An evolution education thread. Or how we know evolution is a fact.

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Actually, I think a large part of this issue is just a failure of imagination -- an inability to see a great deal of data "in one's mind" at a time.

Look at a 2 hour movie, in which 172,800 frames are shown, one at a time, very quickly (24 per second). Look carefully at the celluloid film itself, and you'll find that one picture is just about indistinguishable from the next. But clearly the end of the film doesn't look anything at all like the beginning!

Just for example (I'm contributing no real science yet), consider humans and chimps. Those who don't believe that we share a common ancestor with them think that "we're just too different." But consider: African apes and humans have essentially the same arrangement of internal organs, share all of the same bones (though somewhat different in shape and size), lack external tails, and have several important blood type systems in common. We also get many of the same diseases. How different are we really, then?

 

[We Never Know]

This is not a thread for debate but rather for education on the topic of evolution, and other sciences. I see far too many creationists that rely far too often on misinformation to attempt to argue against evolution. You cannot refute an idea by using a false version of it.

An analogy that our Christian members should be able to appreciate: I cannot refute Christianity by insisting that nailing your friend to a tree never results in him coming back from being dead. That is a rather extreme strawman of Christian beliefs but it is no worse than many of the arguments against evolution.

You can ask questions here. I will be posting some basics of science and work up from there. This is not a debate thread. Participation is welcomed.

While I like your thread, are you prepared to answer questions from creationist? Your the teacher that started this educational thread so answering questions will be your responsibility.

Did non-alive viruses evolve from the living or did the living evolve from a non-alive viruses?

Before there were arms or legs, which evolved first?

What sense evolved first? Second? Of the 6 in what order did they evolve?

Organisms used oxygen 3 billion years ago. So why 2.4 billion years later during the cambrian is oxygen accredited as one thing that triggered a species explosion?

When life evolved out of water to survive on land, what exactly transversed life back to water?

Did life start evolving only in one certain place on earth or many places

Did apes evolve from monkeys? Is so, aren't we really monkeys?

I'm sure creationist will give you more but brush up and be prepared to answer.

 

[McBell]

While I like your thread, are you prepared to answer questions from creationist? Your the teacher that started this educational thread so answering questions will be your responsibility.

Did non-alive viruses evolve from the living or did the living evolve from a non-alive viruses?

Before there were arms or legs, which evolved first?

What sense evolved first? Second? Of the 6 in what order did they evolve?

Organisms used oxygen 3 billion years ago. So why 2.4 billion years later during the cambrian is oxygen accredited as one thing that triggered a species explosion?

When life evolved out of water to survive on land, what exactly transversed life back to water?

Did life start evolving only in one certain place on earth or many places

Did apes evolve from monkeys? Is so, aren't we really monkeys?

I'm sure creationist will give you more but brush up and be prepared to answer.

I would tell them to stop with the useless gish gallop and present one question at a time and to hold off the next question until the first one was fully covered.

 

[We Never Know]

I would tell them to stop with the useless gish gallop and present one question at a time and to hold off the next question until the first one was fully covered.

Of course but we know they don't play that way.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A scientific theory starts out as a hypothesis. But it has grown from there. It starts out as a testable idea that is confirmed. If an idea is refuted it is no longer a theory or a hypothesis. A theory often arises out of an amalgamation of various hypotheses that all describe an aspect of a specific subject.

A scientific theory is an idea that covers a fairly broad idea. It has to be testable. It has to have passed many tests and not have had any major failures (minor failures will result in adjusting the theory and is not that big of a problem). It still needs to be testable even after it passes those tests.

In other words a scientific theory has to be about as close being a fact as possible. But it is still treated as being only provisionally true.

In the colloquial sense when one says "I have a theory" they often mean just a guess that is supported somewhat by circumstantial evidence. Anyone that uses the phase "evolution is only a theory" has conflated the two usages and in effect loses the debate by demonstrating that they have no understanding of even the basics of science.

