• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Online Reference: FAQs and tutorials on the Theory of Evolution

The Neo Nerd

The Neo Nerd

Well-Known Member
Thanks Luis,

Hopefully when we get new theists coming in, putting forward their misconceptions, a link to this thread can be posted and the new theist can become educated and there will be a decrease in general ridicule.

-Q
 
evolved yet?

evolved yet?

A Young Evolutionist
The Myths of Evolution This sight is pro-evolution
Talkdesign Talkorigin's sister sight meant entirely for dealing with the intelligent design movement
Design by Evolution I try to introduce people to evolution and attack some arguments used by IDers/Creationists
Evidence of common descent- Wikipedia Very well done.
Intelligent Design Essays and Rebuttals Some famous IDers state there case and famous evolutionary biologists rebut it
These are not really introductory but they in my opinion state the case for evolution quite well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
Thanks, Luis.

I don't think I need to read the evolution, because I already understand the theory, but hopefully people who don't, will investigate at these sites, become they comment on evolution.

I have a request.

I think either you or auto, or painted wolf should post another sticky thread on the Science vs Religion debate on the definition of THEORY (in science), because I personally tired of explaining to creationists and theists that scientific theory is. The common dictionary-definition is not complete explanation of what theory is, especially in science. What theists think is a definition for theory, is actually a definition for hypothesis.

I think many creationists, IDs and theists can't seem to understand (or don't want to understand).
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
Great idea for those who actually care to learn. My experience has been that staunch creationists don't, nor do they care one wit what evolutionists say, and will knowingly misrepresent evolution as long as it suites them.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
I think the links are just as important for the pro-science people to read... many people think they understand evolution more than they actually do.
It's a deceptively "simple" theory.

wa;do
 
Biblestudent_007

Biblestudent_007

Active Member
gnostic said:
Thanks, Luis.

I don't think I need to read the evolution, because I already understand the theory, but hopefully people who don't, will investigate at these sites, become they comment on evolution.

I have a request.

I think either you or auto, or painted wolf should post another sticky thread on the Science vs Religion debate on the definition of THEORY (in science), because I personally tired of explaining to creationists and theists that scientific theory is. The common dictionary-definition is not complete explanation of what theory is, especially in science. What theists think is a definition for theory, is actually a definition for hypothesis.

I think many creationists, IDs and theists can't seem to understand (or don't want to understand).
Click to expand...

He will forward your request to the administartor.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
These links should be kept as a sticky or in a separate data section.

As often as the Evolution-ID question comes up here, it would be helpful to have a library of informative resources available to bring those unfamiliar with the evidence up to speed.
 
RedOne77

RedOne77

Active Member
One set of videos that I thoroughly enjoyed is the series by youtube user "Glovergj". He is a Christian who made the series to help educate Christians about science and debunk Christian pseudo-science. He starts off with fairly uncontroversial topics like a flat-earth to more and more controversial topics (within Christianity) ending with intelligent design.

While this series is made for a Christian audience, I think it is a good series for anyone interested in the evolution-creation debate in general. I recommend lessons 12 and 14 to everyone, and lessons 2, 4, 6, 15-16 especially to fellow Christians.

YouTube - glovergj's Channel

YouTube - glovergj's Channel

YouTube - glovergj's Channel
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
thought this could be of use for people:


tumblr_ltbwmhFpF61qi2yq2o1_500.jpg



wa:do
 

Attachments

  • tumblr_ltbwmhFpF61qi2yq2o1_500.jpg
    tumblr_ltbwmhFpF61qi2yq2o1_500.jpg
    103.5 KB · Views: 0
Last edited by a moderator:
Red Panda

Red Panda

Member
I'm going to put this here so I don't have to keep repeating myself.

I have a degree in zoology. I'm jumping in here to clarify evolution as I haven't seen this point made and it is very important if you're going to debate the subject.

THe process of evolution and the theory of evolution is two different things.

The PROCESS OF EVOLUTION is a fact. It has been demonstrated over and over again. You can prove the process of evolution works. You have four groups of the same species of birds. One group goes off and starts feeding on the vegetation by the shore. Another group goes off and starts feeding on the insects in the ground. The third eats fruit from the trees. The fourth eats berries from the shrubs. The birds with the slightly better beak for the type of food they are eating will thrive better than those with a slightly worse beak. And those that thrive will mate and have offspring. Over time, the beak will change until it becomes specified for that particular food. There will come a point in time when the group that went down to the shore to eat vegetation will have a beak which is completely unsuited to eating fruit or berries or insects. At that point in time, you have four new species of birds. It does NOT happen all at one time. There is NO jump from one species to another. It is a gradual change.

The THEORY OF EVOLUTION says that from this process of evolution all life forms evolved from the first single cell organisms. This takes a very very long time to happen. In the case of Darwin's finches, it took many generations for the different species to emerge from the parent species which got blown to the Galapagos from South America. It is not the parents are ground finches and the children are small tree finches. The changes are very small and incremental. The difference between parents and children are hardly noticeable. But over time those small changes build up until there are separate species.


The process of evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is open to debate, because it is a theory. You can not negate the theory of evolution by negating the process of evolution. They are two separate things and the process of evolution is a fact.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Red Panda said:
I'm going to put this here so I don't have to keep repeating myself.

I have a degree in zoology. I'm jumping in here to clarify evolution as I haven't seen this point made and it is very important if you're going to debate the subject.

THe process of evolution and the theory of evolution is two different things.

