Yes, as stated above, "so now that we know that their is no creator." But what is this posting above all about??? What the hell is a creator? I have absolutely no knowledge of a creator and to me it is a superstition, a figment of one's imagination, a hypothetical construct used to explain what we do not yet know, something to hide and hope behind - can you please introduce me to this creator? This is science fiction on a sciforum.DaleSpam said:
Is the theory of evolution true?
- Thread starter PetriFB
- Start date
Oniw17 said:
Sorry valich and Oniw17, you are making a logical blunder. You are saying:valich said:
evolution -> ~creator
Your consequent doesn't follow from the antecedent. There is no reason that a creator could not have created evolution. Your claim is just as illogical as the ID/Creationism claim:
~evolution -> creator
In other words, my previous comments had nothing whatsoever to do with the existence or non-existence of a creator, only the fact that creationism/ID is unscientific. If you wish to discuss the existence of a creator then you should probably open a post in the philosopy or religion sections.
-Dale
No where have I said anything about a creator. So how can you even suggest, let alone imply, that I am saying evolution-> ~creator??? You're bringing an entirely new hypothetical construct into the argument that never existed before, and that I vehemently deny. As I have continuously stated, evolution is a fact. We can see it happen right before our eyes. We can trace through the fossil records or actively evolve an organism into another type of organism in the lab. What we argue about in theory is the "how" of evolution: and there are many different ways that evolution occurs.
Still, if you want to introduce a creator, and say that "there is no reason that a creator could not have created evolution," and? So where do you want to go from there? That's not the same as ID, which is nothing more than concealed creationism in disguise.
The point is that evolution is a fact. It cannot be debated. What we debate now is how evolution occurs in various geographic regions and through varying timescales. For example, as I stated before, we have selectively evolved over 400 sub-species of dogs within a span of only 300 years. That's only about 50-100 generations. We see species naturally evolving phenotype changes in isolated geographic regions because of the decreased size of their gene pool.
We know that man evolved from a common ancestor with chimps about 5.7 mya. Canivores (canines-dogs) about 37 mya. Apes diverged about 60 mya. And the common ancestor with mice was about 100 mya. The knowing of this is accomplished by sequencing DNA analyses. Do you have a problem with this? Do you need more indepth understanding about how this determination of evolution is done? I really don't understand what your posting means? But you're really shifting the subject.
Still, if you want to introduce a creator, and say that "there is no reason that a creator could not have created evolution," and? So where do you want to go from there? That's not the same as ID, which is nothing more than concealed creationism in disguise.
The point is that evolution is a fact. It cannot be debated. What we debate now is how evolution occurs in various geographic regions and through varying timescales. For example, as I stated before, we have selectively evolved over 400 sub-species of dogs within a span of only 300 years. That's only about 50-100 generations. We see species naturally evolving phenotype changes in isolated geographic regions because of the decreased size of their gene pool.
We know that man evolved from a common ancestor with chimps about 5.7 mya. Canivores (canines-dogs) about 37 mya. Apes diverged about 60 mya. And the common ancestor with mice was about 100 mya. The knowing of this is accomplished by sequencing DNA analyses. Do you have a problem with this? Do you need more indepth understanding about how this determination of evolution is done? I really don't understand what your posting means? But you're really shifting the subject.
valich said:
Yes, valich, you did. I am not interested in debating the existence or non-existence of a creator, particularly not on a forum that is ostensibly scientific, so I am willing to let the topic drop since it is irrelevant to the current thread.valich said:
-Dale
Last edited:
Petri said:
"For a long time?" More like only a few short years during the earliest years of discovery in the field of hominid research. Paleoanthropology was in its infancy and no one has regarded Piltdown (not "Pildtown") as anything other than a hoax. A hoax, by the way, which was exposed by science.
The data are clear on the find: a braincase of about 815 cc; size and morphology consistent with Homo erectus. Moreover, what Dubois reported was that Java Man was "a gigantic genus allied to the gibbons." His comment was intended to reinforce his claim that Java Man was an intermediary of man and earlier primate species. Java Man is consistent with H. Erectus and the "modern human" remains you mentioned are from Wadjak, about 65 miles from the Java Man site. The region is mountainous. Your quote-mining is obviously from an old creationist nutter book. I'm guessing Duane Gish.
