xiac79 said:
Amphoteric said:
xiac79 said:
I find the results less than believeable. Any discussion i have had involving evolution (and most other acedemic topics) involve very little knowledge beyond a basic highschool and perhaps rudimentry freshman college understanding of current trends and theories. something you learned in highschool or your 100 level biology class does not constitute a study of evolutionary theory. Both sides of the evolutionary arguement are guilty of this.
Well seeing as there is no evidence for creationism it isn't that difficult to have seen it all.
Your statement proves my point. There is also no empiracle, repeatable, or demonstrable evidence of self actuated organic evolution on the multi-celular level.
The Peppered moth [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution], easily observable in britain, has had a couple centuries of observation of it noting that the species as a whole changes color based on its environment. Not like a chameleon, but through simple natural selection. When coal makes things sooty, the light colored ones get eaten by predators, causing the darker ones to survive. When coal goes away, and things are less sooty, the inverse happens.
It's been observed. It's empiracle evidence. And it's happened twice in that species alone.
As for further empirical evidence:
Fish in Africa's greatest lake [http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/37481-macroevolution-observed-african-lake.html]
Wait, there's more:
Specimens of Oenothera lamarckiana evolved an extra chromosome, and were unable to mate with the original specimens, becoming the new species, O. gigas.
Primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda have been observed to hybridize into a new form unable to mate with the previous, but with each other, P. kewenisis. This has been observed multiple times.
Are you aware that geneticists have been studying the fruit fly for decades? Do you know why? Because fruit flies are so adaptable on a genetic level to their environment, and their genetic code so simple, that causing macroevolution in a fruit fly population is not only possible in laboratory settings, but is, in fact, repeatable, and predictable.
Are you aware that in a laboratory setting, a monocellular species of algae has been shown to evolve into a multicellular life form, causing complete reclassification?
The evidence is so strong and prevalent [http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html] that your claim that it is unobservable is either ignorant, or a fucking lie.
Choose wisely.
What we have is a large amount evidence who's most logical expliantion we can formulate lends itself to our current views of Organic evolution.
Except, of course, the actual observation of evolution in progress.
We have empirical evidence of competition, feeding, reproduction, selection, death, and birth. We also have empirical evidence of the changing of species based on every single one of the above.
We have empirical evidence of evolution.
However as it is still a theoretical science, a new discovery at any time, could completly invalidate our current understanding, as has happened with many well accepted theories throughout history.
That's true. However, it is the best fit for all the empirical evidence, just as the theory of gravity observes all observed evidence.
This does not mean that just because it -can- be proven false, that we should abandon all the evidence we do have, in favor of a model for which we have absolutely none.
There is always that possibility that some god or space alien of vastly supierior knowledge could show up tomorrow and laugh at our meager understanding.
There is the possibility I could spontaneously combust at any moment. This possibility is remote enough that I'm not going to sign up for spontaneous combustion insurance.
As we do not know for sure, it is pretty presumptious of anyone on either side of the arguement to laugh and point the finger of scorn at the other.
The correct course of action is to continue study to further a more perfect understanding of the universe. Science accepts and admits it does not know everything. The difference between it and creationism is that it goes on to say 'So let's find out, shall we!'
Placing more creedance in a theory than it rightly deserves is akin to dogmatic faith and places credible scientific threory directly in the realm of theology.
However, a theory is a result of an ever increasing body of evidence, with thousands of experiments performed solely for the purpose of proving its predictions wrong. The difference between scientific theory, and religious theory, is that scientific theory is discarded the MOMENT it is proven false. There is nothing dogmatic about it. However, as Evolution has not yet been proven false, and, in fact, has been observed in both experimental AND natural settings on multiple occasions, and is repeatable, observable, and testable... it is accepted as the most likely truth.
Scientific theories require scientific rigour. Science will only hold creationist hypothesis with equal or any weight when it can demonstrate any sort of scientific rigor for its claims. 'You haven't figured it out yet' isn't a hole in science... it's the fundamental truth OF science. Science knows that, but seeks to correct holes in its knowledge.
PS: Just in case life on earth was placed here by an extraterrestrial life form (which is not relevant to evolution), science is, in fact, on the look out for evidence of extraterrestrial life forms. Cause, we don't know if they exist or not, and science goes 'This is a hole in our knowledge, so we must fix it.'
Also, just because we can't know or observe something now does not mean with increasing technology and improved techniques we cannot know or observe it in the future.
