This right here is the heart of it all. In science (SCIENCE!), you aren't right unless you're proven wrong...you're wrong until you can prove your right; and even then you're only right until something else proves otherwise.DracoSuave said:If you believe in science, then you believe that if a better theory comes along, it can replace a previous theory... physics in the past century exhibits that.Salad Is Murder said:Okay, I have to know if you're using the scientific definition of theory in your little "...everything else in science..." or the layman's "theory is like guessing" because I think you just broke my brain. Please clarify before is leaks out of my head.ElectroJosh said:And, like everything else in science, always will be.Coranico said:Well evolution has always been a theory
Just to clear up a little vocab here, when you apply the word "Theory" to a scientific concept, that means that there is measurable and replicable data that forms a model of reality.
However, as scientific theories go... there isn't a lot of evidence that indicates something else. The body of work is overwhelming, and Evolution is not likely to be replaced by another theory any time soon... certainly not Intelligent Design which has NO body of work at all.
I agree. This is why I am not an evolution basher.Jamie Wroe said:But my point is that while we can't see the actual process we can see it's effects. If we then look at the massive changes we can observe in the fossil records as well as the fact we know how old these fossils are we can make very good estimates about when species diverged and what they diverged into. This correlates very nicely with the DNA evidence. I don't know what else you want, we can observe evolution on the small scale, and extrapolate from that the large scale (for large organisms) and for bacteria we can observe large changes in relatively short time frames.DanDeFool said:Yes, I was aware of these facts. My point (which was my advisor's point, I guess) is that it might take a million years to see a bacteria evolve into a paramecium, or to get a dog to evolve into a porpoise. Also, I don't know of any experiments that have been able to get single-celled life forms out of component chemicals.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an evolution-basher by any stretch of the imagination. I just agree that evolution can't be tested like, say, theories about electromagnetism or gravity, and that limits how definitively we can say that we understand the underlying processes.
Add to that we can see evidence of large scale evolution in DNA, fossils and human domestication of animals. Darwin made prediction about how his theory could be strengthened, but more importantly how it could be falsified. He has been right so far, every single fossil we dig up strengthens his argument and more and more often intermediate stages of supposedly 'irreducibly complex systems' are found in nature or fossils.
You really shouldn't point that out to people who say that.ElectroJosh said:And, like everything else in science, always will be.Coranico said:Well evolution has always been a theory
About 90% of the time when someone tells me they don't accept (not believe, the term believe is loaded) evolution I get the classic linebadgersprite said:In my general experience, people who disagree with the concept of evolution don't understand it, and have had it badly explained to them. So, you hear a really bad explanation about what evolution is, of course you're going to think it sounds like hokey, because they've been presented with completely incorrect facts about it.
Hell, I've meant plenty of people who believe in evolution but still say completely wrong things about it because they don't fully understand it and how it works.
Oh? They made amino acids other than formaldehyde in a test tube under "pre-life" conditions? And that life, cells being more complex than most cars mind you,decided to form colonies? Oh what dastardly agency covered this landmark discovery up? And if you actually knew anything at all about science, you'd know that absolutely NOTHING has no exceptions and absolutely NOTHING is absolute fact... except precellular macroevolution, i.e. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION, and that fossil fuels are 100% responsible for rising temperatures which apparently aren't rising. Science is not infallible, so why are we forced on these two issues to believe it is or be labelled ignorant? For thinking and questioning the status quo?Kadoodle said:Nieroshai said:So... now you're doubting your friend's intelligence? About a theory that has only been proven half-true? Sure things evolve. But did they evolve from goo, from primordial pools, from single cells into what we have today? We have no evidence that we did. Are we different from our ancestors? Yes. Are we related somehow to every form of life to ever exist? MAYBE.
Excuse me? Half true? You can watch evolution happen in a fucking test tube. There is so much evidence to support it that it is practically fact.
It is also apparent that you don't understand what "theory" means. When you're talking about science, a "theory" is a hypothesis that has so much data and evidence to back it up that it is nearly fact.
Courtesy to my initial post: Roflocopters.Nieroshai said:Oh? They made amino acids other than formaldehyde in a test tube under "pre-life" conditions? And that life, cells being more complex than most cars mind you,decided to form colonies? Oh what dastardly agency covered this landmark discovery up? And if you actually knew anything at all about science, you'd know that absolutely NOTHING has no exceptions and absolutely NOTHING is absolute fact... except precellular macroevolution, i.e. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION, and that fossil fuels are 100% responsible for rising temperatures which apparently aren't rising. Science is not infallible, so why are we forced on these two issues to believe it is or be labelled ignorant? For thinking and questioning the status quo?
I STUDIED evolutionary biology. So don't even dare to suppose anyone who disaggrees with your perfect opinion is an uneducated lout. I notice how this is always the argument your side falls back on instead of actually showing evidence. I learned enough about cells to have absolutely no doubt it's almost impossible for globs of organic acid to "decide" to become incredibly complex machines. Even bacteria have numerous parts that have specific functions, down to the rotary motor that spins flagella. I've yet to have a professor give me any genuine reason to believe that complexity can be accidental yet infinitely repeatable.Hugga_Bear said:Good freaking lord.
Can we have a forum rule where people have to actually read the rest of the thread before contributing? Or at least the last two pages of it.
I mean seriously guys, all the people coming on and saying "It's just a theory! lololol!" I actually want to reach through my screen and ***** slap you across the face right now.
It's been covered so many times in this thread, by so many people. Me included. I spent a good ten minutes writing a long piece on the common fallacies put forward against evolution but of course, you know best with your degree in listening to Fox News.
If you seriously doubt evolution then you should learn about it, in EXACTLY the same way I would expect you to learn about anything you weren't sure of. Read books on it, read articles on it, debate about it once you have the requisite knowledge.
If you don't care that much, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY FINE. I don't expect or particularly want everyone in the world obsessing over it, it's a neat scientific theory and extremely well developed but not everyone needs to know, that's fair enough. But then you cannot make statements regarding it's truth.
If you don't know about it as so many of you have demonstrated that you don't, then please stop posting such ridiculous assertions. Either learn the theory or GTFO, basically.
Not exactly.ElectroJosh said:And, like everything else in science, always will be.Coranico said:Well evolution has always been a theory
We can't? Well, best you head down to every nature museum, school, university and science lab in the world to inform them of your insight.Sharpiez said:Doesn't matter. We can't prove any of it.