Evolution is not an opinion

[JLives]

What would make it a fact in your eyes?

[steven lloyd]

What would make it a fact in your eyes?

I'm just going by scientific definition and standards jennie. As I’ve said, I accept the theory as the most likely explanation but there are holes, evidence that has been introduced as exception – some examples that have been introduced in previous discussions on this subject on these boards (unfortunately I can’t actually reference them right now but I do remember considering them). I just try to keep an open mind. Not trying to suggest I am or am pretending to be a scientist but that’s what the good ones do too.



I do know its a fact I better go spend some time with my wife. Cheers.

[zzontar]

We are not the most evolved. There is no such thing as most evolved, it is a constant process. Everything on our planet is constantly striving for one purpose: to reproduce. If an animal is the most efficient it can be in it's environment such as a shark or an alligator then those strong genes will carry forward.

You're right, I should have said most advanced. Take a million year old ancestor of sharks, alligators, and humans. All did basically the same thing, find food and reproduce. If humans would have stayed at that level, chances are their ancestors could have survived much longer than the advanced humans of today who are inevitably committing a slow, mass suicide while bringing down everything else with them. This seems to mean that evolution in humans at this stage is counteractive to survival of the species.

[JLives]

I just came across a great site for evolution resources: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

[steven lloyd]

I just came across a great site for evolution resources: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

That’s a great link jennie. I wonder if you noted a distinction made between theory and fact.

At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time. Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.

In other words, as an example, we know that life “has existed for billions of years and has changed over time”. That is a fact – no matter what the 2000 year old club or 10,000 year old club has to say about it. However, why life changed (purpose) or how it changed (the process) is still theory and probably will be for some time to come. Again, I agree with you completely in saying it is, for the most part, “accepted theory”, and we’re probably almost getting into an argument of semantics here. However, as long as there exists any alternative explanation (and I’m not referring to anything theistic as that explanation exists independently) it remains theory.

[gardengirl]

This is not a thread about sin, this is a thread about evolution. Sin is a man made word and nothing more.

That's sort of irrefutable.

Sin is a word.
Made by Man.
Like all words.

One thing I know for sure is that if someone tells me they know the word (and purpose) of God, I know they are quite mistaken.

Mistaken or deluded?

[steven lloyd]

Mistaken or deluded?

Either or I suppose. Its one thing to know God exists. It’s quite another to presume to know what His purpose is (and then have the arrogance to tell us that you know).

[gardengirl]

Mistaken or deluded?

Either or I suppose. Its one thing to know God exists. It’s quite another to presume to know what His purpose is (and then have the arrogance to tell us that you know).

Amen to that.

[Mr Danksworth]

The sheeple goose-step with precision conformity
carefully dodging reason and integrity
minds numb to critical thought
they seek acceptance and absolution
from invisible men and mimicry of superstition

By graceful deflection their faith is kept
heads in sand logic bereft
living to die yet not knowing why
indoctrined in ignorance they look to the sky
ironic answers are there but not in a prayer
moon, stars, and sun laugh at their blank stare
for blindfolded fools there is no sympathy

You poor idiotai the gnostics did say
you have mistaken mysteries of old for history today
and have accepted literally
that which was only meant mystically

-J H Christos.

[Boda]

If the 6 days is not literal, at what time did sin enter the world and by whom?
Why would God, who calls us to protect the weak, the poor, the disabled, the homeless, the widow, the hungry, develop his world with survival of the fittest?
Why does he hate those who lie, steal, cheat, and so on, if that is how we have evolved?
It seems fair for me to say that the God of the Bible does not like survival of the fittest and would not have used a means that destroys those we are called to protect in order to advance the world to where we are today.
This world is not advancing as you seem to think. In fact I could argue that the opposite is true! Is the world not getting older and decaying? If we look to the past we see a massive variety of animals that existed at one time, but exist no longer. Animals are going extinct! Look at the endangered animals list. Even if it is human caused, are we not products of evolution?
God created a perfect world. We rejected him, and the world has been decaying ever since. We're going downhill, not uphill.

Is that rehetorical, or is your god capable of "hate"?

[Mr Danksworth]

^

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. – Susan B. Anthony

[katzenjammer]

And for my 2 cents---

Theory is a word with two quite different meanings and it seems to me that some people do not understand that.

When “theory” is used as in the theory of probabilities or the theory of relativity, or indeed the theory of evolution, the word means an explanation based on a collection of observations and evidence. This type of theory usually starts out with evidence that needs some sort of explanation (the theory). If more evidence is found that supports the theory, then what is really needed is some new word other than theory. When there is a lot of evidence and observation that fits the theory as there is with the theory of evolution then it is less and less like theory and more and more like established fact. Of course, if new evidence is found that contradicts the theory then you need to modify or throw out the current theory and create a new one. The scientific use of the word differs from an everyday use that generally infers an explanation that is not supported by observation and evidence. The theory that the earth is inhabited by intelligent life needs far more evidence than is currently available.

So I think that there must be a point when we should drop the word “theory” when there is sufficient accumulated observation and or evidence for an explanation and substitute some other word. We could say the “fact of evolution” but that isn’t right either since explanations of observed evidence can never really become “fact”.

We need a new word.

[WhatThe]

..... variety of animals that existed at one time, but exist no longer. Animals are going extinct! Look at the endangered animals list. Even

We are in the middle of earths sixth mass extiction. Life extinction is nothing new here, and will continue.

[chickenlittle]

I do not think anyone can rationally deny that evolution has taken place. There is more than ample evidence that life on earth has changed over time.

What I do not feel science has provided a clear explaination for is the mechanism of the evolution. I find it hard to accept that life could have evolved the purely through random mutations. Someone earlier in this thread used the example of the many dog breeds as an example of evolution. I see a few problems with this...

1.The selective breeding of dogs to create the many breeds was controlled by man, it was not random.
2. This breeding has created no new species only new breeds.

So in terms of it being evidence of evolution it is a poor example.

The other thing that has never had a plausible explanation is the beginning of it all. I realize that this is a somewhat different subject than evolution but it is hard to accept the overall combination that...

1. Life randomly developed on its own. To have the right combination of atoms line up into the right combination of molecules; to combine into the right combination of protiens; to somehow combine into the right combination of RNA/DNA: all under the right combination of conditions for the first living cell. It seems to me that for this to have occured randomly is almost as far fetched as the "young earth" theory put forward by Christian conservatives.
2. Combine this with the odds of random mutations to occur over a period only a few billion years (from a statsitical stand point that is not nearly long enough for random mutations to allow life as we know it to develop).

If you realistically look at the chances of the combination of those two things both randomly occuring despite the overwhelming odds against them, it has to make you wonder....

I think scientists need to consider the posibilty that a higher power was involved in the process.

Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges the possibility that a higher power (God) exists. He choses to live his life on the "assumption" that one does not exist. His position is just as faith based as those who believe that there was a God behind Creation.

As to the young earth proponents... I will repeat what I have said before on other threads... God gave us brains. He probably did so with the intention of us using them.

Cheers

[JonyDarko]

Just wanted to point out that evolution is a body of facts.