Evolution

[Nimcha]

The thing is Evolution is only a theory(wouldn't be called a theory otherwise) and not fully complete

Oh God no. No no no no no.

No?
No.

Are you really going to argue like that?

I wasn't aware I was arguing at all. I was just telling you you're wrong.

How am I wrong? Are you going to sit there and tell me that things like Relativity and Evolution are full and complete because they are not. That is the beauty of Science. We always get one step closer to fully understanding the universe but we will probably never get there so there is always one more step to take. As I said we would be quite ignorant of various things if we just took a theory as true without trying to build on it.

Calling it "just a theory" implies it's not fact.

If it were fact, the logic surrounding it wouldn't change, but it does, showing that people do not know evolution to be a fact. Realistically, much of science is not fact because our understanding of it keeps changing, but we take it for granted, so you could technically say that much of science is actually faith.

Ugh, please, don't bring faith into this. Science has nothing to do with faith. This really is no place for science-philosophy, there's absolutely no harm in seeing the theory of evolution as an absolute fact because at the moment to us it is. Whether or not it'll be completely reworked in 10 years is irrelevant.

Have you ever seen the evidence of the existence of subatomic particles? If not, do you believe in them anyway? If so, that is faith. If believing is not seeing, then that is, arguably, faith.

No. And no. And no again. Refer to my first post please.

 

[Danzaivar]

We can't really evolve from apes when we are apes. That is a bad statement to make. To say we evolved from apes is more to say we evolved to monkeys ie have tails. I do see what you are but it is badly put across.

Also I would like to say that thinking something is fine just because it is fact by science is not a good idea. We should always strive to improve on theories like Evoultion so we can build a more complete model of what it is. Building on previous theories is necessary. Without it we wouldn't have relativity or the idea that light is a photon.

I hope I made what I was trying to say a lot clearer.

We evolved from what apes evolved from. Evolution isn't change, it's specialisation.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.

EURGH! i hate sematics.

Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.

the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means that it is accepted by the scientific community.

I'm sorry but the fact that it's called the theory of evolution and not the Laws of evolution, like the Laws of Motion, means that it is still a theory.
A very well thought out and compelling and likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.

If you are going to talk about theories and laws in Science, mate, at least don't speak out of your ass about it without knowing what they are.

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories are the concept, Laws explain how that concept functions in application to the physical world to the best of their abilities supported by empirical evidence as it is gathered and scrutinized. So in other words, "it's just a theory, not a Law" is a very ignorant statement when speaking of the Scientific Method and process. Don't make it again.

 

[kane.malakos]

So why aren't horses dead? They have short necks, compared.

Why is the daddy longs legs still alive? It has a very weak, almost water like (I guess) wenom.

Mainly because having long necks is not the only way to be successful. It helped giraffes mainly because of the environment they grew up in. A lot of parts of Africa don't have much grass, but do have trees that giraffes can eat. Horses evolved in a region that had a lot more grass, so there was no particular advantage to longer necks for them. What you have to remember is that evolution doesn't make an organism "better," just more adapted to its environment. Daddy long legs don't have great defense mechanisms, but they reproduce extremely quickly and have lots of babies. A lot of them will get eaten, but enough survive to continue the species.

Say you had two single cells, one called Frank, Frank wants to eat plants, how does that start? There are no out side influences to start Frank into eating plants. Does he get a decent size and just start sucking on leaves, then finds something that looks like him and mate with it and teach his children to suck on leaves, then during a million years of sucking leaves mutations happen that allow Frank to chew leaves?

Surely Frank never came out with a full set of gnashers, perfectly formed to chew on leaves.

All the people who have commented on this thread seem to be going from the half way mark of "we have animals and this happend to form what we have now".

Actually, there is an outside influence that starts frank eating plants: Availability of plants. Animals need food. If plants are readily available, and other food is not, the single celled life forms will eat the plants. Then, as millions of years go by, they will become better adapted to it.

 

[Chrono212]

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.

EURGH! i hate sematics.

Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.

the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means that it is accepted by the scientific community.

I'm sorry but the fact that it's called the theory of evolution and not the Laws of evolution, like the Laws of Motion, means that it is still a theory.
A very well thought out and compelling and likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.

