it uses alot of double speak. just beacuse something grows doesnt mean that it is evolving. and the mutation thing if you can point to one beneficial human mutation please do because every mutation isnt beneficial at all yet in fact it is quite the opposite.. but im not here to argue. i disagree on scientific basis and i think many others do as well. i just wanted to point that..
Michael Phelps
Exactly. We've created a society that rewards a man for being more dolphin than human (he's physically deformed to swim) and now he could use his money and fame and gold medals and go out and have as many kids as he wanted. And his kids would be part dolphin too.
On September 14 2009 03:34 Weaponx3 wrote: some people dont agree with the scientific premise of evolution, it is very flawed. evolution is construied story we all accept, even though it uses alot of double speak. just beacuse something grows doesnt mean that it is evolving. and the mutation thing if you can point to one beneficial human mutation please do because every mutation isnt beneficial at all yet in fact it is quite the opposite.. but im not here to argue. i disagree on scientific basis and i think many others do as well. i just wanted to point that..
1) evolution takes too long time for us to notice it.
2) evolution doesn't really work any longer on us humans because we have beaten nature: everyone are fit to have reproduce and survive. No holes in the theory, it's as basic and evident as gravity..
both of those statements are simply incorrect. in creatures with very short lifespan evolution can and has been observed. from the second statement it seems that you have some fundamental missunderstanding of what evolution is, unless all reproduction was controlled and nobody died before reproducing there's no way for there to be no evolution.
For example muscular dystrophy is still evolving itself out, perhaps more so now genetics is better understood because carriers adopt rather than risk losing a child. While the prevalence of certain diseases are causing sickle cell mutations to be advantageous in areas without proper medical care.
Paul Bettany was on the Andrew Marr show this morning and said himself that this is nothing to do with Evolution not being liked; it's just that Americans aren't keen on this genre of movie and that's what is stalling the film being played.
I dont think you can be at least a modern reasonable mono-theist and believe in evolution as well. It would completely disprove the existence of god if species found their own way to improve themselves via genetics, thus humans developing intellect and foresight by themselves.
I wouldn't mind an honest to god (teehee) movie about Darwin, as it would be informative and hopefully truthful about what evolution really is said to be. I'm a Christian and an optimist, so I'm fairly convinced that most examples I see said to be proof of evolution, can be an unfathomable amount of repercussions from adaptation and deformities possible with all the different species on this earth. I apologize that I can't wrap my head around the human mind being the work of a mindless genetic process. At Deism gives us a reason why. And you can justify suffering and evil in the world today if you use traditional roman catholic values pre-vatican II.
On September 14 2009 05:01 bumatlarge wrote: At Deism gives us a reason why.
It does?
For me it doesn't when I think about it. I don't understand why it's so hard to believe that the way the human mind works is a process of biological chance but when you bring about what created God... well he was always there... that's it.
Uh what?
If you look at it as a prospect of chance even incredibly small chances happen when you have a sufficiently big sample size to work from.
A 1 in a 10 billion chance doesn't seem so terrible when you have a sample size of 100 trillion.
If you take our galaxy for instance estimates state that we have anywhere from 200 billion to 400 billion stars in it... and we're actually on the small scale as far as galaxies go. It is estimated that there are roughly 100 billion galaxies in the universe.
If you just want to go absolute low end and fill the universe with 100 billion milkyways. Multiply that by 200 billion stars (low end remember) and you have a SHIT TON OF CHANCES to trigger advanced life forms.
EPT
