Evolution ruling gets cheers from scientists

[Grace]

Evolution ruling gets cheers from scientists


Friday, January 14, 2005 Posted: 10:51 AM EST (1551 GMT)

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Since 2002, Dr. Kenneth Miller has been upset that biology textbooks he has written are slapped with a warning sticker by the time they appear in suburban Atlanta schools. Evolution, the stickers say, is "a theory, not a fact."

"What it tells students is that we're certain of everything else in this book except evolution," said Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, who with Joseph S. Levine has authored three texts for high schoolers.

On Thursday, Miller -- along with fellow teachers and scientists -- cheered a federal judge's ruling that ordered the Cobb County school board to immediately remove the stickers and never again hand them out in any form.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/14/evolution.stickers.ap/index.html

 

[Evo]

It is encouraging to see that there is still some sanity in this world.

 

[Moonbear]

As I recall, the stickers in question said more than just "evolution is a theory not a fact" that made it even clearer what the bias of the board of education was when they placed them in the textbooks. The parents in that district should take it a step further and protest the waste of their tax money to print those stickers and put them in textbooks, not to mention the legal costs the board of ed probably absorbed for this case! Make the board of ed reimburse the district out of their own pockets for this. Makes me mad that there are school districts that can't afford to even buy current textbooks for their students, or even replace the books that are falling apart, and there's a district throwing away money on stupid stickers for books.

 

[Curious3141]

I would be perfectly happy with such stickers on biology texts if there were stickers on Bibles saying "Creation is a myth, not a fact".

 

[Moonbear]

I would be perfectly happy with such stickers on biology texts if there were stickers on Bibles saying "Creation is a myth, not a fact".

Excellent!

 

[Gokul43201]

When I saw this in the news, a couple of days ago, I didn't know whether to be happy or sad.

Isn't it sad that it takes a Federal Judge (rather than the local schoool board) to have to determine what needs to go into textbooks ?

I think it's quite pathetic that things have come to a stage where there is such a large disconnect between people and science. Education is just not able to keep pace with research, and the population is being left in the dust. Or is there something else to blame - perhaps a resistance to change that is being encouraged ?

 

[polyb]

Hey maybe they should put a sticker on all of the schools saying:

"The Cobb County Board of Education and many residents of Cobb County do NOT have much of an education which proves that your education is not as important as often stated. This is not a THEORY but a FACT as demonstrated by the lack of distinguishing between hypothesis, thesis, and fact.

In order to preserve the integrity of the current system you are hereby notified that a sizable monetary contribution will be necessary for appropriate accreditation. Those not willing or able to meet these standards need not apply except at your local fast food franchise."

 

[franznietzsche]

I would be perfectly happy with such stickers on biology texts if there were stickers on Bibles saying "Creation is a myth, not a fact".

Beat me too it. Dang it.

Actually i was going to say they had to have another sticker: "God is just a theoru" if they wanted that one.

Have i mentioned how much i can't stand fundamentalists yet today? Well now i ahve.

 

[Chrono]

I would be perfectly happy with such stickers on biology texts if there were stickers on Bibles saying "Creation is a myth, not a fact".

I would be content with that as well.

 

[tumor]

I would be perfectly happy with such stickers on biology texts if there were stickers on Bibles saying "Creation is a myth, not a fact".

Blasphemy !

 

[Grace]

Calling evolution a theory is an attempt to discredit it (a means that has been used since Darwin's time). The fact is evolution is not a theory but an observable natural phenomenon like gravity or any such thing. The neo-Darwinian synthesis is the scientific theory that best describes the natural, observable, and phenomenon evolution. If data were to show, tomorrow for instance, that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is incorrect (something that will not happen... the synthesis is probably the most tested and most confirmed scientific explanation we have), evolution would not stop (just as gravity did not cease when Newtonian gravitational theory gave way to Einsteinian theory). Evolution, unbeknownst to most Americans... including our President, is not at issue; the issue is how evolution takes place (via: natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, chance, and meiotic drive with natural selection being the only creative force of the five). By banning the teaching of evolution in schools, we might as well ban the teaching of sciences in general. Finally, does evolution have anything to say about the possible existence of God or gods? The answer is of course not. It does indicate, however, that those who take religious texts literally are incorrect.

