Evolution

[Shoqiyqa]

You have these horsies trying to much on the bottom leaves, they all have necks roughly the same size (your not going to be having one horse with no neck and one 20 foot long), are the females walking round thinking "oooh his neck is 1 mm longer than all the others, I shall mate with him!" and the males are thinking "yeah, shes into me but her neck is short as hell! Now her over there has a really long neck but shes not a looker!".

Maybe they choose their mates by racing. They run across the plains from one bend in the river to another, and the ones that get there first get to mate with each other, and the ones that get there last get mocked. Maybe the cheetahs eat the slowest. Ever seen how much top athletes eat? Being able to get food (and to get a wide variety of food) makes for a healthier animal, and that makes them more attractive or more likely to still be breathing, either way.

That is pretty much how wolves do it, only it's not a race. The male wolves stare each other down, wrestle or outright fight for dominance among the males, the females do the same among themselves, the cubs have their own heirarchy for practice and the top dog and top *****, the Alphas, have the babies. Everyone else, beign aunts, uncles and cousins, helps raise them or sods off to some other part of the forest to keep the DNA mixing around between packs.

 

[Ampersand]

There's not enough proof to support the theory of evolution so I try to avoid conversations that assume it's a fact. To many holes too. Its worse than a George Lucas film.

Could you back those claims up with some Literature?

OR!

Show me literature with an alternate Theory that is supported by factual studies, and not just religious Zealotry?


You can't just say "There isn't enough proof, therefore it isn't real" without presenting a counter argument as to why there isn't enough proof.

I really hate to sound like this but whatever; Science shouldn't be based on a theory. I never said it was false but people who treat it as a proven fact, I believe, are truly ignorant.

Oh dammit, not another one!

There are literally mountains of evidence that point directly to evolution being a fact. It's not that a large part of the evidence does, all of the evidence does. We are even directly observing evolution taking place at this very moment. The evidence is piling up by the minute. The only reason not to believe in evolution is plain woeful ignorance and completely ignoring all facts.

Just because you don't understand the issue doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist. Try to read up on the subject before making up your mind.

Believe me, I understand this theory, its not really rocket science. I'm thinking you're the one ignoring the evidence. Have you looked beyond what your highscool teacher told you? Yes, that sounds haughty but you talk of this as if it were fact. Those geniuses are paid to tell you thats the truth. Exactly the thing I was talking about. No one I've ever met has provided even a little evidence (real evidence, not what some biology professor told you in the eighth grade) supporting evolution. They can't. Provide the evidence and I'll talk about the subject, prove it and I'll believe it.

And if you're a biology teacher, I'm sorry I just flipped off your career but its true.

If this proves to much of a challenge, I understand. It's hard to prove something like this.

You obviously haven't looked very far. Did you ever think to ask any biologists rather then just randomers on the internet.
Anyways, I would think that the fact that evolutionary biology is the main basis for our understanding of immunology and genetics as well as many other fields of biology, would be more then enough evidence that it's an effective model for how species change over time, but if that doesn't do it for you there's still the entire fossil record in addition to every bit of geological research done up until this point.

I would pause before calling people ignorant since it's pretty clear that you haven't a clue what a theory is. It doesn't mean the same thing in scientific parlance as it does in colloquial language. In other words it's not just a guess but rather the highest form of proof that can be reached with the scientific method and the amalgamation of all of the knowledge pertaining to the subject it concerns, that has been collected so far. Saying that facts should be used in stead of theory is really quite backward because facts are what theories are constructed from.

 

[RuralGamer]

it cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory or though a mathematical equation, which most of what science has discovered can.

It can and it has. Just because you haven't/couldn't be bothered to read up on it doesn't mean the information and proof aren't there.

Ok then, present me with an experiment that definitively proves it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

On top of that dog breeders and botanists have been making creatures evolve through artificial selection for millenniums.

