Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[metis]

John Philippe Rushton is a Canadian psychology professor widely known for his highly controversial work on racial group differences. In an Internet Essay in 2001:Is Race A Valid Taxonomic Construct? he argues that racial differences make sense in terms of human evolution. Talking of migration out of Africa he says that the further north people went out of Africa, the harder it was to get food, shelter, make clothes, and raise children. So the groups that evolved into today’s Whites and Orientals needed larger brains, more family stability, and a longer life. The time and energy needed to build a bigger brain was a trade off with slower rates of growth, less aggression and less sexual activity.

He claims that this racial pattern is evident all around the world: “…on average, African-descended children are born with smaller brains than European- or East Asian-descended children…”, and concludes that “Black underachievement is not simply due to ‘White prejudice’” because they are born with smaller brains than White or East Asian children. http://www.dailystormer.com/dna-proof-of-racial-differences-more-facts-come-to-light/

I would seriously suggest that you not believe everything you read coming from any one scientist, or even a small group of them, which is why the peer-review process is so terribly important, although widely misunderstood.

 

[metis]

Okay, i see the scientific mind is at work in you. I am showing that there is no certainty at all, and that is why it is called a theory not facts. That is why none of the scientist wants to put their John Hancock on the claims of evolution is facts. Because there are many of scientist has other theories and has actual evidence that contradict the theory of evolution. And so right now, the followers of Darwin, are trying to collect all of these evidence that contradicts Darwin's theory and hide them in the storage rooms at the Smithsonian, Like the Video of oscar the chimp was never unveiled to the world because they were trying to promote the evolution theory and that living walking upright ape proves that there were a different specie of walking upright apes that had roamed in the jungles before that had died out. And if you would of had watched the other video about a scientist had said that they proof of evidence of evolution that these fossils were found in the same layer of sediment in a certain period, that proves that they did not evolved. But if they would of had found them in different layers of sediment, did it will show that they evolved. And so now I personally debunk the theory of evolution, because of the existing evidence that shows that animals did not evolved into different species.

By and large, we don't use the word "fact(s)" in science, preferring instead to use "evidence", "hypotheses", "theories", "axioms", etc.

 

[habiru]

I would seriously suggest that you not believe everything you read coming from any one scientist, or even a small group of them, which is why the peer-review process is so terribly important, although widely misunderstood.

Well, the peer review process has not removed the label of theory from evolution theory. And so once that is removed and replace it with the word facts, then I might listen to it. But according to the English language, that the word theory still doesn't means facts, but assumption.

 

[habiru]

By and large, we don't use the word "fact(s)" in science, preferring instead to use "evidence", "hypotheses", "theories", "axioms", etc.

Because there is no certainty at all but speculations. No one knows what really happened back then, because the only records that they has that they doesn't like what it says. and Oliver the upright walking chimp was recorded and put onto the archives of the science community records as facts. And about the little man that they had found(Sirius) cannot fit it onto the evolution link. they still has the fossil on display and the giant's skeletons, they also has them not on display. But I cannot blame you for trying to keep a hold onto your faith but even though that there is no proof, and which that is considered as blind faith..

 

[Parsimony]

Well, the peer review process has not removed the label of theory from evolution theory. And so once that is removed and replace it with the word facts, then I might listen to it. But according to the English language, that the word theory still doesn't means facts, but assumption.

That's not what "theory" means in a scientific context. Haven't you ever heard of the "theory" of gravity?

 

[habiru]

That's not what "theory" means in a scientific context. Haven't you ever heard of the "theory" of gravity?

A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world. http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law


There is no way that it could be tested that man evolved from apes. And so if you can provide actual proof, then it will not be a speculation no more.

 

[viole]

There is no way that it could be tested that man evolved from apes.
.

That test would be meaningless. For we are apes.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There is no way that it could be tested that man evolved from apes. And so if you can provide actual proof, then it will not be a speculation no more.

