Thread: Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

After reviewing the responses, Mystic, you still have failed to offer any substantial point. Nothing you have said so far has actually had anything to offer.

I am sorry but saying something like "we are more than the resulting anomaly of mutated species" or something along those lines is not enough to ignore facts and research. It is the exact same reasoning offered against the heliocentric system to maintain the geocentric system.

Mystic, please try and show that you have some intellectual capacity by offering some form of substantial criticism. Please avoid vapid criticism which only aims at self-indulged narcisisstic attention whoring. If you will at least consider giving us a reason to believe otherwise, then I will apologise for my lashing and give leeway to your arguments.

Otherwise, you simply prove how intellectualy imcompetent you are.

~

It is an ironic truth that those who think Darwinism is a conspiracy will soon die out due to Darwinism itself, due to their inherent disability to safely cross roads.

Technically evolution is both fact and theory depending on what exactly you are referring to... darwinism is a theory, the gradual change of species into new ones over time is an observed fact.

A major problem for evelution is the origion of information. This orgion of information shakes the whole unnderpinning of which Evolution sits on.

The main scientific objection to Evolution is not that changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the change. The key issue is the type of change required—to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content. The three billion DNA ‘letters’ stored in each human cell nucleus convey a great deal more information (known as ‘specified complexity’) than the over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism. The DNA sequences in a ‘higher’ organism, such as a human being or a horse, for instance, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of ‘primitive first cell’ from which all other organisms are said to have evolved.

None of the alleged proofs of ‘evolution in action’ provide a single example of functional new information being added to genes. Rather, they all involve sorting and loss of information. To claim that mere change proves that information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant can sell goods, he can sell them for a profit. The origin of information is a major problem for Evolution

Note: This is not my work, this guys said what i wanted to say but say's better than me.

And the natraul selction, Why would an animal grow wing stubs if it was really survival of the fittest. The wing stubs would slow them down and make them less mobile and easier for a predator to attack.

Im still 50/50 on evolution. I just need answears.

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

A major problem for evelution is the origion of information. This orgion of information shakes the whole unnderpinning of which Evolution sits on.

Yes, evolution can only speculate on the origin of everything. Scientisits admit this, in humility, because we will not treat opinion as fact. However, there are strong ideas out there. (ie. big bang)

The main scientific objection to Evolution is not that changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the change. The key issue is the type of change required—to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content. The three billion DNA ‘letters’ stored in each human cell nucleus convey a great deal more information (known as ‘specified complexity’) than the over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism. The DNA sequences in a ‘higher’ organism, such as a human being or a horse, for instance, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of ‘primitive first cell’ from which all other organisms are said to have evolved.

None of the alleged proofs of ‘evolution in action’ provide a single example of functional new information being added to genes. Rather, they all involve sorting and loss of information. To claim that mere change proves that information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant can sell goods, he can sell them for a profit. The origin of information is a major problem for Evolution

This is something that keeps arising to argue against evolution and I feel that I must re-examine it myself before making a proper and thorough response. The facts, however, do examine the processes and consequences of these activities. I do not feel confident enough to respond to this, so please bare with me while I do some reading over the next couple evenings to give a good response to this. It may simply be that we do not have an answer for that specific question yet. However, that does not take away the credibility for everything else that is accounted for, proven, and systematically observed.

And the natraul selction, Why would an animal grow wing stubs if it was really survival of the fittest. The wing stubs would slow them down and make them less mobile and easier for a predator to attack.

It could be the result of mutations, hybridism, etc. Our ancestors grew leg like fins in order to leave the ponds they lived in once they dried up, to move to another pond. However, some decided to stay out of the pond. During this time later on, some took up shelter in the tree's. Some stayed there. Those that stayed there had to eventually develop something to prevent them from death when they fell.

That is millions of years of work right there. It does not happen spontaneously, of course.

Im still 50/50 on evolution. I just need answears.

Good. Keep questioning.

I highly suggest taking a look at evolution in conjunction with chaos theory. The two are like brothers but chaos theory is the neglected child. The fact is that chaos theory thoroughly explains and gives model to evolution and how it works.

As for the information adding to the genome - I will get back to you on that one. I am not confident enough to respond.

On everything else - what do you think...?
~

I think you have made very stabel points in the first post (still have to watch the vidz because Sagan is one of my favs, you can probally tell by my avatar).

Natrual Selection- Your response to natrual selection was interesting that they climbed up a tree. I assume that these ancestors would adapt to breathing in only oxygen since they could not go into the water anymore?

The big Bang Theory- Scientist have ran into complication with the big bang theory and basicly have dismissed it for another theory called "The Many Bang Theory." This of course comes after complications with the red light from the stars that do not match the posistion of them. The many bang theory tells us that our big bang was only localized and that they were other big bangs through the cosmos. This does solve the problem of redlight and star positioning but does not solve the first bang that happend.

DNA- I am lookign forward to your response after your nights of reading and hopefully you find something that i missed. And maybe your right, maybe science does not have an answear for this yet.