Here's a bunch more


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

Woah, did you just mention dogs? Dogs are invalid because it is not evolution; it is humans selecting traits they want in the animals and breeding them to emphasise them, often to the point at which the animal would not survive naturally; they are all still canis lupus familiaris. Add to that the fact that there are limits to how large or small a dog you can breed and that all dogs breeds can mate to produce viable offspring; therefore they are not different species. Wolves can interbreed with canis lupus familiaris to produce viable offspring, showing they are still effectively wolves; hybridisation is what is threatening the dingos with "extinction" in Australia, just as feral cats in the UK are rarely pure feral and therefore regarded as endangered. Technically though I can't use dingos in the argument because they are human-created species anyway. Naturally chihuahuas and great danes didn't occur; human intervention is not viable proof of evolution in dogs. Going back to what I said about dog size; the fact there is an upper and a lower limit to how large or small you can breed a dog would indicate there is a limitation in the genes of the animal itself.

 

[Ben Hussong]

it cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory or though a mathematical equation, which most of what science has discovered can.

It can and it has. Just because you haven't/couldn't be bothered to read up on it doesn't mean the information and proof aren't there.

Ok then, present me with an experiment that definitively proves it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

On top of that dog breeders and botanists have been making creatures evolve through artificial selection for millenniums.

Here's a bunch more


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

Woah, did you just mention dogs? Dogs are invalid because it is not evolution; it is humans selecting traits they want in the animals and breeding them to emphasise them, often to the point at which the animal would not survive naturally; they are all still canis lupus familiaris. Add to that the fact that there are limits to how large or small a dog you can breed and that all dogs breeds can mate to produce viable offspring; therefore they are not different species. Wolves can interbreed with canis lupus familiaris to produce viable offspring, showing they are still effectively wolves; hybridisation is what is threatening the dingos with "extinction" in Australia, just as feral cats in the UK are rarely pure feral and therefore regarded as endangered. Technically though I can't use dingos in the argument because they are human-created species anyway. Naturally chihuahuas and great danes didn't occur; human intervention is not viable proof of evolution in dogs. Going back to what I said about dog size; the fact there is an upper and a lower limit to how large or small you can breed a dog would indicate there is a limitation in the genes of the animal itself.

Did no one read my links about how domestication causes physical changes within animals!?

 

[WolfEdge]

Over the course of millions upon millions of years, the species as a whole will obviously end up with longer necks, since a long neck is an inheritable trait.

And then you have giraffes.

Fixed that for ya

 

[WolfEdge]

There's not enough proof to support the theory of evolution so I try to avoid conversations that assume it's a fact. To many holes too. Its worse than a George Lucas film.

Could you back those claims up with some Literature?

OR!

Show me literature with an alternate Theory that is supported by factual studies, and not just religious Zealotry?


You can't just say "There isn't enough proof, therefore it isn't real" without presenting a counter argument as to why there isn't enough proof.

I really hate to sound like this but whatever; Science shouldn't be based on a theory. I never said it was false but people who treat it as a proven fact, I believe, are truly ignorant.

Oh dammit, not another one!

There are literally mountains of evidence that point directly to evolution being a fact. It's not that a large part of the evidence does, all of the evidence does. We are even directly observing evolution taking place at this very moment. The evidence is piling up by the minute. The only reason not to believe in evolution is plain woeful ignorance and completely ignoring all facts.

Just because you don't understand the issue doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist. Try to read up on the subject before making up your mind.

Believe me, I understand this theory, its not really rocket science. I'm thinking you're the one ignoring the evidence. Have you looked beyond what your highscool teacher told you? Yes, that sounds haughty but you talk of this as if it were fact. Those geniuses are paid to tell you thats the truth. Exactly the thing I was talking about. No one I've ever met has provided even a little evidence (real evidence, not what some biology professor told you in the eighth grade) supporting evolution. They can't. Provide the evidence and I'll talk about the subject, prove it and I'll believe it.

And if you're a biology teacher, I'm sorry I just flipped off your career but its true.

If this proves to much of a challenge, I understand. It's hard to prove something like this.

You obviously haven't looked very far. Did you ever think to ask any biologists rather then just randomers on the internet.
Anyways, I would think that the fact that evolutionary biology is the main basis for our understanding of immunology and genetics as well as many other fields of biology, would be more then enough evidence that it's an effective model for how species change over time, but if that doesn't do it for you there's still the entire fossil record in addition to every bit of geological research done up until this point.

I would pause before calling people ignorant since it's pretty clear that you haven't a clue what a theory is. It doesn't mean the same thing in scientific parlance as it does in colloquial language. In other words it's not just a guess but rather the highest form of proof that can be reached with the scientific method and the amalgamation of all of the knowledge pertaining to the subject it concerns, that has been collected so far. Saying that facts should be used in stead of theory is really quite backward because facts are what theories are constructed from.

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

He isn't saying evolution isn't true, he's saying we've yet to prove it with undoubted certainty. The same can be said for MOST scientific theories, like, for example, gravity. It's the fact that most people see this idea as factual without the research to discuss it in any real sense that probably has him miffed.

Though I would agree that we shouldn't be calling random strangers ignorant.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

Have you ever wondered why humans are so compassionate even to the extreme of ending ones life in favour of another? The egoistic view can't explain this as the survival of oneself is the most important. On a gene level the origins of altruism (notion of caring for others) comes from the fact that when man was young, we lived in small groups of mainly relatives. Chances are good many carry the same genes and hence it would benefit the gene to cause us to care for not only us.

To expand on that, in a lot of species the male's nuclear DNA can survive without him from the moment sex is over (or even from halfway through, in the case of the preying mantis, and not in the case of seahorses) but not without the female for quite a bit longer. In mammals, the minimum male commitment to the offspring is pretty much "two pumps and a squirt" whereas the female's commitment is rather bigger and takes a lot longer. This means women have to be careful whose babies they have while men can get away with just shooting it up anyone who'll let them and gee doesn't that sound like Friday night, men thinking every hole's a goal and women looking for Mr Right in all the wrong places? Of course, once a man has got as far as getting a woman pregnant, it's then in his interests to stick around, provide for and protect her while she's vulnerable and their babies thereafter and so on ... so, er, men get affectionate after sex and women get turned on by affection? Well, that's not that far from the truth, is it? If men are having a hard time finding mothers for their prospective babies, once they have got that far their DNA's more likely to get as far as grandchildren if they're willing to die for their families than if they're more liekly to sacrifice their families to save themselves. If they're having a great time, getting some every weekend, sometimes with two different women on two nights, then their DNA's best chances come from moving on to fresh conquests all the time. Noooo, that's nothing like human male behaviour, is it? Women, meanwhile, want a big, strong man who's full of self-confidence, has the means to provide for them and can protect them and will do both those things. Self-confidence is shown by a willingness to challenge other males for dominance and being able to protect them is shown by winning fights, so women instinctively go for bastards with flashy cars and hope they'll somehow turn out to have hearts of gold.

Depressing, eh?

 

[Jonluw]

Over the course of millions upon millions of years, the species as a whole will obviously end up with longer necks, since a long neck is an inheritable trait.

And then you have giraffes.

Fixed that for ya

I did debate with myself whether to use thousands or millions or billions or whatever, but in the end I decided that "thousands upon thousands" does turn into "millions upon millions" after a while, and I'm sure some development could happen in a couple of thousand years if the animal wasn't all that well adapted to the environment in the first place, so in the end, I just went for thousands

 

[Ampersand]

There's not enough proof to support the theory of evolution so I try to avoid conversations that assume it's a fact. To many holes too. Its worse than a George Lucas film.

Could you back those claims up with some Literature?

OR!

Show me literature with an alternate Theory that is supported by factual studies, and not just religious Zealotry?


You can't just say "There isn't enough proof, therefore it isn't real" without presenting a counter argument as to why there isn't enough proof.

I really hate to sound like this but whatever; Science shouldn't be based on a theory. I never said it was false but people who treat it as a proven fact, I believe, are truly ignorant.

Oh dammit, not another one!

There are literally mountains of evidence that point directly to evolution being a fact. It's not that a large part of the evidence does, all of the evidence does. We are even directly observing evolution taking place at this very moment. The evidence is piling up by the minute. The only reason not to believe in evolution is plain woeful ignorance and completely ignoring all facts.

