Evolution by Natural Selection is a fact

[Disciple of Christ]

While biological evolution is an observable, testable, predictable fact of nature, the only debate lies in the specific mechanisms,

There is no legitimate debate for ID or YEC in the natural process of science.

I could be wrong , but I thought this discussion fell under the category of "Evolution vs Creationism" even though the main subject was "natural selection". should it not be categorized as "Evolution" instead? No disrepect intended here.
If "Evolution by natural selection is a fact" then how can we debate a fact?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I could be wrong , but I thought this discussion fell under the category of "Evolution vs Creationism" even though the main subject was "natural selection". should it not be categorized as "Evolution" instead? No disrepect intended here.

That those ignorant of the natural world continue to debate against science and the scientific method does not lend credence to their arguments.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

That those ignorant of the natural world continue to debate against science and the scientific method does not lend credence to their arguments.

I have no qualms with scientific method only its interpretaion, sometimes.

 

[Pleroma]

Not to be rude, but is everything published fact and even in the field of science do they not work on the premise of theories and laws which could be disproved at some point in time?

Its not everything that is published is a fact. Its the amount of observational data and evidence supporting the theory which makes it a fact.

Even if new theories are developed the old well established theories will not be overthrown. For example :- Evolution currently require a New Synthetic theory but this new theory will not over throw Darwinian evolution, what it does is that it fills the gaps and explains other phenomena which were not addressed by the Darwinian evolution, it doesn't mean the new theory will disprove Darwinian evolution.

This is how science works, take for another example when Einstein developed his theory of General Relativity it didn't disproved Newtonian theory of gravitation instead it was found out that Einstein's theory can be reduced into the theory of Newtonian Gravitation at an extreme sub-case.

The Einstein's theory of Relativity has been tested to 0.001 decimal places of precision, that is why physicists don't take anyone seriously if someone says Einstein was wrong and treat him as a crackpot.

New Theories add knowledge to the already established theories in the scientific database it doesn't delete or disprove well established theories and it is highly unlikely.

 

[Pleroma]

I could be wrong , but I thought this discussion fell under the category of "Evolution vs Creationism" even though the main subject was "natural selection". should it not be categorized as "Evolution" instead? No disrepect intended here.
If "Evolution by natural selection is a fact" then how can we debate a fact?

The purpose of this thread is to educate people that irrespective of whether God exists or not Evolution by natural selection is a fact.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Its not everything that is published is a fact. Its the amount of observation data and evidence supporting he theory which makes it a fact.

Even if new theories are developed the old well established theories will not be overthrown. For example :- Evolution currently require a New Synthetic theory but this new theory will not over throw Darwinian evolution, what it does is that fills the gaps and explains other phenomena which were not addressed by the Darwinian evolution, it doesn't mean the new theory will disprove Darwinian evolution.

This is how science works, take for another example when Einstein developed his theory of General Relativity it didn't disproved Newtonian theory of gravitation instead what it was found out that Einstein's theory can be reduced into the theory of Newtonian Gravitation at an extreme sub-case.

The Einstein's theory of Relativity has been tested to 0.001 decimal places of precision, that is why physicists don't take anyone seriously if he says Einstein was wrong and treat him as a crackpot.

New Theories add knowledge to the already established theories in the scientific database it doesn't delete or disprove well established theories and it is highly unlikely.

I agree, Then should we give up on the possibility of a intelligent creator just because we deem others as being crackpots?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

The purpose of this thread is to educate people that irrespective of whether God exists or not Evolution by natural selection is a fact.

Thankyou for defining the parameters.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I agree, Then should we give up on the possibility of a intelligent creator just because we deem others as being crackpots?

If you hold to the idea of a Creator as a matter of faith, as I and many other theists do, then there is no problem.
If you attempt to reinterpret observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable scientific findings in a vain attempt to qualify that faith, then dogma overtakes science and reason is discarded.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The purpose of this thread is to educate people that irrespective of whether God exists or not Evolution by natural selection is a fact.

Indeed.
What is important to remember is that biological evolution is not a theological concept and has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of a deity.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

If you hold to the idea of a Creator as a matter of faith, as I and many other theists do, then there is no problem.
If you attempt to reinterpret observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable scientific findings in a vain attempt to qualify that faith, then dogma overtakes science and reason is discarded.

Not that we should discuss it here and maybe you or someone else could open a thread because I am still new at this, but why would you imply that dogma has no reason?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have no qualms with scientific method only its interpretaion, sometimes.

Which interpretations do you have a problem with, specifically?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Indeed.
What is important to remember is that biological evolution is not a theological concept and has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of a deity.

I was working on the notion that creationism requires a creator and am coming from that side of the debate, but the parameters have been noted now that I have been informed.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Which interpretations do you have a problem with, specifically?

I guess it would be according to definition. Evolution is for the most part seen as a transmutation process from one species to another. From a creationist point of view I would concede to change within a species caused by adaptation through selection not mutating from one species to another, but within the species.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I guess it would be according to definition. Evolution is for the most part seen as a transmutation process from one species to another. From a creationist point of view I would concede to change within a species caused by adaptation through selection not mutating from one species to another, but within the species.

But we have already observed one population of the same species divide into two separate species, so that's just plain wrong. Evolution does result in new species developing and we have observed it doing so.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I guess it would be according to definition. Evolution is for the most part seen as a transmutation process from one species to another. From a creationist point of view I would concede to change within a species caused by adaptation through selection not mutating from one species to another, but within the species.

Is it because of your faith that you hold this position? Or through rigorous scientific research in genetics and biology?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

But we have already observed one population of the same species divide into two separate species, so that's just plain wrong. Evolution does result in new species developing and we have observed it doing so.

Please forgive my ignorance, but which species?

 

[Father Heathen]

Natural selection isn't evolution, it is devolution, it is the taking away of information and complexity. And besides natural selection validates Intelligent Design because the genes must be in an organism in order for them to be selected. How did the information for all the different types of dogs get into the very first dog kind?

Stop talking, go take a class on the basic fundamentals of genetics, then come back. Thanks.

Or at least read this: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/natural-selection.htm

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Evolution is for the most part seen as a transmutation process from one species to another.

What are your three favorite books on evolution and related disciplines?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Is it because of your faith that you hold this position? Or through rigorous scientific research in genetics and biology?

Both.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Both.

Really?

Continuing with Jay's question. What peer reviewed scientific journal's submissions have you studied , particularly concerning genetics and biology, that have indicated that biological evolution of new species does not occur?