Evolution or Creation?

[JLives]

Exactly, internet jpeg.

[steven lloyd]

Good post and poster. Note the statement:

“The theory of biological evolution attempts to explain the facts and connect the data that indicate that life on earth is related through common descent and has been changing for a long time.”

Gosh, so the scientists are still referring to evolution as a theory.
Hmmm, sounds like something I would have said.
Oops, in fact that is essentially exactly what I did say:

Evolution is a theory strongly supported by scientific evidence – to be precise.

evolution is the best present explanation given the overwhelming scientific and archaeological evidence that supports that theory

[JLives]

What is your point? It will always be called a theory. Theory doesn't mean wild guess in science or anything.

[Glacier]

I think his point is that the theory of evolution is supported with evidence, there is still too much we don't know for it to be considered a fact.

[Poindexter]

Sorry Steven, didn't see all your posts, you believe in evolution but can't say it's absolute fact like glacier said.

But why is creation even considered a vaild alternative? It's absurd and has zero supporting evidence.

How about a theory that says aliens planted the seeds of life on asteroids they charted to impact distant, life supporting planets. Then used subsequent asteroid impacts to distribute viruses that used gene jumping to steer evolution to where we are today.

Or how about we're just sea monkeys in a fish bowl and provide endless entertainment for our owners.

Or how about none of this really exists and we're not really here.

You can't prove any of my imagined scenerios incorrect within a shadow of a doubt, to me that's creation theory. It's so absurd that it's impossible to prove wrong. Evolution is the only theory that has elements that can be proven. Entertaining fantasies derails logical thinking and holds us back, but then again that may have been religion's goal the whole time.

[JLives]

I think his point is that the theory of evolution is supported with evidence, there is still too much we don't know for it to be considered a fact.

Biologists would disagree. My cousin happens to be an evolutionary biologist working on Vancouver Island. Evolution is very much considered fact by scientists.

[steven lloyd]

What is your point? It will always be called a theory. Theory doesn't mean wild guess in science or anything.

Jenny - can you show me where I said “theory” means “wild guess” or anything close to that? I’ve simply pointed out that evolution is, in fact, still considered by science to be a theory (as scientists consider theory) and not a scientific fact – although a theory supported by evidence and facts – and others, including yourself, continue to argue it is a fact and not a theory. Are you now finally admitting evolution is, in fact, a theory? That would be great because this really is a stupid argument.

My cousin happens to be an evolutionary biologist working on Vancouver Island. Evolution is very much considered fact by scientists.

Sorry jenny, I have to continue to disagree. Despite what your cousin believes or tells you (semantic laziness?), the field of science still considers evolution to be scientific theory and not scientific fact. Again, most scientists accept the theory to be mostly true (acknowledging significant gaps in understanding still exist) but recognize that our understanding still falls short.

“A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Evolution still falls under the purview of scientific theory:

“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

note: sometimes this predictive force even leads to discoveries such as flu vaccinations.

“The theory of evolution, formalized by Charles Darwin, is as much theory as is the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity.”

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotheory.html

“More than 150 years after Charles Darwin published his theory, evolution remains controversial”.

http://www.livescience.com/474-controve ... works.html


There are a number of theories of evolution

http://www.conservapedia.com/Theories_of_evolution

http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/default.htm

Anyways, you can continue this argument in semantics if you wish, but your belief in the likely occurrence of evolution need not be threatened by the notion science (that is, real scientists) still considers and treats it as a theory.

Buh-bye

[JLives]

Jenny - can you show me where I said “theory” means “wild guess” or anything close to that? I’ve simply pointed out that evolution is, in fact, still considered by science to be a theory (as scientists consider theory) and not a scientific fact – although a theory supported by evidence and facts – and others, including yourself, continue to argue it is a fact and not a theory. Are you now finally admitting evolution is, in fact, a theory? That would be great because this really is a stupid argument.

It was your tone, not your words, that led me to respond how I did. It is not that it is either a fact OR a theory. There is no OR, it's both. Evolution will always be a scientific theory, there are no other areas it can move into. It is also considered a fact. It will not (I will hesitate to say never) be a law because it cannot be broken down into a mathematical equation. Regardless of all that, it does not mean it hasn't occurred and still isn't occurring.

Sorry jenny, I have to continue to disagree. Despite what your cousin believes or tells you (semantic laziness?), the field of science still considers evolution to be scientific theory and not scientific fact. Again, most scientists accept the theory to be mostly true (acknowledging significant gaps in understanding still exist) but recognize that our understanding still falls short.

That is very condescending. I am well versed on the topic of my own accord and you have no idea my level of correspondence with my cousin. I referenced it to highlight people are working in this factual area of science. She is the one dealing with the actual data in evolutionary science, unless you want to argue that that scientific field is not factual as we have to weigh the other possibilities still.