 

[Gokul43201]

It does indicate, however, that those who take religious texts literally are incorrect.

This demographic constitutes a shockingly large chunk of the population in this country.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

 

[FulhamFan3]

I'd be fine with the sticker if it was applied to all theories. If they have one for special relativity, quantum theory, chemical kinetics, etc. If they have one for every theory. Showing that it is only for evolution is obvious what intent they have.

 

[Grace]

I believe in separation of church and state.

The church can teach creationism and school teaches evolution, period.

It is a good thing (very positive) that progressives want to keep schools a neutral ground, and allow for individuals to pursue their faiths in churches, temples and synagogues.

That is the only way religion should be pursued. But that's just me. It has no place in the public sphere (school, government, etc.).

You can't discount 4.6 million years of evolutionary proof.

And who, in their right mind would believe God created Adam and Eve only six thousand years ago, when the entire Asian and African cultures can be traced back to ten to fifteen thousand years and more? And let's face it; men do NOT have one fewer ribs than women.

I believe there's some sort of "Higher Power" at work, somewhere. Where do our souls come from? How is everything given its life?

But as science has proven, everything that grows, lives, and breathes, can be traced back with scientific proof. Can the same be said of Creationism?

It's the soul of us animals that get one wondering about higher powers. What force causes each animal, whatever the species, to have individual feelings, thoughts, and actions? Something is breathing that uniqueness into all of us.

Kinda gets your mind working overtime, doesn't it?

 

[Evo]

I believe there's some sort of "Higher Power" at work, somewhere. Where do our souls come from? How is everything given its life?

There is no proof that "souls" exist. It's another myth. I was brought up to believe in all this, I no longer do since there is not one shred of evidence to support any of it, just the opposite.

 

[Tsu]

Is there evidence to prove that souls do NOT exist?

 

[franznietzsche]

Is there evidence to prove that souls do NOT exist?

Doesn't matter. It is the burden of those making a claim to provide evidence and proof.

 

[Entropy]

There is no proof that "souls" exist.

In actuality the word "soul," in respect to the Bible, is synonymise with "body" or "being," not some glowing essences that gives life to something.

And let's face it; men do NOT have one fewer ribs than women.

The rib was taken from Adam, not from every man.

You can't discount 4.6 million years of evolutionary proof.

Proof of what? There are no fossiles of an animal inbetween a human-like ape and a human or any fossiles that show the progression of one species into another for that matter.

The fact is evolution is not a theory but an observable natural phenomenon like gravity or any such thing.

How exactly have we observed all species originating from a common ancestor? Natural selection is observable, not evolution. There is a big difference.

But as science has proven, everything that grows, lives, and breathes, can be traced back with scientific proof. Can the same be said of Creationism?

What? Traced back to..? Also it's good to remember that all "proofs" are really just assumptions or are based on assumptions.

It is a good thing (very positive) that progressives want to keep schools a neutral ground

I disagree. People need to learn that tolerating other beliefs and ideals is part of life and stop complaining about it all the time. It's obvious that schools on "neutral grounds" aren't that neutral because they're offending a hell of a lot of people. Just accept the fact that you can't sadisfy everyone and teach what the majority wants to be taught. When you try to sadisfy everyone you end up sadisfying no one.

 

[Tsu]

Well, I thought when Evo said "there is not one shred of evidence to support any of it, just the opposite" that she was making a claim that souls DON'T exist. And she called souls a 'myth'. I'm just saying, if there is no evidence to PROVE that they do not exist, the soul should not be called a 'myth'. While there may be no evidence to prove that souls do exist, it is my understanding that there is also no proof that they do NOT. While some may decide to NOT believe something because of lack of proof, I thoroughly enjoy the 'mystery' of life and am willing to believe that anything - and I mean ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING - is possible.

