- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by stevenv76There are parts to the 'evolution, is it a fact' debate, one is do things evolve, that is does natural selection work? The answer to this is yes, it is observable and observed, the other is did all life evolve over billions of years, or was it created in, what we might term, a more advanced state, to look like it had evolved over billions of years, (because it does) in the much more recent past? The evidence for this is very strong, but as people say, we weren't there to see it, but then if you could accept that the universe was created 6000 years ago with 4.5 billion years of history already on the clock as it were, then why could it not have been created 600 years ago? Or 60? Or maybe last Tuesday? There is no way of telling, no way of proving it one way or the other, so from a philosophical standpoint the argument becomes meaningless. Evolutionary theory is self-consistent, matches all the available evidence, there is no evidence contradicting it, and is very useful to biologists, in fact the whole of biology (all the evidence) just doesn't make sense without evolution. You are not a moron for seeing the people questioning evolution, and feeling the need to question it yourself, however the people questioning evolution have never, repeat never, posed a serious scientific threat to evolution, but that isn't the real goal for a large number of creationists, and certainly the ID lobby, they win simply by getting a debate, they win when a paper posts an 'unbiased' 50:50 column inch debate between evolution and creationism, they win by making it sound like there is a debate. There isn't. The media hasn't quite got that giving a 50:50 debate to, say 'whether man has landed on the moon?’ or 'is the earth flat?' or 'is climate change human driven?' is not being unbiased, it is giving weight and a voice to those who are demonstrably wrong, and for the majority of people without the necessary qualification or understanding to tell which side is right it basically says there is a debate, there is evidence for both sides, make your own mind up. If you learn all the facts, and learn all the principles behind them then you can't but agree with evolutionary theory as being the only and right explanation for the diversity and nature of life on earth, unless you allow for Cartesian devils, in which case you can't prove anything, other than your own existence (and some philosophers have argued about even that).
[b]I don't think we were trying to prove evolutionary theory to you. (That species have and do evolve is a fact.
Evolution may or may not be a fact. I beleive it is not. The scientific method has supported the theory of evolution in the past. But if the theory has not yet been confirmed by enough experimentation to put to rest any experimentation ...[text shortened]... ion). But it certainly does not help it, especially considering pre-life conditions.[/b]
Originally posted by stevenv76
Evolution may or may not be a fact. I beleive it is not. The scientific method has supported the theory of evolution in the past. But if the theory has not yet been confirmed by enough experimentation to put to rest any experimentation condeming it, on what basis do you assert it as fact?
It seems like you are conflating the empirical fact that species have evolved with the theory of evolution which is an account of the mechanisms by which they evolve. The empirical fact of evolution can be witnessed in a lab with a species that has a very short time between generations. Even the most rabid of Creationists have stopped denying that species evolve. Instead they amended their position to claim that this is just "microevolution" within a "kind," where "kind" is nebulously defined.
The theory of evolution must be seperated from the above empirical fact. The theory of evolution is a scientific account of how species evolve. The simple version postulates that natural selection and random mutation over time bring about the changes in species. This is a scientific theory and may or may not be true.
I for one am convinced by the mountain loads of evidence supporting the theory. You are not. That is fine, but it is important that we are clear on these two ideas and that we do not conflate them.
Sure, you probably think I am a moron for discounting what you may consider a mountain of evidence, but there are enough people questioning this mountain to make it ... questionable.
I do not think that you are a moron. I think that you set the bar for evidence unrealistically high because of your precommitment to a specific faith-based position. There are plenty of xians that likely share the main points of your faith that also recognize that species evolve and accept that to date the theory of evolution is our best account of how species evolve.
I would add that the number of people questioning something does not necessarily put the theory in doubt. If people criticize the theory of evolution for unscientific reasons (e.g., it doesn't fit well with my faith-based notion of how things operate), then this is of no more consequence to the validity of the theory than astrologers disagreeing with our scientific theories on gravity.
It's not like I am arguing against the hydrologic cycle or gravity or even relativity. It's more like I am arguing against black holes. Sure, there is some evidence and some reasoning, but not enough without introducing could haves, would haves, and should haves.
