Is Evolution True? | Benzun's Perspective

[Monique]

So the question was: is evolution true. Evolution is a very broad concept, exactly which part is up for discussion?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Monique
So the question was: is evolution true. Evolution is a very broad concept, exactly which part is up for discussion?

Good point. I mean, it's been re-established that the principle of evolution must be true; but perhaps the theory that such a process is what gave rise to the assortment of beings that exist today is what is being questioned.

 

[agnostictheist]

Originally posted by Mentat
People, let's try to stray away from a discussion of biblical creationism. This is what gets evolution threads locked, and this one could probably still be useful, but not if it's going to become a debate between the Genesis account and the Darwinian approach.

and this is a case-in point Darwinian approch is NOT evolution (not saying you said that)

to ask our question Evolution (biological and social) is FACT, there may come a time when anther explination explaines the data better, and predicts more things, and then evolution will either "change" or be scraped, at the moment the evidence states evolution is fact - I wouldn't use the term true... its makes science seem like the pursuit for truth its not, even those lots of scientists like to seek truths form science (and they might gain some)

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by agnostictheist
and this is a case-in point Darwinian approch is NOT evolution (not saying you said that)

to ask our question Evolution (biological and social) is FACT, there may come a time when anther explination explaines the data better, and predicts more things, and then evolution will either "change" or be scraped, at the moment the evidence states evolution is fact - I wouldn't use the term true... its makes science seem like the pursuit for truth its not, even those lots of scientists like to seek truths form science (and they might gain some)

While, I do believe the evolutionary theory is true. It is not a fact. Science can never prove anything to be true for sure it can only prove it not to be true.

Another thing that bothers me about our current evolutionary theory.

In reading "On The Origin of Species" (which was a great book btw) it was obvious that "evolutionary theory" was only a philosophy, which was based his observations and studies of many, many treatise of that time, but Mr. Darwin did not understand the mechanisms behind his theories. Although, it was not extremely scientific it laid the foundation for all evolutionary thought even to this day. What I am afraid of - is that scientist today are starting with his ideas and working backwards. It would be nice if a new breed of scientist started from (scratch) the information we have today, without the influence of Mr. Darwin (Wallace, Mendel, ect...)

It would probably lead us in the same general direction, but sometimes it seems like scientist are too subjective and are trying to prove his philosophies. Which puts them in the same category as Creationist trying to prove Creation.

One other note about evolution and Mr. Darwin. The word "evolve" was only mentioned one time in the entire book - the last word in the book.

Nautica

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by nautica
While, I do believe the evolutionary theory is true. It is not a fact. Science can never prove anything to be true for sure it can only prove it not to be true.

Another thing that bothers me about our current evolutionary theory.

In reading "On The Origin of Species" (which was a great book btw) it was obvious that "evolutionary theory" was only a philosophy, which was based his observations and studies of many, many treatise of that time, but Mr. Darwin did not understand the mechanisms behind his theories. Although, it was not extremely scientific it laid the foundation for all evolutionary thought even to this day. What I am afraid of - is that scientist today are starting with his ideas and working backwards. It would be nice if a new breed of scientist started from (scratch) the information we have today, without the influence of Mr. Darwin (Wallace, Mendel, ect...)

It would probably lead us in the same general direction, but sometimes it seems like scientist are too subjective and are trying to prove his philosophies. Which puts them in the same category as Creationist trying to prove Creation.

One other note about evolution and Mr. Darwin. The word "evolve" was only mentioned one time in the entire book - the last word in the book.

Nautica

Sure science can prove facts. It proved that the earth, in fact, is round. That microorganisms,in fact, can cause disease. And that humans and all living organisms, in fact, evolved from a single common ancestor.

Fact- Information presented as objectively real. (american heritage college dictionary)

When you look at it objectively, evolution is obviously a fact.

I have not actually read "The Origin of Species", so I can not say exactly how much actual data that text contains, to call Darwin's theory of evolution just a philosophy is ridiculous. Darwin collected decades worth of scientific evidence to support his theory. Which is why his name is accredited to the theory instead of contemporiaries who had the same hypothesis with little data. And while he didn't know about molecular genetics he certainly understood natural selection, which is the prime mechanism of evolution.

Scientists today aren't trying to prove Darwins theories. Darwin did that himself. Scientists don't have to "start from scratch" because they're aware of the evidence and realize the theory of evolution for the fact that it is.

Which is a far cry from creationists. Who start with their own personal belief and decry it despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that they are, in fact, wrong.