 

[Curious3141]

Well, I thought when Evo said "there is not one shred of evidence to support any of it, just the opposite" that she was making a claim that souls DON'T exist. And she called souls a 'myth'. I'm just saying, if there is no evidence to PROVE that they do not exist, the soul should not be called a 'myth'. While there may be no evidence to prove that souls do exist, it is my understanding that there is also no proof that they do NOT. While some may decide to NOT believe something because of lack of proof, I thoroughly enjoy the 'mystery' of life and am willing to believe that anything - and I mean ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING - is possible.

What evidence is there to PROVE that a great big pink unicorn is not residing in the center of the Sun at this very moment ?

 

[Curious3141]

Proof of what? There are no fossiles of an animal inbetween a human-like ape and a human or any fossiles that show the progression of one species into another for that matter.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

How exactly have we observed all species originating from a common ancestor? Natural selection is observable, not evolution. There is a big difference.

How is natural selection observable and not evolution ? The former is the accepted mechanism for bringing about the latter.

I observe bacteria evolving in the lab everyday. Acquired antibiotic resistance would not exist without evolution.

I disagree. People need to learn that tolerating other beliefs and ideals is part of life and stop complaining about it all the time. It's obvious that schools on "neutral grounds" aren't that neutral because they're offending a hell of a lot of people. Just accept the fact that you can't sadisfy everyone and teach what the majority wants to be taught. When you try to sadisfy everyone you end up sadisfying no one.

The school is a place for teaching maths, science, language and other academic subjects, not to ply religious dogma. Noone is saying "do away with Sunday school". Imagine if I went to Sunday school and insisted on teaching evolution !

 

[Tsu]

What evidence is there to PROVE that a great big pink unicorn is not residing in the center of the Sun at this very moment ?

Absolutely NONE. (Do you think there is one there? )

 

[Curious3141]

Absolutely NONE. (Do you think there is one there? )

No, but *I* don't think we have immaterial "souls" either.

 

[franznietzsche]

Well, I thought when Evo said "there is not one shred of evidence to support any of it, just the opposite" that she was making a claim that souls DON'T exist. And she called souls a 'myth'. I'm just saying, if there is no evidence to PROVE that they do not exist, the soul should not be called a 'myth'. While there may be no evidence to prove that souls do exist, it is my understanding that there is also no proof that they do NOT. While some may decide to NOT believe something because of lack of proof, I thoroughly enjoy the 'mystery' of life and am willing to believe that anything - and I mean ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING - is possible.

There is no evidence to prove that zeus does not run around boning every mortal woman in sight either. But we call that a myth.

Again, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You cannot prove nonexistence. You can prove imposibility, under given conditions, but you cannot prove nonexistence. Nonexistence is assumed until existence is proven. Its basic scientific method.

 

[gerben]

Beat me too it. Dang it.

Actually i was going to say they had to have another sticker: "God is just a theory" if they wanted that one.

Have i mentioned how much i can't stand fundamentalists yet today? Well now i have.

I think that is way to considerate. It should be: "God is not even a theory".

_______________________________________________________
"Is man one of God's blunders? Or is God one of man's blunders?"
F.W. Nietzsche

 

[Gokul43201]

How exactly have we observed all species originating from a common ancestor? Natural selection is observable, not evolution. There is a big difference.

Microbial mutations happen over a lifetime of a few years and have been observed very closely. Someone more familiar with the area might be able to say more, but that's irrelevant.

You don't need to have an observation, because that's not how science works. Quantum Mechanics, for example says (and this is one of the pillars of QM) that an unperturbed particle exists in a superposition of states. This has never been observed and can never be, because observation involves a perturbation. However, this doesn't prevent us from accepting Quantum Mechanics as an extremely accurate science. And it surely doesn't prevent us from building computers, superconducting magnets, spintronic devices, MRI machines and other such stuff, nor does it prevent them from working.

