What is the theory of evolution?

There's a very hungry troll in this thread. Quit feeding the damn thing, it only encourages it to come back.

Originally posted by amolv06
There's a very hungry troll in this thread. Quit feeding the damn thing, it only encourages it to come back.

It should be seen as a source of amusement, like killing ants with an hourglass. Except that the ants can talk too and say things like: "LOL! Optics is a lie!".

LOL!

Originally posted by amolv06
LOL!

You guys really don't have to poke fun at him...

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Again, what does evolution have to do with the big bang?

Darwin's idea of evolution leading back to a common ancestor leads back
to the questions of the beginnings. Is it God or is it "the big bang"? To
have a complete explanation of the theory of evolution so it can truly be
called the law of evolution this question must be answered. It has to be
connected no matter how much you would prefer to ignore it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Darwin's idea of evolution leading back to a common ancestor leads back
to the questions of the beginnings. Is it God or is it "the big bang"? To
have a complete explanation of the theory of evolution so it can truly be
called the law of evolution this question must be answered. It has to be
connected no matter how much you would prefer to ignore it.

Does statistics have to explain the mating patterns of moose in Siberia in order to be valid?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Darwin's idea of evolution leading back to a common ancestor leads back
to the questions of the beginnings. Is it God or is it "the big bang"? To
have a complete explanation of the theory of evolution so it can truly be
called the law of evolution this question must be answered. It has to be
connected no matter how much you would prefer to ignore it.

Given the number of times it has been explained that what you have just said is bull***t,
and that you have evidently ignored everyone who has explained why what you just said
is bull***t...

Why should anybody listen to or debate someone who is not prepared to listen to the
answers they get?



If you want to answer the question 'where do we, and everything else, come from?'
Then you need to deal with questions of how the universe was formed, IF it was formed
or has always existed in one form or another, how stars and solar systems were formed,
ect ect..

However evolutionary theory is not trying to or intended to answer the question "where does
everything come from?".... The theory of Evolution deals specifically and exclusively with the
question of how the diversity of life we see around us today came to be.
It doesn't deal with anything else.

What you are demanding in trying to include big bang and abiogenesis (and anything else you
include with evolution) is equivalent to saying "I want a theoretical description of how my car
works that also explains how the universe came into existence and why baboons have colourful
backsides and also tells me the exact amount of time to boil an egg to get it just right..."

No sane description of how your car works will ever do that.

Science is all about details, we come up with detailed explanations of specific phenomena or
sets of phenomena. Each explanation (theory) covers a tiny piece of the puzzle of how everything
works and taken together the summed total of all the different theories give you the complete picture.


What you are saying for evolution is like asking for any and every explanation of how something works
to start by explaining the big bang and working forwards until you finally reach the explanation of the
thing you want to explain. This is impractical, absurd, and not how science works.

If you knew anything at all whatsoever about science you would know this.


Also, as you have been told too many times to count, THERE IS NOTHING BEYOND THEORY.
In the language of science THEORY is as good as it gets.
Theories are made up of observed FACTS and LAWS and MUST have made verified predictions and be
confirmed by mountains of evidence and observations.

A scientific theory is the EXPLANATION of all those FACTS and LAWS.

Your own OP includes this...
"A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no
exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but
they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is
to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'."

The Theory of Evolution Includes laws, the theory is the explanation and description that says WHY these
laws hold and explains why things are the way we observe them to be.

You have had this explained hundreds of times, your own post includes this information.

You are thus either lying your arse off or you are stupid beyond belief.

I think you are lying.

Originally posted by RJHinds
With love,
Ron

Don't be a hypocrite.

Being a literalist crackpot is bad enough - being a hypocrite as well makes you truly un-Christian.

Richard

Originally posted by RJHinds
Darwin's idea of evolution leading back to a common ancestor leads back
to the questions of the beginnings. Is it God or is it "the big bang"? To
have a complete explanation of the theory of evolution so it can truly be
called the law of evolution this question must be answered. It has to be
connected no matter how much you would prefer to ignore it.

Listen, Do you remember when I persistenly asked you about "Where was the first living cell created?", and you answerred with a place 850 km outside the coast of Somalia without giving a source, showing clearly it is a crackpots fantasies? (See Thread 144514, page 4 and onwards)

If you don't know where the creation started, then you prove that Creationism is based on a big big lie.

If you demand that evolution should be able to explain what was the first common ancestor, and lack of this answer means that evolutionism is false - then you have with exactly the same reasons proved that creationism is nothing more than crackpot beliefs., and not worth anything.

