How many here believe in evolution?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Thrawn:

Assuming your questions were directed at me, here are my answers:

Nah, it was directed at miko.

[gatso]

A couple of extreemly interesting links.

http://www.life.uiuc.edu/bio100/lectures/sp98lects/25s98evidence.html The reference weblinks are interesting. University of Illionois Life Science department condensed Biology 101 : Evidence for macro evolution.

http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/intro1.htm And an exelent Evolution page. Lots of information presented in language that anyone should be able to understand.

Gatso

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by Thrawn
the·o·ry    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.  


Enjoying your sanctimonious little diatribe?  

Do you want some definitions for "viable" as well?  

Thrawn - Im not sure you understand the scientific definition of "theory" OR "fact."  At this point, however, I think it would be best if you simply bowed out of the thread to prevent further embarressment. (BTW, Really enjoyed your personal attack in the Boy Scout thread - we can now add stupidity and immaturity to your growing list of attributes.)  

[RDSaustinTX]

Wow. All the topics to avoid in polite conversation come here.
 
Evolution is the only materialistic theory to explain life. So philosophical materialists are stuck with it (a bunch of 'em judging from the number of posts here).
 
As regards diversity, evolution theory is not sufficient to explain everything we see, by anything like a scientific criterion. The paleontologists and the biologists sing from different hymnbooks (uneasily compromising with punctuated equilibrium).
 
Epistemologically: Not saying I know - Merely asserting you don't either.
 

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by RDSaustinTX
Wow. All the topics to avoid in polite conversation come here.
 
Evolution is the only materialistic theory to explain life. So philosophical materialists are stuck with it (a bunch of 'em judging from the number of posts here).
 
As regards diversity, evolution theory is not sufficient to explain everything we see, by anything like a scientific criterion. The paleontologists and the biologists sing from different hymnbooks (uneasily compromising with punctuated equilibrium).
 
Epistemologically: Not saying I know - Merely asserting you don't either.
 

Materialistic theory? Do you know what you mean?
How do you separate Science from Materialism? Or do you?

Evolution is more than sufficient to explain the diversity we see today, especially when coupled with 4.5 billion years.

[Thrawn]

Thanks for the heads up there Saurdaukar, but I'm not in the least bit embarassed.

And thanks for personal attacks in return.  

[LoneStarBuckeye]

The "sufficient to explain" standard doesn't strike me as being clothed in scientific rigor.  The fact that A is sufficient to explain B does not establish a causal relationship between A and B.

- JNOV

[miko2d]

Thrawn,

 Since a lot of ignorant laymen are using the world "theory" in place of "hypothesis", "speculation" or "guess", the dictionaries added that meaning as the secondary or tertiary entries.
 Same with using "bad" bor "good" or "cool" and "hot" in the same sence.

 But since you are arguing the statements of the schientists, you should not attribute their statements the meaning you want, but to use their meaning - in this case "scientific theory".
 It is not only different from the one you scraped from the bottom of the dictionary entry, but even from the primary meaning of that particular lousy dictionary - what is is by the way?

 Scientific theory is a fact or a collection of facts or knowlege accepted as fact - which term "fact" also has meaning for scientists different from one laymen use and it does not really mean "the absolute truth". So scientific theory and fact can be subjects for doubt and refutation.
 I will try to find the correct definitions later.


RDSaustinTX: The paleontologists and the biologists sing from different hymnbooks

 Punctuated equilibrium is a minor clarification on how evolution worked - not contradicting to the main principles in the least. Whatever contradiction there seems to be, it's the result of issue being overblown way out of proportion by fame-hungry scientist (S. Gould). Nobody ever claimed that evolution has any kind of a set constant pace. The punctuated equilibrum does not mean an overnight change - it is supposed to work over hundreds of thousands of years separated by periods of slower or no change. Nice detail - quite obvious and even original. He just found some fossil illustration for it.

 miko

[Sandman]

Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
The "sufficient to explain" standard doesn't strike me as being clothed in scientific rigor.  - JNOV

... and creation is?

[Thrawn]

Miko, am I communicating with mostly laymen on this board or scientists?  Was my audience able to understand the meaning of the message I was trying to communicate?  Did the word I use have an acceptable definition for what I was trying to communicate with that word?

[LoneStarBuckeye]

Sandman:

No, creationism is not rigorously scientific.  Those who believe that we were created do so based on faith, just as those who believe that we and the rest of the universe are the product of a cosmic coincidence do so based on faith.  

- JNOV

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Sandman:

No, creationism is not rigorously scientific.  Those who believe that we were created do so based on faith, just as those who believe that we and the rest of the universe are the product of a cosmic coincidence do so based on faith.  

- JNOV

Once again... NOPE!

Science actually requires a complete LACK OF FAITH. Go look up the scientific method.

[LoneStarBuckeye]

MT:

I saw your earlier post, and I am well versed in the scientific method.  The point is that a belief that man came to be by unguided evolution is a religious view (i.e., one based on faith), not a scientific conclusion.

- JNOV

[DuBe]

Interesting post Hortland, and largely a persuasive argument. However, allow me to nit pick a couple of points:

"1. Evolution has never been observed."  

-Agreed. However, the introduction of a significant and beneficial mutation into a breeding population may in fact produce something resembling the type of macro event you describe below. Understand, that we observe first hand an incredibly tiny slice of time.

"2. Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics"

    "Or in other words:
    All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves."

I might suggest that this is a misapplication of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. This law of thermodynamics is anything but universal in it's applicability.  Genetic variation and mutation within breeding populations is not the only place where this law may be seen to break down. In Einstein's theory of General Relativity it can be demonstrated that Entropy cannot take place until the universe enters a "contraction phase". This fortunately has not yet happened, as it appears that the universe is still expanding, and the laws of physics upon which we all depend have yet to be repealed.

This is by far not the only example of incompatible scientific theories. But take heart, when they finally reconcile Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, perhaps there will emerge a way to apply thermodynamics to this topic.


"3. There are no transitional fossils"

The absence of any sort of transitional forms may not in fact matter, as they are absolutely not necessary for the theory to remain viable. (See above with respect to introducing mutation to a breeding population) Also bear in mind that review of the fossil record provides the scantest possible sample of the organisms that have existed during any given era. Our sample size of organisms over the millenia is an incredibly small percentage. We have no evidence to demonstrate the effects of mutation upon mutation taking place over thousands of years. Yes the fossil record contains no proof. However the sample size is far, far to small to use this fact to refute the theory.

Essentially what this means is that Evolution, so far, can not irrefutably be proven or disproven. Evolution in fact, remains a theory.


DuBe

P.S. That's about as much coherent thought as I've been able to muster in a decade. With your leave, I shall now revert to being a moron.

[Jekyll]

Originally posted by Puke
Saurdauker, I may misunderstand you, but you could maybe travel to only a small handfull of stars in 56 Light Years.  But, you can't even get across our own galaxy let alone around the whole universe in 56 Light Years.  (I love learning about space stuff.)

 

SHIP years Puke ... not years as measured back here on earth.  Time dilation means that in 56 SHIP years you could indeed circumnavigate the observable universe.