Evolution a proven fact!

[Hacker]

evolution is inevitably founded on life appearing from non life, evolution is a forwards-moving process, so to speak, ergo we should be able to trace the current state of things back through time, and back through the process of evolution... we should eventually find the point where we have the first form of life, that came from some form of non life.

if evolution was not based on life appearing from non life, it would be the same as saying lifeforms have, in one state or another, existed for eternity, which is scientifically bull-plop

can science explain the miracle or life appearing from non life? any explanation given will sound just as vague and "iffy" to me, as me saying "God did it" sounds to you.

EXCELLENT ANSWER!!!:clap

 

[Sunstone]

I'll admit that I don't know his position well. It seems to be willful ignorance to me to acknowledge that there is evidence, but to ignore it. If they denied the evidence then I would just consider it regular evidence. There are plenty of ways to reconcile faith with Evolution. To simply continuing following Creationism seems nothing short of ignorance to me.

Try thinking of Creationism as a metaphysical position, Yami. It might make more sense then how some people can view it.

After all, while there is no proof of creation, there is no disproof of it either. While creation seems implausible, it is not impossible. In that respect it is like the metaphysical position that the material world doesn't really exist. While that seems implausible, it is not impossible. There simply is no proof one way or the other, even though there is a weight of evidence on the side that the material world exists.

Buddy, if I understand him correctly, is not one of those creationists who are woefully ignorant of evolution and whose criticisms of it are laughable. Again, if I understand him, all he's saying is that as long as there exists the possibility of creation, he's going to choose to believe in that possibility.

 

[YamiB.]

EXCELLENT ANSWER!!!:clap

Not really. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with how the first life came to exist. It just deals with what happens to the life forms once they did exist.

The idea that life came from non-life is abiogenesis and evolution does not depend on it. You could still see it that the first life was caused by a divine being and evolution could still be true within that view.

 

[Willamena]

Quote:
"Quite frankly I think that in this day and age, the fact that evolution is still questionned shows our society's fundamental failure to accept obvious truths. This in turn indicates to me the dangerous hold that religion has over people's minds," SheepFarmer

Actually, it indicates the tenuous hold people have over the understanding that a decent education is necessary to get by in the Western world.

 

[YamiB.]

Exactly again! What is so hard to understand about the word theory(Ryan), it's not a fact what's so hard to understand?

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

This was just on the last page. Is it that difficult to click it?

 

[Sunstone]

Exactly again! What is so hard to understand about the word theory(Ryan), it's not a fact what's so hard to understand?

This is the relevant meaning of the word "theory" used in the context of the "Theory of Evolution". The other definitions of "theory" are irrelevant here.

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

The notion that the Theory Of Evolution is just conjecture or speculation is based on a simplistic confusion of two separate meanings for the same word.

 

[Hacker]

I just took a philosophy class in the summer and my professor said "A GOOD scientist will tell you that evolution is only theory, we can't prove it, that's why it's a theory." He said that a GOOD scientist won't argue trying to prove that it's a fact. I SWEAR he said this, that's why it stuck in my head.

 

[Mike182]

This is the relevant meaning of the word "theory" used in the context of the "Theory of Evolution". The other definitions of "theory" are irrelevant here.

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

The notion that the Theory Of Evolution is just conjecture or speculation is based on a simplistic confusion of two separate meanings for the same word.

agreed, people really need to seperate the two for evolution debates :yes:

can we predict how future human evolution will take place?

 

[Ryan2065]

You are 100% certain? It's completely proven?

I guess the better answer is you can prove that an object isn't something but then again that isn't helpful in determining what it is =p which is usually the question.

In science nothing is proven.

Hrm... do ya'll consider math a science?

I just took a philosophy class in the summer and my professor said "A GOOD scientist will tell you that evolution is only theory, we can't prove it, that's why it's a theory." He said that a GOOD scientist won't argue trying to prove that it's a fact. I SWEAR he said this, that's why it stuck in my head.