If you demand better proof than you are willing to give yourself - then you are a hypocrite.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Does statistics have to explain the mating patterns of moose in Siberia in order to be valid?

I am not sure what your question is. But I'll make a wild guess and say, no.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Given the number of times it has been explained that what you have just said is bull***t,
and that you have evidently ignored everyone who has explained why what you just said
is bull***t...

Why should anybody listen to or debate someone who is not prepared to listen to the
answers they get?



If you want to answer the question 'where do we ...[text shortened]... either lying your arse off or you are stupid beyond belief.

I think you are lying.

The theory of evolution leaves everything unexplained in my opinion.
If it explained life, then I should understand it, right. Or is it just
supposed to leave me guessing? Why can't we make life from scratch
or at least from the basic chemicals we have availble if evolution
explained anything?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The theory of evolution leaves everything unexplained in my opinion.
If it explained life, then I should understand it, right. Or is it just
supposed to leave me guessing? Why can't we make life from scratch
or at least from the basic chemicals we have available if evolution
explained anything?

The fact that you don't understand it is not an argument that its wrong. And your opinion as
a none expert is not worth much.

Evolutionary theory is actually remarkably simple, So I don't believe that you are incapable
of understanding it if you ever took off your religious blinders and actually paid attention.

And nobody says we can't make artificial life.
We just haven't, yet.

Life is incredibly complicated, and while with directed intelligent purpose we will be able to create
fully artificial life in the next few decades, after probably less than a century of seriously trying
that is compared to the millions of years and the entire planets surface it took for nature to do it.

And again, evolution doesn't explain the formation of life, that's abiogenesis.

It's not a trivial distinction, or a play on words, they are utterly different theories.
One [evolution] is much more complete than the other.

We are making great strides in making artificial life, I would really not hang my hat on it being impossible
if I were you, because its very likely that we will do it in the next decade or two.

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressreleases/envelope_for_an_artificial_cell/

Originally posted by googlefudge
The fact that you don't understand it is not an argument that its wrong. And your opinion as
a none expert is not worth much.

Evolutionary theory is actually remarkably simple, So I don't believe that you are incapable
of understanding it if you ever took off your religious blinders and actually paid attention.

And nobody says we can't make ar ...[text shortened]... decade or two.

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressreleases/envelope_for_an_artificial_cell/

Since evolution explains it all, then we should be able to make life very
quickly. We already have everything we need. We do not have to wait
billions of years. The fact is the theory of evolution is just an idea that
has been dreamed up as an explanation, but actually doesn't explain
anything. It is like a science fiction novel with ideas that do not work in
the real world that we live in. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Since evolution explains it all, then we should be able to make life very
quickly. We already have everything we need. We do not have to wait
billions of years. The fact is the theory of evolution is just an idea that
has been dreamed up as an explanation, but actually doesn't explain
anything. It is like a science fiction novel with ideas that do not work in
the real world that we live in. 😏

It has been theoretically proven that you could make a 20 mile high skyscraper with
conventional steel and concrete construction techniques.

However one has yet to be built, because being theoretically possible, and practically
easy or achievable are not the same thing.
Also it would be fantastically expensive, inefficient, and currently unnecessary.
So we haven't done it yet.

This doesn't mean that the theory is wrong.


I never said that 'evolution explains it all', that's your phrase.
Evolution adequately explains the diversity of life on earth (among other things).
It doesn't explain how life came to exist in the first place.

Abiogenesis is the study of creating life from non-life.
It is part of biochemistry.
It is not as well understood as evolution, and still needs much research done on it,
which is what is being done.


We are in the process of creating artificial life, it's incredibly complex, and so is taking a while,
and while we do it, we learn an awful lot about how life works, that we can apply to other feilds
such as medicine.

As I demonstrated with the link in the last post, self assembling organic molecules are a part of
nature, the next step is self replicating self assembling molecules.
Otherwise known as life.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It has been theoretically proven that you could make a 20 mile high skyscraper with
conventional steel and concrete construction techniques.

However one has yet to be built, because being theoretically possible, and practically
easy or achievable are not the same thing.
Also it would be fantastically expensive, inefficient, and currently unnecess ...[text shortened]... e, the next step is self replicating self assembling molecules.
Otherwise known as life.

I still don't think the theory of evolution is well understood, because
when I see any explanation claiming to explan evolution, it only
explains part of adaptation. Then it stops, and they think they have
explained evolution. Stupid. 😏