How many biology teachers have you had?

"Ok, let me rephrase. Evolution is not proven yet."

Yes it is. That's what my post said. The argument that because evolution is a theory that it isn't proven, is false, because most people (even science teachers) don't have a clear understanding of what the word "theory" means. That's what I was trying to clear up. I wasn't trying to twist your words. Evolution has been shown to work. That means it's proven.

But evolution theory cannot predict (for example) how many generations of selective pressure are needed to produce a certain change due to recombination, or whether a certain mutation will occur at all. But it can predict within a reasonable margin of error, how often mutations do occur.

In the same way meteorological theory can predict the weather with great accuracy, given all the data needed to create a weather model, but usually fails to predict the weather with 100% accuracy, because it simply isn't possible to gather 100% of the necessary data.

As Tom Davidson points out, abiogenesis is not covered under evolution theory, so a biology teacher has no business making an argument for it. Also, it cannot be proven that God did not alter the equation to allow abiogenesis to occur, or apply specific selective pressure to bring about certain species intentionally. This is sort of what "intelligent design" is about.

One argument against intelligent design comes from biologists, on the grounds that it can not be represented in scientific terms. That is, in order to be represented as a hypothesis, it must be able to show that it is true or that it is false. Their argument is that since there is no such test, intelligent design cannot be presented as a scientific topic.

There are some atheists, however, (such as myself) who think that intelligent design should be introduced for exactly that reason. Subjecting a belief to scientific scrutiny can never be a bad thing.

quote:

---

Evolution has been shown to work.

---

The theory of evolution -- and, for that matter, the law of natural selection -- stands up as well as pretty much any other scientific theory of the last hundred years. There are whole principles of biology -- principles that WORK, mind you -- built directly upon that foundation.

What it HASN'T shown is that natural evolution was not fiddled with by some superior being -- and, heck, there's no real way to demonstrate that.

We apparently seem to have evolved from a common ancestor some millions of years ago, though.

EDIT: Grammar

Evolution has NOT been shown to work - no clear example of speciation has ever been presented, and no conclusion can be drawn from the EXTREMELY incomplete fossil record. These are clear to the casual observer who thinks briefly on the subject.

That said, I think evolution is a nifty theory, and consistent with what we know about nature. It's certainly hard to find other theories that are consistent with what we know about heredity and genetics.I'm perfectly willing to use it as a working basis for my understanding of the world.

Evolution has NOTHING to do with religion - it has more to do with thermodynamics, IMHO.

We live in a world of things far stranger than one where God might or might not have had anything to do with the origin of life. Either explanation (from the scientific point of view) is equally valid because no data exist to prove either. That's the limit of scientific inquiry.

Most of the nitty-gritty details of how gravity actually works aren't facts, either. IMO, this is one of the coolest things about science.

First off, I made a mistake in the previous post. It wasn't Steel who claimed to have multiple biology teachers. It was you. So how many biology classes have you had?

"I don't believe in evolution. It's as simple as that. So please stop telling me that my belief is wrong when it can't be backed up with 100% for sure evidence."

Do you lack belief in evolution, or do you disbelieve in evolution? The two are not the same. The first means that you have not come to a conclusion, and the second means that your have.

Am I telling you that your belief is wrong? Or am I giving you information with which you may reach a conclusion? Being open minded means that you are willing to accept new information, and process it, even if it may controvert your existing beliefs.

That's the way science works. Part and parcel of basic science is setting up your hypothesis to see if it can be logically destroyed. In fact, every Ph.d has to go through a process called "defending their thesis" in which a bunch of other Phd's do everything they can to tear his doctoral work apart. If they can, he has to go back to the drawing board and make it defensible. If they can't, they say: "congratulations Dr. Jones" and have a big party.

Are you saying you are not sure enough of your thesis to allow it to be subjected to such scrutiny?

Stradling: In the 150 or so years since Darwin codified the theory, no examples of macro evolution have been directly observed (depending of your definition of macro evolution). But many examples of speciation have been presented, and many conclusions can be drawn despite the extremely incomplete fossil record.

If the quote your offer had been my only argument in favor of evolution, I would agree that the syllogism you offer as an analogy is roughly correct. However, due to the mechanisms of dialog (especially internet dialog), what you are arguing against is merely a summary of a previous argument. I based that summary on several previous posts, including this one:

"Why do we teach evolution in schools? Because it is the foundation of biological science, which has been shown in millions of experiments and observations, to work. Because it has been used as a tool throughout history, to breed useful crops and livestock. Because it promises an understanding of human physiology which will allow medical discoveries, which have cured and will cure the most insufferable diseases, and improve the quality of life for all mankind. Is that a good enough reason?"