Just because you don't understand the issue doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist. Try to read up on the subject before making up your mind.

Believe me, I understand this theory, its not really rocket science. I'm thinking you're the one ignoring the evidence. Have you looked beyond what your highscool teacher told you? Yes, that sounds haughty but you talk of this as if it were fact. Those geniuses are paid to tell you thats the truth. Exactly the thing I was talking about. No one I've ever met has provided even a little evidence (real evidence, not what some biology professor told you in the eighth grade) supporting evolution. They can't. Provide the evidence and I'll talk about the subject, prove it and I'll believe it.

And if you're a biology teacher, I'm sorry I just flipped off your career but its true.

If this proves to much of a challenge, I understand. It's hard to prove something like this.

You obviously haven't looked very far. Did you ever think to ask any biologists rather then just randomers on the internet.
Anyways, I would think that the fact that evolutionary biology is the main basis for our understanding of immunology and genetics as well as many other fields of biology, would be more then enough evidence that it's an effective model for how species change over time, but if that doesn't do it for you there's still the entire fossil record in addition to every bit of geological research done up until this point.

I would pause before calling people ignorant since it's pretty clear that you haven't a clue what a theory is. It doesn't mean the same thing in scientific parlance as it does in colloquial language. In other words it's not just a guess but rather the highest form of proof that can be reached with the scientific method and the amalgamation of all of the knowledge pertaining to the subject it concerns, that has been collected so far. Saying that facts should be used in stead of theory is really quite backward because facts are what theories are constructed from.

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

He isn't saying evolution isn't true, he's saying we've yet to prove it with undoubted certainty. The same can be said for MOST scientific theories, like, for example, gravity. It's the fact that most people see this idea as factual without the research to discuss it in any real sense that probably has him miffed.

Though I would agree that we shouldn't be calling random strangers ignorant.

It would be more accurate to say that it's not proven with undoubted certainty, the same as ALL other scientific theories. Because knowing anything with undoubted certainty is completely impossible, when regarding anything other then you're own existence( and that's a hole other discussion.) Nothing can ever be proven 100% however they can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt based on the evidence available to us at the moment and in that regard evolution is one of the most air tight theories there are. We understand evolution in much greater detail then we understand gravity( to use your own example)or indeed a lot of scientific theory and I can't think of any reason for people to contest it as virulently as they do.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

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.

Four bad arguments against evolution [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/four_bad_arguments_against_evo.php#more]

Right off the bat, he makes the common error of assuming there is some universal authority that ranks scientific ideas into "laws" and "theories", with laws having some objective priority. This is not true. It's largely arbitrary. If you come up with a description of something that can be typically written out in a short and easily testable mathematical formula, it tends to be called a law: for example, Newton's laws, including F=ma, etc., or the ideal gas law, PV=nRT. Laws tend to be short and simple.

Theories, on the other hand, tend to be descriptions of more complex phenomena, and are often not easily reducible to a formula: for example, cell theory, germ theory, and the theory of evolution. They are neither more nor less true than a law, and a scientific theory is nothing like the colloquial meaning of "theory", a guess. Theories can also encompass many ideas that we call laws. Evolution, for instance, includes concepts like the Hardy-Weinberg Law and Dollo's Law.

 

[WolfEdge]

There's not enough proof to support the theory of evolution so I try to avoid conversations that assume it's a fact. To many holes too. Its worse than a George Lucas film.

Could you back those claims up with some Literature?

OR!

Show me literature with an alternate Theory that is supported by factual studies, and not just religious Zealotry?


You can't just say "There isn't enough proof, therefore it isn't real" without presenting a counter argument as to why there isn't enough proof.

I really hate to sound like this but whatever; Science shouldn't be based on a theory. I never said it was false but people who treat it as a proven fact, I believe, are truly ignorant.

Oh dammit, not another one!

There are literally mountains of evidence that point directly to evolution being a fact. It's not that a large part of the evidence does, all of the evidence does. We are even directly observing evolution taking place at this very moment. The evidence is piling up by the minute. The only reason not to believe in evolution is plain woeful ignorance and completely ignoring all facts.