 

[agnostictheist]

Sure science can prove facts. It proved that the earth, in fact, is round. That microorganisms,in fact, can cause disease. And that humans and all living organisms, in fact, evolved from a single common ancestor.

short run down here:

Science does not prove - unless within the context of the experiment, and under the context of "beyond a reasonable doudt"

Science is about facts, he can hardly call something a fact if its not "true" - in the sense of the experiment ( I somewhat made a claim above about is evolution true...and I said i would avoid that term, well I think that depends on what you pin "true" to being, so i was a little heavy handed)

Science can only "prove" SOME postive claims, thus asking for the evidence of a non-existing X is idiotic.

Science is the pursuit for Knowelege, and thus facts: NOT TRUTH it tells us Hows not the WHYS?

the scienfic method, has Idea>maths model supporting idea called a theory which generates PREDICTIONS AND EXPLINATIONS > testing

many people forget the predictions, Intelgent desgin is a prime example of this and why its not a science!

science is a self correcting, and adaption process!

And that humans and all living organisms, in fact, evolved from a single common ancestor

I don't think so, last thing I read, this might of been over turned in that the "tree" had many roots so to speak, and they tend to cross genetic information: so we have lots of simple life forms crossing genetic info to each other eg some kind of horzental transfer?

When you look at it objectively, evolution is obviously a fact.

I fully argee!

I have not actually read "The Origin of Species", so I can not say exactly how much actual data that text contains, to call Darwin's theory of evolution just a philosophy is ridiculous.

to true, Darwin did suggest some mechanisms for evolution those he left his work open, for example he suggested sexual and natural selection!

he proovided the evidence, SOME people claimed his work to be a philosophy I dont! nor do many evolutionists, but like I said evolution has moved on form then, so using the orgin of species to state evolution is a philosophy would be silly! and is a work of fundermentalists! and the scienfic fool.

And while he didn't know about molecular genetics

again I agree, and anther reason why evolution is not darwin, in fact I think that darwin did suggest that if we had a two genes, say black and red, then we would gain something inbetween (which is not the case in basic genetics)

also darwin focus was on the indverdual while modern evolutionists is on groups! hence the "modern syntheis" approch.

Creationists that dare say "darwins theory of evolution is false and thus evolution is a fake" are in fact sealed there ingorance, way not ask them about genetic draft next time!(which darwin had no idea of)

Scientists today aren't trying to prove Darwins theories. Darwin did that himself. Scientists don't have to "start from scratch" because they're aware of the evidence and realize the theory of evolution for the fact that it is.

darwin in general was right, but scientists have shown that darwin was in error on a few things, it doesn't help matters that there was other editions of the origin of speacies... five i think? or more? and that people tend to use the one that fits there needs, when in fact even if they do, the theory and facts of evolution have evolved

 

[Bernardo]

Creationists that dare say "darwins theory of evolution is false and thus evolution is a fake" are in fact sealed there ingorance, way not ask them about genetic draft next time!(which darwin had no idea of)

Sorry, but I'd just like to clear something up real quick. Just so you all know this because I know you'd want to know.

There are two main creationist views;

1) literal 7 day creationist - who believe just like the name, creation was completed in 6 literal Earth days with God resting on the 7th.

2) progressive creationism - me. Guided "evolution".

Thought you'd like to know - just so you can direct your critisim properly and perhaps offer a little grace to some as well.

 

[Loren Booda]

I'll go with #2, with natural science "guided" by the divine gift of free will and personal deity.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Bernardo
Creationists that dare say "darwins theory of evolution is false and thus evolution is a fake" are in fact sealed there ingorance, way not ask them about genetic draft next time!(which darwin had no idea of)

Sorry, but I'd just like to clear something up real quick. Just so you all know this because I know you'd want to know.

There are two main creationist views;

1) literal 7 day creationist - who believe just like the name, creation was completed in 6 literal Earth days with God resting on the 7th.

2) progressive creationism - me. Guided "evolution".

Thought you'd like to know - just so you can direct your critisim properly and perhaps offer a little grace to some as well.

In the vernacular "creationist" specifically implies the literalist type, ie someone that denies evolution.

 

[nautica]

To Chem super

As I stated earlier, I fully agree with evolutionary theory, but I still will not admit that "On the Origin of the Species" was much more than a philosophy, which Mr. Darwin himself, also, referred to his work as.

Yes, He had read and studied many works of that time as well as completing his own studies (Pigeons)and yes he was a brilliant man, but as I said, he did not under stand the mechanisms for "Natural Selection".

While most of his ideas have been proven at least to some extent, some of his ideas were completely absurb. Allow me to include a quote in his book.

