Evolution and Theory of Evolution

[Autodidact]

Yes, I'm aware that ruffly 95% of scientists accept evolution.

More like 99% of Biologists, which is the only relevant category.

But I cannot justify myself accepting such based solely on the majority; the majority isn't always right, nor does 100% acceptance equal truth.

So I'm guessing you've devoted years of your life to investigating the huge amount of evidence that indicates that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is not true? Can you share it with us?

And there are scientists out there who agree with creation.

There are fewer than 100 Biologists in the entire world who accept Young Earth Creationism (YEC.) Each and every one of them is a devout Christian or Muslim, and believes YEC only because they think their religion requires it.

Yes, I've touched a little on why such is the case above. Just to give you a little taste of the indoctrination I've experienced; when I was around 10 my dad informed me that things evolved from wildly different organisms into what we see today, including humans. And implied such as empirical fact, and whoever didn't agree was ignorant and stupid. Well it didn't take long for the education system to pick up where he left off, once I got into middle school the teachers started preaching evolution. At least my high school biology teacher had enough sense to mention the controversy, but of course he sided with the evolutionists all the same. And it continued all the way through my education.

Your dad and Biology teachers were correct. What do you think they should teach in Biology class, if not the theory on which all modern Biology is based?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, I'm aware that ruffly 95% of scientists accept evolution. But I cannot justify myself accepting such based solely on the majority; the majority isn't always right, nor does 100% acceptance equal truth. And there are scientists out there who agree with creation. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut, but I see the high percentage of acceptance of evolution to be that of indoctrination of evolutionary theory among the media, schools and universities. I don't see this as one big conspiracy headed by all the major scientific organizations and what not, rather a meme passed down through repeated surges in philosophical naturalism permeating academia and the colloquial culture for centuries. Especially starting at the beginning of the post modernity era.

Then you're demonstrably wrong.

Firstly: Evolution has nothing to do with philosophical naturalism.

Secondly: Why do you apply this logic to evolution and not to everything else? Why do you not question gravity, atoms or modern medicine? All of these things are learned, taught and supported in similar ways.

Thirdly: Evolution is supported by a wealth of research and evidence. If you don't want to accept it just because it is taught, then go and learn more about it and see for yourself the facts that support it.

I'm not suggesting you accept evolution purely on the basis that the majority of scientists accept evolution. I was refuting your claim that people on the evolution side of the debate know just as little as those on the creationism side. Considering the VAST majority of actual scientists accept evolution, obviously that is not the case.

In regards to my comment about Kirk and Ray showing 'stupid evolutionists', I'm not saying that all evolutionists are stupid. Merely pointing out that to say that creationists are the only ones who can possibly be ignorant regarding terminology such as "scientific theory" and what evolutionary theory states is outright propaganda and misinformation. I saw one video where an evolutionist proclaim that we came from horses! And another saying we came from frogs! While I don't agree with evolutionary theory, saying that the theory, or the implications of the theory (via fact of evolution), state that is wrong. Most evolutionists who debate the subject online usually know the basics, but only a small percentage of evolutionists and creationists debate this online as far as I know.

I'd like to see these videos if you could provide links.

Yes, I've touched a little on why such is the case above. Just to give you a little taste of the indoctrination I've experienced; when I was around 10 my dad informed me that things evolved from wildly different organisms into what we see today, including humans. And implied such as empirical fact, and whoever didn't agree was ignorant and stupid. Well it didn't take long for the education system to pick up where he left off, once I got into middle school the teachers started preaching evolution. At least my high school biology teacher had enough sense to mention the controversy, but of course he sided with the evolutionists all the same. And it continued all the way through my education.

How is that indoctrination? That's education. Maybe there's a reason why all those people were teaching you evolution - because it is established scientific fact. You could replace every instance of "evolution" in this statement with "maths" and you'd still be making the exact same logical argument. You were told it was true, then more people told you it was true, and you assume that means that it is pure indoctrination.

Sorry, but that's just all of those people being honest and giving you the facts. Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology and the most widely evidence and accepted theory in science today. You have yet to present a single piece of evidence that refutes evolution whatsoever. You seem to of just concluded that it was wrong based purely on the fact that people told you it was right.