Actually, you're wrong. Common ancestry has been tested and confirmed through the emergence of the fossil record and genetics.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hmmm, so many theory choices, like:

Hopeful Monster - instantaneous great individual mutant leaps (lizard born with hair/Goldschmidt)
Punctuated Equilibrium - short rare bursts of rapid multi-species mutations (Cambrian Explosion/Gould)
Gradualism - tiny continuous incremental mutations of every species (Imperceptible/Dawkins)
Panspermia - alien life was transplanted to Earth from beyond (Hoyle/Crick/Hawking)
Theistic Evolution / Old Earth Creationism - Creator used a version of Macro-Evolution
Biblical Creation / Natural Selection is a mechanism designed for created kinds to adapt to diverse habitats

Cosmic Evolution – The origin of information, language, time, space, and matter (Eg: the Big Bang)
Chemical Evolution – The origin of higher elements beyond hydrogen and helium.
Stellar & Planetary Evolution – The origin of the stars and planets.
Organic Evolution – The origin of life from non-life.
Macro Evolution – Changing one Kind into another (Eg: lizard to bird, ape to human, pepper to potato)
Micro Evolution – Natural Selection & Variation within the Kinds (Eg: coloration, stature, hair length)

Here's the theory of evolution I prefer, "If anyone be in Jesus, he is a new creature, a new creation." Trust Jesus's atoning death and resurrection. He died a horrible death, not for what He did, but what we did. Trust Him and you evolve to become something new, someone new.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Hmmm, so many theory choices, like:

Hopeful Monster - instantaneous great individual mutant leaps (lizard born with hair/Goldschmidt)
Punctuated Equilibrium - short rare bursts of rapid multi-species mutations (Cambrian Explosion/Gould)
Gradualism - tiny continuous incremental mutations of every species (Imperceptible/Dawkins)
Panspermia - alien life was transplanted to Earth from beyond (Hoyle/Crick/Hawking)
Theistic Evolution / Old Earth Creationism - Creator used a version of Macro-Evolution
Biblical Creation / Natural Selection is a mechanism designed for created kinds to adapt to diverse habitats

Cosmic Evolution – The origin of information, language, time, space, and matter (Eg: the Big Bang)
Chemical Evolution – The origin of higher elements beyond hydrogen and helium.
Stellar & Planetary Evolution – The origin of the stars and planets.
Organic Evolution – The origin of life from non-life.
Macro Evolution – Changing one Kind into another (Eg: lizard to bird, ape to human, pepper to potato)
Micro Evolution – Natural Selection & Variation within the Kinds (Eg: coloration, stature, hair length)

Here's the theory of evolution I prefer, "If anyone be in Jesus, he is a new creature, a new creation." Trust Jesus's atoning death and resurrection. He died a horrible death, not for what He did, but what we did. Trust Him and you evolve to become something new, someone new.

I read only this last post, so I am posting blind; bear with me if I throw a monkeywrench in the conversation.

This stuff that you have posted is a font of misinformatin perpetrated by creationists. All of it is absolute garbat

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hmmm, so many theory choices, like:

Hopeful Monster - instantaneous great individual mutant leaps (lizard born with hair/Goldschmidt)

Not a separate theory, just a theory within evolution.

Punctuated Equilibrium - short rare bursts of rapid multi-species mutations (Cambrian Explosion/Gould)

Not a separate theory, another theory within evolution.

Gradualism - tiny continuous incremental mutations of every species (Imperceptible/Dawkins)

Not a separate theory, yet another theory within evolution.

Panspermia - alien life was transplanted to Earth from beyond (Hoyle/Crick/Hawking)

Unrelated to evolution.

Theistic Evolution / Old Earth Creationism - Creator used a version of Macro-Evolution

Not a different theory, just a religious framework that incorporates the theory.

Cosmic Evolution – The origin of information, language, time, space, and matter (Eg: the Big Bang)

Not a scientific theory. Biological evolution pertains strictly to the process by which populations of living organisms diversify over time.

Chemical Evolution – The origin of higher elements beyond hydrogen and helium.

Unrelated to evolutionary biology.

Stellar & Planetary Evolution – The origin of the stars and planets.

Also not a conflicting theory.

Organic Evolution – The origin of life from non-life.

Not a thing. The process is called abiogenesis. It is not a conflicting theory and is unrelated to evolutionary biology.

Macro Evolution – Changing one Kind into another (Eg: lizard to bird, ape to human, pepper to potato)

Poorly defined.

Micro Evolution – Natural Selection & Variation within the Kinds (Eg: coloration, stature, hair length)

Also poorly defined. Until you can provide a practical, precise definition of "kinds", and devise some means to accurately distinguish one "kind" from another, to assert anything about the barriers between "kinds" is meaningless.

Here's the theory of evolution I prefer, "If anyone be in Jesus, he is a new creature, a new creation."

Not even remotely related to evolutionary biology.

Trust Jesus's atoning death and resurrection. He died a horrible death, not for what He did, but what we did. Trust Him and you evolve to become something new, someone new.

This forum doesn't permit preaching.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Let me try again. I am using a laptop I'm unfamiliar with and dislike.

The stuff that you ahve posted is a font of misinformation perpetrated by creationists. All of it is absolute garbage.

