Some questions about evolution.

[idav]

Those with an agenda on either side of popular debate.

If you question evolution in scrutinized way...
- from creationist perspective, you must surely be one of us. We do that. We welcome you. Just have to sign here and pledge that you agree to creationism in all its glory.
- from staunch proponents of TOE, you must surely be one of them. You obviously think bible is fact and disregard all of science data, all the time. As a creationist, you will only ever use your emotional perspective to justify your faith over reason.

From these two sides, there is no 'in-between' nor any gray area. It is either-or. I can attest to TOE proponents referencing me as (old-school) creationist, I would say about 10 times in last 2-4 weeks, even while I have at least 3 times said, "I'm not old school creationist." In other thread, just my scrutinizing TOE data has lead, often, to claims along lines of, 'well your creationism ignorance cannot explain the data any better.' Which translates as: don't scrutinize what we've all accepted. It is very poor form.

The theory of evolution sits fine without inserting god to do some of the stuff that is harder to understand. Not knowing how something went from point C to point E is of little consequence when we see they surely got from A to Z. Just where are creationists trying to insert god in this equation. Does god intervene with evolution every hundred thousand or hundred million years? Other than where evolution is lacking in details how does it fit creationism any better? The smarter creationists are just saying that 'thats how god did it, god uses abiogenesis and evolution to create and update life.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

For those who actually have sincere questions regarding evolutionary theory, there are mountains of easily accessible scientific information available covering all aspects of evolution, and geared towards varying audiences based on education and knowledge levels. I find that those who are looking for actual answers tend to seek out and study these sources.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Scientific Theory (according to Wikipedia)

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena​

- I think I found the word fact twice on the entire page. Never suggesting this is what scientific theory rests on.

From your source:
"So one can see that a theory is a "model of reality" that explains certain scientific facts"

"It is tentative, correctable, and dynamic in allowing for changes as new facts are discovered, rather than asserting certainty."

Sounds like a scientific theory to me....and the second definition dismisses the assertion of magical poofing claims made by biblical literalist.

Scientific theory | Define Scientific theory at Dictionary.com
"a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

 

[Tristesse]

Since I know you're partial to wiki, Acim.

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[camanintx]

Really?
There are "great numbers of well-researched papers showing the weakness of ToE"?
Care to point some of them out?

Or is this yet another "source" you will conveniently not ever present?

These are publicly available and can be searched for on the Internet, as can the lists of scientists who reject evolution. But you knew that already, didn't you?

Articles and papers explaining why these "well-researched papers" are either wrong or don't say what you think they say are also publicly available and can be searched for on the Internet. Maybe you should do so.

 

[Acim]

Since theories and facts explain different things, it's possible for something to be both a theory and a fact. A well supported theory often becomes a fact in the scientific sense.

Depends on 'what' is doing the supporting. That is my first response to this. For a well supported spiritual idea (i.e. that spirit is found within consciousness) is not likely to become a fact in the materialism scientific sense.

Second response is that from both Wikipedia explanation on scientific theory and my own understandings, it is tangential to contextual facts. And as Wikipedia states, it is the abstraction of observable phenomena ... that leads to philosophical construction that the data in a theory is based on fact.

So, a well supported theory is one that has verifiable observations. But, IMO, here is where things get a tad hazy (just a tad) while leap in logic is made. It must be not just testable, but reproducible many times over, and this is what is equal to 'well supported.' The explanation of empirical phenomenon I believe (strongly) is tagged on after the fact. I realize it is there at onset, as method to some degree demands it, but the conviction that the phenomenon is empirical is done in formulating the theory. As Wikipedia states... "A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations."

Thus scientific fact is assigned when the empirical data is such that there is confidence that all observers who conform to the (understanding of the) reproducible experiment, will encounter same, or rather very similar, phenomenon. Scientific fact is a contextual reference within framework that is scientific method. Outside of the paradigm that is (materialistic) science and method, the phenomena may or may not exist as objectively factual.

 

[Tristesse]

Depends on 'what' is doing the supporting. That is my first response to this. For a well supported spiritual idea (i.e. that spirit is found within consciousness) is not likely to become a fact in the materialism scientific sense.

Evidence is doing the supporting.

Until you define what a spirit is or and how it manifests, then it won't become a fact in any sense.

Second response is that from both Wikipedia explanation on scientific theory and my own understandings, it is tangential to contextual facts. And as Wikipedia states, it is the abstraction of observable phenomena ... that leads to philosophical construction that the data in a theory is based on fact.

Apparently you didn't read the whole wikipedia explanation about facts. There is a section near the bottom about scientific facts and it specifically refers to evolution as both a fact and theory.

So, a well supported theory is one that has verifiable observations. But, IMO, here is where things get a tad hazy (just a tad) while leap in logic is made. It must be not just testable, but reproducible many times over, and this is what is equal to 'well supported.' The explanation of empirical phenomenon I believe (strongly) is tagged on after the fact. I realize it is there at onset, as method to some degree demands it, but the conviction that the phenomenon is empirical is done in formulating the theory. As Wikipedia states... "A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations."