Just because you don't understand the issue doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist. Try to read up on the subject before making up your mind.

Believe me, I understand this theory, its not really rocket science. I'm thinking you're the one ignoring the evidence. Have you looked beyond what your highscool teacher told you? Yes, that sounds haughty but you talk of this as if it were fact. Those geniuses are paid to tell you thats the truth. Exactly the thing I was talking about. No one I've ever met has provided even a little evidence (real evidence, not what some biology professor told you in the eighth grade) supporting evolution. They can't. Provide the evidence and I'll talk about the subject, prove it and I'll believe it.

And if you're a biology teacher, I'm sorry I just flipped off your career but its true.

If this proves to much of a challenge, I understand. It's hard to prove something like this.

You obviously haven't looked very far. Did you ever think to ask any biologists rather then just randomers on the internet.
Anyways, I would think that the fact that evolutionary biology is the main basis for our understanding of immunology and genetics as well as many other fields of biology, would be more then enough evidence that it's an effective model for how species change over time, but if that doesn't do it for you there's still the entire fossil record in addition to every bit of geological research done up until this point.

I would pause before calling people ignorant since it's pretty clear that you haven't a clue what a theory is. It doesn't mean the same thing in scientific parlance as it does in colloquial language. In other words it's not just a guess but rather the highest form of proof that can be reached with the scientific method and the amalgamation of all of the knowledge pertaining to the subject it concerns, that has been collected so far. Saying that facts should be used in stead of theory is really quite backward because facts are what theories are constructed from.

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

He isn't saying evolution isn't true, he's saying we've yet to prove it with undoubted certainty. The same can be said for MOST scientific theories, like, for example, gravity. It's the fact that most people see this idea as factual without the research to discuss it in any real sense that probably has him miffed.

Though I would agree that we shouldn't be calling random strangers ignorant.

It would be more accurate to say that it's not proven with undoubted certainty, the same as ALL other scientific theories. Because knowing anything with undoubted certainty is completely impossible, when regarding anything other then you're own existence( and that's a hole other discussion.) Nothing can ever be proven 100% however they can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt based on the evidence available to us at the moment and in that regard evolution is one of the most air tight theories there are. We understand evolution in much greater detail then we understand gravity( to use your own example)or indeed a lot of scientific theory and I can't think of any reason for people to contest it as virulently as they do.

True enough, though I personally put some value on opinions like his. It's important that we as a thinking race are reminded to never take the information and truths we gather for granted. After all, once upon a time the world was a flat mass of land in the middle of the universe.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

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.

Quelle coincidence! [http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm]

Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science.

Please don't quote ...

 

[Jonluw]

You can observe evolution by simply looking at the nearest busy highway. See the cars on it? They're the ones that worked. They're the most fit models. They're the ones that succeeded. The ones that didn't work didn't sell well and were either canned or they took their parent company with them.


Same thing applies to animals. Certain models work, certain models are a piece of shit, and only the working models survive.

You need to come up with what the ones wrapped around trees by the side of the road are an allegory for though.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

Correct me if I'm wrong (or sound stupid)

.....

but I think a perfect example of evolution (at least the kind I was taught) is when conceiving a child. It starts as two single cells (or however many cells a sperm and egg have) then it becomes a zygote annnnnd then whatever happens next (I've forgotten most of sex ed, or at least the beginning) and in the end it becomes a human, so yeah, sounds like evolution to me.

No.

Nein, non, nyet, iye, la, no.

That's a cell dividing and specialising. The DNA within it is the same. Look at DNA fingerprinting and stem cell research.

