Evolution

[PadawanBater]

I was just curious what the ratio was here who accept evolution as a verifiable, provable scientific theory, which accounts to essentially scientific fact, and those that believe it's not true.

So do you believe it or not?

 

[herbose]

That's a nobrainer.

 

[undertheice]

to a certain extent the theory is provable, but there is a great deal that is assumption and should be looked at skeptically. blindly accepting that we can understand what has transpired to lead us to our present state is really no better than the unquestioning belief in the creation myth. what must be accepted is that we can never know what happened in the past, so the processes involved in what we call evolution will always remain in doubt.

i've often heard folks state that evolution is a "fact" and i can only believe that those people simply do not understand the basics of scientific inquiry. we can't reproduce the subtle changes over the vast expanses of time that have been theorized to have been responsible for the creation of present species, so evolution is unprovable on the larger scale. like all of nature's "long term projects", we can only infer the larger design from that bit of the scheme we can observe or reproduce.

 

[HoLE]

don't even get me started,,evolution all the way

 

[Jerry Garcia]

As an anthropologist and archaeologist, I find it laughable anyone would say they don't accept it. It's not a matter of accepting it or not accepting it, it's just what happened. That's like saying I don't accept that the earth revolves around the sun, or I don't accept that the sky is blue.

You don't have a choice to accept it or not, that's just the way it is

 

[Brazko]

True Logic and Reasoning, So Refreshing... btw, I believe in Evolution, but I don't think it's scientific fact. I have belief in the evolution concept and process because of what science presents and the subtle indicators we are able to observe. Still, you must have belief in evolution, because it is simply not scientific fact, reproducible, and has never been verified by any scientist that would place their life on the line behind it, I may be wrong so please inform here if there has been 1 to do so >>>> (Last name , First name )<<<<<<... Evolution has as many theories as the next myth, apples and oranges...Yes, but like all other introspects, no two are the same. Honestly imo, I was under the impression by some that science and belief had no room to co-exist......

It's just that according to the modern scientific method, the theories of evolution don't stand up fully. Does this mean the theories are wrong, NO, it simply means we are Monkeys ... nevertheless, I believe in evolution

to a certain extent the theory is provable, but there is a great deal that is assumption and should be looked at skeptically. blindly accepting that we can understand what has transpired to lead us to our present state is really no better than the unquestioning belief in the creation myth. what must be accepted is that we can never know what happened in the past, so the processes involved in what we call evolution will always remain in doubt.

i've often heard folks state that evolution is a "fact" and i can only believe that those people simply do not understand the basics of scientific inquiry. we can't reproduce the subtle changes over the vast expanses of time that have been theorized to have been responsible for the creation of present species, so evolution is unprovable on the larger scale. like all of nature's "long term projects", we can only infer the larger design from that bit of the scheme we can observe or reproduce.

 

[undertheice]

You don't have a choice to accept it or not, that's just the way it is

it is a sad day for science when one of its own expresses such a closed minded approach to a theory that cannot possibly be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. science seldom produces any final answer, its goal should always be understanding through the production of ever more detailed questions.

 

[PadawanBater]

to a certain extent the theory is provable, but there is a great deal that is assumption and should be looked at skeptically. blindly accepting that we can understand what has transpired to lead us to our present state is really no better than the unquestioning belief in the creation myth. what must be accepted is that we can never know what happened in the past, so the processes involved in what we call evolution will always remain in doubt.

i've often heard folks state that evolution is a "fact" and i can only believe that those people simply do not understand the basics of scientific inquiry. we can't reproduce the subtle changes over the vast expanses of time that have been theorized to have been responsible for the creation of present species, so evolution is unprovable on the larger scale. like all of nature's "long term projects", we can only infer the larger design from that bit of the scheme we can observe or reproduce.

I disagree with this. It's been proven dozens of times.

True Logic and Reasoning, So Refreshing... btw, I believe in Evolution, but I don't think it's scientific fact. I have belief in the evolution concept and process because of what science presents and the subtle indicators we are able to observe. Still, you must have belief in evolution, because it is simply not scientific fact, reproducible, and has never been verified by any scientist that would place their life on the line behind it, I may be wrong so please inform here if there has been 1 to do so >>>> (Last name , First name )<<<<<<... Evolution has as many theories as the next myth, apples and oranges...Yes, but like all other introspects, no two are the same. Honestly imo, I was under the impression by some that science and belief had no room to co-exist......