I would add a description of a scientific law to further extend clarification. A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Newton's first law of motion for instance. The law describes, but does not explain the phenomenon. Explanation of a phenomenon falls under theory. Additionally, scientific laws do not become theories as is often falsely believed.

 

[rational experiences]

Creation ists claim evolution is a fact.

Maths. Facts and factors claiming I can explain the reason why a monkey type human became human. By factoring theorising it by O.

Yet it is words said first. Human words only.

Yes he said GOD the word O movement of spirit the spiral G of a cell changed the cell so miraculously a monkey became human. Inside it's cell.

God is within he says.

Yet our cells are bio living biology. Fixed.

Owned by the biology itself type of skin and blood and bone type.

So you look at the theist and state you use human in the analogy and also visionary advice. As Human theoretic changed body.

As if a human was looking once like a monkey.

So is that history detailed by dead things?

Bones.

Yes says the evolutionist creationist.

If he says however I was looking at living things when I claimed it he would be lying. As he is a human doing the claim. Living.

Why we argue against both theisms.

You aren't our creator and natural is to be accepted in its highest forms without argument.

Yet you argue for human status and egotism.

If a scientist said in history a thesis of strings I can follow that advice from space direct to your body. His thesis owns his false ideas of dead bones bodies.

As a monkey today is that monkey.

He would be trying to transmit which is what he says God is today Phi sounds to make us first own a prehistoric form. In heavenly transmitted sound studies via haarp and satellite.

As he does not accept in science our highest holiest modern form. Just a human. A healthy human.

His study sick humans in DNA not even monkey looking. Yet he studied their form mutation.

By his say so.

As the reason science was stopped as machine atmospheric practices of the past. Science to Alchemy had been outlawed.

God string theisms by factors O.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would add a description of a scientific law to further extend clarification. A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Newton's first law of motion for instance. The law describes, but does not explain the phenomenon. Explanation of a phenomenon falls under theory. Additionally, scientific laws do not become theories as is often falsely believed.

Or perhaps vice versa? Did you mean to say that scientific theories do not become scientific laws. If anything that would be a demotion. Laws are a bit "old school" anyway. Scientists demand a bit more than an observation without an explanation these days.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Or perhaps vice versa? Did you mean to say that scientific theories do not become scientific laws. If anything that would be a demotion. Laws are a bit "old school" anyway. Scientists demand a bit more than an observation without an explanation these days.

Actually, I have seen people claim it both ways, but I think you are correct and the dominant error is theories becoming laws.

I just wanted to add it for clarification and to mention another misunderstanding about the nature of a scientific theory that people often retain.

Edit. Sorry. Yes, I meant to say that some people have a misunderstanding about how theories are viewed and believe that with enough data, theories will become laws. This is, of course, incorrect and there is no such transition. What I wrote was not what I intended to write, but I will leave the above as is and correct it here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here is how Scientific American explain it, I think this is one of the simplest and best explanations I have seen.

Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.
"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words

I use the term educated guess far too often I think. It really isn't a very good metaphor for hypothesis. Looks like I am going to have to break a very old habit.

 

[Stevicus]

I recall in my younger days and learning about evolution for the first time, I recall the phrase "missing link" was bandied about quite a bit. Thinking on the topic in this thread, I looked at the Wiki article on the subject (Missing link (human evolution) - Wikipedia) and discovered that it's a term which has fallen out of favor in recent years.

But the thing that struck me about it was the caption underneath this picture:

The caption reads:

A symbolic portrayal of human evolution, wrongly implying that evolution is linear and progressive.

I think this picture might sum up how many people might understand evolution, even if it might be incorrect.

 

[McBell]

I recall in my younger days and learning about evolution for the first time, I recall the phrase "missing link" was bandied about quite a bit. Thinking on the topic in this thread, I looked at the Wiki article on the subject (Missing link (human evolution) - Wikipedia) and discovered that it's a term which has fallen out of favor in recent years.

