Evolution

[aljana]

[/quote]Lets just nip this one in the bud. Faith is belief without evidence. There is evidence. We might be wrong, but faith != belief.[/quote]

How do the two sentences above fit together?

There is evidence.

We might be wrong.

Either Hitler killed the jew or he didn't.
You cannot say ' He gave oder to do so, but we might be wrong.'
6.000.000 corpses prooved that he did, right?
This is an evidence.

If we might be wrong, then we don't really know we just assume what is most likely.
Progression in science is always one concept based on the knowledge before.

I say myself, it is most likely, that there wasn't just day six of the creation and 'flum' an elefant fell out of heaven. we assume it was a long way from a mammoth to a Loxodonta africana. We calculate things for example on our knowledge of C14 atoms going after a certaind half value period into C12. And we know exactly in which time this happens.
Was there ever a scientist who sat there over 5000 years controlling if it really goes this way?

Mr. Libby who got the Nobel price for that method could only use the knowledge we already had when he started his studies. Probably there is one big mistake in this previous knowledge, what then?
It's not likely, that he is wrong, but as you yourself said it might be.

I am just saying don't take a theory absolut. It's always dangerous

And @ Aurgelmir: This is what I am trying to tell, these Hypothese are not contrarary to each other.
As far as we do know life on earth was'nt just there as it is today, it developed. But there must have been so many many many almost impossible coincidences to make our earth what it is today, do you really think this could happen another time without anyone doing anything to it?

Isn't that why scientist are trying to find a second earth somewhere out there? They are desperate to proove that it could have happened twice.

I think this, this accumulation of coincidences leading to a wonderful living world like we have, is proof for a concept behind it.

 

[aljana]

I get the impression that you are really lacking of arguments or why are you that short-spoken?

I don't know in which country you're living but in my country there will be no release if there is a real evidence for guilt.

 

[Eisenfaust]

ever heard of the example of the silver moths? it's what i always use to explain survival of the fittest/how the mutations lasted...

so there's this silver bark tree, covered in silver moths... every now and then, a black moth is born, but because the moth is black and the tree is silver, birds can spot the moth and swiftly eat it... however, at some point the tree burns, and the silver bark turns black. the moths, who weren't killed in the fire, are still on the tree, except now the silver moths stand out against the black bark, and can be seen and eaten, while the black moths can hide. i this case, the dominant population before the burning becomes the minority after the burning because they are less suited to survival in that environment

it's just that occasionally random mutations would occur, not necessarily major ones, but some creature is born with something that makes them the best at whatever they do and survive long enough to procreate and pass on their genes...

just imagine how many useless mutations are sitting in the cosmic trash-bin somewhere...

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Yet you're are not understanding what I am saying. I have cited examples of evolution I know it is real and there. I have never said it is not there. What I am saying is and people are taking like like this it is not absolute truth. We could always have a major revelation and the theory of it can side step so to speak. To show 2 theories where this has happen just look at our theory of atoms and light. This is what I am talking about. Those 2 theories had more or less complete overhauls and this could happen to evolution which is why it is a theory and subject to change.

I have never been arguing it is not there or unobservable. I have been arguing that it is not a constant unchangeable truth. No theory is.

No, you aren't understanding what we are saying.

No one here says that Evolution is complete. What we are saying is that it occurs. Same as you.

The difference is that, when more is learned, Evolution will not be replaced - it will be revised. Evolution occurs, just like gravity. We may learn more about the method, but the theory will continue to be called Evolution because that's what is happening.

Just like a change in the understanding of gravity didn't change the name of "gravity" to anything else. The theory got updated, that's all.

Or, to use your example, when light was proven to be both a wave and a particle, we didn't start calling it something else. It is still light. Everything we already knew about light (it's speed, that it is radiation, etc) was still correct - we just added to it with a sudden new understanding of how it worked.

If we learn that there is another process to mutation - some sort of mechanic we can't imagine - then great. It's still Evolution, it would just be that we understand it better.