It's just that according to the modern scientific method, the theories of evolution don't stand up fully. Does this mean the theories are wrong, NO, it simply means we are Monkeys ... nevertheless, I believe in evolution

I would put my life on the line in support of evolution.

it is a sad day for science when one of its own expresses such a closed minded approach to a theory that cannot possibly be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. science seldom produces any final answer, its goal should always be understanding through the production of ever more detailed questions.

Would you say the same thing to a scientist who believes in the theory of gravity...?

 

[Jerry Garcia]

It's just that according to the modern scientific method, the theories of evolution don't stand up fully. Does this mean the theories are wrong, NO, it simply means we are Monkeys ... nevertheless, I believe in evolution

No, we are not monkeys, we are apes. There's a difference. Though monkeys and apes are related...we are all in the order primata.

Evolutionary theory is empirically provable and does in fact follow the "modern" scientific method.

it is a sad day for science when one of its own expresses such a closed minded approach to a theory that cannot possibly be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. science seldom produces any final answer, its goal should always be understanding through the production of ever more detailed questions.

Just because it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt doesn't mean it isn't true. We know enough through the fossil record and extant living creatures to discern things started as one thing and EVOLVED into another, usually in response to an environmental stress, predation threat, etc.

That's it. It's not open to debate, because we have evidence (fossils) that prove it.

And humans NEVER lived with Dinosaurs either...despite what people at the Creation "museum", if you can call it that, would have you believe...
http://creationmuseum.org/

 

[mindphuk]

to a certain extent the theory is provable, but there is a great deal that is assumption and should be looked at skeptically. blindly accepting that we can understand what has transpired to lead us to our present state is really no better than the unquestioning belief in the creation myth. what must be accepted is that we can never know what happened in the past, so the processes involved in what we call evolution will always remain in doubt.

i've often heard folks state that evolution is a "fact" and i can only believe that those people simply do not understand the basics of scientific inquiry. we can't reproduce the subtle changes over the vast expanses of time that have been theorized to have been responsible for the creation of present species, so evolution is unprovable on the larger scale. like all of nature's "long term projects", we can only infer the larger design from that bit of the scheme we can observe or reproduce.

Maybe you need to learn some basics of science. Evolution is indeed a fact. Evolution merely means that species change over time and the modern synthesis includes genetic confirmation to this fact. The theory part is the mechanism which Darwin proposed as natural selection. So like gravity, it is both theory and fact depending on how you use the term.
You're insistence on reproducibility should not be limited to the large changes that occur over geologic timescales. Historical sciences like cosmology and evolution are certainly experimented on in the laboratory. More important than reproducibility are predictions based on the science and evolutionary biology has made many predictions which have been verified. In fact, no other theory in all of science has as much confirmatory evidence as evolution.

 

[mindphuk]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times] [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]If every fossil were magicked away, the comparative study of modern organisms, of how their patterns of resemblances, especially of their genetic sequences, are distributed among species, and of how species are distributed among continents and islands, would still demonstrate, beyond all sane doubt, that our history is evolutionary, and that all living creatures are cousins. Fossils are a bonus. A welcome bonus, to be sure, but not an essential one. It is worth remembering this when creationists go on (as they tediously do) about "gaps" in the fossil record. The fossil record could be one big gap, and the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelmingly strong. At the same time, if we had only fossils and no other evidence, the fact of evolution would again be overwhelmingly supported. As things stand, we are blessed with both.
--Professor Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale[/FONT]

 

[one11]

I was just curious what the ratio was here who accept evolution as a verifiable, provable scientific theory, which accounts to essentially scientific fact, and those that believe it's not true.

So do you believe it or not?

i dont think its a matter of believe it or not, as believing that it's a possibility. So yes I believe it is possible.

 

[cmt1984]

im glad to see the poll results are 100% for evolution. i always looked at evolution as a fact. most people still consider it to be a theory and there is an alarming number who dont accept it at all but with the fairly recent discoveries of "missing link" fossils i dont see how anyone can deny it. i read a study not too long ago about how in 1995 there were a very small number of people who didnt have a certain muscle in their forearms and as of 2005 that number had almost doubled....evolution in the making. just imagine what the human race will look like in a million or so years...if we last that long that is.

 

[Brazko]

I would put my life on the line in support of evolution.

Why? Why hasn't anybody spilled the beans yet, and let the rest of the World community in on the secret of how we evolved. What information are you withholding? Please, Share!!

Would you say the same thing to a scientist who believes in the theory of gravity...?

The Force of Gravity is measurable, verifiable, and reproducible. That is why the proof of gravity, which is scientific fact, goes un-questioned. However, although Gravity is fact, the theory of gravity is not..., You should know this

No, we are not monkeys, we are apes. There's a difference. Though monkeys and apes are related...we are all in the order primata.