"The evidence that accidental mutilations can be inherited is at present not decisive; but the remarkable cases observed by Brown-Sequard in guinea-pigs, of the inherited effects of operations, should make us cautious in denying this tendency."

There were many other points, which he did not understand and fully admitted. He, also, believe that the idea of any mass extinction was completely absurd.

This post is no way meant to discredit Mr. Darwin, but to point out the ignorance of the day, which, personally, I hope does not "subjectively" lead scientist of today in the wrong direction.


Another comment on Sexual Selection, yes Mr. Darwin included it in this book, but only after criticism from the "naturalist" of the day.

Nautica

 

[nautica]

One other comment.

As far as "Evolutionary theory" being FACT. It depends on your definition of evolution. If you keep it in its simplest biological form. "A change in allele frequency within a population over time"

Then Yes it is fact. But, the problem is that everyone has their own personal definition of evolution.

Nautica

 

[agnostictheist]

Originally posted by nautica
One other comment.

As far as "Evolutionary theory" being FACT. It depends on your definition of evolution. If you keep it in its simplest biological form. "A change in allele frequency within a population over time"

Then Yes it is fact. But, the problem is that everyone has their own personal definition of evolution.

Nautica

I think you find the simplist defintion is A change in allele frequency within a population over time and natural selection!(sexual selection is sometimes considered natural selection, but becuase it was such a big and important detail many regard it has seprate.

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by agnostictheist
I think you find the simplist defintion is A change in allele frequency within a population over time and natural selection!(sexual selection is sometimes considered natural selection, but becuase it was such a big and important detail many regard it has seprate.

That is completely incorrect. Natural and sexual selection are only possible causes of evolution. They are by no means the only causes and should not be considered in the difinition.

How about genetic drift, migration, founder effect... These can also be causes of evolution.

Nautica

 

[agnostictheist]

could you please read my comment more careful, I didnt say evolution is natural selection and sexual selection... that's way I said ...AND natural selection... not IS!

and by the way, the founder effect is an example of genetic draft, (which i mentioned before)

- which is concered with transmitting alleles, or not.

 

[agnostictheist]

If you said a change in the gene pool now that would of been ok

 

[nautica]

I said a change in allele frequency within a population - which the gene pool in that population consist.

Nautica

 

[agnostictheist]

still doesn't excuess the fact that what u wrote above was a result of you not reading what i wrote.

and my statement still stands, even more so when you added this:

Natural and sexual selection are only possible causes of evolution. They are by no means the only causes and should not be considered in the difinition.

solution:

you don't have to have them soley to formulate a diffintion, hence the word AND.

the defintion I added brings the genetics, and studies of that nature, with those of darwins natural selection (and sexual), hence the modern evolutionary synthesis! - that's why I added to it

natural selection explians a system in HOW the change in the gene pool is done, and a very important ONE, in fact its importance is on par with genetic draft, and that's even more of a reason to add not omit the term! in the defintion! which you so claimed!

the point is while your defintion is correct at a very basic level, its not really explianing to much, in short I didnt so much disagree with it, but ADDED to it!

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by agnostictheist
I think you find the simplist defintion is A change in allele frequency within a population over time and natural selection!(sexual selection is sometimes considered natural selection, but becuase it was such a big and important detail many regard it has seprate.

This is what you originally wrote. I have read it several times. Now you might want to take the time and reread it. Then maybe after you retype it, we can all understand what you were trying to say.

Nautica

 

[agnostictheist]

Originally posted by nautica
This is what you originally wrote. I have read it several times. Now you might want to take the time and reread it. Then maybe after you retype it, we can all understand what you were trying to say.

Nautica

correct it was, and no where do I say Evolution IS natural selection.

I don't need to retype it, I tryed to explain it above.


(Has for my bad "writing structure" that's a result of my dyslexia.)

 

[nautica]

So, I guess I will never know what you were trying to say?

Nautica

 

[Descartes]

This is a great thread; indeed, one of the very few discourses on evolution that didn't lead to ad hominem attacks from those opposed.

Also, what are some good books for non-biologists that help elucidate some of the finer points of these arguments? Having an interest in so many things, I don't always have the time to keep up with all the discoveries of a given science.

 

[Bernardo]

Ambitwistor-
It's like how gravity is a fact in the sense that we know that things fall, but a particular description of how that happens (Newtonian gravity, general relativity, quantum gravity, etc.) is a theory [evolution], and may one day be replaced by another theory.

Are there any other theories out there in the science community?
I would be very interested to hear the 'cutting edge' thoughs on this topic.