But the thing that struck me about it was the caption underneath this picture:

The caption reads:



I think this picture might sum up how many people might understand evolution, even if it might be incorrect.

Based upon the things said by creationists, I suspect that Pokemon has been a rather large detriment to how evolution is understood...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I recall in my younger days and learning about evolution for the first time, I recall the phrase "missing link" was bandied about quite a bit. Thinking on the topic in this thread, I looked at the Wiki article on the subject (Missing link (human evolution) - Wikipedia) and discovered that it's a term which has fallen out of favor in recent years.

But the thing that struck me about it was the caption underneath this picture:

The caption reads:



I think this picture might sum up how many people might understand evolution, even if it might be incorrect.

That leads to people thinking that humanity was a goal instead of a result. But it is art and should be appreciated for what it is. That it is not perfect does not bother me all that much. The thing is any species would see evolution as a progression of a sort ending in them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Based upon the things said by creationists, I suspect that Pokemon has been a rather large detriment to how evolution is understood...

Also DC and Marvel comics.

 

[Stevicus]

Based upon the things said by creationists, I suspect that Pokemon has been a rather large detriment to how evolution is understood...

I never really got into Pokemon. Pac Man was a different matter.

 

[rational experiences]

Just for example (I'm contributing no real science yet), consider humans and chimps. Those who don't believe that we share a common ancestor with them think that "we're just too different." But consider: African apes and humans have essentially the same arrangement of internal organs, share all of the same bones (though somewhat different in shape and size), lack external tails, and have several important blood type systems in common. We also get many of the same diseases. How different are we really, then?

Apes have sex with apes. Ape babies.

Monkeys with monkeys.

Satanist humans have sex with anything they like.

Record their life in satanic choices. Memories records as a human. Believe it as a human.. reference it. Align self mind to it. Use it in theory inference.

By sex conditions.

You read a bible theme Phi and human sex medical stated relationships and wonder at humans living supported in a mutual shared same atmospheric state as holy oxygenated water life wondering about their mind state.

As a thinker I want my parent to be a monkey or ape theism. And not a human. Theist.

The story science said humans began life as humans.

Science said about 13000 years ago Moses nuclear removed first holy Child. Human baby.

Do you know why we are living today?

Sex.

Human sex produced mutated monkey type human babies. Who healed as radiation disappeared in evolution evolving. Moses cause.

How does mutated form be passed?

By sex.

If science wants humans to be monkeys first they are surely trying to cause it.

String theists say dinosaurs. Snap freeze not any dinosaur yet include its advice.....new animals just as animals and a monkey was your parent.

Rational humans say first two humans as humans were our parents and you own no proof that a monkey was ever any body but a monkey.

Rational advice.

Humans claiming I am going to know it all are just humans.

 

[Valjean]

Most Creationists believe that if you accept what science says about evolution, that means you can't believe in God because God created everything. How would you answer that from a rational, scientific perspective?

NOMA? Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia

Mechanism vs agency?

 

[sayak83]

This is not a thread for debate but rather for education on the topic of evolution, and other sciences. I see far too many creationists that rely far too often on misinformation to attempt to argue against evolution. You cannot refute an idea by using a false version of it.

An analogy that our Christian members should be able to appreciate: I cannot refute Christianity by insisting that nailing your friend to a tree never results in him coming back from being dead. That is a rather extreme strawman of Christian beliefs but it is no worse than many of the arguments against evolution.

You can ask questions here. I will be posting some basics of science and work up from there. This is not a debate thread. Participation is welcomed.

I will add stuff here if I have time.

 

[Meow Mix]

I just love the funky moves of the one on the left. Yeah little fella, get down with your bad self.

 

[Mock Turtle]

And this isn't a snapshot of our ancestors coming out of their local pub.

 

[Irate State]

Of course but we know they don't play that way.

Does it have a name that strategy ( maybe is an informal logical fallacy, not sure) of flooding with questions the other person in the debate? I did look for it but I couldn't find the exact phrasing.