Evolutionary theory is empirically provable and does in fact follow the "modern" scientific method.

Jo G, I see your logical and reasoned mind didn't get the Monkey bit, it wasn't supposed to be (nevermind)....

The evolutionary theory is not empirically provable because it does in fact follow the "modern" Scientific method.. That is why it is not Scientific fact. Changes within a species has been documented, but I haven't personally came across the "one thing into another" empirical proof yet.. I mean personally, I can observe the likeness in species, but never ran across the fossils and scientific evidence that demostrated and explained this is why and how. Could you please provide the resources you and others have used to show this empirical data. I believe what we have observed and what science has been able to uncover so far points to the possibility and likeness that species evolved from a singular. But so far, this theory has failed to become complete due to the "modern" scientific method. Let's not confuse Evolution as being fact vs. the Evolution theory being fact. There is a difference.


And please, could you discern as what you are calling fact (Anybody). Evolution is fact to me in the sense that I can observe the changes in a species. Evolution in theory is simply without commanding scientific proof in how and what we evolved from. So although I believe it to be possible and probable, it doesn't make it scientific fact or, closed to discussion, but if it's a touchy issue for you all, I rather not discuss .

I'm still in awe that Belief has been used so repetitiously in this thread so far, It's like blasphemy

 

[PadawanBater]

Why? Why hasn't anybody spilled the beans yet, and let the rest of the World community in on the secret of how we evolved. What information are you withholding? Please, Share!!




The Force of Gravity is measurable, verifiable, and reproducible. That is why the proof of gravity, which is scientific fact, goes un-questioned. However, although Gravity is fact, the theory of gravity is not..., You should know this



Jo G, I see your logical and reasoned mind didn't get the Monkey bit, it wasn't supposed to be (nevermind)....

The evolutionary theory is not empirically provable because it does in fact follow the "modern" Scientific method.. That is why it is not Scientific fact. Changes within a species has been documented, but I haven't personally came across the "one thing into another" empirical proof yet.. I mean personally, I can observe the likeness in species, but never ran across the fossils and scientific evidence that demostrated and explained this is why and how. Could you please provide the resources you and others have used to show this empirical data. I believe what we have observed and what science has been able to uncover so far points to the possibility and likeness that species evolved from a singular. But so far, this theory has failed to become complete due to the "modern" scientific method. Let's not confuse Evolution as being fact vs. the Evolution theory being fact. There is a difference.


And please, could you discern as what you are calling fact (Anybody). Evolution is fact to me in the sense that I can observe the changes in a species. Evolution in theory is simply without commanding scientific proof in how and what we evolved from. So although I believe it to be possible and probable, it doesn't make it scientific fact or, closed to discussion, but if it's a touchy issue for you all, I rather not discuss .

I'm still in awe that Belief has been used so repetitiously in this thread so far, It's like blasphemy

You're right, "belief" is probably the wrong word to use, as one doesn't "believe" in the theory of evolution, one accepts it. So that's probably the more appropriate word to use.

For the proof;

-tiktaalik - without a doubt, one of the strongest fossils in existence that supports the theory. It's a transition from a water dwelling animal to a swamp/marsh dwelling animal. It's the first creature we've discovered that shows the earliest signs of the wrist bones. These bones were predicted to exist in this animal, at the location it was discovered because of the age of the rocks it was in. Scientists checked the age of known sites, decided they needed to search for rocks between 400-375 million years old (as we have plenty of fossils dated older than 400 million years with no remnants of wrists or other appendages, and other fossils younger than 375 million years old with clear signs of wrists and legs) went to the site that was the least explored, and vuala! there it was, sitting in the exact location as the theory predicted!

-gene sequencing - without a shadow of a doubt PROVES we are related to other animals

-mitochondrial DNA - PROVES without a shadow of a doubt we evolved from parent organisms that were significantly different than we are today, and PROVES that we descended from the great ape subspecies

-fossils

-the fact each species that descended from organisms like tiktaalik (which would include all mammals, all reptiles and all amphibians) have the same pattern of anatomy - head with all five senses linked to the brain, two limbs on the top part of our bodies with one bone linking to the body followed by two bones linking to the fingers (or toes), two limbs on the bottom part of our bodies that follow the same pattern as well. Is it just a coincidence almost every animal on the planet shares this common anatomical pattern?

-I'd mention DNA, the building blocks of all life and that each living organism ever discovered has the same exact pattern, ATGC - but it's not exactly proof.

-it's been observed dozens of times by scientists, yes MACRO evolution, one species into another species has been observed.

followed by a thousand other things I didn't list... but there's a start.