I should perhaps also throw in the argument that evolution theory supports and is supported by genetic theory, and that the human genome mapping provides an amazingly detailed history of human evolution.

Likewise, despite the attempts of "creation scientists" to discredit evolution, there has not been a single counterexample that stands up to scientific scrutiny.

Your comment about believing in evolution strikes me as odd. On the Pro evolution side, we usually base our arguments on science, not beliefs. Belief is the domain of religion.

Here are transitional fossils for vertebrates.

So far, no absolute “link” between ape and men have been found, but there seems to be a clear arrow pointing in that direction.

ha!

My problem with evolution is that the "clear arrow" is really more of a dotted line. It's full of breaks, which seems to indicate that a species can almost spontaneously evolve into a higher species. Even with transitional fossils, the transitions are pretty abrupt. In other words, it's continual but not continuous. Shouldn't the evolution of a species be so smooth that there generally aren't any true markers to point to and say "this is a new species now"?

More importantly, did that last sentence even make sense?

Which means there are only a few billion fossils.

Which means that no one expects that a complete record exists.

Admittedly, it would be great if it did. If thousands of examples of one species were found, and then suddenly jumped to thousands of a completely different species, that would say quite a bit about what actually happened.

Or better yet, if no fossils were found, then suddenly billions of fossils of all different kinds of species, and then suddenly a huge decrease in the number and types of fossils, that would tell another story, too.

Instead, we find fossils sorted, not by size or mobility, but by shared characteristics, where an animal that has one characteristic (such as a modified jaw-bone) is similar to an animal found later with many of the same characteristics, but with some different ones (such as a primative ear where the jaw-bone was), with another that share similiar characteristics but with further modifications (now the primative ear is a more sophisticated one). These apparent gradual changes are very difficult to explain except by the idea that the animals gradually changed: i.e. evolved.

Yeah, no crap. That's what I was saying. Yet scientists who try to argue with creationists (<<<duly recognizing the fact that there happens to be a group that call themselves creation scientists.) are doinf just that: Counter-converting. Logically, and therefore scientifically, you cannot argue with a premise. Now that evolution is widely accepted, arguing with creationists is unscientific and unproductive. It actuallyhelps them be recognized, and adds fuel to their fire. After all, it can only give legitamcy to their point that evolution is religion and not science.
In other words, from a purely scientific and logical standpoint, if the creationists are right, there's no point in arguing with them, and if they're wrong there's a legitimate reason for Not arguing with them.

From my personal perspective, our evolutionionary theories are probably, by and large, woefully inaccurate and full of holes. However, this is more than overidden by the fact that they are the work of thousands of scientific geniuses and are the best we've got. (<<< For reasons described above, I really don't want to start an argument here about how God is a F*** of a lot smarter than thousands of brilliant scientists.) Just my 2 cents.

Go sutranafs! Wooo!

Sut-ra-nafs! Sut-ra-nafs! Sut-ra-nafs! Sut-ra-nafs!

quote:

---

If you do simply say they don't exist you lose nearly all my respect for your imagination. If you say "Who's Jane Goodall?" or "What? Apes Don't talk!" I will merely consider that your education has been neglected.

---

Aliens don't exist.

Who is Jane Goodall?

Ape don't talk.

Did I ever say that? I don't think I did. If I did, this quote takes it out of context. Hold on, I'll go check to see if I wrote this, ever...

...

No, no that was Nick. Check page eight.

I said:

"'...Because unlike the existence of God, there's firm scientific evidence that suggests the truth of evolution...'

Bull. There is a lot of evidence that supports evolution, but it is no more frim than the evidence that supports God. I am not an atheist, but you are not a prophet. The existence of some form of a higher power is far more conclusive and well documented than evolution. You simply choose to beleive the "scholars" who document evolution over the ones who document God.

Don't get me wrong: I think evolution is a natural process, and should be taught in schools right along side, say, volcanic eruptions or chemical processes. The problem I had was with your defense of it; a bigoted stance that has a tendency to offend.

I think evolution is true, but I do not pretend to know that it is true."

Most importantly!: