Evolution is False and Impossible

[Autodidact]

ah good point forgot about bacterial evolution to develop resistance to drugs.

thanks for the tip. so what is your distinction between a theory and a law?

thats my problem with evolution there is no overwhelming evidence, there is a lot of evidence but none that destroys all doubts. the expiriment i mentioned a few posts back is an example of that - it shows that evolution is not the only way organisms change. so if evolution is only true most of the time then how can it be seen as an absolute truth like some of the physics laws?

I'm guessing that you don't know what all the evidence is. It is in fact overwhelming, which is why the consensus of biologists accept it. You might want to check out this or this.

 

[Gharib]

Second, the "overwhelming evidence" of evolution is that we see it happen, right before our eyes, every single day.

isn't evolution a slow process that takes millions of years to see the changes?

i guess evolution itself has evolved, from a slow process to a rather quick one.

 

[Gharib]

Of course it hasn't been proved. NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS EVER PROVED. The standard in science is not proof but evidence. And the evidence in favor of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is overwhelming, which is why modern biology is based on it.

so by what you've said, no matter how much evidence you've got evolution still hasn't been proven to be right or logical. it is still a theory in reality but real in some scientists head.

 

[Valjean]

isn't evolution a slow process that takes millions of years to see the changes?

Rates of evolution vary tremendously. You can go from a species of bacteria almostly universally killed by an antibiotic to a population unaffected by it, to a population that feeds on it, to a species that cannot survive without it, in a matter of weeks.

i guess evolution itself has evolved, from a slow process to a rather quick one.

The mechanisms of change remain the same, eselam, but there are many of them. There are also many different environmental situations a species may find itself in that will affect rates of change. These may produce significant change in days, or no change for a billion years.

 

[ragordon168]

overwhelming evidence doesnt immediately mean truth though. there was overwhelming evidence that the earth was flat because the ground was flat, if the world was a sphere then we'd all slide off and fall into space. we now now thats utter BS.

same could happen with evolution, how do we know that in hundreds or thousands of years they discover that evolution was not the only way life changed? we cant. everything we now know to be true could be disproved a centuary down the line.

 

[Willamena]

overwhelming evidence doesnt immediately mean truth though. there was overwhelming evidence that the earth was flat because the ground was flat, if the world was a sphere then we'd all slide off and fall into space. we now now thats utter BS.

same could happen with evolution, how do we know that in hundreds or thousands of years they discover that evolution was not the only way life changed? we cant. everything we now know to be true could be disproved a centuary down the line.

If "evidence" isn't true, it wouldn't be accpetable. We don't around saying, "Oh, that's false! Let's use it to try to uncover what this thing is really about."

PS: It's still true that the world is flat.

 

[Morse]

overwhelming evidence doesnt immediately mean truth though. there was overwhelming evidence that the earth was flat because the ground was flat, if the world was a sphere then we'd all slide off and fall into space. we now now thats utter BS.

same could happen with evolution, how do we know that in hundreds or thousands of years they discover that evolution was not the only way life changed? we cant. everything we now know to be true could be disproved a centuary down the line.

By this logic any conjecture whatsoever is completely useless as "It'll just be disproved later". Lets not debate God, because he'll be disproved a century down the line. Let us sit here and twiddle our thumbs, because it will all be proven false in a century or so. In order for good debate to happen, we must make the assumption that what we are debating is true and based around truth.

Oh, and there was not overwhelming evidence that the earth was flat, there was a drawn assumption from the single fact that the ground appeared flat. That is not the same as a series of indisputable observations.

 

[Morse]

isn't evolution a slow process that takes millions of years to see the changes?

i guess evolution itself has evolved, from a slow process to a rather quick one.

You don't understand evolution.

As a general rule, and I've stated this a LOT on this forum as many theists don't understand it, the more complex the organism, the longer it takes to see significant change.

Humans take very long amounts of time to change, and the changes are usually very subtle (Changes in average height would be a good example). This is because humans are the most complex creatures we know of. And an evolutionary change as subtle as a change in mean height occurs over the course of 50-100 years (Fun Fact: Denmark has become the worlds tallest nation over the past few centuries)

Bacteria on the other hand, which is a single celled organism, evolves RAPIDLY. Bacteria can evolve in as little as a day.

so by what you've said, no matter how much evidence you've got evolution still hasn't been proven to be right or logical. it is still a theory in reality but real in some scientists head.

You don't understand science.

Science does not have a doctrine or iron bound tome that is considered to be true forever.

Its a study using data and evidence to draw conclusions about the nature of pretty much everything.

Everything in science can be disproved given the proper evidence, nothing is set in stone. If somebody came around with a theory that incorporated Newton's Principia and Einstein's Theory of Relativity, both of those prior notions would be dismissed in favor of the theory that works correctly. (Einsteins only works at high speeds, Newton's get fuzzy at high speeds)

For now, because nothing else is more logical or has more evidence, The Theory of Evolution is considered to be true because of the morass of evidence that comes with it. If somebody devised The Theory of Ujungi, which not only logically disproved ToE, but had more evidence, ToE would be obsolete.

Oh, and look up theory.

 

[Vile Atheist]

You don't understand evolution.

As a general rule, and I've stated this a LOT on this forum as many theists don't understand it, the more complex the organism, the longer it takes to see significant change.