Surprisingly I actually agree. Ray and Kirk aren't equipped to talk about science, and should stick with evangelizing. Although they brought much support to creationism, which I view as a plus, they need to leave the science to creation scientists, IMO.

While I respect your honesty, I just have to say that "creation scientists" is an oxymoron. Unless, of course, you can name any advances made recently in the field of creationism.

 

[Yerda]

More like 99% of Biologists...

In my experience of trained biologists the figure is 100%.

 

[gnostic]

Why? Surely you must know what it is, do you not? Or are you looking to see just how ignorant the ignorant creationist is?

I will correct you if you're wrong, RedOne, but not so to prove you are ignorant, if you're open and sincere with your definition.

The reason why I ask you to give a definition is mainly because you refused to answer johnhank's earlier question to you (in post 208). He did ask you a direct question, and you dodge it. I was hoping you would answer the question if ask again.

In science, a theory is an explanation of a specific set of facts supported by a large body of evidence that is also falsifiable, and one of the hallmarks of a scientific theory is its ability to predict.

You see. That wasn't so hard. Thank you for giving the definition.

So yes, :yes: I am pleased with your answer.

Now, I would like to expand your definition.

The theory is falsifiable depending on the evidences taken or examined, as well as the tests done on the evidences, to either verify the accuracy of theory or discarded as unaccepted hypothesis.

The more tests done and the more verification of the evidences are (referring to the quantity of tests and evidences), then the more accepted the theory, hence it become scientific fact. If a number of independent scientists come to the same conclusion with their own tests on the same evidence...OR, the independent scientists used separate and independent tests...then the theory has become accepted as fact.

That's the proofs required to make the theory as fact.

Sorry if I am boring you with this. Because unlike you, many creationists don't understand that theory is explanation on fact.

Now, science is all about fact and evidences, not proof. Doubts are just as important as certainty. In science, there's no such as 100% proof, but if you have enough evidences and tests done to support the theory, then you have proven beyond reasonable doubts.

The thing is Charles Darwin has done more than enough. He was a learned naturalist, hence a scientist of botany and wildlife, but he was also a geologist too before he set out on his journey on HMS Beagle in 1831. He observed and researched on the evidences he had found. His notes are filled with drawing and recordings of his finds. This journey took him 5 years. However, he did not present his finding to the public until

His conclusion is evolution, about the changes of species. And so far, his theory hasn't been proven wrong. And scientists (biologists (and related fields, such as genetic scientists), geologists), both contemporaries and generations later, right up to today, no creationists could prove his wrong, nor the present YEC and IDs.

And these are some of the problems I have with creationists (and with IDs):

1. They want their creationism or pseudo-science of ID to be taught in the science classrooms, without a single basis on facts (which verifiable and testable evidences).
2. With the ID supporters, instead of using science and evidences to support their cases and so-called "theory", they tried to rely on non-scientific authorities (courts and school boards in order to coerce science teacher on baseless ID "theory") to force schools to teach Intelligent Design. Heck, they persuaded Geroge Bush Junior to support their case, who is not a scientist, and have no science background whatsoever.
3. Both creationists and IDs have resorted to subterfuge and deception, not evidences, to prove (only in their minds) that evolution is theory not fact. But as you pointed out in your definition, theory in SCIENCE is explanation on fact. That's what some of the members here don't get. They tried to twist the word "theory" to suit themselves, without understanding what a theory really is.
4. They don't present evidences or facts that are testable and verifiable.
5. And lastly (and just as important), creationists don't understand that evolution is not about the origin of life, which is abiogenesis. Evolution is about changes, and how life adapt to changing condition.

Many of us here, have tried patiently at RF - and for my part, impatiently - to clarify evolution as a scientific factual theory, and to remove their misconceptions and preconceptions about evolution.

 

[RedOne77]

More like 99% of Biologists, which is the only relevant category. So I'm guessing you've devoted years of your life to investigating the huge amount of evidence that indicates that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is not true? Can you share it with us?

It's hard to devote years of one's life to a cause when your still in school.

There are fewer than 100 Biologists in the entire world who accept Young Earth Creationism (YEC.) Each and every one of them is a devout Christian or Muslim, and believes YEC only because they think their religion requires it.

When it comes to the words of men versus the words of God, I think I'll stick with God.

Your dad and Biology teachers were correct. What do you think they should teach in Biology class, if not the theory on which all modern Biology is based?