A good scientist will remind you that gravity is only a theory and we cannot prove it, that is why it is a theory. Then again a good scientist would probably let you know what theory means =p

 

[JerryL]

I just took a philosophy class in the summer and my professor said "A GOOD scientist will tell you that evolution is only theory, we can't prove it, that's why it's a theory." He said that a GOOD scientist won't argue trying to prove that it's a fact. I SWEAR he said this, that's why it stuck in my head.

Not that "someone said so" is ever a valid support: but why exactly was a philisophy professor spouting a (incorrect) litany on scientific parlance?

Seriously: Look up what "theory" means in scientific language (links have been provided). To be a theory, something is proven true ("proof" is also defined relative to the subject). Using the wrong definition of a word with multiple definitions is called "equivocation" and is a type of fallacy.

 

[JerryL]

I guess the better answer is you can prove that an object isn't something but then again that isn't helpful in determining what it is =p which is usually the question.

Well. Could I prove that Halley Berry was a woman? Could I prove she was human? Could I prove she was more massive than a liter of water?

The moral being, I believe that things can be proven.

...unless one wants to doubt the basis for knowledge; in which case nothing at all can ever be proven.

 

[lamplighter]

One day people will laugh that we had to argue the point of evoution. Just like we laugh at having to argue that the earth is round, because you know there were plenty people who still thought you could fall off the world long after Columbus got back.

 

[JerryL]

Just like we laugh at having to argue that the earth is round, because you know there were plenty people who still thought you could fall off the world long after Columbus got back.

Perhaps the edge of the world was on the other side of America? How about Megellan.

BTW, among the adament flat-earth group who asserted that the Bible clearly declared the Earth flat was Martin Luther

 

[lamplighter]

But the myth was, that if you go beyond the Atlantic you'ld fall off.

 

[BUDDY]

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

This was just on the last page. Is it that difficult to click it?

From Wikipedia:
In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.

Maybe you are confused as to the meaning of the word fact. Fact is not changeable. Fact is unmovable. Fact is absolute. THEORY IS NONE OF THESE THINGS!!!

 

[YamiB.]

From Wikipedia:
In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.

Maybe you are confused as to the meaning of the word fact. Fact is not changeable. Fact is unmovable. Fact is absolute. THEORY IS NONE OF THESE THINGS!!!

I don't know about you, but every time I was instructed in Science they stressed there was no such thing as fact in Science. Things can always be revised due to new data. Really this makes them better than 'facts' because you can never be sure when a so called fact will be proven wrong.

I brought up this link to point out that Buddy was using the incorrect definition for a theory in Science. I apologize to tlcmel, about jumping out to attack so quickly. I've just seen the idiot, it's just a theory thing so many times that I misunderstood the meaning behind your post.

I'll still bring up a point I wanted to make that I'm sure I seemed to be talking down before in the topic. Though I may call an action on the part of a person stupid I am not saying anything about their overall intellect. I know plenty of people I consider very intelligent that do and say plenty of stupid things.

 

[JerryL]

Maybe you are confused as to the meaning of the word fact. Fact is not changeable. Fact is unmovable. Fact is absolute. THEORY IS NONE OF THESE THINGS!!!

No. Facts do not change. For example, the fact "the Earth is flat" did not change. It was, however, proven false.

You are missing a basic understanding of what the words mean. I'm having difficulty understaning how that is possibe considering how many times it has been explained, but we'll explain it again.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

 

[Yerda]

Hrm... do ya'll consider math a science?

Nope.

 

[Ryan2065]

Well. Could I prove that Halley Berry was a woman?

You could get a pretty good idea that she was a woman, but not prove it 100%... Whatever method you try to use to actually prove she is a woman is not 100% effective.

Could I prove she was human?

Why can she not be a very clever alien that has advanced technology to make us think she is human?

Could I prove she was more massive than a liter of water?

You would first need to show that she was not as massive as a liter of water...

Also... here is one way to show you cannot prove something 100%... There can always be aliens using fun technology to mess with us... While it is not probable, there can be a small chance of it. Most would round off that chance and say it was not possible, but this would be rounding =)

 

[JerryL]

Also... here is one way to show you cannot prove something 100%... There can always be aliens using fun technology to mess with us... While it is not probable, there can be a small chance of it. Most would round off that chance and say it was not possible, but this would be rounding =)

Or, of course, I could be insane.