“A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience”

Steven, we've observed it occurring. I'm not sure why you are arguing that it is not a fact.

://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Evolution still falls under the purview of scientific theory:

“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

note: sometimes this predictive force even leads to discoveries such as flu vaccinations.

“The theory of evolution, formalized by Charles Darwin, is as much theory as is the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity.”

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotheory.html

“More than 150 years after Charles Darwin published his theory, evolution remains controversial”.

http://www.livescience.com/474-controve ... works.html


There are a number of theories of evolution

http://www.conservapedia.com/Theories_of_evolution

http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/default.htm

Anyways, you can continue this argument in semantics if you wish, but your belief in the likely occurrence of evolution need not be threatened by the notion science (that is, real scientists) still considers and treats it as a theory.

Buh-bye

You are the one arguing semantics. I'm stating change over time, the variation in species and that all species have common ancestors is evolution. Period. I'm pretty sure you are saying the same thing. The mechanics, the how and the details are still being figured out. Agree? Evolution has occurred and is still occurring, that is the part we know. It is the details we are hammering out now.

[JLives]

Ok, I'm getting the feeling you are just messing with me. Conservepdia as a source? I'll exclude Wiki too. The rest support everything I've said.

That is very true that evolution is as true of a theory as the theory of gravity. If anyone wants to test out how real it is jump off something really high and see how it plays out.

[Poindexter]

That is very true that evolution is as true of a theory as the theory of gravity. If anyone wants to test out how real it is jump off something really high and see how it plays out.

Well said.

[steven lloyd]

Sorry Steven, didn't see all your posts, you believe in evolution but can't say it's absolute fact like glacier said.

But why is creation even considered a vaild alternative? It's absurd and has zero supporting evidence.

To be clear, I personally accept the facts, evidence, explanations and models that support the theories of evolution, and I have not at any time argued for any particular theory of creation (many ideas of creation exist outside of religious allegory and buying into full belief in one or the other or none is as ridiculous as arguing it). It’s that black and white thing. People get perturbed that you don’t see reality (or semantic definitions) in exactly the same way as you and so presume you must think the exact and far opposite.

[Poindexter]

You're right, I did make that mistake originally. I'll take back the Judge Judy comment but I still think you're way too reasonable.

[oneh2obabe]

Evolution takes a similar course each time, study suggests

Emily Chung, CBC News
Posted: Feb 22, 2013 1:25 PM ET
Last Updated: Feb 22, 2013 3:17 PM ET

Evolution is surprisingly predictable and its course seems relatively unaffected by chance events, a new study suggests.

Michael Doebeli, a mathematician and evolutionary biologist at the University of British Columbia, and postdoctoral researcher Matthew Herron conducted three separate experiments under the same laboratory conditions, observing 1,000 generations of E. coli bacteria as they evolved into two different strains — a process known as diversification that eventually gives rise to separate species.

They wanted to answer one of the big questions about evolution: Is diversification a predetermined process or is it partly driven by chance events?

Full article
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story ... ebeli.html

[Hmmm]

Evolution takes a similar course each time, study suggests

Emily Chung, CBC News
Posted: Feb 22, 2013 1:25 PM ET
Last Updated: Feb 22, 2013 3:17 PM ET

Evolution is surprisingly predictable and its course seems relatively unaffected by chance events, a new study suggests.

Michael Doebeli, a mathematician and evolutionary biologist at the University of British Columbia, and postdoctoral researcher Matthew Herron conducted three separate experiments under the same laboratory conditions, observing 1,000 generations of E. coli bacteria as they evolved into two different strains — a process known as diversification that eventually gives rise to separate species.

They wanted to answer one of the big questions about evolution: Is diversification a predetermined process or is it partly driven by chance events?

Full article
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story ... ebeli.html

When one isn't a virus anymore get back to me.

Is this story supposed to prove all life evolved from one living cell? PS The creation account also fits with everything living having similar DNA. What did you want God to do, create everything using totally different materials?

I do appreciate facts, however the arguments presented so far do not prove anything and some, like the similar DNA one, actually fit what I believe and is not even close to proving evolution.

[cliffy1]

Hundreds of millions of years ago, the Earth was dominated by giant amphibians. Then there was a great cataclysm and they mostly died off. After millions of years of evolving, the dinosaurs (reptiles) dominated the Earth, only to be wiped out millions of years later by another great cataclysm. They in tern were replaced by mammals. Millions of years of evolution later we have humans who think they are so important that they invented a god who created them in its own likeness. Thus evolved the ego of Man and the rest is a history of blood shed and debauchery the world has never known.

So, did we evolve or have we devolved? A friend said the other day that he can't wait for the day for humanity to evolve into apes. I said I would prefer to evolve into a porpoise - all they do is play, fish and make love all day. Now that is the epitome of evolution!