The understanding of Evolution has changed over the years. No one still follows the exact thoughts of Darwin or the others from a hundred years ago. We know tons more about genetics now. Evolution IS a changing, adaptable theory - which is why it should be taught, because it does occur, even if takes us another century to figure out exactly how.

We are arguing against creationist who have a much worse... "notion" - that everything was plonked down exactly as it is. Which we can disprove by observing the world. Have you ever seen a beagle? Notice how it isn't a wolf? There you go - creationism is invalid.

Intelligent design is a little nicer. It says that evolution works because God wanted it to lead to humans. Which is all well and good, but it just means that, once again, Evolution works - the rest is faith. Christian faith, usually. So if you want to say "evolution is caused by god" as part of your religion, dandy, but don't teach it in schools because it isn't science - it is a religious explanation for science.

Personally, I think that the gods created evolution, physics, and all the other natural laws. Then they got the hell out of the way and let things take their course, with no idea what would come out the other end. Humans (and all other life) are what happened, and the gods were like "cool" - and here we are. But, again, that's my religious view, not my scientific view. My religious view has no effect on my scientific view - it is merely my belief in where science came from in the first place. If the science changes (as it must) then it will have no affect on my religious view.

tldr: No one said Evolution didn't have room for improvements. But it is not going to be replaced - it may be revised with additional information, but it is observable and as correct as we can currently make it. Evolution occurs. The exact mechanics behind those changes are the only thing even slightly in question.

 

[RuralGamer]

A few things of note;

Spoiler

The Coelocanth; for a while this fish was hailed as evidence that fish evolved fins that could be used for walking; it was supposed to have died out 65 million years ago. Then in 1938 one was caught off the east coast of Africa and its "walking fins" were found to be of no use to it at all for walking; its a deep-water fish and doesn't walk on anything.
The whole horse evolutionary diagram often used as evidence has even been denounced by evolutionists as being a fake; the animals used in the diagram to show horses evolving to be larger and changing from having four toes to one hoof; the animals used are from different, unrelated families.
The peppered moths evolution can also be criticised; Bernard Kettlewell's experiment to prove it involved releasing moths into the environment (both normal and melanistic) and documenting what occured in the population; the problem is that by doing it during the day, the moths automatically landed and rested on the first surface they found, rather than where they would naturally go; the experiment was flawed, yet its still commonly used as proof of evolution.
Ernst Haeckel was a proponent of the recapitulation theory which he and Darwin claimed supported evolution; problem is that his drawings he made to support his argument were altered to make the embryos look more similar than they actually are. Haeckel was also one of the first proponents of Social Darwinism and scientific racism; Hitler admired his work and on at least one occasion loosely quoted him during a speech.
My point is; scientists haven't always been entirely honest about their evidence. I'm sceptical about a lot they've said and I've yet to see anything conclusive, so I don't believe in it.

Its still the Theory of evolution rather than the Law(s) of evolution, showing that it is not yet regarded a fact by the scientific community; in 2001 100 British scientists took out an advertisement in a newspaper stating that they did not feel their was sufficient evidence to claim evolution was fact. In other words, there are a significant number of people in said community who do not see it as fact; they may see it as a possibility, but not a truth.

 

[Ben Hussong]

A few things of note;

