Evolution, Its Just A Theory...

[Guest Religion Loather]

Evolution is just a theory, and I used to not believe it because of that, man I sure was ignorant

 

Gravity is also a theory

 

the Pythagorean theorem is just a theory also, where A square + B sqaure = C square

 

Also, I don't remember what this theory is called, but where the measure of all 3 angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees is just a theory too

 

But probably just about all christians believe those 3, what makes evolution any different?

[Legion]

Hey there RL, welcome to ex-C.

 

Yeah, it looks like you realized that the word “theory” has an entirely different meaning in science than it does in common usage. In science it basically means “explanation” in common usage it means “guess.”

 

But I think it’s cool that you figured that out. Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever. There’s plenty of things that I look back on after having learned and wonder how I could have been so dense. And I try not to beat myself up over it. Live and learn, they say.

 

Anyway, again welcome. I hope you enjoy your stay here.

[SEEtheScorn]

Well, to play Devil's Advocate and perpetuate discussion, a theory attempting to explain our existence here is quite different from a mathematical theory in which case we can test it.

 

I can keep testing the Pythagorean theorem until I find a case where it is not true. Not sure, but don't think that case has been found yet.

 

I can't prove creatures evolve in the same way. Evolution of creatures seem to be proven by fossil records, sure, but I would say that's still different. Although I think they are trying to reproduce evolution, especially the "primordial ooze" conditions, as they say.

 

Philosophically, it's all theories based on assumptions. The assumption that the carbon dating process is correct. The assumption that our mathematical assumptions are correct. 1 is always 1, yada yada.

 

I'm kinda talking out of my ass, but I'm just promoting discussion. I'm no scientist. With that being said, I find it very difficult to quickly accept a theory that is how old? Compared to the theory held by humans for ages that the world was created by a God. Certainly, we have developed and evolved in our understanding, and we have done and thought many many wrong things in our past, but could we be overlooking something? I think evolution has truths, but the truth? It's not that old of a theory in the span of human history. Then again, does it matter? Either way, here we are I say. God or evolution without God, doesn't make a difference to me!

[Shyone]

Well, to play Devil's Advocate and perpetuate discussion, a theory attempting to explain our existence here is quite different from a mathematical theory in which case we can test it.

 

I can keep testing the Pythagorean theorem until I find a case where it is not true. Not sure, but don't think that case has been found yet.

 

I can't prove creatures evolve in the same way. Evolution of creatures seem to be proven by fossil records, sure, but I would say that's still different. Although I think they are trying to reproduce evolution, especially the "primordial ooze" conditions, as they say.

 

No, you are thinking abiogenisis with the "primordial ooze" thing. That's not evolution.

 

Evolution makes predictions which may be checked and verified and also verified in other ways. As an example, given morphology and other criteria, it would seem that we have a common ancestor with the apes and so were placed in the same "family". Genetically, there are characteristics shared by these apes and us that are not shared with other creatures - and these genetic changes are in the "quiet" mutations, not the big stuff. Likewise, we do, of course, share lots of genetic material with apes percentage wise, which comports with the theory. Finally, there is the fossil record which again demonstrates the morphologic changes in our lineage that, instead of diverging from apes, become closer to apes (cranial vault size being the most conspicuous, but thousands of others as well).

 

 

Philosophically, it's all theories based on assumptions. The assumption that the carbon dating process is correct. The assumption that our mathematical assumptions are correct. 1 is always 1, yada yada.

Taking that one thing alone, the carbon dating system is based on solid biology (no C14 absorbed after death), physics (rate of decay is constant) and relative percentages of c12 and C14 in the atmosphere.

 

To double check the atmospheric stability, we have ancient ice calibrated by layers representing years and also tree rings that go back a long ways. "Tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 11,000 years (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991; Stuiver et al. 1986)." We have carbon dated tree rings and also counted them. And guess what! They match!

 

I'm kinda talking out of my ass, but I'm just promoting discussion. I'm no scientist. With that being said, I find it very difficult to quickly accept a theory that is how old? Compared to the theory held by humans for ages that the world was created by a God. Certainly, we have developed and evolved in our understanding, and we have done and thought many many wrong things in our past, but could we be overlooking something? I think evolution has truths, but the truth? It's not that old of a theory in the span of human history. Then again, does it matter? Either way, here we are I say. God or evolution without God, doesn't make a difference to me!