Evolution, on the other hand is not intrinsically unobservable. What makes it hard is the timescale of the changes.

 

[Tsu]

No, but *I* don't think we have immaterial "souls" either.

Love, hate, fear... are also immaterial. They must not exist, either.

Just because they cannot be proved by the scientific method doesn't mean that they don't exist.

I'm done here. You kids have fun duking it out. Let me know who 'wins'.

 

[Curious3141]

I'm done here. You kids have fun duking it out. Let me know who 'wins'.

What does it matter ? From your tone, you think you've already won.

Just to address the reasonable part of your post :

Love, hate, fear... are also immaterial. They must not exist, either.

Just because they cannot be proved by the scientific method doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Those are emotions. Emotions have subjective manifestations that we can describe and we find that different individuals are in broad agreement about them. There are objective correlates to each of those emotions too (heart rate, pupillary dilatation, diaphoresis, etc.) They have consequences (seeking behaviour in the case of love, aggression and avoidance behavior in the case of hate and fear). All of these can be studied in repeatable controlled experiments with animal models that mimic human emotions closely.

We can even find physical correlates for each of those emotions (brain centers like the limbic "cortex" and neurotransmitter levels).

No one has even come close to describing what the soul is, let alone what its function might be and how one would experience it. Note that the soul is NOT the same as the consciouness, which does have a brain center associated with it. The soul will never be amenable to scientific enquiry until it is better defined, but that's not going to happen because it is just so much nebulous nonsense in the minds of the wishful thinkers and the illucid.

 

[Nereid]

Well, when one of those who favour using those stickers comes into us (imagine we are heartless doctors) and presents with an antibiotic resistant bacterial infection, we could always say something like "since you believe evolution is just a theory, not a fact, I will treat you with the same anti-biotic as I treated your grandmother, for the same bacterial infection, 50 years ago ... after all, you would surely agree that according to creationism - the theory that you believe in - bacteria do not evolve, so there is no need for me to prescribe you an expensive new antibiotic."

 

[Gokul43201]

How is it that we are discssing the soul without first defining it ? Are we in agreement upon some accepted definition ? I'm not aware of one.

Perhaps we should backtrack, define 'soul', and then go on to discuss it.

 

[Evo]

Well, when one of those who favour using those stickers comes into us (imagine we are heartless doctors) and presents with an antibiotic resistant bacterial infection, we could always say something like "since you believe evolution is just a theory, not a fact, I will treat you with the same anti-biotic as I treated your grandmother, for the same bacterial infection, 50 years ago ... after all, you would surely agree that according to creationism - the theory that you believe in - bacteria do not evolve, so there is no need for me to prescribe you an expensive new antibiotic."

That's a good one!

Tsu, I got no rythym and I got no soul. I would like to believe that some part of me would continue to exist after I die because I need to look after the Evo child. I just have come to the conclusion that this is probably it for us humans, we've got this one shot and we need to make the best of it. Of course being raised Catholic I do have my scapular as a backup (just incase) "Whosoever dies wearing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire."

 

[Moonbear]

Of course being raised Catholic I do have my scapular as a backup (just incase) "Whosoever dies wearing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire."

Is that what those things are for? I don't even know if I still have mine (that probably means no). Nobody ever explained what it was for, they just handed them out in CCD one day. Looked like some cheap piece of crap, a picture of some saint on cardboard tied together with some red string. Who knew a picture on cardboard would protect me from eternal fire? I might need that if I get around to meeting tribdog!

I still have my scapula on me though (both of them), does that count?

What I find so funny about the arguments made by Christians trying to rebut science is when referring to the origin of the universe. You can take any of the theories...let's say we go with the Big Bang and that the whole universe began from a singularity. They'll argue that it still doesn't explain where the singularity came from, so there must be a God who created it...it never seems to bother them that by their same argument, it doesn't explain where God came from!

 

[Gokul43201]

They'll argue that it still doesn't explain where the singularity came from, so there must be a God who created it...it never seems to bother them that by their same argument, it doesn't explain where God came from!

