Evolutionism

We've done experiments were we take different species of protozoa and had them compete over periods of months and seen one species wipe out the other by adapting quicker. The ever changing FLU is a common experiment that goes on all the time in us.

As far as speed you're looking at months to years as evolution is gradual change unless you look at bacteria or virus' which change quickly. HIV in the human body can change ever letter of it's genome once ever 24 hours and ever 2 two letters once ever 7 days.

A lot of the people I work with go out into the field and measure live animals and record how they slowly change. Just yesterday I was looking at data on how Gila Monsters were changing to adapt to live on golf courses here in Arizona.

Oh, excellent...

I forget you are some kind of a lab rat... ... lol...

I just thought you were referring to something a little more observable... :dry:

But you can observe evolution and evolution is a proven fact. Wether the theory of evolution is true which stats all life on earth derived from a single organism cannot be proven because we dont have a time machine to go back and see if it didnt come from another source.

But yes evolution is an observable fact and ive personally done experiments in a labartory and seen it.

Did you see my post quoting Asimov?

Creationists have it "mostly right"... lol...

They just see and define... They dont wonder...

In my opinion, "God"/ the force, is evolution, and therefore, yes, he/it, made all this...

He made the world in seven days, but how long is a "day" to god? Like a year to a housefly?

Just talking...

Streen wrote: My parents are Christian Baptists so I've learned a thing or two about the battle between Creationism and Evolutionism.

This shows you how strong beliefs can be.

ChillBroBaggins wrote: I will second the assertion that evolution is a fact. Here is one strong piece of evidence:

Evolution is not fact. You have good observations and a sound theory and in your “Final Thoughts” you formulated a well proposed statement that I have no issue with; but, that does not constitute fact.

Br John...
I respect you as an individual and I respect your ideas and opinions. But the article you linked to is not entirely accurate. They cited a few other documents where they took their interpretation of what was stated and worded things to support their argument.

I agree with the statement in the link,

“In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.”

That is correct.

“we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.”

Is not entirely correct.

“A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory”

is not entirely incorrect.


Personally, I think that is not one of the better links to point people to. It is very misleading and contains several inaccuracies.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use.

A few theories do become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon.


I am normally pretty passive when it comes to people’s opinions and how they choose to interpret things. But the scientific method and the structure we use to determine theories and law is not open to opinion, debate. Having a ridged structure to follow creates an even playing field where information can be gathered and recorded. Now if we could only get people to interpret said information without bias.

There is an abundance of information and observable data which supports the theory of evolution. I have no issue with the theory. But these observations neither make evolution “fact” or Law.”

•Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
•Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
•Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
•Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

National Academy of Sciences

Jestor wrote: Oh, excellent...

I forget you are some kind of a lab rat... ... lol...

I just thought you were referring to something a little more observable... :dry:

But you can observe evolution and evolution is a proven fact. Wether the theory of evolution is true which stats all life on earth derived from a single organism cannot be proven because we dont have a time machine to go back and see if it didnt come from another source.

But yes evolution is an observable fact and ive personally done experiments in a labartory and seen it.

Did you see my post quoting Asimov?

Creationists have it "mostly right"... lol...

They just see and define... They dont wonder...

In my opinion, "God"/ the force, is evolution, and therefore, yes, he/it, made all this...

He made the world in seven days, but how long is a "day" to god? Like a year to a housefly?

Just talking...

Well then we will have to define the difference between creationism and evolution. Creationism believes an intelligent being intervened in the creation of modern creatures. Evolution states that modern creatures evolved by natural means (no intervention). There is no evidence of divine intervention and we can explain almost all (you'd need a PhD for the stuff we don't know) aspects of the evolution of organic life on earth by natural means.

Now if you want to say some power set up the rules of nature I can't argue either way because there is no way to know that yet ,but its very clear that once the universe got started in this state intervention was no longer needed and that is the difference between creationism and evolution.

Wescli, by the definition of "Fact" that you quoted from the National Academy of Sciences, evolution is actually a fact. It is an observation that has been repeatedly and independantly confirmed by numerous subjects. Evolution for all intents and purposes is true, it is a fact about as actual as one can get. Now, the theory of evolution and speciation by means of natural selection and several others, that is not a fact. That is a scientific theory, a model that more or less accurately describes and explains the factual process of evolution in nature. It may be incomplete and imperfect, which is why it is deemed a model of evolution, a theory of evolution.
But evolution itself pretty much is a fact, and indeed our theory of it is one of the most accurate models of a real phenomenon we ever discovered. Our theories of gravity are nowhere near as close and as reliable as our theory of evolution but for some reason the fact of evolution is denied for that reason while the fact of gravity was never in dispute.