"Overlooking something" is different from being absolutely completely wrong. Evolution has now been documented in many organism ranging from bacteria to living mammals. There many parallel categories of evidence that all corroborate each other. The theory that witches cause disease, or demons cause epilepsy, is older than modern medical theories regarding diseases and seizures, but age is not as important as what the theories do - and that is make predictions. And then from those predictions we can propose treatments and then evaluate those treatments, etc.

 

Newtonian physics is older than the theory of relativity, but the newer theory is more correct (the former being a very good approximation). Alchemy was consider a science and made proposals and predictions, but it was superseded by chemistry, which was augmented by atomic theory - newer still.

 

It's called progress. Newer, when it works better, is better.

 

Your last sentences are the most disturbing, and they are at the heart of the aggressive religious movements to censor the teaching of evolution. They don't think it matters. They don't think it matters to them. Perhaps the greatest irony is that the variety of viruses and pathologic bacteria are evolving so fast it is frightening, and new medications are failing, and vaccines are being outpaced by the rapid mutations of our microscopic cousins.

 

Agriculture has made tremendous strides, and every variant that has certain advantages is a mutation that was carefully cultivated. More recently, and understanding the ways in which mutations change plants, scientists have begun engineering the changes they would like to see. None of this would be possible without a clear understanding of heredity and evolution.

 

Recessive and dominant genetic diseases as well as chromosomal disorders are all part of evolution - which discards those mutations that don't work and preserves the ones that do.

 

When Mendel was breeding plants, he was taking advantage of existing mutations in plants. Evolution is not only the reason for the species. It is the foundation of every biologic science. To discard that means becoming a backwards and ignorant people who will not be able to keep up with the challenges of nature. We can't just keep living on the discoveries of science in the past, we must continue to use our knowledge of evolutionary biology to keep us from returning to the good old days of the middle ages, when religion treated diseases.

[Legion]

Evolution makes predictions which may be checked and verified...

That’s right Shyone. Among the predictions our theories of evolution make is that when we look at the fossil record we should see less diversity of organisms and less elaborated forms as we look at progressively older deposits. And this is what we see. These and other predictions have been confirmed and so we have a theory rather than merely a hypothesis.

 

I think evolution has truths, but the truth?

Any theory only covers a certain range of phenomena. I certainly don’t believe our theories of evolution exhaust all possible understanding of organisms. For instance, I think most doctors need little understanding of evolution in order to practice medicine. And I’m pretty sure that most biologists are not engaged in studying evolution, but rather engaged in trying to understand organisms in the moment, so to speak. How and why do organisms behave the way they do? These are the questions that occupy many biologists.

 

I think we still have much to learn.

[SEEtheScorn]

Your last sentences are the most disturbing, and they are at the heart of the aggressive religious movements to censor the teaching of evolution

 

Aren't they? =P

 

I actually relish the idea of evolution personally. I get very upset when Christians toss out scientific ideas just because it echos evolutionary ideas. I remember having to sit through a psych 101 class full of fundie Christians and here them raise complaints because a theory sounded too much like evolutionary psychology, and God forbid an institution of higher education teach that!

 

But since we have no Christians to really make something interesting out of this conversation, I might as well try to act the stupid one! Although I never have been good at discussing for, or against, evolution. I hate biology.

 

Without further adieu, from the great creationscience.com:

 

On radiocarbon dating and why it isn't reliable:

 

Radiocarbon dating requires knowing the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere when the organic matter being dated was part of a living organism. The assumption (shown in red), which few realize is being made, is that this ratio has always been what it was before the industrial revolution—about one carbon-14 atom for every trillion carbon-12 atoms.

 

Read more here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ22.html#wp1303390

 

I've found this to be an often used argument in the "evolution is just a theory" way of debating for Creation.

 

More later, sleep now.

