Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[Zosimus]

Gday jeager106 and all



Well, you may claim not to be a creationist, but you espouse creationist beliefs,
and
like creationists, you have confused the two meanings of the word "theory".

In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation. Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just speculation", or "just an untested guess".

But,
in scientific terms, there is another, very different meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION.
(i.e. a detailed scientific explanation.)


Theories EXPLAIN facts

Scientific theories explain the facts we observe :

Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.

Evolution is a fact, it is observed.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.


The ToE is an EXPLANATION, NOT speculation

The Theory of Evolution is NOT "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all.

Rather -
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for how evolution works, it models the behaviour of the FACTS of evolution, and allows predictions to be made.

Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.
Would one say "germs are just a theory" ?
Of course not.

So,
claiming "evolution is just a theory" indicates a lack of understanding of the word itself - and that the Theory of Evolution is a scientific explanation for the observed facts of evolution.


Kapyong

Wow, you are confused!

First of all, theories are just speculation about why things happen. There's nothing special about a scientific theory vs. any other kind of theory.

Second, you're mixing theories and laws. By eliminating the law phase, you're missing the boat.

Look, first you have a phenominon that you want to explain. Apples fall when dropped. People start thinking about it. Why does that happen?

Next a law is proposed. People can actually express how these things have happened in the past in a concise mathematical way. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is an example of that.

Later, someone proposes a theory to explain the law. Why do bodies seem to be attracted to one another? Quantum physics postulates gravitons. Einstein thought space was curved.
---------------------------------------
Finally, evolution is not a fact. Animal and vegetable variety is a fact. Evolution is one possible explanation.

Evolution is not a law. There is no universal law of biological evolution. Biologists cannot look at a species and predict the frequency of alleles ten years, one year, or even one month in advance. The law of gravity, on the other hand, can tell you the precise location of astronomical bodies centuries in advance.

Darwinism, which is what most people think of when they say "evolution" is just one theory among many. It's not even a particularly good theory. Punctuated equilibrium, for example, fits the facts much better than Darwinism does.

 

[YmirGF]

In fact, I will waste several more gazillion electrons to repost this too


Theories are accepted based on EVIDENCE

So,
why did the Phlogiston Theory of Burning get rejected in favour of the Oxygen Theory of Burning?

Why did the Germ Theory of Disease win out over the Demon Theory of Disease ?

Obvious isn't it?

Because we FOUND germs.
And we found Oxygen.
We OBSERVED them, and saw their effects.
(And we never ever found Demons or Phlogiston.)


Theories do NOT get promoted to laws or facts

A theory does NOT get 'promoted' to a law or a fact when it is confirmed (or 'proven' in layman's terms, which are best avoided.)

The Oxygen Theory of Burning did NOT become the 'Law' of Burning once oxygen was confirmed.
The Germ Theory of Disease did NOT become the Germ Law of Disease when germs were observed.

These days - scientists tend NOT to make 'laws' anymore - it's considered out of date, mechanistic, Victorian.
The 'Law of Gravity' is an example of an old classic - and it refers to a clear and specific simple mathematical relationship F ~ m / d^2

There is ALSO a 'Theory of Gravity' - well, there are TWO :

• Newton's Theory of Gravity
• Einstein's Theory of Relativity (which covers gravity)

One is about 99% accurate and stood for 4 centuries, the other is 100.000% accurate and is about one century old.


Evolution is 100% supported by evidence

So,
Darwin (and the poor forgotten Wallace) had a theory (explanation) to explain the origin of species.
(NOT the origin of life.)

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection explains how species arise by a process of mutation and natural selection over relatively long periods of time.
Darwin proposed his theory based on his observations of living things, but of course initially it was speculation.

So why is it accepted?
Why is it considered true?
Why do we insist it's NOT speculation now?
Why is Darwin famous like Einstein?

Because we have OBSERVED that he is RIGHT, just like Einstein, every single time.

It's been 150 years now - in that time there have been MILLIONS of tests and observations and experiments by THOUSANDS of scientists in dozens of countries which could have either :

• supported evolution
• disagreed with evolution

The score so far is:

• MILLIONS - for evolution
• ZERO - against evolution.

THAT'S why Darwin is famous like Einstein.

And THAT's what some people don't seem to grasp - just how clear the result is - and just how VAST the amount of evidence that supports evolution is.

Evolution is an observed fact of nature.
It's not just some 'speculation', not just some ol' 'theory'.


Kapyong

Wow, finally, a post of yours that I can applaud. Nice work.

 

[Valjean]

Wow, you are confused!

First of all, theories are just speculation about why things happen. There's nothing special about a scientific theory vs. any other kind of theory.

If I had a nickel for every time a scientifically naive poster has made a statement like this....