I have no problem with micro-evolution, but I do have a problem when it is extrapolated into macro.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, I've touched a little on why such is the case above. Just to give you a little taste of the indoctrination I've experienced; when I was around 10 my dad informed me that things evolved from wildly different organisms into what we see today, including humans. And implied such as empirical fact, and whoever didn't agree was ignorant and stupid. Well it didn't take long for the education system to pick up where he left off, once I got into middle school the teachers started preaching evolution. At least my high school biology teacher had enough sense to mention the controversy, but of course he sided with the evolutionists all the same. And it continued all the way through my education.

Sorry, RedOne77. Your argument seem pointless.

I take that you learned other science subjects other than evolution?

Did your maths, physics, biology or chemistry subject ever taught you anything else (like creation or god or Jesus) other than the subject they? Yes? No?

If no, then they were educating you about you the subjects you were meant to study. That's education, not indoctrination.

If they taught you about the bible in the science classroom instead of science, than that would be considered to be indoctrination and "preaching".

When you were taught mathematics, physics (like gravity or mechanics) or chemistry, did you ever think it was indoctrination? No, then why is teaching evolution be considered indoctrination, and not those other science subject?

And you forgetting one important thing. Evolution is not a separate subject of biology. Evolution is just one part of biology. If you were taught evolution in biology, then you were taught a specific field or sub-field of biology.

Do you know any genetic scientist, RedOne? If you do, then ask them if they ever study evolution, because part of the study of genetic biology is about genetic changes of organism, hence evolution.

So I find your accusation of "indoctrination" as a hollow one. You just didn't understand what you have been taught.

When you was learning chemistry, did they you about god? If they didn't, then it is not indoctrination.

And when you was learning biology and they taught you genetics and evolution, then that's not indoctrination.

Why do you single out evolution and not the other science subjects?

 

[gnostic]

When it comes to the words of men versus the words of God, I think I'll stick with God.

If I want to have deeper understanding about the natural mechanics of life, then I preferred science over the words of God.

God doesn't teach science. He explain absolutely nothing.

An example here: When Job even bother to ask "why?" he was browbeaten into submission.

That's not the god of love. That's the god of fear and tyranny. Your God, pictured in Book of Job, is nothing more than a bully, and not a bright one at that.

Of course, the BoJ may not have happen, but merely a parable, or vehicle of symbolic relationship between man and god, but he is still is portrayed as a fictional bully.

Beside, the bible is not the words of God. Every single book in the bible were written by men. Are you denying that men wrote the gospels, letters and books?

 

[Yerda]

When it comes to the words of men versus the words of God, I think I'll stick with God.

But what you have is the words of men verses the words of other men (and women).

 

[RedOne77]

The more tests done and the more verification of the evidences are (referring to the quantity of tests and evidences), then the more accepted the theory, hence it become scientific fact. If a number of independent scientists come to the same conclusion with their own tests on the same evidence...OR, the independent scientists used separate and independent tests...then the theory has become accepted as fact.

That's the proofs required to make the theory as fact.

This is not entirely true. A scientific theory can't become a fact. You can get facts from theories, but theories themselves don't become facts (e.g. the theory of gravity isn't a fact). If a theory holds true to the point beyond reasonable doubt, it is accepted as the best naturalistic explanation for those particular facts. Also, there is no proofs in science, only in math.

His conclusion is evolution, about the changes of species. And so far, his theory hasn't been proven wrong. And scientists (biologists (and related fields, such as genetic scientists), geologists), both contemporaries and generations later, right up to today, no creationists could prove his wrong, nor the present YEC and IDs.

I don't deny micro-evolution, only macro-evolution as in mixing within different kinds. Darwin obviously figured out variation within populations, but he took his model too far.

And these are some of the problems I have with creationists (and with IDs):

1. They want their creationism or pseudo-science of ID to be taught in the science classrooms, without a single basis on facts (which verifiable and testable evidences).

I don't want to carve out the image of a teacher preaching incantations as the start of life; I'm well aware that my views are religious in nature. I just think that teachers should stop teaching the molecules to man model.

With the ID supporters, instead of using science and evidences to support their cases and so-called "theory", they tried to rely on non-scientific authorities (courts and school boards in order to coerce science teacher on baseless ID "theory") to force schools to teach Intelligent Design. Heck, they persuaded Geroge Bush Junior to support their case, who is not a scientist, and have no science background whatsoever.

