Jump to content

Evolution Is Neither Theory Or Fact


JadedAtheist
 Share

Recommended Posts

In practice, evolution is neither fact nor theory. A theory is a well-supported—but falsifiable—body of interconnected statements that has explanatory and predictive power (e.g., the theory of gravity). Evolution, however, does not fit this definition because it is assumed prior to the research being conducted and because it assumes many one-time events that can neither be tested nor verified (nor have eye-witness confirmation). Evolutionists fit all evidence into the framework of evolutionary naturalism (the belief that there are no supernatural causes). As a corollary to this, evolution cannot be used to make predictions because all results are filtered through the prior belief in evolution.

Evolution is better referred to as a tenet of naturalistic philosophy or humanism (a belief system). Most evolutionists presuppose a worldview that demands the removal of any supernatural agents acting in a knowable way (e.g., miracles, special creation). Calling it a theory and/or fact is a disingenuous attempt to hide the underlying beliefs and to discourage debate by ridiculing those who disagree.

 

I was reading the AiG Q&A section and came across this. Evolution is a religion? They must be posting this crap for the lulz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Love Dog
In practice, evolution is neither fact nor theory. A theory is a well-supported—but falsifiable—body of interconnected statements that has explanatory and predictive power (e.g., the theory of gravity). Evolution, however, does not fit this definition because it is assumed prior to the research being conducted and because it assumes many one-time events that can neither be tested nor verified (nor have eye-witness confirmation). Evolutionists fit all evidence into the framework of evolutionary naturalism (the belief that there are no supernatural causes). As a corollary to this, evolution cannot be used to make predictions because all results are filtered through the prior belief in evolution.

Evolution is better referred to as a tenet of naturalistic philosophy or humanism (a belief system). Most evolutionists presuppose a worldview that demands the removal of any supernatural agents acting in a knowable way (e.g., miracles, special creation). Calling it a theory and/or fact is a disingenuous attempt to hide the underlying beliefs and to discourage debate by ridiculing those who disagree.

 

I was reading the AiG Q&A section and came across this. Evolution is a religion? They must be posting this crap for the lulz.

A scientific "theory" is close enough to fact until evidence comes along to disprove it. It does NOT mean theoretical, which is what theology could be termed. Theological is theory that has no basis of proof, just records of nonsensical ideas and guesses about what some "divine" character may be thinking, Usually based on ridiculous ramblings of Bronze Age priests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AiG is just straight up lying. I think even wikipedia did okay on this one... Evolution as theory and fact

 

I like this section a lot....

 

Predictive power

 

A central tenet in science is that a scientific theory is supposed to have predictive power, and verification of predictions are seen as an important and necessary support for the theory. The theory of evolution has provided such predictions. Four examples are:

 

- Genetic information must be transmitted in a molecular way that will be almost exact but permit slight changes. Since this prediction was made, biologists have discovered the existence of DNA, which has a mutation rate of roughly 10−9 per nucleotide per cell division; this provides just such a mechanism.[26]

 

- Some DNA sequences are shared by very different organisms. It has been predicted by the theory of evolution that the differences in such DNA sequences between two organisms should roughly resemble both the biological difference between them according to their anatomy and the time that had passed since these two organisms have separated in the course of evolution, as seen in fossil evidence. The rate of accumulating such changes should be low for some sequences, namely those that code for critical RNA or proteins, and high for others that code for less critical RNA or proteins; but for every specific sequence, the rate of change should be roughly constant over time. These results have been experimentally confirmed. Two examples are DNA sequences coding for rRNA, which is highly conserved, and DNA sequences coding for fibrinopeptides (amino acid chains that are discarded during the formation of fibrin), which are highly non-conserved.[26]

 