Actually it is very much like arguing against the water cycle or gravity. In fact, if one were looking to go after scientific theories, there are far more gaps in our theories of gravity than the theory of evolution. Evolution has been demonstrated in labs, just as sure as one can demonstrate gravity by dropping a rock. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the idea that natural selection and random mutation are major factors behind evolution. As for arguing against the existence of black holes, I don't see that as a whole lot different than arguing against the water cycle, gravity, or evolution. The only thing that comes to mind is that one can repeated observe the water cycle, gravity, and evolution occuring around us, while we only get to pieces of the process for black holes.
You put the term "expert" in quotes. Believe it or not there are experts in every field (with Ph.Ds and everything) who refute evolutionism . . .like deciding something is true and then going out to prove it... what ever it takes.
Do you know many evolutionary biologists that reject (not refute) evolution? Most of the Creationist crowd actually have PhD's in entirely different subjects, but there are a few that do have Bio degrees. Sure, among PhD's you'll find a couple of people out of thousands that take up some pretty out there positions. You can find physicists that deny the moon landing occured, economists that claim that communism is a viable macroeconomic system, or historians that claim that the Twin Towers fell because the US govt conspired to detonate explosives at their bases. The point I was making was that the ideas have to stand on their own merits. That's why when Dembski (who has a PhD in Mathematics from U of Chicago) publishes zany math about hypothesis testing for an "intelligent designer," I (who do not have a PhD in Mathematics) can debunk their ruse.
2TD does not "kill" evolutionary biology (right now, in my mind. I haven't done enough research to come to a final conclusion). But it certainly does not help it, especially considering pre-life conditions.
Again the 2TD has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution (or the theory of disease or the theory of erosion for that matter). The 2TD makes a statement about total entropy in a closed/isolated system. The system in which evolutionary theory pertains is not closed/isolated and so any claims from the 2TD need not apply. You've made this allusion to pre-life conditions before, but have never really explained yourself. What do you mean?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowhow about SLOT?
Small question: Why is in being abbreviated 2TD instead of 2LT or SLT for example? I assume you are talking about the second law of thermodynamics.
And he's right. The 2TD/2LT/SLT/just type 2nd law of thermodynamics has no bearing whatsoever on evolution.
Originally posted by stevenv76Perhaps you should look at this web page from the University of Waikato
It is quite simple to make an unsupported statement.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law
A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. They are typically conclusions based on the confirmation of hypotheses through repeated scientific experiments over ...[text shortened]... ever had repeatable contradictions.
The laws of thermodynamics are very strong ones indeed.
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml
to help you understand the difference between a theory and a law.
Originally posted by stevenv76Indeed. And those are the same valid, observable reasons why evolution can proceed here.
No.
There are valid, observable and explainable reasons for the earth being habitable and warm. The sun holds the earth in orbit close enough for the earth to benefit from the sun's energy without being consumed by it. The earth's gravity attracts an atmosphere which is heated by the sun and life thrives. (grade school version, sorry I am not capable o ...[text shortened]... nd to organize themselves. Interesting. I haven't heard this before. Worth investigation.
Originally posted by LangtreeAh, looking for more interesting topics. Like drooling creationists conspiring to kill real science which of course they will drop like hotcakes if they ever in some horrific accident of nature actually prove creationism correct, that will be the end of the science part and if will be back to the real work at hand, subverting the entire world in the sick dogma of christianity (which shouldn't even be CALLED christianity but instead PAULISM,since he is the one invented it).
You still don't understand entropy; then why do we have to clean our houses of dust? That is a direct effect of entropy, you can deny the effects of entropy intellectually, but you can't ignore them practically. So you are impractical. Then of course you have the problem of no new matter being created, I guess you will deny that also.
However, you canno ...[text shortened]... . Don't bother replying, I am going to another site where there is more interesting topics.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI feel like I am going down a tangential rat-hole here, but from your own website:
Perhaps you should look at this web page from the University of Waikato
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml
to help you understand the difference between a theory and a law.
Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws
and
Example: In the early 20th century, after repeated tests and rejection of all competing theories Mendel's Laws of Heredity were accepted by the general scientific community.
Laws are truths, but there is a process followedfor the scientific community to accept it as truth. Before it is a law, it must be a theory, and before a theory, a hypothesis and all long the way it must pass through experimentation and peer review.