Much in the same way Gore became the champion of global warming, even more so than Bush for creationism.

And lastly (and just as important), creationists don't understand that evolution is not about the origin of life, which is abiogenesis. Evolution is about changes, and how life adapt to changing condition. Many of us here, have tried patiently at RF - and for my part, impatiently - to clarify evolution as a scientific factual theory, and to remove their misconceptions and preconceptions about evolution.

Again, I bring you back to the fact that this debate is not solely on biological evolution, but also on chemical evolution and cosmological evolution; plus many creationists bring in morality and so on. The debate on evolution is not just on evolution.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't deny micro-evolution, only macro-evolution as in mixing within different kinds.

:biglaugh:

So tell us: what is the mechanism that constrains the cumulative effects of "micro-evolutionary" change?

 

[godrealized]

Gabethewiking... a perfect query! First I shall explain the difference between the two. Initially existed theory of evolution that explains how cosmos... the whole cosmic system came into being! The cosmos having come into existence needed a process of evolution by which life proceeded ahead in cosmic life cycle... an inbuilt mechanism that propagated life!

In absence of evolution... the whole cosmic system would become stagnant and die! Evolution is inbuilt into cosmic system! None in cosmic system can stop process of evolution... it is practically automatic... self governed!

If a seed remained a seed all its life... if a child remained a child all its life... everything would become meaningless in cosmic system... the prime reason why evolution was inbuilt into cosmic system! But where do human beings stood in the hierarchy of evolution?

The human form is highest manifest stage in cosmic life cycle! Every soul atman on its cosmic journey initially manifests form of an amoeba (single cell formation)... the first manifestation in cosmic life cycle! It further evolved into multi-cell formation... then insect life, plant life, animal life and finally form of human beings!

Our soul atman... the spirit within is absolute master and controller of human body and not vice versa! It is not within capability of human body to manifest a soul atman! Human beings evolved from stage of amoeba... then insect, plant and animal life is no surprise! This is how cosmic system was ordained by God Almighty!

When human beings gained enlightenment (kaivalya jnana)... all is over for soul atman... the spirit within! The liberated soul atman finally entered abode of God... kingdom of God (termed Baikuntha in Hinduism). This concept of evolution is explicitly detailed in sacred Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism... the foremost of all sacred scriptures existing on mother earth!

Now the theory of evolution! The theory of evolution is related to big bang concept... the origination of cosmos! The concept of origination of cosmos... the big bang theory is best explained in sacred Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism... the doctrine given to mankind by Lord Krishna in battle of Mahabharata!

As per Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism... let us imagine a moment when dissolution of old cosmos (termed Pralaya in Hinduism) occurs. At this moment the complete cosmos reduces to size of half a thumb! And what is this half a thumb? As per Bhagavad Gita... this half a thumb... the cluster of all purified souls atmans in cosmos is what we know as God Almighty!

If a grain of sand is an independent soul atman... the whole mound God Almighty! This enormous primordial energy... the size of half a thumb after dissolution of cosmos unable to retain itself for long in its prime pure state again explodes with a big bang giving rise to a new cosmos... a new journey of life! This also explains the fundamental that God is everywhere!

With occurrence of big bang... all purified souls atmans scattered all over cosmos at unimaginable speeds! In the melee... these hurtling souls’ atmans gathered impurities. To cleanse themselves of dross impurities within starts cosmic life cycle of every soul atman! No sooner life supporting planets like mother earth evolved in cosmos... these hurtling souls' atmans manifested life!

 

[tumbleweed41]

This is not entirely true. A scientific theory can't become a fact. You can get facts from theories, but theories themselves don't become facts (e.g. the theory of gravity isn't a fact). If a theory holds true to the point beyond reasonable doubt, it is accepted as the best naturalistic explanation for those particular facts. Also, there is no proofs in science, only in math.

Evolution, like gravity, is an accepted observable fact. The Theories of evolution and gravity are explanations of how gravity and evolution work using testable and verifiable hypothesis and peer reviewed observations.

You are correct in saying a theory does not become fact. It is not meant to do so. A theory is just the explanation of observable phenomena.

In Science, we do not talk about "proofs". What is used is empirical evidence. That is, evidence that is verified multiple times by various sources.