Now, as for the usual creationist fallacy that for some reason no one pointed out here, the theory of evolution does only explain the diversity of life. It does not account for any origins nor does it ever claim to. Creationists usually try to say it does which unfortunately only testifies to their ignorance of what it is they are opposing. Indeed it has been observed multiple times how creationists will accept every single bit of the theory of evolution but then deny the label because of the strawman that they have constructed under that label.
And if there was some sort of theory accounting for origins of everything in the way that creationists claim evolutionary theory does, and it was even half as well tested and understood as the theory of evolution, they would still under no circumstances be worthy of equivocation. Comparing evolutionary biology to creationism is about as out of place as comparing plate tectonics to flat-earth geology.

Before posting I was tempted to yet again write an open invitation to an informal public debate, but now that I think about it again, perhaps even the little public that TOTJO is, is still too much of a platform for creationism... If however anyone considers that there is some benefit to be gained from the humiliation to both participants that this necessarily must end up being, feel free to challenge me.

Vesha wrote: Well then we will have to define the difference between creationism and evolution. Creationism believes an intelligent being intervened in the creation of modern creatures. Evolution states that modern creatures evolved by natural means (no intervention). There is no evidence of divine intervention and we can explain almost all (you'd need a PhD for the stuff we don't know) aspects of the evolution of organic life on earth by natural means.

Admittedly, I am not scientifically minded, but are the two therories really exclusive of each other? I dont for a second believe that the world was litterally created in 7 days, but at the same time, how do you see evidence of divine intervention? The fact that we can explain scientifically how things work in an extraordinarily complex system of life doesnt nessesarily mean that there wasnt intervention. When people say intervention I think theres an assuption that an intelligent being just dropped fully formed creatures on the planet and was done with it, is it not possible that evolution is a part of a divine design created to operate within certain laws? Seems an intelligent design to me...

@ Gisteron...

That is correct. It was not my intent to imply that evolution is not a fact (or that things do not evolve). There are several documented occurrences where evolution has taken place. I was referring to the theory of Evolution.

@Brenna the idea that creatures were fully formed as is, is what creationism is and why its an ism unlike evolution.

The idea the universe was created with a purpose is called Theism, the idea it was created is called deism, the idea the universe always existed in one form or another without intervention is called atheism.

More appropriate, I should think, is the view that God created the universe out of an interest in spontaneous creativity - that he wanted nature to produce surprises, phenomena that he himself could not have foreseen. What would such a creative universe be like? Well, it would for one thing be impossible to predict in detail. And this seems to be the case with the universe we inhabit.

The information theorists find that even if the entire universe were a computer, or could be converted into a computer of the maximum theoretically possible capacity, that computer would be incapable of predicting all future phenomena. Further, a creative universe should give rise to agencies that are themselves creative, which is to say unpredictable. There is in our universe such an agency, spectacularly successful at reversing the dreary slide of entropy and making surprising things happen. We call it life. It would be suitable if this agency were to inquire into the workings of the universe, winnowing out the predictable from the unpredictable and inventing theories to account for the difference. And that is what intelligence does. Better still if thinking creatures were to perceive that they are all in the same boat --- "Poor, benighted members of the same ship's company," in Adlai Stevenson's phrase --- and hence treat one another kindly and assert that God is Love. And so we do, though not often enough.

Finally, in a creative universe God would betray no trace of his presence, since to do so would be to rob the creative forces of their independence, to turn them from the active pursuit of answers to mere supplication of God. And so it is: God's language is silence.

[O]ne can learn to live with ambiguity - that much is requisite to the seeking spirit - and with the silence of the stars.

All who genuinely seek to learn, whether atheist or believer, scientist or mystic, are united in having not a faith but faith itself. Its token is reverence, its habit to respect the eloquence of silence. For God's hand may be a human hand, if you reach out in loving kindness, and God's voice your voice, if you but speak the truth.

---

Timothy Ferris