- Prior to 2004, paleontologists had found fossils of amphibians with necks, ears, and four legs, in rock no older than 365 million years old. In rocks more than 385 million years old they could only find fish, without these amphibian characteristics. Evolutionary theory predicted that since amphibians evolved from fish, an intermediate form should be found in rock dated between 365 and 385 million years ago. Such an intermediate form should have many fish-like characteristics, conserved from 385 million years ago or more, but also have many amphibian characteristics as well. In 2004, an expedition to islands in the Canadian arctic searching specifically for this fossil form in rocks that were 375 million years old discovered fossils of Tiktaalik.[27]

 

- Evolutionary theory predicts that novel inventions can arise, while creationists predict that new "information" cannot arise, and that the Second Law of Thermodynamics only allows for "information" to be lost.[28] In an ongoing experiment, Richard Lenski observed that E. coli evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, which constitutes a novel invention, and an increase in the information of the DNA of the E. coli.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AiG is just straight up lying. I think even wikipedia did okay on this one... Evolution as theory and fact

 

I like this section a lot....

 

Predictive power

...

- Evolutionary theory predicts that novel inventions can arise, while creationists predict that new "information" cannot arise, and that the Second Law of Thermodynamics only allows for "information" to be lost.[28] In an ongoing experiment, Richard Lenski observed that E. coli evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, which constitutes a novel invention, and an increase in the information of the DNA of the E. coli.

This experiment is explained in Dawkins' book, and when I read about it, it felt like a home-run for evolution.

 

When they observed that E. coli suddenly, it was really a sudden thing, could use citrate, they also knew that the mutations required for it had to have been in several steps. They knew that for E. coli to use citrate, there must have been at least two, or more, mutations before. So they went back and found which generation of E. coli got the first mutation in the chain of mutations for this. In other words, there is a record of how what Christians call "irreducible complex" mutation occurred. That's big. Extremely big. It's a slap in the face of all those fact deniers (evolution deniers are fact deniers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tell you Hans these are just four confirmed predictions out of what are probably countless others. Our understandings of evolution are multifaceted and growing. And what is AiG doing to further this growth in our understanding? Nothing. Worse than nothing, because they actually write this propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tell you Hans these are just four confirmed predictions out of what are probably countless others.

Oh, I know.

 

But I think Lenski's experiment is even more interesting just because it required several mutations for the bacteria to be able to use citrate. It's really a blow to the irreducible complex argument.

 

Irreducible complex argument says that there are genetic codes that had to have several steps of mutations before they would become useful, and only a designer could do that. But the Lenski experiment proves otherwise.

 

Our understandings of evolution are multifaceted and growing. And what is AiG doing to further this growth in our understanding? Nothing. Worse than nothing, because they actually write this propaganda.

Totally agree.

 

So far, creation science has not contributed to the scientific community. All these arguments we hear against science (evolution, geology, astronomy, and on) are just whiny complaints. They complain about some little experiment here or there that didn't give the result that was expected, so therefor the whole world's all scientists suddenly are so totally wrong about everything they know from here to eternity!!!

 

It's like you're saying, it's a propaganda machine, not an honest searchers for truth. They're lying for Jesus, basically.

 

Here's another link about predictions in evolution (from talkorigins) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

 

And I know these aren't all of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The claim that evolution cannot be used to make predictions is BS. If you have two species that are possibly related, evolution predicts that there will be a common ancestor that these species share. In fact, we can even predict roughly when and where that common ancestor would have lived. It predicts that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor that lived in Africa about 4 million years ago. This is verifiable because we find both fossil and genetic evidence for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And one of the latest controversial contributions to evolution is the concept of molecular clock. By using statistics on mutations (that they know of through research) and how often they occur, they have established (or are trying to) a crude dating method for changes in the DNA. In other words, by comparing the differences between chimpanzees and humans, and by dating the difference (number of mutations required), the common ancestor should be about 6-7 million years ago, which is a lot further back than the oldest Australopithecus fossils Lucy and Salam.

 

So this is a predictive calculation for the archeologists to know what time range they should focus their excavations on if they want to find the common ancestor between humans and chimps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.