There is something special about a scientific theory. "Theory," in science, does not mean speculation or conjecture. In science, theory is the highest level of confidence a proposal can have. A round, rather than a flat Earth is a theory. Earth revolving around the Sun, rather than vice versa -- theory. Germs cause disease -- theory.
Moreover, a an accepted theory is also considered a fact. Most facts, in science, are also theories.

Look, first you have a phenominon that you want to explain. Apples fall when dropped. People start thinking about it. Why does that happen?
Next a law is proposed. People can actually express how these things have happened in the past in a concise mathematical way. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is an example of that.
Later, someone proposes a theory to explain the law. Why do bodies seem to be attracted to one another? Quantum physics postulates gravitons. Einstein thought space was curved.

First you make observations, then you propose a theorum to explain what's going on. Then you try to disprove your theorum, and invite other scientists to criticize and try to disprove it. You're not testing laws. The laws are considered axiomatic. You're testing a proposed explanation for observed facts.
---------------------------------------

Finally, evolution is not a fact. Animal and vegetable variety is a fact. Evolution is one possible explanation.

Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of the mechanisms by which evolution takes place.

Evolution is not a law. There is no universal law of biological evolution. Biologists cannot look at a species and predict the frequency of alleles ten years, one year, or even one month in advance. The law of gravity, on the other hand, can tell you the precise location of astronomical bodies centuries in advance.

Evolution -- change over time -- is an observed fact. "Laws" have nothing to do with it. No-one is postulating any laws of evolution.

Darwinism, which is what most people think of when they say "evolution" is just one theory among many. It's not even a particularly good theory. Punctuated equilibrium, for example, fits the facts much better than Darwinism does.

Zosimus, you've got the whole thing bass-ackwards. This is not how the scientific method works.
"Darwinism" is not a theory. It's not part of the scientific lexicon. It's a made-up, creationist word. No-one I know thinks Darwinism when they hear "evolution."
Punctuated equilibrium is just one of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. It's not a stand-alone "theory of evolution."

Evolution is a fact. It is so well supported, from so many different disciplines, that it would be monumentally obtuse to deny biological change over time. The Theory of Evolution explains the mechanisms by which this change takes place.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday all

Wow, you are confused!

First of all, theories are just speculation about why things happen. There's nothing special about a scientific theory vs. any other kind of theory.

Second, you're mixing theories and laws. By eliminating the law phase, you're missing the boat.

Look, first you have a phenominon that you want to explain. Apples fall when dropped. People start thinking about it. Why does that happen?

Next a law is proposed. People can actually express how these things have happened in the past in a concise mathematical way. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is an example of that.

Later, someone proposes a theory to explain the law. Why do bodies seem to be attracted to one another? Quantum physics postulates gravitons. Einstein thought space was curved.
---------------------------------------
Finally, evolution is not a fact. Animal and vegetable variety is a fact. Evolution is one possible explanation.

Evolution is not a law. There is no universal law of biological evolution. Biologists cannot look at a species and predict the frequency of alleles ten years, one year, or even one month in advance. The law of gravity, on the other hand, can tell you the precise location of astronomical bodies centuries in advance.

Darwinism, which is what most people think of when they say "evolution" is just one theory among many. It's not even a particularly good theory. Punctuated equilibrium, for example, fits the facts much better than Darwinism does.

Sorry,
that is all just creationist nonsense.

Like most creationists you are still stuck on the most basic error - the TWO meanings of the word theory.


Kapyong

 

[gnostic]

Zosimus, you've got the whole thing bass-ackwards. This is not how the scientific method works.
"Darwinism" is not a theory. It's not part of the scientific lexicon. It's a made-up, creationist word. No-one I know thinks Darwinism when they hear "evolution."

I think Zosimus is referring to Natural Selection.

What Zosimus don't understand and seem incapable of learning, is that Natural Selection is just one of 5 basic mechanisms in evolution:

1. Mutation
2. Natural Selection
3. Gene Flow
4. Genetic Drift
5. Genetic Hitchhiking

Natural Selection have not been made obsolete by the other mechanisms; it is still a very valid explanation of why life change when it is affected by environmental forces (like changes in terrain, climate or diet (availability or scarcity of food and water), or in of the combination of the above.

Without evolution, virus and pharmaceutical researchers and medical doctors would not and could not possibly understand how viruses and the vaccines to contain or neutral viral illnesses or diseases work. That new strains of viruses quickly developed immunity of vaccines, demonstrate evolution at work.

That Zosimus can dismiss evidences, without looking into it, only demonstrate his utter and wilful ignorance and lack of integrity, which is similar traits of all creationists that I have encountered here and elsewhere.

And I doubt that Zosimus could possibly understand that biologists have long corrected any errors that Charles Darwin may have.

But getting back to "Darwinism", Darwinism is not a scientific term, but like you said, a Darwinism is just creationists' ill-attempts at naming things that they don't even understand.