There's no difference between a scientific law and a theory.

The very definition of the words is different.
Just because it's used in a scientific context does not mean they have the same reason.

 

[kingpocky]

The Heliocentric theory stating that the earth revolves around the sun is still "only a theory." There's no "heliocentric law" despite the fact that it is absolutely true. Laws generally express things that have to do with the fundamental nature of the universe. No matter how much overwhelming evidence for evolution there is, (and there is a lot,) it will never be a law

 

[kromify]

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.

EURGH! i hate sematics.

Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.

the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means that it is accepted by the scientific community.

I'm sorry but the fact that it's called the theory of evolution and not the Laws of evolution, like the Laws of Motion, means that it is still a theory.
A very well thought out and compelling and likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.

speaking as a final year zoology student; and when i say zoology i mean... evolution and physiology (zoology!)

public terms frequently differ from those in specialisations. if someone says "rpg" i think role-playing game. my sister would think rocket-propelled grenade. (she's in the army btw).

now if someone says "theory" i think proven. the lay public thinks... what you said.

i don't quite know how else to explain... words are insufficient when it's a problem of semantics.

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories are the concept, Laws explain that concept to the best of their abilities supported by empirical evidence as it is gathered and scrutinized. So in other words, "it's just a theory, not a Law" is a very ignorant statement when speaking of the Scientific Method and process. Don't make it again.

NEVER QUOTE WIKI AS FACT!!!! *pulls out hair*

 

[PatrickXD]

A lot of anti evolutionist comments make me laugh. No, of course I can't 100% prove that evoltuion is real. However, I can get a darn sight closer to that than you can in disproving it.
Seriously, A Level Biology is all you need to get an evidence mind-fuck.

Plus, whoever said that Newtons Laws of Motion are proven (can't find your post but saw it quoted), would you kindly punch yourself in the jeans. All of science is theory, and none of it can ever be proven only DIS-proven. To quote a famous person whose name escapes me "If you've disproved everything, fuck yourself with a lamp-post and accept that whatever left over must be correct"

Okay so maybe I was paraphrasing.

 

[kane.malakos]

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.

EURGH! i hate sematics.

Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.

the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means that it is accepted by the scientific community.

I'm sorry but the fact that it's called the theory of evolution and not the Laws of evolution, like the Laws of Motion, means that it is still a theory.
A very well thought out and compelling and likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.

Evolution will never be a law. A law is not "more correct" than a theory. They're actually completely different things. A law was never a theory and a theory will never become a law. A theory is, to quote the National Academy of Science, "a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time." A law is actually just a more specific application of a theory. Check the link for a more complete explanation. http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html

 

[ShadowsofHope]

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories are the concept, Laws explain that concept to the best of their abilities supported by empirical evidence as it is gathered and scrutinized. So in other words, "it's just a theory, not a Law" is a very ignorant statement when speaking of the Scientific Method and process. Don't make it again.

NEVER QUOTE WIKI AS FACT!!!! *pulls out hair*

It's called a definition. Definitions don't change for words on the fly, regardless if they are on wikipedia or not (they originate from external information, no less). The fact of the matter is, that is what a scientific theory is, and the individual I was criticizing was speaking from ignorance, and I corrected him.

So, just another "NOT WIKI!" rant, or was there actually a point to that response?

 

[Nimcha]

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.

EURGH! i hate sematics.

Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.

the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means that it is accepted by the scientific community.

I'm sorry but the fact that it's called the theory of evolution and not the Laws of evolution, like the Laws of Motion, means that it is still a theory.
A very well thought out and compelling and likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.

There's no difference between a scientific law and a theory.

The very definition of the words is different.
Just because it's used in a scientific context does not mean they have the same reason.

It does, actually. In an every day life context a theory is something that is speculative. In scientific context it's what was already established earlier, something completely different. The word just has two meanings, like a lot of words. And in scientific context a law and a theory are not that different, but law is usually used for a defining formula of the theory. For example E=MC^2. That's a scientific law, and part of the Theory of relativity.

 

[moretimethansense]

The very definition of the words is different.
Just because it's used in a scientific context does not mean they have the same reason.