I'm proud of you Braz, I remember a while back you were much more skeptical about the theory, it looks like you've been making some progress!

 

[mindphuk]

Not to mention the most damning evidence to anyone that claims evolution isn't a fact is the twin nested hierarchy of species. This is confirmed in both directions, from the bottom up with phylogeny and from the top down with gene sequencing. Evolution occurred because these is no other reasonable explanation for what we see in nature. It is confirmed many times over with every new discovery a possibility to falsify the claims but nothing ever does. It supports and is supported by every other major branch of science. It meshes seamlessly with chemistry, plate tectonics, nuclear physics, anthropology, genetics, paleontology, geology, earth science, and even astronomy. Evolution is the foundation for all of modern biology, without it, there is no biology. No theory has been as successful in making predictions as evolution. In light of the mountains of evidence, nothing else makes sense.

Brazco, you must no nothing of the scientific method if you don't think evolution is scientific. The Origin of Species was wholly scientific. It provided a clear explanation of the hypothesis, it made predictions, and listed ways that it could be falsified. It's not considered a classic of modern science for nothing.

 

[Brazko]

, I've never been Skeptical of evolution.., you don't follow well sometimes Paddy....., The first thread I posted in this section was about evolution, an all inclusive nut in the shell thread. The information you just shared is not scientifically conclusive to Macro evolution.. This has nothing to do with assumptions, or beliefs.. As a matter of fact, it has everything to do with assumptions, and beliefs. That is why it is not Fact, or Law... (Macro) The theory .. It doesn't matter what I believe, It's not Scientific fact, Yet!!

I'm proud of you Braz, I remember a while back you were much more skeptical about the theory, it looks like you've been making some progress!

Ditto

Not to mention the most damning evidence to anyone that claims evolution isn't a fact is the twin nested hierarchy of species. This is confirmed in both directions, from the bottom up with phylogeny and from the top down with gene sequencing. Evolution occurred because these is no other reasonable explanation for what we see in nature. It is confirmed many times over with every new discovery a possibility to falsify the claims but nothing ever does. It supports and is supported by every other major branch of science. It meshes seamlessly with chemistry, plate tectonics, nuclear physics, anthropology, genetics, paleontology, geology, earth science, and even astronomy. Evolution is the foundation for all of modern biology, without it, there is no biology. No theory has been as successful in making predictions as evolution. In light of the mountains of evidence, nothing else makes sense.

Brazco, you must no nothing of the scientific method if you don't think evolution is scientific. The Origin of Species was wholly scientific. It provided a clear explanation of the hypothesis, it made predictions, and listed ways that it could be falsified. It's not considered a classic of modern science for nothing.

 

[Brazko]

Question - Did we evolve from a singular species, or a select gene pool?

 

[mindphuk]

, I've never been Skeptical of evolution.., you don't follow well sometimes Paddy....., The first thread I posted in this section was about evolution, an all inclusive nut in the shell thread. The information you just shared is not scientifically conclusive to Macro evolution.. This has nothing to do with assumptions, or beliefs.. As a matter of fact, it has everything to do with assumptions, and beliefs. That is why it is not Fact, or Law... (Macro) The theory .. It doesn't matter what I believe, It's not Scientific fact, Yet!!



Ditto

Ditto my ass!
Again, you don't understand science by your very words. There is no hierarchy in science that theories somehow turn into facts or laws. Laws are merely observations as are facts. Theories are the explanations that tie all of the facts and laws together. Only theories have this explanatory power and only theories can make predictions of things not yet observed.
No one is saying you're skeptical of evolution but you are misusing terms and misunderstand what the scientific method is about. Theories however are merely models, approximations of reality. Every theory will eventually be superseded by a modification. Einstein did it to Newton and we know that as powerful and successful as general relativity and the standard model of quantum mechanics have been, we know that they both can't be correct. The standard model is missing a fundamental force of gravity while general relativity breaks down at the quantum level.

Just as we see the effects of gravity and subatomic particles that we can't see, we likewise see the effects of biological evolution. General relativity, atomic theory and evolution are all built on the same scientific method of observation, hypothesis, testing and falsification. What part specifically of the scientific method does evolution fail? As I explained before, just because we can't run a million-year 'experiment', doesn't mean that we aren't able to test the claims of evolution by indirect methods. We only have indirect evidence for chemistry and atomic theory, do you put them in the same category of not following the scientific method?

 

[mindphuk]

Question - Did we evolve from a singular species, or a select gene pool?

It's very unlikely a single species since prokaryotes have a lot of horizontal gene transfer.