Is the theory of evolution true?

Satyr said:
When it comes to human opinions and hypothesis something is either less or more probable….it is never true or false.

Can a theory adequately explain a phenomenon using logic (experience based predictability and consistency) and reason (analysis devoid of emotion and bias) or can it not?
Click to expand...

Some theory can, but evolution theory can't solve birth of the life ........
 
A recurring theme in antievolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disproven, so therefore evolution is false. This syllogism fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design...
Click to expand...


The birth of life is properly called abiogenesis, and scientists are now realizing how this could have happened.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Petri-dish said:
Do you know that evolution believers scientists has set up apes bones and claimed that those are bones of ape-man...
Click to expand...
Fake or not, those were only meant to be examples, not proof of evolution.
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
The birth of life is properly called abiogenesis, and scientists are now realizing how this could have happened.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html


Fake or not, those were only meant to be examples, not proof of evolution.
Click to expand...

Every decades same thing that scientist says that now they have solved this enigma and every decades they change a little their theories, but always it remain as theory, not as fact ....
 
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered...
 
Hi spidergoat and JamesR,

I am talking about things that evolution should be able to predict if it were complete and had a rigorous mathematical framework. Being an engineer my mind tends naturally to problems of practical interest such as:

1) What harvesting procedures would lead to maximal fish yields and how should they be adjusted due to diseases or natural disasters, and how would the harvesting affect the size and quantity of harvested fish?

2) What actions could we take to maximize the biodiversity of a rain forest?

3) What is the next step in the evolution of a particular species given a specific environment, including both introduction of new traits through mutation and enhancement or suppression of existing traits and potentially including some natural disaster or other sudden change in environment definitely?

Basically, these are predictions that you would need to make in the normal course of doing "population engineering" or "evolutionary engineering". These are all things that evolution will probably be able to predict at some point, but to my knowledge it is not yet able to do so. There was a reference earlier in this thread to an interesting paper that seems like other people are at least thinking and publishing in this direction (about the fishing), but I don't have access so I don't know how far they have come along these lines.

-Dale
 
as you creationists are so pathetically unwilling to listen to anyone else or learn ANYTHING other than what is contained in one very old book, written by many different authors, that has been poorly translated through many languages, i present you with the following:

The theory of evolution could suggest that due to the arrogance, immaturity and violent intolerance often inherent in followers different religions, they are more likely to kill each other, wage wars, and wipe each other out, while the secular community will progress through the embracing of science and knowledge, and a united view of the human race.

besides, if 'cain' killed 'able', and 'cain' and 'able' were 'adam' and 'eve's only 2 children, who did "cain" make more babies with, "eve"?

oh yeah, and the earth is more than 6000 years old.
go fuck yourselves.
 
DaleSpam said:
1) What harvesting procedures would lead to maximal fish yields and how should they be adjusted due to diseases or natural disasters, and how would the harvesting affect the size and quantity of harvested fish?
2) What actions could we take to maximize the biodiversity of a rain forest?
Click to expand...
I am at a loss to see where evoloutionary theory would have much of a part to play in answering these questions. These are matters of ecology, population dynamics a and the like.
The answers are complex, yet answers to subsets of these questions have already been generated for a wide variety of scenarios.
DaleSpam said:
3) What is the next step in the evolution of a particular species given a specific environment, including both introduction of new traits through mutation and enhancement or suppression of existing traits and potentially including some natural disaster or other sudden change in environment definitely?
Click to expand...
This question ignores the tautological reality of survival of the fittest.

Firstly, we cannot predict what mutations will occur, since these have a significant randomm component. A plant might benefit from redder flowers, since these are more attractive to a species of wasp which pollinates them. If none of these plants experience a mutation that makes their flowers redder then this particular fitter sub-species will not develop.

Secondly, the determination of what constitutes fitness for survival is not determined by theory, but by the interaction of environment, animal/plant physiology, biochemistry, animal behaviour, ecology, etc. The theory of evolution says these will control the determination of fitness, but it is an understanding of those fields and their associated theories that will permit prediction and answers to questions such as 3), not evolutionary theory.

Your position seems, therefore, to reflect a faulty understanding of what evolutionary theory is about. Your complain reminded me of the creationists who say 'but evolution cannot explain how life began'. No, of course it cannot. Nor can it deliver the kind of predictions you are seeking, because that is not its business.
 
Ophiolite said:
...Firstly, we cannot predict what mutations will occur, since these have a significant random component. A plant might benefit from redder flowers, since these are more attractive to a species of wasp which pollinates them. If none of these plants experience a mutation that makes their flowers redder then this particular fitter sub-species will not develop....
Click to expand...
Very good example and point.

If there already exists a genetic based variety in a gene pool (such as the age at which sexual maturity first occurs as was the case in the "fish experiment" I described earlier.) Then one can predict (they did so in funding proposal of the fish experiment) what will happen if the environment is changes to introduce a random killer (predator fish in that experiment) - Namely the late to develop sexual maturity genes will be eliminated for the gene pool and the average age at onset of sexual maturity will decrease. Prediction of gene pool change or variety reduction is very possible when environment is changed to make some ALREADY EXISTING variety a disadvantage. It will be reduced or eliminated.
 
DaleSpam,
I see what you're saying, but the difference between those questions and engineering questions are the number of variables. We may not even yet be aware of the all the variables and how they relate.
 