[Shyone]

 

Without further adieu, from the great creationscience.com:

 

On radiocarbon dating and why it isn't reliable:

 

Radiocarbon dating requires knowing the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere when the organic matter being dated was part of a living organism. The assumption (shown in red), which few realize is being made, is that this ratio has always been what it was before the industrial revolution—about one carbon-14 atom for every trillion carbon-12 atoms.

 

Read more here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ22.html#wp1303390

 

I've found this to be an often used argument in the "evolution is just a theory" way of debating for Creation.

 

More later, sleep now.

Well, first, I already accounted for that in my reply. You will note - even from the creationist site - that the actual C14 concentrations are known from other measurements in the past. These are taken into account, along with calibrations from tree rings that can be used for precise dating, to make C14 dating extremely accurate.

 

From my post:

To double check the atmospheric stability, we have ancient ice calibrated by layers representing years and also tree rings that go back a long ways. "Tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 11,000 years (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991; Stuiver et al. 1986)." We have carbon dated tree rings and also counted them. And guess what! They match!

 

The air trapped in the ancient ice in bubbles, dated by the layers of ice representing years, gives us the levels of C14 relative to C12 over the years.

 

I'm really not interested in debating science. The creationists are just plain dishonest. Scientists discovered the changes in C14 concentrations in the atmosphere long long ago, and they are precisely what make the science accurate. NOT what makes it inaccurate. Trust me, creationists did not discover these changes in C14 concentration.

 

Furthermore, C14 measurements do not stand alone. Stratigraphy, other radioactive compounds, and many other types of independent measurements from other areas of science ranging from geology to glaciology that are all in mutual agreement support the dating of ancient remains.

 

The ignorant assume that the dates are pulled from a hat, but they are based on sound science, and the creationists' arguments are geared to the ignorant. YOU may have assumed that C14 concentrations have been constant over thousands of years, but I knew better. When you know why I knew that, you may understand why I know that evolution is supported by so much science that only the ignorant will attempt to refute it.

 

You have been had if you give credence to the creationists. They actually do know better, but they aren't trying to convince scientists. They are trying to convince those who have no knowledge of science.

 

The following link is a brief introduction to fossil dating, but pay attention to the links at the end. Many, for example, find the information at talkorigins.org to be some of the best available information on the net.

 

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

[SEEtheScorn]

I find it interesting, like you said, how Creationists use such shady techniques to debate Creationism. They either leave scientific facts completely out, or try to tell the reader that X, Y, or Z can't really be trusted. Why not, the reader can't know other than placing trust in the author. This is why I just can't read so-called "logical" Christian books anymore. I had to read "The Reason for God" side by side with "The God Delusion" in an objective study of Atheism class. I could finish the Christian book it was so full of holes. I ended up screaming at the book in the subway ride home almost every night.

 

I think what Christians really mean when they make the arguments similar to the one I posted is what I really meant when I was a Christian, that I didn't know. Surely science has, but I haven't cared to study enough to know if they have. I just bought what other Christians touted.

 

My only problem with evolution is, I guess as you corrected me, is the abiogenesis? Can you elaborate on that for me? I understand the difference between evolution and general and it, but is it really different from the theory of evolution? Or is one of those things where x is y, but y isn't necessarily x? Does abiogenesis have faults that evolution does not?

[Shyone]

 

My only problem with evolution is, I guess as you corrected me, is the abiogenesis? Can you elaborate on that for me? I understand the difference between evolution and general and it, but is it really different from the theory of evolution? Or is one of those things where x is y, but y isn't necessarily x? Does abiogenesis have faults that evolution does not?

Evolution is the description of the changes in species, not the start of life. Once life was started, evolution became the mechanism for developing new species.

 

Abiogenesis is really interesting, but here's the key:

 

We know there was once no life. Religion says that god took chemicals and made life. Science suggests that the chemicals interacted because that's what chemicals do. Self-organization of chemicals happens all the time. Consider the snowflake! They are all different with beautiful "designs" but they are not "designed."

 

Anyway, the start of life is merely a question of mechanism; there is no debate about whether life began from non-life. Either goddidit or it just happened.

 

Same with the solar system. Either goddidit or it just happened.