You may question science, but you may NOT question God !

The only reason that Evolution and Cosmogenesis get special attention, is because they are more blatantly God-unfriendly. Quantum Theory, Relativity Theory, Algorithmic Information Theory, Game Theory, Axiomatic Set Theory, Extreme Value Theory, and even Ladder Theory are supposedly not harmful theories to teach people, because they do not have their results refuted by the Book.

 

[Evo]

The problem with the scapular is that it doesn't say how long you will suffer hell fire, just that it won't be eternal. What, I only have to spend 80 trillion years in hell?

Moonbear, you can shop for redemption online now, you don't even have to go near a church store. Kind of like when the Medici Pope sent priests out to sell those redemption certificates to the populace after he bankrupted the Vatican with all of his lavish spending.

 

[Gokul43201]

The problem with the scapular is that it doesn't say how long you will suffer hell fire, just that it won't be eternal. What, I only have to spend 80 trillion years in hell?

What are you complaining about ? You're just spoilt !

\lim _{T \rightarrow \infty}~ \frac {t}{T} = 0~, ~for~any~finite~t
...even t= 80 trillion.

 

[Evo]

What are you complaining about ? You're just spoilt !

\lim _{T \rightarrow \infty}~ \frac {t}{T} = 0~, ~for~any~finite~t
...even t= 80 trillion.

Hey, for my $10 I want a defined amount of time, like 2 weeks.

But I'm such an I guess that I have nothing to worry about.

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear, you can shop for redemption online now, you don't even have to go near a church store. Kind of like when the Medici Pope sent priests out to sell those redemption certificates to the populace after he bankrupted the Vatican with all of his lavish spending.

LOL! I left the church for good after my father died and I learned what mass cards were. The thought that you had to pay to have masses given for someone sounded an awful lot like buying your way into heaven. I guess the church viewed it that if you can't take it with you, leave it with the church.

 

[Grace]

Excellent arguments, Entropy & Evo, but it only proves that everything that is proven or unproven, is questionable!

If you live in Manhattan, or visit there, go to the Museum of Natural History; they have an excellent exhibition that shows the evolution of Homo Sapiens.

No one has proven, or CAN prove how souls come to exist, or how our souls are made, but they exist, too… perhaps some sort of "higher power," gives them to us? Who knows? It a debate that has been going on for ages, and will continue for ages to come.

 

[Evo]

No one has proven, or CAN prove how souls come to exist, or how our souls are made, but they exist, too… perhaps some sort of "higher power," gives them to us? Who knows? It a debate that has been going on for ages, and will continue for ages to come.

No one even knows IF there is such a thing as a soul. You can't move into the debate of "how something came into existence" when you don't even know if it exists in the first place. You might as well ask "how did pink unicorns come into existence? Did a "higher power" create them?

 

[franznietzsche]

No one even knows IF there is such a thing as a soul. You can't move into the debate of "how something came into existence" when you don't even know if it exists in the first place. You might as well ask "how did pink unicorns come into existence? Did a "higher power" create them?

Of course he did, from the rib of the white unicorn...

 

[Evo]

Of course he did, from the rib of the white unicorn...

 

[Entropy]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...nal/part1a.html

Thats not accurate. Take this for example:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...nal/part1a.html]These[/PLAIN] species-to-species transitions are unmistakable when they are found.

Unmistakable to who? This statement is an opinion not a fact. The tone of the whole article shows that it is opinion based. They seem to be referring to two similar looking species and assuming the two have a common ancestor. We have similar looking species today so finding ones that are exstict doesn't do anything.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...nal/part1a.html]This[/PLAIN] is a set of numerous individual fossils that show a change between one species and another.

Then why doesn't the author cite some? Maybe because it's not as "obvious" as he claims? I believe in evolution and natural selection to an extent, but the fact is there is no proof of evolution.

Microbial mutations happen over a lifetime of a few years and have been observed very closely. Someone more familiar with the area might be able to say more, but that's irrelevant.

