Presenting 'the scientific theory of' evolution

[Lugnut]

Originally Posted by This_person

anything against one theory is just plain wrong.

:sigh: It's not that simple

If observations are made, a hypothesis formed, experiments are performed and repeated for verification by many people in many labs, a law established, a theory formed, more experiments and observations are performed to verify the results of not just the past hypothesis, but the law, and the theory as well...

And somebody comes along and says "That theory is wrong" then that somebody better be able to show...

Enough observations made to form a hypothesis, experiments performed and repeated to verify that hypothesis and support the new law(s)/theor(y/ies), as well...

Otherwise, the old theory continues to be generally accepted, until that "somebody" produces quality data showing otherwise...

I am continually amazed by people that will take health advice/car/stock/computer and research the hell (no pun intended) out of it before making a decision and yet with something they feel is infinitely more important, the soul, they will make a life altering decision based on... Faith...

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Lugnut

:sigh: It's not that simple

If observations are made, a hypothesis formed, experiments are performed and repeated for verification by many people in many labs, a law established, a theory formed, more experiments and observations are performed to verify the results of not just the past hypothesis, but the law, and the theory as well...

And somebody comes along and says "That theory is wrong" then that somebody better be able to show...

Enough observations made to form a hypothesis, experiments performed and repeated to verify that hypothesis and support the new law(s)/theor(y/ies), as well...

Otherwise, the old theory continues to be generally accepted, until that "somebody" produces quality data showing otherwise...

I am continually amazed by people that will take health advice/car/stock/computer and research the hell (no pun intended) out of it before making a decision and yet with something they feel is infinitely more important, the soul, they will make a life altering decision based on... Faith...

Of course it's not that simple. I understand that.

But, when it comes to my soul, I believe I have one because of my faith in a supreme being. In my way of thinking, there can be no soul without one.

When it comes to theories, I read a lot in your link (among others) about environmental changes causing biological changes. However, what I didn't read was inclusion that many changes occur without need, or that needed changes don't occur. Thus, maintaining the "theory" status of evolution as an answer.

As for Intelligent Design, show me another planet of similar age and circumstance that has life, or (even better) an older planet that had life. Any other life anywhere. They came close with the Mars asteroid, but found out that it wasn't so true. So, there's a theory that states an Intelligent Designer chose this planet, created life (no one's been able to come up with how life formed, let alone how sea weed and mosquitoes and octopus and humans all came from that one cell), and this is it. No other planet has life that we've been able to ascertain (hypothesis to theory).

They're equal theories, with an open mind (note, I'm not implying the concept of evolving species is wrong, just that there is a competing theory of equal status).

[This_person]

Originally Posted by nhboy

Glad you found it interesting!

What's YOUR opinion? Why did you post this?

[nhboy]

Originally Posted by This_person

What's YOUR opinion? Why did you post this?

#1: I think the theory of evolution is around to stay and should be taught in science classes. I also think that religions should be taught comparatively.

#2: Because I can? Because I enjoy reading what others have to say? Also some of the comments are interesting enough to motivate further research on my part.

[Lugnut]

Originally Posted by This_person

When it comes to theories, I read a lot in your link (among others) about environmental changes causing biological changes. However, what I didn't read was inclusion that many changes occur without need, or that needed changes don't occur. Thus, maintaining the "theory" status of evolution as an answer.

As for Intelligent Design, show me another planet of similar age and circumstance that has life, or (even better) an older planet that had life. Any other life anywhere. They came close with the Mars asteroid, but found out that it wasn't so true. So, there's a theory that states an Intelligent Designer chose this planet, created life (no one's been able to come up with how life formed, let alone how sea weed and mosquitoes and octopus and humans all came from that one cell), and this is it. No other planet has life that we've been able to ascertain (hypothesis to theory).

We're slipping back off the same page with regard to the meaning of the word "theory" I'm talking about theory as in, backed with repeatable observation and experimentation.

Evolution is the change in information contained within genes, over time. The information encoded within genes does indeed change over time. That is a fact. We know this.

"Need" has nothing to do with evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory says there is a purposeful effort behind the changes in genes. Frogs don't say, alright guys, the weather is getting colder we need to make a few changes... There are (in all organisms!) changes/mutations that are useless, harmful, beneficial, and every gradient between.