 

The difference between these explanations is that if we accept that goddidit we stop looking for mechanisms or explanations. If we seek a biochemical/physical cause, then we have many interesting ideas to consider. It becomes a question of whether we can question. Religion hates questions since it claims to have all of the answers, and I hate religion. Works out well for me.

[SEEtheScorn]

Nice explanation, thanks!

 

I ran out of things to keep this conversation going though. =P

 

I heard a rumor/sermon by a religious speaker once though, that said there had been an observed evolution/adaptation of some African flie and after the 7th generation, the fly had de-evolved back to its original state. I always wondered if that was true, or was something he pulled out of his ass to give the listeners a fuzzy feeling.

[Guest amazed]

For some reason my original post did not work. Not sure what i did wrong.

[Guest amazed]

How will evolution explain by random-nonintelligent processes how life began without some kind of intelligence behind it? That would be like a car being built without intelligence and power to put it together. It would be absurd to think so.

[Realist]

How will evolution explain by random-nonintelligent processes how life began without some kind of intelligence behind it? That would be like a car being built without intelligence and power to put it together. It would be absurd to think so.

 

.... I just love xtian's arguments! Their reasoning can be so non-existent! Let's put this in YOUR perspective from what YOU are saying. Using the same logic as the car example you give .... you are saying the designer of that car has just ALWAYS existed! Doesn't hold much sense, does it?! You would be FIRST to admit that!!

[John09]

I appreciate Shyone's posts, since they are so accurate. Creationists claim that evolutionary theory is just a theory, but by saying this, they prove they don't understand science in the least. Theories are things that have actually been put to the test over and over again.

 

Amazed, you can't compare living things to non-living things like cars. Sure, no idiot would suggest a car could come together all on its own, because cars come together by different processes than living things do. LIving things come together by many, many simple processes. Perhaps taking a chemistry class someday will help you understand.

[Shyone]

How will evolution explain by random-nonintelligent processes how life began without some kind of intelligence behind it? That would be like a car being built without intelligence and power to put it together. It would be absurd to think so.

The answer by Realist is a good one.

 

A couple of posts up, I described some of the arguments regarding abiogenesis (e.g. we both agree that life on earth did not exist at one time, and now it does. The question is the mechanism).

 

Given a new planet and millions of years, we could test a variety of theories, or just wait and see what happens. Since that is not an option, we must consider what could have happened. That is, if you don't think Goddidit. If you think that, then there is nothing to consider.

 

But why wait millions of years if you are god? Why not just poof it into existence? The fact that time was required for life to originate and develop means that a process of some sort occurred. This is unnecessary for an omnipotent being. Genesis suggests as much.

 

So, given that a process was required, we know that it was a chemical process. Life is dependent on chemical processes. I'll skip the Miller-Urey experiments since I'm sure you are aware of them, but the point of the experiment is that chemicals will react. That's what chemicals do. Organic chemicals, in particular, in certain environments will interact and form new compounds. Given time, billions of interactions, and the right temperature, we see amino acids and complicated mollecules do form. Some mollecules will have properties that combine with other mollecules.

 

In particular, amino acids will tend to form chains because of their unique structure. Many of the nucleosides have minor differences from mollecules that also react to either hold or release other compounds (e.g. adenosine and deoxyadenosine). Some nucleosides and nucleotides will also form chains, and they can bind with only certain other chemicals because of their chemical properties and structure.

 

From there, it gets complicated. When I say complicated, I do not mean impossible to do or impossible to understand. Chemicals will act like chemicals, boys will be boys.

 

The curious thing about the chains of nucleosides and nucleotides is that they can form sequences that stick to other chemicals, and these then form amino acids.

 

Have you ever heard the tired expression, "Ontology recapitulates philogeny"? Well, a truer statement is that mitosis recapitulates synthesis. The detailed understanding of the formation of protiens and the synthesis of new DNA depends on chemical processes that have been around for billions of years.

 

There are even different ways that this can happen. That's why there are DNA viruses and RNA viruses. Two ways. Like a Mac and a PC.

 

Listen, I love this stuff, but I'm not about to write a book. I would point you to some sources for understanding chemistry, but it's better to start at the beginning and work your way through by yourself.

[SilentLoner]

How will evolution explain by random-nonintelligent processes how life began without some kind of intelligence behind it? That would be like a car being built without intelligence and power to put it together. It would be absurd to think so.