Thats natural selection. Not evolution. The theory of evolution says that every organism can be traced back to a common ancestor. Again, there is a difference.

You don't need to have an observation, because that's not how science works. Quantum Mechanics, for example says (and this is one of the pillars of QM) that an unperturbed particle exists in a superposition of states. This has never been observed and can never be, because observation involves a perturbation. However, this doesn't prevent us from accepting Quantum Mechanics as an extremely accurate science. And it surely doesn't prevent us from building computers, superconducting magnets, spintronic devices, MRI machines and other such stuff, nor does it prevent them from working.

As I said before. All proofs are based on assumptions. Yes, you do need observations. QM just says that you can only learn position and momentum with limited accuracy. So instead of a true "proof" you are left with the probablity of something being true. Whether or not the probablity that evolution is true is high enough to assume it is true is a matter of opinion.

 

[Gokul43201]

As I said before. All proofs are based on assumptions. Yes, you do need observations.

Yes, you need observations. But you don't need an observation of X to be confident of the validity of X. If X is an essential part of a framework that explains and predicts phenomena to an acceptable degree of accuracy, then X must be true.

QM just says that you can only learn position and momentum with limited accuracy. So instead of a true "proof" you are left with the probablity of something being true.

Who says you can't have true "proof" of a probabilistic theory. Anyway, this has nothing to do with what I'm saying. QM says an electron (in the double slit experiment, say) exists in a superposition of eigenstates that can be calculated by some prescribed method. You would have to say that QM is wrong about the nature of the electron because no one has seen this superposition.

Whether or not the probablity that evolution is true is high enough to assume it is true is a matter of opinion.

This probability is completely different from the probability that one encounters in QM. You're getting confused because of a bunch of vaguely formed ideas about QM.

Yes, there is a good chance that the theory of evolution is wrong - but only in the details. And besides, the theory is the only one (among the three) that is developed through a scientific process.

Really, I wish you told Dalton he was wrong about atoms because no one had observed them.

 

[Grace]

http://www.dworldonline.com/unicorn/shield.jpg ??

 

[iansmith]

Thats natural selection. Not evolution. The theory of evolution says that every organism can be traced back to a common ancestor. Again, there is a difference.

No the theory of evolution does not state that organism can be track down to a common ancestor. The theory of evolution only state that change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool will occur and may result in speciation. You, on the other hand, are referring to the theory of common descent which is derive from the theory of evolution.

 

[Curious3141]

Thats not accurate. Take this for example:



Unmistakable to who? This statement is an opinion not a fact. The tone of the whole article shows that it is opinion based. They seem to be referring to two similar looking species and assuming the two have a common ancestor. We have similar looking species today so finding ones that are exstict doesn't do anything.

Unmistakable to archaeo-taxonomists who've spent their whole careers studying this stuff. Unmistakable to any open-minded intelligent individual who bothers with learning the principles of taxonomy and then looks at the evidence.

What's wrong with looking at skeletal structure and drawing deductions about phylogeny ? We do have a strong basis for going from physical structure to genetic relatedness, because such a relationship is borne out by modern molecular studies of organisms. We're physically very closely related to lower primates like the chimp, and our DNA bears this out, so isn't it a perfectly logical conclusion that we share common ancestry ?

Opinion vs fact : "The Sun will rise in the East tomorrow" : is THAT opinion or fact ? A crank could argue till the sun dies out that it's just opinion, but most people would regard it as fact. Same thing with evolution, the evidence is so strong for it, that to regard it as anything but fact, is crankery.

Then why doesn't the author cite some? Maybe because it's not as "obvious" as he claims? I believe in evolution and natural selection to an extent, but the fact is there is no proof of evolution.

Did you even bother to read the rest of the FAQ ? That was just the preamble page, the data comes later. Lots of it. Knock yourself out.

Thats natural selection. Not evolution. The theory of evolution says that every organism can be traced back to a common ancestor. Again, there is a difference.