I googled and searched Wikipedia but as far as I can tell there is no theory that there was more than one Big Bang. The only thing that comes close is a suggestion that there may have been Big Bangs and other universes before ours, in a guardian article, but that's the only thing that is slightly relevant to what you say. Where did you hear it?

I've asked the DNA elongation question before, and I think there are indeed mutations which make the DNA strand longer, although I cannot remember the technical details.

A fact is just an objective chunk of information, it makes no implications in of itself.

A theory is, more or less, the explanation we use to reconcile the facts.

The problem here is that when the average Joe uses the word "theory" (especially in the context of "its just a theory") they are using an informal definition of what the word means. In short, the informal definition is synonymous with "guess", which of course implies little or no substantiation.

But the term "theory" in the context of science is much different than the casual meaning of the word, which is something most people don't understand or are aware of. A scientific theory is an explanation that has been subject to the scientific method. For anyone who knows just how rigorous and incessant that scientific method is, they understand that there is a world of difference between a "theory" and a "scientific theory".

One doesn't have to be substantiated in order for it to qualify as a "theory" (i.e. a guess), but the other has to not only be consistent with the facts (and there are millions of them...kinda hard to fake that), but it also has to survive the scientific method...which is what distinguishes science from philosophy. "It making sense" isn't enough in science, it has to be empirically supported in addition to it simply being logical..since after all, something can be logical but untrue at the same time.

So what you have is an explanation that is consistent with (and has come to make sense of) millions of seemingly disparate and unrelated facts of the world, which in turn bridges the gaps between the different disciplines of science (biology, geology, chemistry, etc).

Most people don't understand that the theory of evolution isn't really just one theory, it’s like the Frankenstein theory. Everything we have learned in science as a whole used to be broken up into separate categories. We had physics, biology, chemistry, geology, anthropology, etc...each one being credible and substantiated fields in themselves. The great thing about evolution is that it has several lines of evidence that are cross-disciplinary... and if you don't know already, that is fucking amazing. Not only does it make sense in the field of biology, but is makes just as much sense in the field of geology and several other facets of science.

The point is that the theory of evolution, simply because of its sheer grandeur, actually has more evidence in its favor than any other single theory because it relies on (and it confirmed by) several different disciplines of science simultaneously...meaning all of that evidence combined is what makes the theory of evolution so solid...even though its still a "theory".

And yes, evolution is a theory, not a fact. People often equivocate fact with "truth" which, like the word "theory", is an informal definition of the word that people use interchangeably (and wrongly) out of habit and/or ignorance.

But remember, a fact is a "what" where as a theory is a "why". They aren't the same question, and no amount of evidence can change this. So don't think that, simply because something is "only" a theory does that mean its ill-substantiated or unjustified. And similarly, don't think that, simply because a theory has a tremendous amount of evidence backing it up, is it ever a fact.

Its a common misunderstanding to think that, in science, there is an "upgrade" from theory to fact for the theories that have a particularly extensive amount of evidence behind them. Not true. People just think that, by refering to a theory as a fact, they assert the "truthfullness" of that theory...but really is just shows they don't have an adequate understanding of the basic principals of science.

I'm convinced, Mystic7 is a troll. Don't bother responding to him.

Originally Posted by Xei

I've asked the DNA elongation question before, and I think there are indeed mutations which make the DNA strand longer, although I cannot remember the technical details.

Duplications of sections of DNA code are by no means an uncommon mutation - humans with "fragile X syndrome" have anywhere from 230 to 2,000 repetitions of the base triplet CGG on their X chromosome, whereas normal individuals have less than 50.

Many other diseases result from repeated base triplets, like the fairly well-known Huntington disease, as well as Kennedy disease.

Entire extra chromosomes can be found in some individuals after a nondisjunction - Down syndrome, which occurs in a frightening 1 out of 700 births, occurs when the child has trisomy 21 (three chromosome 21s).

I don't see why the information added by these mutations couldn't be further molded into new information by future mutations (like rearrangements and deletions, etc.). This seems to be an obvious source of 'new information' to me.

What do you think...?
~

[QUOTE=Xei;648024] Where did you hear it?[QUOTE]


Try googling the multiple bang theory, sorry. There should be a cornicopia of information.

Debating creationists is like debating the flat-earth society. One side has all the scientific evidence in the world and the other side refuses to believe it because they think it contradicts the bible. Evolution does not contradict religion. Stop taking everything the bible says literally.

There should be a cornicopia of information.

Uh... there isn't.

I'm sorry but this theory of yours which has supposedly caused almost every cosmologist to abandon the traditional Big Bang theory clearly doesn't exist, searching for 'multiple bang theory' gives exactly the same result as last time, a single relative page which refers to the theory that the universe cyclically expands and collapses, which is just a well known but currently completely unproven hypothesis.

Gnome: cheers. I knew only about the extra chromosome in Downs sufferers; although I think it's unlikely that this would be a source of extra information, due to any resultant organism not being in a very good position to reproduce at all.

But extending the DNA strand via repeating triplets certainly seems to add more genetic material.

Any idea how the triplets are repeated in physical terms, with reference to DNA polymerase and the like? Although I wouldn't be surprised if it hadn't been fully researched yet.