Ophiolite said:
I am at a loss to see where evoloutionary theory would have much of a part to play in answering these questions. These are matters of ecology, population dynamics a and the like.
The answers are complex, yet answers to subsets of these questions have already been generated for a wide variety of scenarios.
Click to expand...
I disagree, and apparently so do some of the researchers in this field. Obviously there is a strong ecological component to both questions, but it is not unusual for important and interesting questions to be interdisciplinary. And, particularly in the case of the fish problem, the ecological component is already well developed with a solid mathematical framework for predator-prey dynamics. What is not so well developed is the biological/evolutionary component. In other words, not only do the numbers of the various predator and prey populations change in response to each other and the harvesting, but their natures also change. This is the evolutionary component to the problem.


Ophiolite said:
This question ignores the tautological reality of survival of the fittest.

Firstly, we cannot predict what mutations will occur, since these have a significant randomm component. A plant might benefit from redder flowers, since these are more attractive to a species of wasp which pollinates them. If none of these plants experience a mutation that makes their flowers redder then this particular fitter sub-species will not develop.

Secondly, the determination of what constitutes fitness for survival is not determined by theory, but by the interaction of environment, animal/plant physiology, biochemistry, animal behaviour, ecology, etc. The theory of evolution says these will control the determination of fitness, but it is an understanding of those fields and their associated theories that will permit prediction and answers to questions such as 3), not evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...
I have heard this argument before, but it is simply an excuse, not a reason. Many theories have a "significant random component" (e.g. quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, meterology, chemistry, fluid mechanics). This does not prevent these theories from being able to make many accurate and useful predictions. In the case of evolution not all mutations are equally likely to occur, not all mutations are equally likely to be expressed, and not all mutations are equally advantageous. Mutation may be random, but evolution is decidedly not random.


Ophiolite said:
Your position seems, therefore, to reflect a faulty understanding of what evolutionary theory is about. Your complain reminded me of the creationists who say 'but evolution cannot explain how life began'. No, of course it cannot. Nor can it deliver the kind of predictions you are seeking, because that is not its business.
Click to expand...
That is a patently unfair criticism: I have never even mentioned the origins of life, and I fully understand that is outside the domain of its applicability.

If the "business" of a theory about the evolution of populations and species is not to predict such evolution then what exactly is its business? To what theory should I look instead? It seems to me that you are implicitly saying "yes, it is a weak theory, and it has no business being strong".

-Dale
 
spidergoat said:
I see what you're saying, but the difference between those questions and engineering questions are the number of variables. We may not even yet be aware of the all the variables and how they relate.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is essentially what I am saying. I recognize that others can and do look at the current lack of "aware[ness] of all the variables" and are not as bothered by it as I am.

-Dale
 
Last edited:
It's true that evolutionary theory is still under development, but it reveals enough so far that one may have confidence that it's along the right direction.

There is one thing I can think of that evolution predicts, and it has to do with how Darwin and others have chosen to prove it. It's the observable fact that living things create new structures and functions from existing parts, and the results, although effective, are not exactly the way an engineer would construct them from scratch. In the opposing theory, Creationism, you might expect novel structures to be created with extra specialized parts (Petri, take note). These solutions are often less than perfect, but confer enough of an advantage that natural selection favors them.
 
spidergoat said:
It's true that evolutionary theory is still under development, but it reveals enough so far that one may have confidence that it's along the right direction.
Click to expand...
I agree.


spidergoat said:
There is one thing I can think of that evolution predicts, and it has to do with how Darwin and others have chosen to prove it. It's the observable fact that living things create new structures and functions from existing parts, and the results, although effective, are not exactly the way an engineer would construct them from scratch. In the opposing theory, Creationism, you might expect novel structures to be created with extra specialized parts (Petri, take note). These solutions are often less than perfect, but confer enough of an advantage that natural selection favors them.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, without complete knowledge of the Creator's psychology it is impossible to predict what design goals and choices they may have made. Therefore it is impossible to formulate any kind of testable hypothesis under Creationism/ID. Fundamentally, this is why ID is not a scientific theory. It might be an opposing theory in a political or popular sense, but certainly not in a scientific sense.

-Dale
 
Dale,
A perfect design is more evidence of a creator than the imperfect designs we see much more often. One could surmise that while creating something new, God could just as easily make new parts as modify old ones.

Petri,
I have learned something new about the hypothesis that embryonic development mirrors evolutionary development. Did you know that in some whales which are born with no teeth, since they filter their food with specialized structures, their embryos go through a stage where they have normal teeth. This must be a remnant of an earlier stage of evolution.
 
So, evolution is real, and there is no creator, why is this thread still open?
 
Dalespam:
Unfortunately, without complete knowledge of the Creator's psychology it is impossible to predict what design goals and choices they may have made. Therefore it is impossible to formulate any kind of testable hypothesis under Creationism/ID. Fundamentally, this is why ID is not a scientific theory. It might be an opposing theory in a political or popular sense, but certainly not in a scientific sense.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on this. That is actually a superb summary of why ID/Creationism is not a science.
 
So, evolution is real, and there is no creator, why is this thread still open?
Click to expand...
Like I said before evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. It is in all entity to reach a state of final rest, sort of like when you swing a pendulum the pendulum usually ends up in the middle. Thus even if evolution is true it is also subject to a perfect state, a state of rest. Maybe some sort of super being has been geneticaly engineering humans for eons and maybe we are all just subject to nature, the fact is that neither scenario is NOT after a "balance". Therefore in essence creationism does exist, perhaps far more than evolution, evolution is just the time and phase from one point to the other. So does it really matter whether or not we are by God or by nature? No, not really. The difference is that God knows what he is doing, nature does not. In fact nature is far more likely to wipe out the human race than a super entity. I don't think we are here, I think we are in luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top