At its basic level, "evolution" means to "change over time". That is the common definition. It is not, however, the scientific defitnition.

The scientific definition of "Theory of Evolution" is [paraphrased] "Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations."

Therefore, there is no such thing as "chemical evolution"; there is only "biological evolution" [when, of course, discussing the Theory of Evolution]. So, the Theory of Evolution begins when life begins; and can not begin before.

Once we understand this principle, then we understand that there is no "choice" as to "which theory of evolution we prefer". There is only one definition of "evolution" when speaking about "the theory of evolution"; and those who taught you this garbage (and it sounds like Kent Hovind) are trying to confuse you; and sadly, it seems that they have succeeded.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Because there is no certainty at all but speculations. No one knows what really happened back then, because the only records that they has that they doesn't like what it says. and Oliver the upright walking chimp was recorded and put onto the archives of the science community records as facts. And about the little man that they had found(Sirius) cannot fit it onto the evolution link. they still has the fossil on display and the giant's skeletons, they also has them not on display. But I cannot blame you for trying to keep a hold onto your faith but even though that there is no proof, and which that is considered as blind faith..

The use of these terms applies to sciences that don't have anything to do with the past. For example the theory of gravity is based on facts which obtained through observation and explained through theories that have been tried and tested by peer review. The germ theory is just a theory by the same regards as evolution.

Do you doubt the germ theory? If not why is it that the scientists use the same words to describe germ theory as evolution?

 

[Parsimony]

A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world. http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law


There is no way that it could be tested that man evolved from apes. And so if you can provide actual proof, then it will not be a speculation no more.

The GULO pseudogenes and ERV patterns between humans and chimpanzees are plenty good enough evidence to show that we share a common ancestor. The knock-out mutations that humans and chimps share in their GULO pseudogenes are much more similar than they are to the GULO pseudogene in say, guinea pigs. The majority of other mammals have working GULO genes. ERVs are the remnants of retroviruses that were inserted mostly randomly into our DNA long ago, and we share most of ours with chimps (which is statistically remote without common ancestry).

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But then why is it is still called theory not like the rest of the scientific facts?

scientific theories are explanations of how things happen or function." The moon orbits the earth because of Gravity"
Scientific Facts are such as " the moon orbits the Earth" they are both observable and measurable. They are not concerned with Why?

Theories and facts concern them selves with different aspects of science.

The question is often asked why the moon does not orbit the sun rather than the Earth as the Gravitational pull of the sun is so much larger.
The answer is that It does orbit the sun, but it is locked into an orbit with the earth and they orbit the sun in tandem.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I read only this last post, so I am posting blind; bear with me if I throw a monkeywrench in the conversation.

This stuff that you have posted is a font of misinformatin perpetrated by creationists. All of it is absolute garbat

Modern "creationists" did not perpetrate the Bible. The Bible demands that you become a new creature, a new creation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not a separate theory, just a theory within evolution.


Not a separate theory, another theory within evolution.


Not a separate theory, yet another theory within evolution.


Unrelated to evolution.


Not a different theory, just a religious framework that incorporates the theory.


Not a scientific theory. Biological evolution pertains strictly to the process by which populations of living organisms diversify over time.


Unrelated to evolutionary biology.


Also not a conflicting theory.


Not a thing. The process is called abiogenesis. It is not a conflicting theory and is unrelated to evolutionary biology.


Poorly defined.


Also poorly defined. Until you can provide a practical, precise definition of "kinds", and devise some means to accurately distinguish one "kind" from another, to assert anything about the barriers between "kinds" is meaningless.


Not even remotely related to evolutionary biology.


This forum doesn't permit preaching.

I saw a question re: "What type of evolution do you ascribe to?" I answered. People must evolve and change to be ready to go to a perfect utopia. I hope you don't think that evolution has advanced people to be ready to handle a utopia!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I saw a question re: "What type of evolution do you ascribe to?" I answered. People must evolve and change to be ready to go to a perfect utopia. I hope you don't think that evolution has advanced people to be ready to handle a utopia!

I'm not even sure such a question has any actual meaning or value.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm not even sure such a question has any actual meaning or value.

I'm sorry you are unsure there is a value in becoming a member of a utopia. You are missing out, by holding back.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm sorry you are unsure there is a value in becoming a member of a utopia. You are missing out, by holding back.

I didn't say that - I said it was a meaningless question. Which it is. What you're asking, and subsequently saying here, is meaningless, empty nonsense. What "utopia" are we talking about? How can we "evolve" to be "ready" for one? That simply doesn't make sense.