Again, your lack of education and willingness to accept the under-educated opinions of others shows you to be not only gullible but laughable. The Calaveras Skull was demonstrated to be a hoax in 1911 (Boutwell 1911; Koch 1911), placed where it was found by miners. The so-called "Guadeloupe Woman" is a myth perpetrated by a creationist who claims that a skeleton was found is dated to the Miocene. This simply has not been demonstrated and there is no data of an independent dating analysis that exists. If you have the data, please share it to us all. But then, you're just reciting fiction from a book you read by an unqualified critic and not making any educated claims here, isn't that right?
Likewise, while skimming the post I quoted above, I noticed about a half-dozen things you cite as "facts" (completely un-referenced, I might add) which are patently false.
I think it's safe for everyone here to consider you not only a crank, but without an educated clue.
References:
Boutwell, John M. (1911). The Calaveras Skull [shown to be of recent origin]. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, Report: P 0073, 54-55.
Koch, Felix J (1911). The Calaveras Skull [The skull is shown to be recent and placed where found for a hoax]. American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal, 199-202.
Obviously you are completely ignorant in not only the way science itself works but also in the way the science from which the fact of evolution is represented work. This ignorance, itself, isn't a bad thing -many people are ignorant about the same. However, when one of those who are ignorant of science are willing to go into a science forum and make claims that repeat the lies, deceptions, and completely inaccurate statements of others who are probably equally ignorant, the criticism and ridicule that follow are warranted.
There is no "evolution science" per say. There are sciences from which the fact of evolution is apparent. These sciences include chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, paleoanthropology, paleontology, etc.
These sciences are not simply made up of assumptions and guesses and anyone who believes this is completely ignorant of these sciences. If you want to make claims that pertain to science, it would behoove you to educate yourself on them first.
Evolution is a testable, predictable, and verifiable fact. It really happened in spite of your ignorance.
But if you want to persist, perhaps instead of posting a laundry list of fallacious and inaccurate assumptions from whatever your deluded source is, why not ask the opinions of those educated in the science on one or two of these issues at a time.
I skimmed this laundry list and found just a few that I was able to easily answer and back up with legitimate sources of real data that can be had for anyone with access to a decent library. Rather than accept the bullshit you typed in at face value, why not at least google it and find out that even the religious nutter site, Answers In Genesis, has a page devoted to arguments creationists shouldn't use and why. Many of the points you listed are found on this page and have long since been debunked and refuted.
Its clear that you have a conclusion to which you seek only information that confirms it. What a pitiful god you must have, to begin with, that wasn't able to come up with the miracle of evolution, eh?
There is no "evolution science" per say. There are sciences from which the fact of evolution is apparent. These sciences include chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, paleoanthropology, paleontology, etc.
These sciences are not simply made up of assumptions and guesses and anyone who believes this is completely ignorant of these sciences. If you want to make claims that pertain to science, it would behoove you to educate yourself on them first.
Evolution is a testable, predictable, and verifiable fact. It really happened in spite of your ignorance.
But if you want to persist, perhaps instead of posting a laundry list of fallacious and inaccurate assumptions from whatever your deluded source is, why not ask the opinions of those educated in the science on one or two of these issues at a time.
I skimmed this laundry list and found just a few that I was able to easily answer and back up with legitimate sources of real data that can be had for anyone with access to a decent library. Rather than accept the bullshit you typed in at face value, why not at least google it and find out that even the religious nutter site, Answers In Genesis, has a page devoted to arguments creationists shouldn't use and why. Many of the points you listed are found on this page and have long since been debunked and refuted.
Its clear that you have a conclusion to which you seek only information that confirms it. What a pitiful god you must have, to begin with, that wasn't able to come up with the miracle of evolution, eh?
PetriFB said:
A religious one.
Religions assume that their dogmas are right and xianity assumes that it's "word" is literal and divine. The only logical reason to dispute evolution is because accepting it means the game is up for the Bible. If one thing is false, none of it can be trusted.
If genesis is wrong, what else can be wrong?
Maybe all the bible stories are just crap made up by a few ancient people who needed a way to motivate other ancient people. Propaganda to justify actions and reactions in the ancient near east.