 

I think this vid summarizes it well:

 

[Guest amazed]

 

My only problem with evolution is, I guess as you corrected me, is the abiogenesis? Can you elaborate on that for me? I understand the difference between evolution and general and it, but is it really different from the theory of evolution? Or is one of those things where x is y, but y isn't necessarily x? Does abiogenesis have faults that evolution does not?

Evolution is the description of the changes in species, not the start of life. Once life was started, evolution became the mechanism for developing new species.

 

Abiogenesis is really interesting, but here's the key:

 

We know there was once no life. Religion says that god took chemicals and made life. Science suggests that the chemicals interacted because that's what chemicals do. Self-organization of chemicals happens all the time. Consider the snowflake! They are all different with beautiful "designs" but they are not "designed."

 

Anyway, the start of life is merely a question of mechanism; there is no debate about whether life began from non-life. Either goddidit or it just happened.

 

Same with the solar system. Either goddidit or it just happened.

 

The difference between these explanations is that if we accept that goddidit we stop looking for mechanisms or explanations. If we seek a biochemical/physical cause, then we have many interesting ideas to consider. It becomes a question of whether we can question. Religion hates questions since it claims to have all of the answers, and I hate religion. Works out well for me.

Actually many of the great contributors to science were devout Christians. Men like Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo to name a few. All of them worked from the premise that God created the world and we were made to study His handiwork. This alone refutes the idea that if we accept God as the creator we stop looking for the mechanism. Belief in God made science possible.

The problem for the materialist-atheist is to explain solutions to the beginning of life without some kind of intelligence to guide it. The idea that random-unintelligent forces can do this is absurd.

[dagnarus]

Actually many of the great contributors to science were devout Christians. Men like Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo to name a few. All of them worked from the premise that God created the world and we were made to study His handiwork. This alone refutes the idea that if we accept God as the creator we stop looking for the mechanism.

I wouldn't think to dispute this.

 

Belief in God made science possible.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean the Christian God?

 

The problem for the materialist-atheist is to explain solutions to the beginning of life without some kind of intelligence to guide it. The idea that random-unintelligent forces can do this is absurd.

Do you believe in 6 day creation, or guided evolution? It's not quite clear.

[Guest amazed]

Actually many of the great contributors to science were devout Christians. Men like Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo to name a few. All of them worked from the premise that God created the world and we were made to study His handiwork. This alone refutes the idea that if we accept God as the creator we stop looking for the mechanism.

I wouldn't think to dispute this.

 

Belief in God made science possible.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean the Christian God?

Yes. They believed the universe was orderly because the Christian God is a God of order. They also believed there research would bring glory to Him.

 

The problem for the materialist-atheist is to explain solutions to the beginning of life without some kind of intelligence to guide it. The idea that random-unintelligent forces can do this is absurd.

Do you believe in 6 day creation, or guided evolution? It's not quite clear.

I don't know about this. I think its possible to be 6 literal days and yet it could be far longer. Either way i do believe He is behind it all. There is just to much order and complexity to be explained without some kind of vast intelligence and power behind the universe.

 

What do you think?

[lunaticheathen]

Actually many of the great contributors to science were devout Christians. Men like Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo to name a few. All of them worked from the premise that God created the world and we were made to study His handiwork. This alone refutes the idea that if we accept God as the creator we stop looking for the mechanism.

I wouldn't think to dispute this.

 

Belief in God made science possible.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean the Christian God?

Yes. They believed the universe was orderly because the Christian God is a God of order. They also believed there research would bring glory to Him.

 

The problem for the materialist-atheist is to explain solutions to the beginning of life without some kind of intelligence to guide it. The idea that random-unintelligent forces can do this is absurd.

Do you believe in 6 day creation, or guided evolution? It's not quite clear.

I don't know about this. I think its possible to be 6 literal days and yet it could be far longer. Either way i do believe He is behind it all. There is just to much order and complexity to be explained without some kind of vast intelligence and power behind the universe.

 

What do you think?