 

[agnostictheist]

Has suggested by I fellow postee, talk origns is an excllent resource geared for all readers from very different backgounds!

was once part of the newsgroup learned alot.

also some good books of evolution, by "biologists": are:

the self gene
By Richard Dawkins

personaly I don't like dawkins and find him presassumptions and flat wrong one some points (not biology, rather his philosophical spim) but being a theist I would disagree with him in parts, however he very much worth a read.

ISBN 0-19-286092


-------------------------------------------------------------------

the second is by Simon Conway Morris

" The crucible of creation the burgess shale and the rise of animals"

ISBN 0-19-286202-2

and excellent writer, whom does produce a a very different and theist spin to evolution, those not always from his writings!

conway is the foremost scholar on the "cambrian explosion"

his main argument is "convergence"

 

[O Great One]

Ha Ha

Ya know...You guys really crack me up. If I was to walk with anyone of you guys into a store and walk up to a mannequin, I would not be able to convice you that it wasn't designed, yet your own body is about a billion times more complex and yet you believe that it wasn't designed. An animal with enough intellectual capacity that it can design clocks capable of being accurate to within one second every 20,000,000 years, capable of proving Fermat's Last Theorem, a theorem with an infinite number of equations each with an infinite number of possible solutions, capable of designing machines capable of discovering prime numbers 4 million digits long, playing chess better than 99.9% of the population, putting a man on the moon, doing billions of calculations in the blink of an eye. An animal that can discover its own genetic code and its own genome. An animal that can do that and yet its own genome is so complex it will be a long time before we fully understand it.
You guys are insane.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by O Great One
You guys are insane.

Was there an actual argument in that post, or did I just miss it? It seems like you're just saying "we're complicated, so we must have been designed by God." I don't think this is a very useful (or logically valid) argument. It's a non-sequitor.

- Warren

 

[Bernardo]

O Great one,
I don't think you read very much of this thread before jumping in with your assessment of the discussions here. This is not like a conversation where you can judge the content in a few minutes. Posts a few pages past are still 'current'. I have posted often on this thread and voiced my faith in a creator. While often met with debate, overall I feel an openness anong the frequenters here.

If you would have read you would see there are many views here all of them for the majority are respected. The only thing jumped on and unwelcome here is slamming the thoughts of others.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by O Great One
Ya know...You guys really crack me up. If I was to walk with anyone of you guys into a store and walk up to a mannequin, I would not be able to convice you that it wasn't designed, yet your own body is about a billion times more complex and yet you believe that it wasn't designed. An animal with enough intellectual capacity that it can design clocks capable of being accurate to within one second every 20,000,000 years, capable of proving Fermat's Last Theorem, a theorem with an infinite number of equations each with an infinite number of possible solutions, capable of designing machines capable of discovering prime numbers 4 million digits long, playing chess better than 99.9% of the population, putting a man on the moon, doing billions of calculations in the blink of an eye. An animal that can discover its own genetic code and its own genome. An animal that can do that and yet its own genome is so complex it will be a long time before we fully understand it.
You guys are insane.

OGO, do you not realize that you have actually defeated your own purpose here? If we are such intelligent animals, who have done (or can do) all of the things that you mention, and much more, then what makes you think we could all be so "mislead" on the subject of our own origin? Science has done so much, and yet you - while admiring some of its endeavors - act as though it would make a great leap of faith on one of the most important questions that humanity has ever asked. That's not giving us our full credit.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Bernardo
I have posted often on this thread and voiced my faith in a creator. While often met with debate, overall I feel an openness anong the frequenters here.

If you would have read you would see there are many views here all of them for the majority are respected. The only thing jumped on and unwelcome here is slamming the thoughts of others.

Glad to hear you say that, Bernardo. That's the goal...an open debate of ideas. This particular debate often gets heated as it touches on people's core beliefs, but we try to keep it civil overall. Bottom line is that the theory of evolution makes no statement for or against God. Some people say evolution operates on its own, others say God uses evolution to create. If O Great One wants to refute evolution completely, then fine...this is a science forum, so let's discuss the scientific evidence for/against that position.

 

[einsteinian77]

O great one, we haven't proven fermats last theorem. As I can recall it is unprovable.

My biology teacher told me that the theory prior to evolution was the theory that life forms could change just by will. Was that really the theory before evolution?

 

[Bernardo]

OK everyone,


O Great One is gone probably never to return. What we have here is a 'drive by posting' so let's agree his post was 'hasty' and articulated in a way that makes his opinions very hard to accept. Having done this let's leave him behind and continue the discussion.

Thanks.