Ignorance is not a bad thing, as long as a person is willing to learn from his or her mistake. But a wilful ignorance is when a creationist let ego to prevent him to grow intellectually; that's when creationists let stupidity dominate their biased worldview.

 

[First Baseman]

Gday all



Sorry,
that is all just creationist nonsense.

Like most creationists you are still stuck on the most basic error - the TWO meanings of the word theory.


Kapyong

Just like all opposed to God you prefer Man's theories, which change with the times, to God's word, which changeth not.

Your theories prove absolutely nothing. You weren't there when the universe came about and neither were your scientists. Good luck with your changing theories. For all you know centuries from now you will be thought a fool by your scientists that you love to hear so much, as they will have moved on to a theory that you are now not capable of understanding.

It must be tough to live life totally dependent on people you can hardly trust for truth. I wish you well.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

You weren't there when the universe came about and neither were your scientists.

See ?
Creationists just do not understand it at all.

Evolution has NOTHING to do with how the universe came about.


Kapyong

 

[Zosimus]

If I had a nickel for every time a scientifically naive poster has made a statement like this....

There is something special about a scientific theory. "Theory," in science, does not mean speculation or conjecture. In science, theory is the highest level of confidence a proposal can have. A round, rather than a flat Earth is a theory. Earth revolving around the Sun, rather than vice versa -- theory. Germs cause disease -- theory.
Moreover, a an accepted theory is also considered a fact. Most facts, in science, are also theories.

No, a round vs. a flat earth is a matter of fact. It's not a theory. There are pictures from outer space. Next you'll be telling us that green grass is a theory. WTF.
A theory is not a fact. If you're considering it one, then you're a moron. Countless accepted theories now lie on the dustbin of scientific history. Please don't tell me that scientists vote on facts now.

First you make observations, then you propose a theorum to explain what's going on. Then you try to disprove your theorum, and invite other scientists to criticize and try to disprove it. You're not testing laws. The laws are considered axiomatic. You're testing a proposed explanation for observed facts.

A theorum? You can't even spell the word! It's a theorem, and it's used only in math. The Pythagorean Theorem, for example, is a proveable mathematical equation about the hypotenuse of a triangle and has absolutely zero to do with science.

Evolution -- change over time -- is an observed fact.

Around here "evolution" means Darwinism. If you want to postulate that things change, go right ahead. But don't come to me with the claim that "Since the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation, God doesn't exist and didn't create life as we know it" because I will laugh in your face. The premises don't come close to justifying the conclusion, and you know it.

"Laws" have nothing to do with it. No-one is postulating any laws of evolution.

That's right, because Darwinism isn't much of a theory. It makes few if any testable predictions.

Zosimus, you've got the whole thing bass-ackwards. This is not how the scientific method works.
"Darwinism" is not a theory. It's not part of the scientific lexicon. It's a made-up, creationist word. No-one I know thinks Darwinism when they hear "evolution."

Oh really? Well, here's Richard Dawkins giving an hour and 12 minute lecture on Darwinism.

So apparently Richard Dawkins thinks that neo-Darwinism and the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis are one and the same.

Evolution is a fact. It is so well supported, from so many different disciplines, that it would be monumentally obtuse to deny biological change over time. The Theory of Evolution explains the mechanisms by which this change takes place.

No one denies that variation can take place. Anyone who understands meiosis gets that. The claim of evolution, as is bandied about this forum, is far different from the idea that things change, and you know it. Get a real argument.

 

[Zosimus]

Gday all

Sorry,
that is all just creationist nonsense.

Like most creationists you are still stuck on the most basic error - the TWO meanings of the word theory.


Kapyong

Where in my profile does it say creationist? It doesn't.

You're caught in a logical fallacy that if you see some things that fit in with your idea of the universe, then your idea of the universe magically becomes "confirmed."

It's called confirmation bias. It's natural for you to magnify the things that work in your theory and to ignore the things that don't work.

Confirmations mean nothing at all. Here's a simple example.

If we theorize that Bill Gates owns a gold mine, then he will be rich.
We see that Bill Gates is rich so we think that our theory is confirmed.
Well, it's not. Bill Gates doesn't own a gold mine, and it doesn't matter how many times you "confirm" his wealth, he still doesn't own a gold mine.

And the theory of Bill Gates as goldmine owner doesn't get elevated to a special meaning of the word theory. Get a clue. You need one urgently.

 

[McBell]

So what's your alternative explanation for the diversity of life and our own existence?

"God Did It"

 

[viole]

I'm going to say your post is just a lot of air.

I don't know what you mean. Air is some nitrogen, oxygen and some other molecules at a certain pressure. Does not look at all like a post.

I say that respectfully, because you have created a straw man argument around taking my statement "everywhere" more than literally. So let me help you:

Language precision is fundamental in any rational discussion. Everywhere is everywhere. Not somewhere. Make the safe assumption that I am spirituality free and therefore not in the position to understand spiritual or fuzzy language.