Ok, I think that being a devout Christian as vital to being a great scientist is simply not true. The scientists amazed has named lived at a time when NOT being Christian meant one thing - death. And please don't forget that the Church looked to execute Galileo for his findings, because they weren't exactly what the Church thought of the world! The era before that wasn't called the Dark Ages just because they lost their candles. I believe curiosity made science possible, not due to any belief in a god or some search to glorify him or his "creation." I believe that's making far too many assumptions about men no one here knows personally. And there's no way of knowing if their "belief" guided their research, or if they peppered their studies with mentions of god to just save their necks.

In any case, religious belief, these days, is divorced form scientific inquiry. I'm sure there are christian scientists out there, happily digging into what they see as "creation", but I have no doubt that there are also scientists of every other belief and non-belief doing great or greater things.

 

And 6 days? PUH-leeeeeese.

[Guest amazed]

part 1

Actually many of the great contributors to science were devout Christians. Men like Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo to name a few. All of them worked from the premise that God created the world and we were made to study His handiwork. This alone refutes the idea that if we accept God as the creator we stop looking for the mechanism.

I wouldn't think to dispute this.

 

Belief in God made science possible.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean the Christian God?

Yes. They believed the universe was orderly because the Christian God is a God of order. They also believed there research would bring glory to Him.

 

The problem for the materialist-atheist is to explain solutions to the beginning of life without some kind of intelligence to guide it. The idea that random-unintelligent forces can do this is absurd.

Do you believe in 6 day creation, or guided evolution? It's not quite clear.

I don't know about this. I think its possible to be 6 literal days and yet it could be far longer. Either way i do believe He is behind it all. There is just to much order and complexity to be explained without some kind of vast intelligence and power behind the universe.

 

What do you think?

Ok, I think that being a devout Christian as vital to being a great scientist is simply not true.

I did not claim you had to be a Christian to be a great scienctist.

 

 

The scientists amazed has named lived at a time when NOT being Christian meant one thing - death.

Can you back this up? Secondly, even if true they were not reluctant Christians but devote men who truly beleived.

 

And please don't forget that the Church looked to execute Galileo for his findings, because they weren't exactly what the Church thought of the world!

This is true. They had a problem with one of his theories but not all of them.

 

The era before that wasn't called the Dark Ages just because they lost their candles.

The dark ages was not caused by the church. If anything it was the church in the earlier centuries that saved civilization during the fall of the roman empire. Monoastieries were places where monks kept some of the great works of the world away from the barabarians.

[Guest amazed]

Part 2

I believe curiosity made science possible, not due to any belief in a god or some search to glorify him or his "creation." I believe that's making far too many assumptions about men no one here knows personally. And there's no way of knowing if their "belief" guided their research, or if they peppered their studies with mentions of god to just save their necks.

You might want to look this up. Science needs a strong philosphical basis in which to work and Christianity provided that basis.

 

 

In any case, religious belief, these days, is divorced form scientific inquiry. I'm sure there are christian scientists out there, happily digging into what they see as "creation", but I have no doubt that there are also scientists of every other belief and non-belief doing great or greater things.

 

And 6 days? PUH-leeeeeese.

What is truly absurd is to think that the universe came into being by itself, is organized and so finely tuned in its laws that makes life possible by some kind unintelligent forces. It boggles the mind to think that such a thing could even be considered. You can't even get a cake made without intelligence and were to believe that something like the universe and life are the result of random unintelligent forces. Absurd.

[bdp]

Hey, come back to your own thread and talk to me!! You're over there whining about how you're overwhelmed by replies and you're over here piddling around instead of addressing everyone who's trying to talk to you.

[Guest amazed]

Hey, come back to your own thread and talk to me!! You're over there whining about how you're overwhelmed by replies and you're over here piddling around instead of addressing everyone who's trying to talk to you.

Actually this is one of my favorite topics to get into. I'm hopin to get a bit more engaging discussion.

[bdp]

Hey, come back to your own thread and talk to me!! You're over there whining about how you're overwhelmed by replies and you're over here piddling around instead of addressing everyone who's trying to talk to you.

Actually this is one of my favorite topics to get into. I'm hopin to get a bit more engaging discussion.

 

Fair enough - this topic bores me no end so I'll just bow out now.