Humans take very long amounts of time to change, and the changes are usually very subtle (Changes in average height would be a good example). This is because humans are the most complex creatures we know of. And an evolutionary change as subtle as a change in mean height occurs over the course of 50-100 years (Fun Fact: Denmark has become the worlds tallest nation over the past few centuries)

Bacteria on the other hand, which is a single celled organism, evolves RAPIDLY. Bacteria can evolve in as little as a day.

To add to this, bacteria reproduces very quickly. Humans do not. Think about it. Humans will make perhaps 2-3 children over a life span of ~80 years.

The population of bacteria can double within hours. The lifespan of one human is equivalent to many, many, many generations of bacteria. I was actually going to do some math for you, but I'm lazy.

 

[Morse]

To add to this, bacteria reproduces very quickly. Humans do not. Think about it. Humans will make perhaps 2-3 children over a life span of ~80 years.

The population of bacteria can double within hours. The lifespan of one human is equivalent to many, many, many generations of bacteria. I was actually going to do some math for you, but I'm lazy.

Thats why Bacteria evolve so quickly

But to add to this, I suggest you look at a study, I cannot recall what it is called.

It essentially takes a population of bacteria and it injects virus' into the population, the virus' attack the bacteria and change occurs. (Virus' reproduce even faster than bacteria, every time a virus' "Impregnates" a cell and the cell essentially explodes, it releases thousands of virus') At least I believe thats what the results were, I didn't get to read the entire study because I was late for school. The link is somewhere on RF...

 

[Willamena]

Rather than generalize "theists who don't understand evolution," we should probably stick to the more likely generalization "people who weren't listening in Biology class."

 

[Morse]

I did not mean to say all theists fail to make an attempt at understanding evolution, I meant that a lot of the ones I have spoken to on here refuse to make an attempt. My words were a generalization, my intent was anecdotal.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Thats why Bacteria evolve so quickly

But to add to this, I suggest you look at a study, I cannot recall what it is called.

It essentially takes a population of bacteria and it injects virus' into the population, the virus' attack the bacteria and change occurs. (Virus' reproduce even faster than bacteria, every time a virus' "Impregnates" a cell and the cell essentially explodes, it releases thousands of virus') At least I believe thats what the results were, I didn't get to read the entire study because I was late for school. The link is somewhere on RF...

I know what you're talking about.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Rather than generalize "theists who don't understand evolution," we should probably stick to the more likely generalization "people who weren't listening in Biology class."

While I agree with the implicit statement we should take care with our generalizations, I think "theists who don't understand evolution" is not a generalization, but a classification with a qualifying statement.

He's arguing with who? Theists. What kind of theists? The theists who don't understand evolution. This does not imply that all theists do not understand evolution, merely there are a number that do not understand it (and presumably on a religious basis oppose it). And it's safe to say that's perfectly true. I point to Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind as prime examples.

If the statement was "all theists don't understand evolution", I would agree with your suggested generalization of "people who weren't listening in biology class".

 

[Willamena]

While I agree with the implicit statement we should take care with our generalizations, I think "theists who don't understand evolution" is not a generalization, but a classification with a qualifying statement.

Okay . . . as long as it's agreed that it's a classification of "people".

 

[Valjean]

Rates of change are affected by many factors, not just "complexity" and reproductive rates. Environment can be a major stimulous, for example.

Morse, I was struck by your statement that humans were "the most complex creatures we know of." How is a human more complex than my cat, or that pigeon on my windowsill?
And in post #350, about the viruses. Visuses don't really "reproduce," at least not in the conventional sense. They're assembled by the cell they've infected.

Interesting note: while some bacteria, under ideal conditions, can split as often as every 15 minutes, there are other extremophiles, found living inside rock in deep underground mines, that biologists estimate reproduce only once every thousand years.

 

[logician]

Probably 99 percent of the population does not understand that evolution is not progressive. S J Gould has written much on that subject.

 

[Autodidact]

isn't evolution a slow process that takes millions of years to see the changes?

The speed depends on how fast the specific organism reproduces.

i guess evolution itself has evolved, from a slow process to a rather quick one.

In a sense all scientific theories are constantly being corrected and improved.

 

[Morse]

Humans are considered to be the most complex creatures we know of not because of their bodily structure but because of the upper thought processes and self-awareness. While other animals have attained self-awareness (Dolphins, Pigs, Apes, and Elephants being the most noteable examples), not to the extent humans are. As well, humans evolve more slowly because of the small amount of young we produce, the fact that we inhibit natural selection among our race, and as you said, we modify our environment for most people to create complacency and therefore no need to adapt/change.
The complexity of humans isn't leaps and bounds over that of other complex creatures, but it is still above the rest. The only real complexity difference would be in our brains. But when considering bodily structure, humans are indeed no more complex than any other complex creature.

I am aware that virus' do not reproduce, but it was an offhand comment and trivial to differentiate between two things that are the same in result but not process.

 

[Autodidact]

so by what you've said, no matter how much evidence you've got evolution still hasn't been proven to be right or logical. it is still a theory in reality but real in some scientists head.

It's right and logical, it's just not proven. Science isn't about proof; it's about evidence. I have a feeling this is not the first time I've told you this. It's a theory. In science, theories aren't "just." They're the most complete, well-supported, correct explanation.

There is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.
In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.

from here.

It is not proven because it's science. Science can never be proven. To reject the standard of evidence on which it's based, you have to reject all current scientific knowledge, including the Nobel prize-winning physics that's allowing your post to travel over fiber-optic cables to me. Evidence all, proof none. [*Is getting tired of explaining basic scientific concepts to anti-evolutionists*]