*we see tremendous logical order already there in every field of science - inductive observation shows tremendous design
*organic life is designed at levels of tremendous complexity far beyond modern design or AI
*the universe at every level shows elements of beauty, order and design

Do you disagree? And if so, one what basis are you comparing?

C'mon BB. Everybody knows, or should know, by now that the complexity in biology has naturalistic origins.

But I am intrigued by your views. i myself find things like viruses fascinating, too. For instance, the Ebola virus seems like a pretty smart little thing. Its ways to elude our immune system in order to kill us are quite amazing.

Do you think it has been designed, too?

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why have you not answered my question and instead asked me a completely different one?

But, heck, let's use your example since you seem to know it so well. Let's say I present you with a rock and a watch, and you have no prior knowledge of the function or production process of either, and I tell you "One is created by man, and one is created by God", what methods could you use to determine which is which?

Please note that if you cannot answer this question this time, I can only assume that you don't actually have a method by which to distinguish naturally occurring phenomenon from non-naturally occurring phenomenon, and therefore any distinction you attempt to make between them is baseless.

I'm trying to understand by thinking about something I would have no knowledge of... everything created by God has a function--nothing is wasted. If men died off cleanly, the entire universe from stars to bugs would self-sustain!

Some things created by men include wastage. Let's go with that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"God Did It"

Is that a reasonable alternative? We have for human life, for example:

* Mechanistic evolution
* Theistic evolution
* Alien space seed
* Creation

Two of those are naturally understood possibilities. If we are NOT mechanistically evolved or space seed, what is YOUR REASONABLE alternative?

I have found that my creationist beliefs have grown as the other plausible alternatives have diminished.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't know what you mean. Air is some nitrogen, oxygen and some other molecules at a certain pressure. Does not look at all like a post.



Language precision is fundamental in any rational discussion. Everywhere is everywhere. Not somewhere. Make the safe assumption that I am spirituality free and therefore not in the position to understand spiritual or fuzzy language.



C'mon BB. Everybody knows, or should know, by now that the complexity in biology has naturalistic origins.

But I am intrigued by your views. i myself find things like viruses fascinating, too. For instance, the Ebola virus seems like a pretty smart little thing. Its ways to elude our immune system in order to kill us are quite amazing.

Do you think it has been designed, too?

Ciao

- viole

Fine. Design is everywhere. Nothing is random. Thanks for helping me clear the air.

"A person plans the course of their heart, but God plans their steps..."

 

[McBell]

Is that a reasonable alternative?

For millions of theists, apparently it is.

 

[Valjean]

Ceation = magic. How is that a reasonable alternative?
The mechanisms of change are clearly described by biologists. They can 'mechanically' create adaptive genomic change that resembles intentional design.
An appeal to magic is both unnecessary and illogical.

 

[gnostic]

There is nothing reasonable with "God did it".

It is not natural.

And it required people to be utterly stupid and superstition.

And I would have thought that we have outgrown these absurd superstitions...apparently that not possible as long as we need God and sorcery.

"Let there be light" is like incantation of witchcraft or spell. In Egypt, the powers of Isis and Thoth involved incantations, spells, curses, and magic words. That's all Genesis 1:3 and John 1:1 (Logos or the Word) are, magical and superstitious nonsense. How is the belief in the bible any better than Egyptian religion-myth?

 

[BilliardsBall]

For millions of theists, apparently it is.

I'm continuing to do you the courtesy of making reasonable replies to your one-line reproofs of all things godly. Please reread the post. You mocked the intervention of God as an unreasonable alternative, so please post YOUR reasonable alternative:

1. Creation/Theistic evolution

2. Mechanistic evolution

3. Space seed

What is YOUR reasonable alternative?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ceation = magic. How is that a reasonable alternative?
The mechanisms of change are clearly described by biologists. They can 'mechanically' create adaptive genomic change that resembles intentional design.
An appeal to magic is both unnecessary and illogical.

Creation isn't magic. When you create something, we say, "a thinking being has drafted something using mental power that they created via physical power."

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is nothing reasonable with "God did it".

It is not natural.

And it required people to be utterly stupid and superstition.

And I would have thought that we have outgrown these absurd superstitions...apparently that not possible as long as we need God and sorcery.

"Let there be light" is like incantation of witchcraft or spell. In Egypt, the powers of Isis and Thoth involved incantations, spells, curses, and magic words. That's all Genesis 1:3 and John 1:1 (Logos or the Word) are, magical and superstitious nonsense. How is the belief in the bible any better than Egyptian religion-myth?

Natural = existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Are you saying God doesn't exist in nature? Of course you are--but most people in the world, now as ever, would say the statement "There is no God!" is assumptive, and... unnatural.