Oh come on now "show me another plaet..." If I could do that...

If I understand correctly, Intelligent design is based off the close observation of a single planet over the last how many years? I keep seeing 6000 thrown about as the age of the world according to the bible.

So, 1 planet observed for 6000 years (with the ability to ACTUALLY observe other planets considerably shorter than that) and ID'ers jump to the conclusion that there is no life anywhere else in the ENTIRE universe.

Quick google search turns up 10^22 stars in the universe. If only ONE star in a MILLION has planets in it's orbit, that's 10^16 star systems with planets, or 10,000,000,000,000,000 systems. How many planets in each system?

And all of it pronounced dead as a door nail before we even check for a pulse???



It gets even more uncomfortable when you find things like this...

U.S. PATENT NO. 6,057,424

"METHOD AND APPARATUS TO SYNTHESIZE DNA AND DNA-LIKE
MOLECULAR STRUCTURES BY APPLYING ELECTRIC FIELDS
TO GASEOUS MIXTURES OF CHEMICAL REACTANTS
CONTAINING TEMPLATE PARTICULATE MATTER"

[This_person]

Originally Posted by nhboy

#1: I think the theory of evolution is around to stay and should be taught in science classes. I also think that religions should be taught comparatively.

#2: Because I can? Because I enjoy reading what others have to say? Also some of the comments are interesting enough to motivate further research on my part.

Thanks for the answer!! You post a lot, but rarely offer anything with it, like "can you believe this crap", or "It's about time someone reported this". It's sometimes like that Mike Myers female character on SNL - "here's a topic, discuss". It would be nice if YOU discussed your posts sometimes.

[Gwydion]

Furthermore, the theory of evolution does NOT only apply as an answer to how we came into existence. It can be applied to anything evolving, to make itself more adaptable and better fit to survive its current situation.

As far as "we haven't seen any proof of life on another planet" its because we haven't even made a dent into looking at the gabzillions of other stars and planets out there. Life evolved on THIS planet becuase it was ABLE to be formed on this planet. 99.99999999% of the planets that we have been able to study are nowhere near able to sustain life.


On a side note....wait until we can go inspect Europa, Callisto, and some of the other Jupiters moons. If you are expecting to discover life on another planet within your lifetime, that will be the place to look.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Lugnut

We're slipping back off the same page with regard to the meaning of the word "theory" I'm talking about theory as in, backed with repeatable observation and experimentation.

But, that's not the singular definition. And, it's not repeatable. What I mean by that is, given humans, we cannot go back and start over, and observe the same evolution occur. Thus, whatever it is that DOES cause the minor changes may not be a repeating event, it could be something else entirely. The best we can do is observe minor changes over some time, and draw hypothetical conclusions. We may be able to watch ameoba vary over generation after generation, but that means virtually nothing to me as a human.

Evolution is the change in information contained within genes, over time. The information encoded within genes does indeed change over time. That is a fact. We know this.

Okay, show me the common ancestor to apes and humans, and where that gene split occurred. Oh, wait, no one's ever done that yet. Thus, we're still talking conjecture, guess, supposition - theory.

"Need" has nothing to do with evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory says there is a purposeful effort behind the changes in genes. Frogs don't say, alright guys, the weather is getting colder we need to make a few changes... There are (in all organisms!) changes/mutations that are useless, harmful, beneficial, and every gradient between.

Well, now you're looking at an individual, not a population. Of course frogs don't spontaneously change, but the concept of suvival of the fittest is that mutations occur within the genes that allows for adaptation to changing enviroments.

Oh come on now "show me another plaet..." If I could do that...

Well, we do have evidence of other planets - visual, radio frequency, asteroids, etc. It's not THAT far-fetched

But, you see my point.

If I understand correctly, Intelligent design is based off the close observation of a single planet over the last how many years? I keep seeing 6000 thrown about as the age of the world according to the bible.

Well, no. The Bible doesn't ever say how old the world is. A man I inappropriately called a Catholic calculated this based upon his assumptions. And, Intelligent Design is not a Christian concept, so the Bible is not the appropriate reference, anyway. And, as I said above, we do have observable data from other planets.