Evolution is the change in species over time. For example, finches on two islands are so similar that a casual inspection would lead one to believe they're the same. They have the same facial and wing markings, the same flight patterns, the same songs, the same nesting habits and so on. However, on closer examination, it turns out that they're slightly different. The finches on one island have shorter, heavier beaks better suited to cracking the tough seeds of plants found on that island while the finches on the other island have longer beaks housing longer tongues better suited to getting nectar out of the deep flowers of plants found on that island. Darwin's hypothesis was that there had once been only one kind of finch, but the different flora of the two islands had favoured different individuals of that species and the ones that had most grandchildren on one island were the ones with the more seed-cracking-suitable beaks while the ones that had most grandchildren on the other island were the ones with the long-enough tongues in long-enough beaks, and the ones with long, heavy beaks were carrying too much weight on their faces and kept getting sore necks, looking down and crashing into trees, so they didn't have enough grandchildren to keep that beak style going.

We've found rather more than that [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/] to back it up since then.

 

[Jamous]

"The secrets of Evolution are time and death." - Carl Sagan
Basically, change in species happens over a VAST amount of time, as species adapt to an ever more effective level to their environment. This happens by the fact that those who are suited to the ecosystem end up surviving longer and producing more offspring than those that aren't suited to it, who tend to die off. Eventually there will only be the organisms that are suited to the environment left. Occasionally, new things will evolve due to a lucky (and I mean incredibly lucky) mutation; lucky because mutations are usually bad rather than helpful. Things such as the eyes are thought to have evolved gradually, with it simply being something that can register light at first, a photosensitive cell, before gradually growing more and more effective until we eventually get the eyes we have today. All in all, evolution is FUCKING AWESOME. And the concept of natural selection becomes even more-so when you realise you can apply it to literally everything.

This is my thinking aswell, surely there not admiring the more adapt mates, there admiring the more "sexy" mates. So is it just pure fluke the "sexiest" mates are also the most adapt?

The reason we find various qualities attractive are because they exhibit features that denote health and/or fertility. I'm pretty sure that may be an oversimplification, so go Google "Sexual Selection". You should find you answers there.

 

[Ampersand]

There's not enough proof to support the theory of evolution so I try to avoid conversations that assume it's a fact. To many holes too. Its worse than a George Lucas film.

Could you back those claims up with some Literature?

OR!

Show me literature with an alternate Theory that is supported by factual studies, and not just religious Zealotry?


You can't just say "There isn't enough proof, therefore it isn't real" without presenting a counter argument as to why there isn't enough proof.

I really hate to sound like this but whatever; Science shouldn't be based on a theory. I never said it was false but people who treat it as a proven fact, I believe, are truly ignorant.

Oh dammit, not another one!

There are literally mountains of evidence that point directly to evolution being a fact. It's not that a large part of the evidence does, all of the evidence does. We are even directly observing evolution taking place at this very moment. The evidence is piling up by the minute. The only reason not to believe in evolution is plain woeful ignorance and completely ignoring all facts.

Just because you don't understand the issue doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist. Try to read up on the subject before making up your mind.

Believe me, I understand this theory, its not really rocket science. I'm thinking you're the one ignoring the evidence. Have you looked beyond what your highscool teacher told you? Yes, that sounds haughty but you talk of this as if it were fact. Those geniuses are paid to tell you thats the truth. Exactly the thing I was talking about. No one I've ever met has provided even a little evidence (real evidence, not what some biology professor told you in the eighth grade) supporting evolution. They can't. Provide the evidence and I'll talk about the subject, prove it and I'll believe it.

And if you're a biology teacher, I'm sorry I just flipped off your career but its true.

If this proves to much of a challenge, I understand. It's hard to prove something like this.

You obviously haven't looked very far. Did you ever think to ask any biologists rather then just randomers on the internet.
Anyways, I would think that the fact that evolutionary biology is the main basis for our understanding of immunology and genetics as well as many other fields of biology, would be more then enough evidence that it's an effective model for how species change over time, but if that doesn't do it for you there's still the entire fossil record in addition to every bit of geological research done up until this point.

I would pause before calling people ignorant since it's pretty clear that you haven't a clue what a theory is. It doesn't mean the same thing in scientific parlance as it does in colloquial language. In other words it's not just a guess but rather the highest form of proof that can be reached with the scientific method and the amalgamation of all of the knowledge pertaining to the subject it concerns, that has been collected so far. Saying that facts should be used in stead of theory is really quite backward because facts are what theories are constructed from.