I refer you to Shadowsofhope's post:

If you are going to talk about theories and laws in Science, mate, at least don't speak out of your ass about it without knowing what they are.

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories are the concept, Laws explain how that concept functions to the best of their abilities supported by empirical evidence as it is gathered and scrutinized. So in other words, "it's just a theory, not a Law" is a very ignorant statement when speaking of the Scientific Method and process. Don't make it again.

I'd like to add a smart comment here, but it would just be me repeating the above.

 

[Chrono212]

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.

EURGH! i hate sematics.

Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.

the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means that it is accepted by the scientific community.

I'm sorry but the fact that it's called the theory of evolution and not the Laws of evolution, like the Laws of Motion, means that it is still a theory.
A very well thought out and compelling and likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.

If you are going to talk about theories and laws in Science, mate, at least don't speak out of your ass about it without knowing what they are.

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories are the concept, Laws explain how that concept functions to the best of their abilities supported by empirical evidence as it is gathered and scrutinized. So in other words, "it's just a theory, not a Law" is a very ignorant statement when speaking of the Scientific Method and process. Don't make it again.

Please don't quote Wikipedia at me when I've personally studied, and continue to study, physics, biology and chemistry at college.
I don't deny evolution, I believe in it whole heartily, but the laws in that quote refer to established laws which were, yes, contracted from theories themselves.
A law generalises a group of observations. When the observation is made, no exceptions have been forms to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

For example, Newton's Law of Gravity can be used to predict the behaviour of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As such, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations.
However, if your definition of proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on evidence, then there is 'proof' in science.

 

[omega 616]

So why aren't horses dead? They have short necks, compared.

Why is the daddy longs legs still alive? It has a very weak, almost water like (I guess) wenom.

Mainly because having long necks is not the only way to be successful. It helped giraffes mainly because of the environment they grew up in. A lot of parts of Africa don't have much grass, but do have trees that giraffes can eat. Horses evolved in a region that had a lot more grass, so there was no particular advantage to longer necks for them. What you have to remember is that evolution doesn't make an organism "better," just more adapted to its environment. Daddy long legs don't have great defense mechanisms, but they reproduce extremely quickly and have lots of babies. A lot of them will get eaten, but enough survive to continue the species.

Say you had two single cells, one called Frank, Frank wants to eat plants, how does that start? There are no out side influences to start Frank into eating plants. Does he get a decent size and just start sucking on leaves, then finds something that looks like him and mate with it and teach his children to suck on leaves, then during a million years of sucking leaves mutations happen that allow Frank to chew leaves?

Surely Frank never came out with a full set of gnashers, perfectly formed to chew on leaves.

All the people who have commented on this thread seem to be going from the half way mark of "we have animals and this happend to form what we have now".

Actually, there is an outside influence that starts frank eating plants: Availability of plants. Animals need food. If plants are readily available, and other food is not, the single celled life forms will eat the plants. Then, as millions of years go by, they will become better adapted to it.

So why isn't every animal an omnivore? Yeah plants grow everywhere but so do animals, why not double your chances of living by eating both? While there evolving they can evolve the ability to eat the other thing.

If animals eat the weakest or an abnormal baby did these evolutions occur? Surely the mother would have seen the mutation and eaten it.

If I made a new animal, which had no defence or offense, then plonked it down in the animals version of hells kitchen (Aus) how would it evolve and adapt to the environment? If it gets eaten then it can't send a message to it's kids saying "evolve a way to stop being eaten. It sucks!", so how does it over many generations evolve the ability or a way to stop itself being food?

You seem to have the idea evolution happens over night, animals ring up a friend and then they grow extra limbs till the morning? Not how that works...

It takes millions of years for evolution to truly show changes, in the mean time animals/humans adapt their abilities/behavior to suit their living environment.

Say you had two single cells, one called Frank, Frank wants to eat plants, how does that start? There are no out side influences to start Frank into eating plants. Does he get a decent size and just start sucking on leaves, then finds something that looks like him and mate with it and teach his children to suck on leaves, then during a million years of sucking leaves mutations happen that allow Frank to chew leaves?