I don't deny micro-evolution, only macro-evolution as in mixing within different kinds. Darwin obviously figured out variation within populations, but he took his model too far.

There is no difference between micro and macro, other than the time involved. Micro defines the short term observances. Macro is the accumulation of micro over time. If one accepts micro, then by default, macro is observed over a greater period of time.

I don't want to carve out the image of a teacher preaching incantations as the start of life; I'm well aware that my views are religious in nature. I just think that teachers should stop teaching the molecules to man model.

Why? Biology confirms what the teacher is teaching. Would you have them withhold knowledge because it conflicts with your religious views?

Again, I bring you back to the fact that this debate is not solely on biological evolution, but also on chemical evolution and cosmological evolution; plus many creationists bring in morality and so on. The debate on evolution is not just on evolution.

Your attempt to include chemistry, cosmology, and philosophy in biology is scientifically invalid.
I, and others, would be happy to discuss cosmic origins, abiogenesis, or issues of morality in the appropriate threads. Just because you use the same explanation for all three does not make them valid in this debate.

 

[Gabethewiking]

I don't deny micro-evolution, only macro-evolution as in mixing within different kinds. Darwin obviously figured out variation within populations, but he took his model too far.

There is no mixing with different kinds.
This does not exist and is not Evolution.

I think this is one of the problems, you still have the view that Evolution is somehow a CrocoDuck, is this correct? You think a Fish had sex with a Mule, Correct?

Someone, please explain to Mr RedOne the stages of Evolution and how, we finally, Define a "New" Species compared to the Previous Species, I do not have time with charts and other things now. I think this is an important point needed to be shown to him, the 1 to 10 step.

 

[Gabethewiking]

Quick one.

Okay Red, your parents had a child, You! Are you a different kind?
No? But you are different, right? Okay.

Your Grandparents had a child, your Father, was he a different kind?
No? But he is different, right? Okay.

Now you go back hundreds of thousands of years and then to, say, the million line, that is a alot of children with alot of change, but every single individual was the same "kind" as their parent, but with the long line of small changes going with the line seeing the thousands upon thousands of years, we suddenly realize there is very much "different"... And we call it a different species (not because of appearance, just as a note, there is more to it then the physical look but that is another story).

 

[tumbleweed41]

Abcd to
Abdc (Micro)
Adbc (Micro)
Dabc (Micro)
Dbac (Micro)
Dbca (Micro)
Dcba (Micro)



Abcd to Dcba (Macro)

You see. The only difference is time.

 

[Autodidact]

When it comes to the words of men versus the words of God, I think I'll stick with God.

Exactly, and thank you for your honesty. You reject science in favor of a primitive, magical world view--except when it's convenient for you to use all the benefits that science provides, including the computer that you're using to reject it.

 

[Gabethewiking]

Red, how do you know what gods word are if they are written by man?

 

[fantome profane]

I don't deny micro-evolution, only macro-evolution as in mixing within different kinds. Darwin obviously figured out variation within populations, but he took his model too far.

Ok, so at this point in the debate what happens is you will be asked two things. First what is your definition of micro and macro evolution. If this is the line of demarcation it should be possible to clearly define where the line is. Second what is your definition of “kind”? If I am to be able to evaluate the idea the evolution cannot bring about new “kinds” I must know precisely what a kind is. We need a scientifically rigorous definition of kind that we can evaluate. Can you give us that? If you can’t the idea of kind is absolutely meaningless in a scientific conversation.

 

[RedOne77]

There is no mixing with different kinds.
This does not exist and is not Evolution.

I think this is one of the problems, you still have the view that Evolution is somehow a CrocoDuck, is this correct? You think a Fish had sex with a Mule, Correct?

I'm afraid you are incorrect. I am well aware of what the theory of evolution is, and what it says. What I said was poorly stated. I'm not in the CrocoDuck mind set.

Someone, please explain to Mr RedOne the stages of Evolution and how, we finally, Define a "New" Species compared to the Previous Species, I do not have time with charts and other things now. I think this is an important point needed to be shown to him, the 1 to 10 step.

There is no need, I doubt you will show me anything I don't already know... although I've never heard of the 1 to 10 step; is that a standard expression I just never ran into, or is it some evo thing?

 

[Autodidact]

What is a "kind?"