Evolutionism

There is the theory of evolution from a scientific view . . .

And then there is the concept of evolution, as in a process, which may or may not apply to a scientific view.

I don't vote for the word evolution getting an ISM on the basis that creationism has one.

The word creationism came about to battle darwinism. The dictionary defines creationism entirely as thought system related to human/world creation from a Being without. It also shows the origin of the word to placed in the mid 19th century. . But . . .

The present definition of Creationism (as in a specific theory) is an error in language that has stuck.

The word creationism, is formed by creation & ism, and is gorgeous in it's own right. Look each one up in the dictionary . . . .

I do accept that dictionaries include words based on popular usage, yet I really don't care for the limits applied to the word creationism. It is not because of the "ism" . . it's the limitations of the definition.

Evidence of evolution. The forces that drive evolution are Mutation, Migration, Genetic Drift, Natural Selection and Sexual selection.
We can see this happening around us. Good examples include a newt in Califronia which you can follow and see gradually change with location http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDIQFQOCGaI. The famous peppered moth of Europe that changed from white to black when London’s pollution changed their trees black, then back to white moths when air good cleaner. Most notably antibiotic resistant bacteria, bacteria that thrive on eating nylon a substance that doesn’t exist in nature. We can observe in real time HIV change to adapt to viral suppression medications. Rattle Snakes here in the southwest have changed to rattle less because people hear and kill them when they do. Insects are gaining resistance to certain pesticides. I can go on and on with examples.

In Humans, the average human was 5’3” and 130 about 400 years ago. Females are selecting larger males. The Human body has several vestigial features (organs that were useful but are not longer). We have useless air all over our bodies, an appendix that digests cellulose in other animals, but does nothing for us. Wisdom teeth that don’t even fit in our jaw anymore.

We can see these changes happen in the wild and in a laboratory setting. We know evolution happens and it’s a fact. Creationism offers no evidence of anything and only points out gabs of knowledge in our understanding of how some creature changed in the past, but those gaps are being filled everyday as we study and learn more. The evidence that all life evolved on earth from simpler organisms is overwhelming. There is almost as much evidence for the theory of evolution as there is evidence that the earth is round.

Rattle Snakes here in the southwest have changed to rattle less

Rattle Snakes in both the South West and South East still have rattles. Their sound is now at a frequency that humans cannot hear, but other animals can, due to the fact that humans kill them as soon as they hear them.

-Lived in Texas, Florida, and South Carolina, and worked with various herps and helped relocate rattlers as a side job.

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

I am aware of these and more,lol...

You had said you had done experiments that proved it... I was looking for something I could see now.. lol...

Something like flatworms, or whatever, that is quick to adapt and notice...

Several lifetimes or generations of mutations, isnt usually done in a 'experimental' type setting...

As to the topic, if someone believes it, it is a belief... lol... duhr...

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.