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

He isn't saying evolution isn't true, he's saying we've yet to prove it with undoubted certainty. The same can be said for MOST scientific theories, like, for example, gravity. It's the fact that most people see this idea as factual without the research to discuss it in any real sense that probably has him miffed.

Though I would agree that we shouldn't be calling random strangers ignorant.

It would be more accurate to say that it's not proven with undoubted certainty, the same as ALL other scientific theories. Because knowing anything with undoubted certainty is completely impossible, when regarding anything other then you're own existence( and that's a hole other discussion.) Nothing can ever be proven 100% however they can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt based on the evidence available to us at the moment and in that regard evolution is one of the most air tight theories there are. We understand evolution in much greater detail then we understand gravity( to use your own example)or indeed a lot of scientific theory and I can't think of any reason for people to contest it as virulently as they do.

True enough, though I personally put some value on opinions like his. It's important that we as a thinking race are reminded to never take the information and truths we gather for granted. After all, once upon a time the world was a flat mass of land in the middle of the universe.

I hole-heartedly agree, but I would argue that if people are curious or uncertain about scientific ideas, or anything for that matter, then they should go and look for information themselves and try to enlighten themselves on the subject rather then just blindly defying the status quo. Because that's the opposite extreme and it doesn't help at all either.

The scientific community isn't impenetrable after all, there's no reason that someone who's not a scientist can't learn whatever they want about any subject they can think of.

 

[Jonluw]

You need to come up with what the ones wrapped around trees by the side of the road are an allegory for though.

Stupidity. A car wrapped around a tree is a result of stupidity just the same as a healthy animal that drowns where it should be able to swim, and has nothing to do with whether or not it was a good or bad design.

Aah, stupidity. The true enemy of progress.

 

[Chrono212]

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.

Quelle coincidence! [http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm]

Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science.

Please don't quote ...

That's also the text book definition I learnt.

 

[Chrono212]

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.

Four bad arguments against evolution [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/four_bad_arguments_against_evo.php#more]

Right off the bat, he makes the common error of assuming there is some universal authority that ranks scientific ideas into "laws" and "theories", with laws having some objective priority. This is not true. It's largely arbitrary. If you come up with a description of something that can be typically written out in a short and easily testable mathematical formula, it tends to be called a law: for example, Newton's laws, including F=ma, etc., or the ideal gas law, PV=nRT. Laws tend to be short and simple.

Theories, on the other hand, tend to be descriptions of more complex phenomena, and are often not easily reducible to a formula: for example, cell theory, germ theory, and the theory of evolution. They are neither more nor less true than a law, and a scientific theory is nothing like the colloquial meaning of "theory", a guess. Theories can also encompass many ideas that we call laws. Evolution, for instance, includes concepts like the Hardy-Weinberg Law and Dollo's Law.

FOR THE LAST TIME, I AM NOT A CREATIONIST!
I was trying to play devils advocate and argue the other side, which I quickly gave up on because I forgot this was the Internet.

 

[fenrizz]

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.

Apparently you're wording it in a way that makes you seem hostile towards the theory, as in being ignorant and uneducated. Next time be vary of how you word yourself to avoid unnecessary conflict.

I see that now but I didn't think I was particular hostile to the concept of Evolution when I read over it. I am just against the idea that it is a solid complete work that doesn't need to evolve no pun intended.

All that is well and true, but for the sake of this discussion there's not much point in debating this. The theory is so well founded that there's no harm in assuming it's completely right, because it always has proven to be. So far.

Yes I never intended it to be debated really but it should not be taken as 100% true which is what I was trying to say. It can always evolve itself and be improved upon.

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.

Taken straight from wiki about theory of evolution although this more an aside. so feel free to ignore it if you want.

fact is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with all living organisms.

I am not saying it is not a scientific fact. I never said that. I said it was only a theory and thus incomplete which is true. I never ever said in my original post it was not a fact. It is incomplete and you can't really dispute that it is complete because it isn't. What I don't agree with is when people take Evolution to be a finished work when it is not.

I think the problem here is this:

When you say "it's only a theory" people assume that some rant about creationism will come next.