So, 1 planet observed for 6000 years (with the ability to ACTUALLY observe other planets considerably shorter than that) and ID'ers jump to the conclusion that there is no life anywhere else in the ENTIRE universe.

Not conclusion - theory.

Quick google search turns up 10^22 stars in the universe. If only ONE star in a MILLION has planets in it's orbit, that's 10^16 star systems with planets, or 10,000,000,000,000,000 systems. How many planets in each system?

And all of it pronounced dead as a door nail before we even check for a pulse???

I watched Carl Sagan's Cosmos, too. Odds are, there are hundreds of thousands of other planets out there with life on it. That's another (you guessed it) theory. No proof one way or another yet. Have to take that on faith.

It gets even more uncomfortable when you find things like this...

U.S. PATENT NO. 6,057,424

"METHOD AND APPARATUS TO SYNTHESIZE DNA AND DNA-LIKE
MOLECULAR STRUCTURES BY APPLYING ELECTRIC FIELDS
TO GASEOUS MIXTURES OF CHEMICAL REACTANTS
CONTAINING TEMPLATE PARTICULATE MATTER"

When it can take lifeless muck and turn it into hundreds of millions of life forms, I'll buy that there's a chance life didn't start out from an Intelligent Designer.

[Lugnut]

That's the nature of anthropology, majority of it is observation. Damn time machines are just too unreliable. But at least the conclusions/hypothesis' drawn are based on actual observations. It's interesting that you admit you recognize that evolution ocurrs in other organisms but refuse to recognize it in humans.

Now we've jumped to COMPLETELY different pages with regard to the definition of "theory." You're using the word to mean hypothesis, the two are NOT THE SAME.

If you (the collective "you") claim that you have a functional theory that is relevant and disproves an existing scientific theory, it MUST meet the same criteria. Otherwise, well, it's just another HYPOTHESIS!

The link I posted above gives a decent description in laymens terms of "Theory" and what the criteria are for some thing to become "theory."

We've gone over the missing link before. I refuse to dig up the same stuff you refused to respond to in the past.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Lugnut

That's the nature of anthropology, majority of it is observation. Damn time machines are just too unreliable. But at least the conclusions/hypothesis' drawn are based on actual observations. It's interesting that you admit you recognize that evolution ocurrs in other organisms but refuse to recognize it in humans.

I admit humans have evolved, as well. I don't see it as an answer to much, though. Personally, every bit of evolution I've been shown can easily be explained away with medical and nutritional advances.

What I mean by it occuring unrepeatably is that, given another organism, we can observe many generations, and observe how two removed "families" can evolve into different variations of species - to the point of being unable to reproduce with one another. Can you create the SAME exact variations twice? Meaning, take and split into four, with two types having one set of circumstances and the other two sets having a different set of circumstances; the two sets should "evolve" the same if there is one type of mechanism driving it. Set 1A and 2A should be effectively unchanged from each other, but different from 1B and 2B (which would be effectively unchanged from each other). If there are four sets, all we've proven is that inbreeding is a problem, not evolution occurs.

Now we've jumped to COMPLETELY different pages with regard to the definition of "theory." You're using the word to mean hypothesis, the two are NOT THE SAME.

I agree, they're not exactly the same, but very similar in definition. Life on other planets is an unproven, untested hypothesis (one that, if true, would lend great credence to the theory of evolution). Evolution and ID are theories.

If you (the collective "you") claim that you have a functional theory that is relevant and disproves an existing scientific theory, it MUST meet the same criteria. Otherwise, well, it's just another HYPOTHESIS!

Well, actually, one theory does not need to disprove another to be valid. Evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive, because evolution does not attempt to ascertain the origin of life, and an intelligent designer could certainly have designed in a constantly growing/evolving set of life forms.

The link I posted above gives a decent description in laymens terms of "Theory" and what the criteria are for some thing to become "theory."

And, is but one way to do that. The definitions I provided do that, too.

We've gone over the missing link before. I refuse to dig up the same stuff you refused to respond to in the past.

I actually thought I'd responded. There's not a shred of evidence of a common ancestor, I thought wa smy response