Surely Frank never came out with a full set of gnashers, perfectly formed to chew on leaves.

All the people who have commented on this thread seem to be going from the half way mark of "we have animals and this happend to form what we have now".

uhm... im going to explain this as simple as I can.

lets say the first bacteria thing is created.

Then a lot of bacteria thing get together and form a big animal.

Big animal finds that sun is good energy source and turns into prehistoric plant.

Other animal finds that eating plant gives good energy.

other animal finds that planteating animal is good energy.

Plant animal is getting slaughterd from meat animal and develops defense and grows in size to survive. Then meat eater does the same and it just goes on like that... VERY simplified..

Sry for VERY bad english

Except if your a dear, then you don't develop anything to protect yourself and get eaten by just about eveything.

Thats another thing I don't get, if it's survival of the fittest or most adapted, by aren't things like dears extinct?

 

[kromify]

A theory is, to quote the National Academy of Science, "a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time." A law is actually just a more specific application of a theory. Check the link for a more complete explanation. http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html

now THAT is worth quoting. NEVER WIKI!

*cries in corner*

 

[Chrono212]

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.

EURGH! i hate sematics.

Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.

the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means that it is accepted by the scientific community.

I'm sorry but the fact that it's called the theory of evolution and not the Laws of evolution, like the Laws of Motion, means that it is still a theory.
A very well thought out and compelling and likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.

There's no difference between a scientific law and a theory.

The very definition of the words is different.
Just because it's used in a scientific context does not mean they have the same reason.

It does, actually. In an every day life context a theory is something that is speculative. In scientific context it's what was already established earlier, something completely different. The word just has two meanings, like a lot of words. And in scientific context a law and a theory are not that different, but law is usually used for a defining formula of the theory. For example E=MC^2. That's a scientific law, and part of the Theory of relativity.

A law, after proof, can be used within a theory. I have no argument with that.

 

[funguy2121]

I was just thinking about this topic and was wondering how does it work?

Why when all creatures great and small, crawling out of the primordial ooze, did some animals evolve to be herbivores/carnivores/omnivores?

How did some evolve to have venom that can do all kinds of fucked up shit and others didn't?

How can a bird eating tarantula have the ability to throw it's hairs off it's body to defend itself but a deers only form of defence is it has eyes on the side of it's head and can run pretty quick?

If animals eat the weakest or an abnormal baby did these evolutions occur? Surely the mother would have seen the mutation and eaten it.

If I made a new animal, which had no defence or offense, then plonked it down in the animals version of hells kitchen (Aus) how would it evolve and adapt to the environment? If it gets eaten then it can't send a message to it's kids saying "evolve a way to stop being eaten. It sucks!", so how does it over many generations evolve the ability or a way to stop itself being food?

OP, my general tendency is to post a response before reading other posts, which prevents my comments from being influenced by others'. So forgive me if I'm ninja'd here.

I think a cursory look at Darwin's work would answer those questions. I'm not thoroughly versed in the nuts and bolts of evolution, but I know that the creatures that had attributes that their neighbors did not were better suited to survive and flourish, and so they did. As far as "eating mutant babies," as you put it, is concerned, I don't think there's much science there at all, if any. I've heard that taking certain drugs, particularly LSD and ecstasy, can lead to genetic mutation, but I've never heard of food causing it.

 

[kromify]

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories are the concept, Laws explain that concept to the best of their abilities supported by empirical evidence as it is gathered and scrutinized. So in other words, "it's just a theory, not a Law" is a very ignorant statement when speaking of the Scientific Method and process. Don't make it again.

NEVER QUOTE WIKI AS FACT!!!! *pulls out hair*

It's called a definition. Definitions don't change for words on the fly, regardless if they are on wikipedia or not (they originate from external information, no less). The fact of the matter is, that is what a scientific theory is, and the individual I was criticizing was speaking from ignorance, and I corrected him.

So, just another "NOT WIKI!" rant, or was there actually a point to that response?

just an ingrained response. (of a student, zoology or no). we like to reference from scientific journals, ie peer reviewed empirical data. in fact if i think back to first year i can vaguely recall a never quote wiki lecture from one of the professors.