Spoiler

The Coelocanth; for a while this fish was hailed as evidence that fish evolved fins that could be used for walking; it was supposed to have died out 65 million years ago. Then in 1938 one was caught off the east coast of Africa and its "walking fins" were found to be of no use to it at all for walking; its a deep-water fish and doesn't walk on anything.
The whole horse evolutionary diagram often used as evidence has even been denounced by evolutionists as being a fake; the animals used in the diagram to show horses evolving to be larger and changing from having four toes to one hoof; the animals used are from different, unrelated families.
The peppered moths evolution can also be criticised; Bernard Kettlewell's experiment to prove it involved releasing moths into the environment (both normal and melanistic) and documenting what occured in the population; the problem is that by doing it during the day, the moths automatically landed and rested on the first surface they found, rather than where they would naturally go; the experiment was flawed, yet its still commonly used as proof of evolution.
Ernst Haeckel was a proponent of the recapitulation theory which he and Darwin claimed supported evolution; problem is that his drawings he made to support his argument were altered to make the embryos look more similar than they actually are. Haeckel was also one of the first proponents of Social Darwinism and scientific racism; Hitler admired his work and on at least one occasion loosely quoted him during a speech.
My point is; scientists haven't always been entirely honest about their evidence. I'm sceptical about a lot they've said and I've yet to see anything conclusive, so I don't believe in it.

Its still the Theory of evolution rather than the Law(s) of evolution, showing that it is not yet regarded a fact by the scientific community; in 2001 100 British scientists took out an advertisement in a newspaper stating that they did not feel their was sufficient evidence to claim evolution was fact. In other words, there are a significant number of people in said community who do not see it as fact; they may see it as a possibility, but not a truth.

so the theory of gravity inst widely accepted, nor is germ "theory"?

 

[ThisIsSnake]

Isn't that why scientist are trying to find a second earth somewhere out there? They are desperate to proove that it could have happened twice.

I think this, this accumulation of coincidences leading to a wonderful living world like we have, is proof for a concept behind it.

Sorry but I skipped through the bad analogies and such to pick out a lovely corn of bullshit. The reason scientists look for other S3 planets is several:

1. Space exploration - a pre existing S3 planet will be invaluable if we traverse space in the future.
2. Origin of life - !THIS IS NOT TO FIND OUT IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE! This relates to the Primordial Ooze hypothesis of how life started on Earth, if life is present where we find water in the same state as it is on Earth (something that is near impossible to test on earth alone due to the sheer amount of time and possible contamination aspects involved in such tests)
3. Curiousity - Earth like planets are pretty rare and fill us with thoughts of Star Wars like sci-fi universes so the prospect of finding one is always exciting.

 

[ThisIsSnake]

so the theory of gravity inst widely accepted, nor is germ "theory"?

This is grave news for the Brontosaurus theory of M. Python

 

[RuralGamer]

Snip-

so the theory of gravity inst widely accepted, nor is germ "theory"?

Its known as the Law of gravity, no? Germs theory sounds a stupid name for it; it can be proven that germs cause diseases, but proving evolution is not as simple, if not impossible because it cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory or though a mathematical equation, which most of what science has discovered can.

 

[RuralGamer]

Snip-

so the theory of gravity inst widely accepted, nor is germ "theory"?

Its known as the Law of gravity, no?

no, actually:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_gravitation


now, FLOAT WITH ME MY BROTHERS!

Gravity is a fact because you can prove it by dropping water balloons out of your window onto a passer-by. The article is actually called Gravitation, a word which till today I didn't even know existed to describe the whole thing.

 

[Ben Hussong]

Snip-

so the theory of gravity inst widely accepted, nor is germ "theory"?

Its known as the Law of gravity, no? Germs theory sounds a stupid name for it; it can be proven that germs cause diseases, but proving evolution is not as simple, if not impossible because it cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory or though a mathematical equation, which most of what science has discovered can.

from nasa.gov http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgravity.html " Newton's THEORY of gravitation"

 

[Ben Hussong]

Also theory of relativity, and blah blah blah, theory does not mean " unproven" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

 

[RuralGamer]

Snip-

so the theory of gravity inst widely accepted, nor is germ "theory"?

Its known as the Law of gravity, no? Germs theory sounds a stupid name for it; it can be proven that germs cause diseases, but proving evolution is not as simple, if not impossible because it cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory or though a mathematical equation, which most of what science has discovered can.

from nasa.gov http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgravity.html " Newton's THEORY of gravitation"

OK, I concede that for some stupid reason its called a theory, even though it should be a law, considering we know it exists, can prove it in an experiment and with an equation.