Yenald Looshi
"There is no conflict between mysticism and science, but there is a conflict between the science of 2000 CE and 2000 BCE" (Joseph Campbell)
The problem for christians is that they interpret their religion not as mythology, but as facts, i.e., mythology should be read in symbols and metaphors (like poetry), not like historical and factual information.
The problem for christians is that they interpret their religion not as mythology, but as facts, i.e., mythology should be read in symbols and metaphors (like poetry), not like historical and factual information.
I'm still waiting for you to refute this. Should be easy if it is all based on assumption and guesses.
spuriousmonkey said:
I'm going to post a radical argument here, because I'm already sick of talking about Israel and Lebanon, and because I'm an arse and I like to stir things up:
Can we really really say evolution is still a theory? Really? Come on, it's isn't. Not really.
Look: we base all mathematical interpretation of evolution essentially on two things: the LAW of Segregation and the LAW of Independent Assortment. Now, I'll be honest by saying that I've never heard them referred to any other way, but then again I suppose I'm not a crusty old fogey*. They are, to intents and purposes, LAWS. The only laws exigent in biology. Why should we pretend differently? Do we have violations of them? Of course we do, or it wouldn't be bloody biology. But these violations occur under known (or expected) mathematical, genomic, or developmental conditions. We can describe such violations. But the underlying rules are the same: meiotic laws.
Frankly, evolution is NOT a theory any more than gravity is a bloody theory. Gravity can vary in its coefficients, just like evolutionary trajectories or segregative statistics, but alleles are not being transmitted by bloody magic, and that meets our test expectations.
Those who don't like it can pack up their books and go home. Case closed; game over; we win. If you want to call a creator on it, fine; just do it out of earshot.
* I have nothing against crusty old fogeys. Some crusty old fogeys are among my best friends. No crusty old fogeys were harmed by me, unless they had something I wanted.
Can we really really say evolution is still a theory? Really? Come on, it's isn't. Not really.
Look: we base all mathematical interpretation of evolution essentially on two things: the LAW of Segregation and the LAW of Independent Assortment. Now, I'll be honest by saying that I've never heard them referred to any other way, but then again I suppose I'm not a crusty old fogey*. They are, to intents and purposes, LAWS. The only laws exigent in biology. Why should we pretend differently? Do we have violations of them? Of course we do, or it wouldn't be bloody biology. But these violations occur under known (or expected) mathematical, genomic, or developmental conditions. We can describe such violations. But the underlying rules are the same: meiotic laws.
Frankly, evolution is NOT a theory any more than gravity is a bloody theory. Gravity can vary in its coefficients, just like evolutionary trajectories or segregative statistics, but alleles are not being transmitted by bloody magic, and that meets our test expectations.
Those who don't like it can pack up their books and go home. Case closed; game over; we win. If you want to call a creator on it, fine; just do it out of earshot.
* I have nothing against crusty old fogeys. Some crusty old fogeys are among my best friends. No crusty old fogeys were harmed by me, unless they had something I wanted.
True. If species were fixed and designed that way by God, there would be no need for sex.
Yes, we can.GeoffP said:
Yes.GeoffP said:
It is.GeoffP said:
Yes, really.GeoffP said:
I find it strange that so many people don’t seem to be able to distinguish between "evolution" (ie. the fact that organisms change in response to genetic alterations influenced by natural selection) and the "theory of evolution" (ie. the scientific theory that explains the mechanism by which this occurs). As has been stated ad infinitum, evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Yes, completely correct. Gravity and evolution are both well-established scientific theories.GeoffP said:
Conclusion: Evolution is a theory and your thesis is rejected.
Q.E.D.
Yes, I imagine it must be tiresome to be a blindly dogmatic Israeli apologist in the face of continual war crimes and egregious human rights violations by Israel.GeoffP said:
Cue the usual “just defending themselves” bullshit......
Last edited:
Gravity is not a theory, it's a fact, although there are some theories to explain it. In the same way Evolution is actually happening, so it's not a theory, although there are some explanations about the mechanism. I don't think you are really contradicting GeoffP. The Creationists sometimes don't even acknowledge that animals change in any significant way.
Okay, instead of saying....
