Evolution, not a fact??????

[john smith]

On Monday 21st November, this religious guy came in to talk about evoloution in my Religious Studies class. At the moment we are disscussing wheather or not science and religion are compatible...anyway he said he could disprove evoloution, he then showed us this video about certain animals, such as the grizzly bear;

The grizzly can feed its new-born cub for 5 months without moving, therefore without hunting, it feeds of its llarge fat supply, and also re-absorbs it urine. The religious nut on the video said that scientist could not explain this, especially through evolution, and so therefore (he coped out) and said that it was one of Gods intricut designes!!

Before this i took evoloution as a given fact, i am atheist, and i do not seek out a relgious answer, therefore evolution was the reasonable explanation.

I still belive evolution is the case, but i was wondering the views of you guys?

He gave us some more examples wich i would be happy to share, although i think that they were bollocks (only my view).

 

[Sarkus]

Another example of the religious claiming every unknown or complex thing as the work of God....

Just because evolution has given rise to what appears odd and unexplainable (although somehow I doubt that the example you gave IS unexplainable) does not mean it is evidence of God.
Evolution doesn't always result in the simple, it just results in what works. The Grizzly biological process works. If it didn't it would have died out. This is how evolution works (in a simplistic way).

Anyhoo - there are plenty of "Evolution vs Creationism" threads on this site, I'm sure.

 

[KennyJC]

Evolution is fact.

The fact theists say otherwise just shows you the intellectual dysfunction that comes from religion.

 

[VitalOne]

Ofcourse evolution is a fact. It is as much a "theory" as the "theory" that a small pox vaccine will work.

 

[Cris]

Evolution is factual in that we can see a very long and very straight dotted line. Evolution theories attempt to explain the processes of how we go from dot to dot. There are still gaps in the sequence and this is where religionists jump in and say ah ha evolution is wrong. That we haven't explained some of the gaps doesn't support the idea that a god was involved.

How the first dot arrived though is a matter for abiogenisis and where many religionists say a god entered the picture.

 

[Cris]

Note that the poll is incomplete.

If a god began the first life and hence started the evolutionary train then both the first two options would be true.

Many religionsits do hold that evolution has occurred but that a god started it all. So the poll isn't really fair to them.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

...said that scientist could not explain this, especially through evolution, and so therefore (he coped out) and said that it was one of Gods intricut designes!!

Assuming the assertion is even true (i.e. scientists can't explain it), it's a logical fallacy that was asserted in your classroom. If something is not understood then it doesn't make the closest fantasy a substitute for truth. It simply not understood and thats all.

 

[john smith]

Many religionsits do hold that evolution has occurred but that a god started it all. So the poll isn't really fair to them.

You know you are right, i myself am letting my views bias the argument against 'religionists', as they do not comply to my belief system. This i assure you, is unintentional. I apologise to anyone effected.

 

[john smith]

.... for abiogenisis and...

What does this mean?

 

[john smith]

Evolution is fact.

The fact theists say otherwise just shows you the intellectual dysfunction that comes from religion.

But thats exactly what i mean, where is your proof that its definatly a fact, what would your argument be to one who suggested it was merely theory? After all it is called 'the Theory of Evolution '.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

The grizzly can feed its new-born cub for 5 months without moving, therefore without hunting, it feeds of its llarge fat supply, and also re-absorbs it urine. The religious nut on the video said that scientist could not explain this, especially through evolution, and so therefore (he coped out) and said that it was one of Gods intricut designes!!

What is so difficult about explaining this?

 

[john smith]

Well he said that before the bears were able to adapt, and re-circulate there urine and such, they would have died out by the time the process was complete.

He also said that during this large period of time the grizzly only loses 20% of its muscular tissue, this is so its adequatly able to fend of predators of the young cub. They do this by constantly tensing and relaxing the muscles, even in sleep, therefore keeping a large amount of strength. He said that this was not possible through evolution, as by the time the bears had adapted to keep this strength, they would have died out through being unable to defend themselves and the young cub.

He then said that the only logical argument therefore, was God!

 

[Sarkus]

But thats exactly what i mean, where is your proof that its definatly a fact, what would your argument be to one who suggested it was merely theory? After all it is called 'the Theory of Evolution '.

You need to understand what is meant by "fact" and "theory".
They are not merely hierarchical rungs on a ladder of confidence.

Evolution is a fact. We evolved from a common ancestor with apes whether we did it by Darwins theory of evolution or of some other theory of evolution.

Likewise Einstein's theory of gravity replaced Newton's theory - but apples didn't suspend themselves in mid-air awaiting the outcome. Gravity is a fact. It is also a theory.

Even Darwin himself continually emphasised the differences between his two great accomplishments - establishing the FACT of evolution - and his THEORY of evolution (natural selection) to explain the mechanisms.

 

[john smith]

I completly argee with you, i believe that its a fact to, many people however, question it as such.:m:

 

[Sarkus]

I completly argee with you, i believe that its a fact to, many people however, question it as such.:m:

They can certainly question the theories of evolution.
But evolution itself is fact.

 

[Silas]

The grizzly can feed its new-born cub for 5 months without moving, therefore without hunting, it feeds of its llarge fat supply, and also re-absorbs its urine. The religious nut on the video said that scientist could not explain this, especially through evolution, and so therefore (he coped out) and said that it was one of Gods intricate designs!!

Well he said that before the bears were able to adapt, and re-circulate there urine and such, they would have died out by the time the process was complete.

He also said that during this large period of time the grizzly only loses 20% of its muscular tissue, this is so its adequatly able to fend of predators of the young cub. They do this by constantly tensing and relaxing the muscles, even in sleep, therefore keeping a large amount of strength. He said that this was not possible through evolution, as by the time the bears had adapted to keep this strength, they would have died out through being unable to defend themselves and the young cub.

Easy-peasy. The constant tensing and relaxation of muscles appeared in the proto-bears before the development of hibernation. In fact it's not unlikely that the development of hibernation in bears was only evolutionarily possible because of this sleep-tension and avoidance of muscle atrophy in the first place.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Well he said that before the bears were able to adapt, and re-circulate there urine and such, they would have died out by the time the process was complete.

That just shows he doesn't know anything about biology.

 

[davewhite04]

Micro evolution I believe is a fact, but evolution as a whole is not. Because evidence for micro evolution is unquestionable the rest of the evolution theory (like macro evolution) somehow becomes more solid hmm...

I believe God created the universe and micro evolution is just part of the design.

 

[Ophiolite]

I guess believing in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution is rather like being a little bit pregnant.

 

[davewhite04]

I guess believing in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution is rather like being a little bit pregnant.

Not at all, it's like eating a piece of meat but spitting out the fat.