Science minister won't confirm belief in evolution

[FunkyBunch]

No:

"The poodle is the product of artificial selection, through human breeding, not natural selection ( the mechanism by which evolution operates).

Artificial selection works by picking an animal with a particular characteristic you like (curly hair, great size, gentle temperament etc) and ensuring that it reproduces (preferably with one of similar characteristic), then selecting the offspring that best provides what you are looking for and ensuring that it reproduces, repeating the process over many generations."

[Glacier]

Here's my next question... did a toy poodle evolve from a wolf?

Most likely yes, if there are bones showing progression between the two. I don't know much about this, but I would assume this is the case?

[zzontar]

No:

"The poodle is the product of artificial selection, through human breeding, not natural selection ( the mechanism by which evolution operates).

Artificial selection works by picking an animal with a particular characteristic you like (curly hair, great size, gentle temperament etc) and ensuring that it reproduces (preferably with one of similar characteristic), then selecting the offspring that best provides what you are looking for and ensuring that it reproduces, repeating the process over many generations."

So theoretically, if way in the future all knowledge of mankind doing this was lost and the transitional skeletons from wolf to toy poodle were found, could they conclude it was evolution?

[NoOne]

this book explains it all.

[FunkyBunch]

So theoretically, if way in the future all knowledge of mankind doing this was lost and the transitional skeletons from wolf to toy poodle were found, could they conclude it was evolution?

Well in theory anything is possible no matter how remote the chance.

[zzontar]

So theoretically, if way in the future all knowledge of mankind doing this was lost and the transitional skeletons from wolf to toy poodle were found, could they conclude it was evolution?

Well in theory anything is possible no matter how remote the chance.

What I'm getting at is if you find transitional skeletons does this confirm the evolution of that species as a fact?

[steven lloyd]

Here's my next question... did a toy poodle evolve from a wolf?

No, like man and apes, toy poodles and wolves likely evolved from a common ancestor.

However:

No:

"The poodle is the product of artificial selection, through human breeding, not natural selection ( the mechanism by which evolution operates).

Artificial selection works by picking an animal with a particular characteristic you like (curly hair, great size, gentle temperament etc) and ensuring that it reproduces (preferably with one of similar characteristic), then selecting the offspring that best provides what you are looking for and ensuring that it reproduces, repeating the process over many generations."

This process most likely played a significant role over time.

So theoretically, if way in the future all knowledge of mankind doing this was lost and the transitional skeletons from wolf to toy poodle were found, could they conclude it was evolution?

Well in theory anything is possible no matter how remote the chance.

What I'm getting at is if you find transitional skeletons does this confirm the evolution of that species as a fact?

Again, I think you are confusing evidence with proof and fact. Evolution has not been “proven” and it is not “fact”. The theory, however, is strongly supported by scientific evidence. You’re right in that we might be mistaken in our interpretation of that evidence. However, ...

A few things are clear:
• Sharing a common ancestor, the DNA of humans and apes is 98% identical – we did not evolve from monkeys but we had the same grandparents (just a 2% difference difference - just a taste of how powerful and complex DNA is)
• The earth is not 2000 years old but rather at least tens of hundreds of millions of years old.
• Dinosaurs did not inhabit this planet at the same time as homo-sapiens.
• Dinosaurs existed on this planet long enough (likely a few hundred million years) to go through their own process of evolution from nomadic hunters to more socially evolved and cooperative groups (cool stuff eh?)
• Dinosaurs lived on this planet for a few hundred million years (compared to humans which have only been around for a few hundred thousand years)
• Human evolution, in all its forms (biological, psychological, cultural, social, political and religious) has continued to evolve and will continue to evolve despite efforts of some to maintain stasis or the status quo.
• Evolution can be presently observed in chimpanzees, dolphins and whales who are all developing complex language and social structure. Yes, evolution is ongoing.

None of this discounts the idea that God exists and has purpose, or supports the idea that God exists and has purpose. Those who use this information to discount God typically juxtapose it with beliefs of the Catholic Church (or other churches or religions) while dismissing the idea there are people just as intelligent and educated as they are (often even more intelligent and educated). Having a very rigid and limited understanding of spiritual belief, they cannot grasp how people of science can still believe in something that cannot be understood but can, for lack of another word be called God.

None of these people presume to understand the nature or purpose of God, but by even acknowledging belief many presumptions are made. If you believe in God you must not be able to believe in science. I would hope that our Minister of Science did not operate under such misguided assumptions.

[Tumult]

The Nicaean Council was hardly an unbiased source. 4th century huh, let's try it in the 21st and see what the conclusion is

Many people have a lot of faith in (scientific) peer review being unbiased and impartial but scientists are people and as such are subject to the same prejudices as other people, regardless of how infallible many people believe the journal publication and peer review system to be.

[JLives]

When you are dealing with evidence and facts there is no room for personal opinion. Science is not a faith based institution.

[FunkyBunch]

Science is FUNDAMENTALLY a faith based institution. Regardless of your viewpoint you have faith in something. The more facts there are surrounding an issue the more certain you can be that you have placed your faith in the correct theory, but it's still just faith.

[JLives]

No it's not. You do not "believe" science to be true or false. You arrive at a conclusion based on facts and evidence. The facts come before the conclusion, not after.

[Tumult]

When you are dealing with evidence and facts there is no room for personal opinion. Science is not a faith based institution.

That's not true, everything, including evidence and facts are open to opinion through human perceptions (consciousness). Hypothesis are arrived at through someone's opinion of how something might work, if the evidence supports it, we get a theory. Faith is trust, many people have so much faith in science that they reserve any skepticism where scientific pursuits are concerned. There have and will be cases where the science community at large has faithfully clung to ideas that the evidence shows are wrong.

[JLives]

Yes a hypothesis is an opinion. Hypothesis and theories are not considered facts. You need evidence to support your hypothesis before it is a fact. You seem to be applying religious traits to science and it just doesn't work that way. Maybe read up on the scientific method some more: http://www.scientificmethod.com/

[FunkyBunch]

Just because you come to a conclusion based on facts and evidence you still have faith in the both the process and results.

Faith-That which is believed on any subject, whether in science, politics, or religion; especially (Theol.), a system of religious belief of any kind; as, the Jewish or Mohammedan faith; and especially, the system of truth taught by Christ; as, the Christian faith; also, the creed or belief of a Christian society or church.

[steven lloyd]

When you are dealing with evidence and facts there is no room for personal opinion.

jenny, all evidence is open to interpretation. That's a fact.