Define what you mean by reproducible in an evolutionary sense.

 

[Photonic]

Depends on 'what' is doing the supporting. That is my first response to this. For a well supported spiritual idea (i.e. that spirit is found within consciousness) is not likely to become a fact in the materialism scientific sense.

Second response is that from both Wikipedia explanation on scientific theory and my own understandings, it is tangential to contextual facts. And as Wikipedia states, it is the abstraction of observable phenomena ... that leads to philosophical construction that the data in a theory is based on fact.

So, a well supported theory is one that has verifiable observations. But, IMO, here is where things get a tad hazy (just a tad) while leap in logic is made. It must be not just testable, but reproducible many times over, and this is what is equal to 'well supported.' The explanation of empirical phenomenon I believe (strongly) is tagged on after the fact. I realize it is there at onset, as method to some degree demands it, but the conviction that the phenomenon is empirical is done in formulating the theory. As Wikipedia states... "A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations."

Thus scientific fact is assigned when the empirical data is such that there is confidence that all observers who conform to the (understanding of the) reproducible experiment, will encounter same, or rather very similar, phenomenon. Scientific fact is a contextual reference within framework that is scientific method. Outside of the paradigm that is (materialistic) science and method, the phenomena may or may not exist as objectively factual.

Ask a geneticist day, it must happen. It is reproducible and observable.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The "just a theory" argument is one of the weakest and ignorant arguments presented by creationist...yet they keep on doing it.

 

[idav]

The "just a theory" argument is one of the weakest and ignorant arguments presented by creationist...yet they keep on doing it.

On top of that it is like pulling teeth just to get a simple alternate hypothesis from a creationist.

 

[Father Heathen]

The "just a theory" argument is one of the weakest and ignorant arguments presented by creationist...yet they keep on doing it.

It's funny because the theory of gravity is also "just a theory".

 

[UntemperedSchism]

It's funny because the theory of gravity is also "just a theory".

So is general relativity, without which GPS wouldn't work.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you or others cant really completely understand the exacting science without quoting sources then do you really know what you are talking about. Do you?

And if you wouldn't be a good driving instructor, then you're not a good driver, right?

 

[Matthew78]

What you call "creationists" are scientists who have examined the evidence for themselves and decided the evidence does not support evolution. As to published research, there are great numbers of well-researched papers showing the weaknesses of the ToE. But again, you knew that already, didn't you?

Rusra02,

I would love to see one example of a secular scientist, who was a former evolutionist, who examined scientific evidence and decided that it didn't support evolution, and furthermore, became convinced of young-earth creationism, before becoming Christians. Almost every example of a creationist that I have seen, were all Christians prior to examining any arguments against evolution and for creationism, especially young-earth creationism.

 

[tumbleweed41]

It's funny because the theory of gravity is also "just a theory".

And...

• Atomic Theory
• Cell Theory
• Germ Theory
• The Theory of Plate Tectonics
• The Theory of Special Relativity
• Electromagnetic Theory
• Nuclear Theory
• The Kinetic Theory of Gases

etc, etc, etc...

 

[Photonic]

And...

• Atomic Theory
• Cell Theory
• Germ Theory
• The Theory of Plate Tectonics
• The Theory of Special Relativity
• Electromagnetic Theory
• Nuclear Theory
• The Kinetic Theory of Gases

etc, etc, etc...

Maxwells Theories of Light, without which Engineers could no longer create computers, fiber optics wouldn't exist, TV would be a laughed at dream...

 

[Tiberius]

Posting to subscribe and also to add my voice to the several already calling for Rusra to provide a link to a scientific paper that casts doubt on the theory of evolution.

Hell, I'll tell you what. Show me a link to anything that speaks against evolution, was written by someone who is knowledgable about biology, is not a creationist of any religion and does not present a religious alternative in the source you present. Can you do that?

 

[UntemperedSchism]

Posting to subscribe and also to add my voice to the several already calling for Rusra to provide a link to a scientific paper that casts doubt on the theory of evolution.

Hell, I'll tell you what. Show me a link to anything that speaks against evolution, was written by someone who is knowledgable about biology, is not a creationist of any religion and does not present a religious alternative in the source you present. Can you do that?

Well that's a tall order

Would you like a side of unicorn with that?

You know, on account of it not existing.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hell, I'll tell you what. Show me a link to anything that speaks against evolution, was written by someone who is knowledgable about biology

I know of one that was dragged out in another thread before this one. While he was knowledgeable his assertions were refuted but sadly he met your criteria below....

is not a creationist of any religion and does not present a religious alternative in the source you present. Can you do that?

 

[Alceste]

I disagree with your statement the ToE is backed by scientific evidence.

No, you must be thinking of someone else. I do not believe the ToE is valid.

It doesn't matter whether you agree that ToE is backed by scientific evidence. It is. You can only accept or reject this fact, just as you can reject the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. The window for reasonable people to agree or disagree with the claim that ToE is backed by scientific evidence passed over a hundred years ago.