...I should have said...Hercules Rockefeller said:
It is perfectly correct to state that there is a theory of evolution and a theory of gravity. So when people talk about evolution and gravity as being "theories", this is obviously what they are referring to (even if they don't realize it) and not the "facts" of evolution and gravity. Attempts to argue otherwise is just useless sophistry that serves no purpose.Hercules Rockefeller said:
Essentially Rockefeller's case boils down to gainsaying.
If evolution is both theory and fact, then it's a fact. Period. Once something is a fact, it really ceases to be theory. I would agree that it is as much a "theory" as gravity is a "theory".
Now onto the gainsaying.
Certainly, we cannot.
No.
It isn't.
Not at all!
Really? I find it stranger that the arbitrary separation of concept and (implied) reality must take such a tortuous course that "fact" must be invoked to describe a process that we are then meant to conceptualize as a theory independent from certain reality. I've bolded the offending word. Are we then dealing in fact or theory still?
Really? Strangely, I have yet to encounter anyone with the capacity to describe gravity as a mere "theory". Until now, that is. One would imagine that the innate mathematical basis for evolution - a striking parallel with that of gravity - would have provoked parallel understanding and release from the ancient dogma about the entirely theoretical nature of evolutionary science. Regrettably, that does not appear to be the case.
Conclusion: Evolution is no longer a theory and my thesis is accepted.
Q.E.D.
It might, if I knew such a person.
Of course, it would be more tiresome still to be a pedant convinced of the moral superiority of terrorism, and the innate immorality of particular nation-states in matters international. Such a person could apply a blind eye to almost any consideration of context, were one so inclined.
Such a person, of course, might well not dare an actual debate in the appropriate venue, preferring petty sniping based on personal dislike.
If evolution is both theory and fact, then it's a fact. Period. Once something is a fact, it really ceases to be theory. I would agree that it is as much a "theory" as gravity is a "theory".
Now onto the gainsaying.
Hercules Rockefeller said:
Certainly, we cannot.
No.
It isn't.
Not at all!
Really? I find it stranger that the arbitrary separation of concept and (implied) reality must take such a tortuous course that "fact" must be invoked to describe a process that we are then meant to conceptualize as a theory independent from certain reality. I've bolded the offending word. Are we then dealing in fact or theory still?
Really? Strangely, I have yet to encounter anyone with the capacity to describe gravity as a mere "theory". Until now, that is. One would imagine that the innate mathematical basis for evolution - a striking parallel with that of gravity - would have provoked parallel understanding and release from the ancient dogma about the entirely theoretical nature of evolutionary science. Regrettably, that does not appear to be the case.
Conclusion: Evolution is no longer a theory and my thesis is accepted.
Q.E.D.
It might, if I knew such a person.
Of course, it would be more tiresome still to be a pedant convinced of the moral superiority of terrorism, and the innate immorality of particular nation-states in matters international. Such a person could apply a blind eye to almost any consideration of context, were one so inclined.
Such a person, of course, might well not dare an actual debate in the appropriate venue, preferring petty sniping based on personal dislike.
Hercules Rockefeller said:
And you don't really see your own commentary as sophistry?
I was speaking of the reality of evolution and as to whether or not it was correct to delimit biological understanding by continuing the mad tradition of describing it as a "theory". It is simply not a "theory", in reality, any more than gravity is a theory; a point you inadvertently make yourself.
I disagree utterly that when people talk about the "theories" of gravity and evolution, this is what they are referring to - some snide, navel-gazing critique of what constitutes theory and fact. They are referring to the state of existence, of actuality; not of the fine delineation of the theoretical background for evolution.
And anyway, your comments on my position are motivated less by reason, and more by invective.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
This is utter, irredeemable balderdash. As Hercules has pointed out, with total concision and accuracy, evolution is a fact, in the sense that the allele ferquency of populations changes over time i.e. organisms change from generation to generation.GeoffP said:
Equally, the theory of evolution is generally taken to refer to the explanation for the mechanisms by which this observed fact occurs. The theory could be overturned at any time, and certainly has undergone radical changes since it was introduced by Darwin.
If you insist that evolution is only a fact then you discard any explanation for this fact. Without explanation you have eliminated science.
This is not sophistry it is bloody common sense, which attribute you seem to be deficient in.