The PROCESS OF EVOLUTION is a fact. It has been demonstrated over and over again. You can prove the process of evolution works. You have four groups of the same species of birds. One group goes off and starts feeding on the vegetation by the shore. Another group goes off and starts feeding on the insects in the ground. The third eats fruit from the trees. The fourth eats berries from the shrubs. The birds with the slightly better beak for the type of food they are eating will thrive better than those with a slightly worse beak. And those that thrive will mate and have offspring. Over time, the beak will change until it becomes specified for that particular food. There will come a point in time when the group that went down to the shore to eat vegetation will have a beak which is completely unsuited to eating fruit or berries or insects. At that point in time, you have four new species of birds. It does NOT happen all at one time. There is NO jump from one species to another. It is a gradual change.

The THEORY OF EVOLUTION says that from this process of evolution all life forms evolved from the first single cell organisms. This takes a very very long time to happen. In the case of Darwin's finches, it took many generations for the different species to emerge from the parent species which got blown to the Galapagos from South America. It is not the parents are ground finches and the children are small tree finches. The changes are very small and incremental. The difference between parents and children are hardly noticeable. But over time those small changes build up until there are separate species.


The process of evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is open to debate, because it is a theory. You can not negate the theory of evolution by negating the process of evolution. They are two separate things and the process of evolution is a fact.
Click to expand...
I would clarify your clarification.

The theory of evolution is not debated. It is established scientific fact. Hence it is a theory and not a hypothesis.
However, aspects of theory of evolution are debated. Such as the relative importance of kin selection or ERV's to speciation. In some cases these debates can get quite lively.

No one debates the actual theory of evolution.

wa:do
 
Red Panda

Red Panda

Member
painted wolf said:
The theory of evolution is not debated. It is established scientific fact. Hence it is a theory and not a hypothesis.
Click to expand...

:confused: This entire section of the forum is for debating the theory of evolution.

If the theory of evolution were an established scientific fact that can not be refuted or potentially refuted, then it would be called a law. In science we have hypothesis, theory, and law. A hypthosis is we think this is what is happening, but we aren't sure. A theory is we think this is what is happening and we're pretty confident this is correct. A law is we know this is true.

The process of evolution is established scientific fact, the theory of evolution still has missing pieces of evidence.
 
Monk Of Reason

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Red Panda said:
:confused: This entire section of the forum is for debating the theory of evolution.

If the theory of evolution were an established scientific fact that can not be refuted or potentially refuted, then it would be called a law. In science we have hypothesis, theory, and law. A hypthosis is we think this is what is happening, but we aren't sure. A theory is we think this is what is happening and we're pretty confident this is correct. A law is we know this is true.

The process of evolution is established scientific fact, the theory of evolution still has missing pieces of evidence.
Click to expand...
The germ theory
The theory of gravity
The atomic theory

All are theories but also fact. To be a law is something other than fact.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Red Panda said:
:confused: This entire section of the forum is for debating the theory of evolution.

If the theory of evolution were an established scientific fact that can not be refuted or potentially refuted, then it would be called a law. In science we have hypothesis, theory, and law. A hypthosis is we think this is what is happening, but we aren't sure. A theory is we think this is what is happening and we're pretty confident this is correct. A law is we know this is true.

The process of evolution is established scientific fact, the theory of evolution still has missing pieces of evidence.
Click to expand...

You have a degree in zoology but you don't know the difference between a law and a theory? :facepalm:

Theories do not become laws... laws are lower in importance than theories. :cool:

A hypothesis does not become a theory a hypothesis is simply either confirmed or disproved. A proven hypothesis may be used to support or develop a theory but only in conjunction with several other proven hypothesis and even a few laws.

A law is a very limited subsection of a theory. Usually but not always a simple mathematical expression. A theory is the unifying principle behind several laws.

There are several laws under the theory of evolution...
Law of independent assortment
Hardy-Weinburg equilibrium
Natural selection
Genetic drift

I could go on for a while... but you get the idea.

wa:do
 
Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Here's some evidence that evolution works and it does produce "positive" mutations. The whole genetic altered food industry is fearing that new superbugs are evolving that can resist the "bug-killing" crops.

There are many articles on this topic, and there are articles from 1990's when people warned about this that it could/would happen.

Superbug vs. Monsanto: Nature rebels against biotech titan ? RT USA

I'd say it's one reason why people need to understand that evolution is not only true, but how it works. There are certain protocols to follow when using these GMs, for this very reason, and those who didn't (because they didn't understand evolution) are now the culprits or primary source of the new bugs.
 
A

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Red Panda said:
This entire section of the forum is for debating the theory of evolution.

If the theory of evolution were an established scientific fact that can not be refuted or potentially refuted, then it would be called a law. In science we have hypothesis, theory, and law. A hypthosis is we think this is what is happening, but we aren't sure. A theory is we think this is what is happening and we're pretty confident this is correct. A law is we know this is true.

The process of evolution is established scientific fact, the theory of evolution still has missing pieces of evidence.
Click to expand...

Do you accept, or reject Ken Miller's article on the flagellum, intelligent design, and irreducible complexity at The Flagellum Unspun?

Whatever you wish to call evolution, an article at Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation shows that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept common descent. The same article shows that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have less income.

Michael Behe, Ph.D., biochemistry, said:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.
 
Monk Of Reason

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Red Panda said:
:confused: This entire section of the forum is for debating the theory of evolution.

If the theory of evolution were an established scientific fact that can not be refuted or potentially refuted, then it would be called a law. In science we have hypothesis, theory, and law. A hypthosis is we think this is what is happening, but we aren't sure. A theory is we think this is what is happening and we're pretty confident this is correct. A law is we know this is true.

The process of evolution is established scientific fact, the theory of evolution still has missing pieces of evidence.
Click to expand...
No. A theory can never become a law. A theory is as good as it gets. Scientific fact means that something has so much evidence with little to no evidence to the contrary that it becomes preverse to deny it. Evolution is one of these.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top