You do not understand what you are talking about. Evolution talks about the change in allelic frequency from generation to generation. Natural selection posits a mechanism whereby this happens. Common ancestry theorises that we can trace diverse organisms back to a common progenitor. There is a difference, a subtle one, but it's obvious that you've totally missed the mark in your definitions even.

As I said before. All proofs are based on assumptions. Yes, you do need observations. QM just says that you can only learn position and momentum with limited accuracy. So instead of a true "proof" you are left with the probablity of something being true. Whether or not the probablity that evolution is true is high enough to assume it is true is a matter of opinion.

Please read more about the scientific method. By trying to analogise a specific result in QM to the general philosophy of science, you come off as completely ignorant.

 

[Grace]

Originally Posted by Evo
No one even knows IF there is such a thing as a soul. You can't move into the debate of "how something came into existence" when you don't even know if it exists in the first place. You might as well ask "how did pink unicorns come into existence? Did a "higher power" create them?

That settles it, then. None of us exists, including the Boards, according to your statement above. We're just a figment of someone's imagination. Correct?

Funny, that cast iron frying pan (that doesn't exist) sure hurt like hell, when I dropped it on my toes this morning… must have been my imagination.

 

[graphic7]

That settles it, then. None of us exists, including the Boards, according to your statement above. We're just a figment of someone's imagination. Correct?

Funny, that cast iron frying pan (that doesn't exist) sure hurt like hell, when I dropped it on my toes this morning… must have been my imagination.

What is a soul? Surely, you are not referring to a conscience or being sentient.

I think people throw words like 'soul' and 'spirit' around too much, without even defining what they are. Usually, if you ask someone what a spirit or a soul is they can't give you straight answer, and will usually related it back to some faith tale of their's or relate it with having a conscience and being sentient.

 

[Entropy]

You would have to say that QM is wrong about the nature of the electron because no one has seen this superposition.

Really, I wish you told Dalton he was wrong about atoms because no one had observed them.

That doesn't mean it's wrong. I never said evolution was wrong because we haven't seen the complete fossile record. In fact I never once said evolution is wrong. I do believe in evolution (to a degree), but it is still an unproven theory no matter how much I want it to be other wise. I'm just providing a healthy amount of dought.

No the theory of evolution does not state that organism can be track down to a common ancestor. The theory of evolution only state that change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool will occur and may result in speciation. You, on the other hand, are referring to the theory of common descent which is derive from the theory of evolution.

I read other wise some where else on the forum and no one seemed to argue against it. But I'll take your word for it. I was wrong.

This probability is completely different from the probability that one encounters in QM. You're getting confused because of a bunch of vaguely formed ideas about QM.

Okay. I thought probability was the chance of some event happening or being true. Can you explain what it means in QM for me? Or give me a site so I can learn about it?

We're physically very closely related to lower primates like the chimp, and our DNA bears this out, so isn't it a perfectly logical conclusion that we share common ancestry ?

Yes it is a very logical possiblity.

Did you even bother to read the rest of the FAQ ? That was just the preamble page, the data comes later. Lots of it. Knock yourself out.

The cites don't prove species-to-species transitions. The fossiles only prove that there are animals that are similar to each other. There are many animals that are similar to each other today.

Please read more about the scientific method. By trying to analogise a specific result in QM to the general philosophy of science, you come off as completely ignorant.

It's not just limited to QM. You can't know anything with complete certainty, that's my point. I'm trying to get some of you people to understand that it's reasonable to be doughtful of evolution and you should quit fussing so much when some people do dought it.

We're just a figment of someone's imagination. Correct?

Yes you are, that is until I take my pills.

 

[Evo]

That settles it, then. None of us exists, including the Boards, according to your statement above. We're just a figment of someone's imagination. Correct?

No. I'm tangible, I can be seen, touched, heard and smelled, just for starters. Last time I checked no one had ever seen, touched, heard or smelled a soul. There is no evidence that a soul exists. You're not making any sense.