I never set a numerical value for the amount of cosmologist who have dismissed the big bang theory. This theory just gives an answear and an explanation for some of the flaws in the big bang theory. It explains the redlight effect and why our universe is rapidly expanding. It is fairly new so i would continue to look for things on it as it probally is starting to leek more and more.

Scientist have ran into complication with the big bang theory and basicly have dismissed it for another theory called "The Many Bang Theory."

Oh, so you weren't referring to the scientific community? Then, to whom were you referring? There are a lot of scientists, and some of them are loonies.

As I said, you told me I'd find loads of info by Googling for its name, yet I didn't find a single piece of information on it, nor is there a mention of it on the Wikipedia article about alternate theories, so I can only conclude at the current time that you hallucinated about it.

Oh, and red shift is one of the biggest reasons that the Big Bang Theory was postulated in the first place, it is not evidence against it.

First of all I did not bother myself reading all your long post. Looks like you absrobed too much information without analyzing it through.
I disagree with Darwins theory.
I even wrote an essay about it. Ill post it here for your information. Certainly we are not monkeys.
If we would agree with the fact that we live in a machine world as Newton, Descartes and Einstein stated in their works, every human either a random mutation by Darwin’s theory, how can we explain the sudden increase of human intellectuality changed in one century?

How come it took us million years to evolve from apes to Homo sapiens who used basic natural instruments for survival, when in only 50 years we could produce a machine unique of its kind such as computer that can perform incredible functions? One hundred years ago, people used candles instead of lights, used carriages instead of cars and suddenly cars were introduced as the new vehicle in 1900.
I understand we evolve intellectually and move forward but who can explain the sudden huge advancement in only few years? Einstein would argue with his notion of atoms, billions small particles that form a physical human being that can randomly mutate and most likely produce cell arrangement.
Cells form thoughts and according to many scientists thought is a reflex of the movements of the atoms, small particles jumping around from one orbit to another. Descartes would explain the fast increase of technology due to some chemical reactions produced in our brains.
But our body is composed of 8 billion atoms and the certainty of atoms each fusing together is one to 8 billion, so it is impossible that the majority of atoms when fuse, create a sudden change in intellectuality, even if this is true it would take billions of years to get to stage where we are. Yes we are composed of atoms, but I disagree on the fact that we act upon some chemical reactions happening in our mind.
Darwin dismissed a fact in his theory that leads to a misunderstanding, if every human being has unique fingerprint and unique DNA and on our planet habited by 8 billions of human beings live, if we were a random mutation, at least one pair of human being would have the same DNA, which is not the case.
If human being origins from apes, how come apes still exist in form of animals if we started to grow and evolve physically in the same environment? Creation started with all living beings surviving together until the state of Earth changed and islands formed from collisions out of space, the story of Big Bang for example. We can assume that after one comet fall on Earth separation occurred in the continents, some species dispersed on different places.
This phase lets assume is called the beginning of the evolvement.
On one side apes live on an island and on the other side of the continent reside the other apes. There is a small probability that these apes on two different continents will evolve in the same way physically, due to their different environment. It is impossible that one island of apes evolves into a human being while the other one does not. Since the evolvement starts at their point when they split up, they should evolve in the same way, maybe in shape differently, but intellectually the same, unless some other factors contribute to their evolvement. They go trough environmental changes possibly differently, but Darwin explains that only one population one an island evolves while the other one doesn’t make a lot of effort. He thought that is why apes still exist. He proclaims as if time stops for one species to evolve mentally while the other evolves too fast. The probability of highly intellectual mutation is low and mutations in a population can be expected to obey more regularities than those among individuals, because of the similarities in survival benefits and the laws of large numbers.
“When a beneficial mutation spreads to the whole population, it will tend to carry along nearby base pairs, thereby reducing genetic diversity in its neighborhood. The size of the neighborhood is related to how fast it spreads. If it spreads to the whole population in about 1000 generations, then the size of this neighborhood is about 100,000 base pairs, since crossovers generally occur once in 100 million base pairs and there would be a thousand fold multiplications of them in this time. Thus 30,000 such mutations could essentially eliminate all the genetic diversity in the DNA if they were evenly spaced throughout the DNA and spread rapidly enough. They would have to spread in a total of about 400,000 years to produce the observed low genetic diversity. However, the fact that humans still have considerable genetic diversity (in blood types, for example) suggests that this mechanism has not been operating” (DNA Technology in Forensic Science 1992). This passage clearly states one of the reasons why a random mutation could not occur, eliminating the possibility of highly intellectual mutation of apes.

So read this again and reorganize your thoughts.
Thanks

Originally Posted by Xei

Oh, so you weren't referring to the scientific community? Then, to whom were you referring? There are a lot of scientists, and some of them are loonies.



As I said, you told me I'd find loads of info by Googling for its name, yet I didn't find a single piece of information on it, nor is there a mention of it on the Wikipedia article about alternate theories, so I can only conclude at the current time that you hallucinated about it.

Oh, and red shift is one of the biggest reasons that the Big Bang Theory was postulated in the first place, it is not evidence against it.

Please read the following....


The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

According to the Big Bang theory, a quasar at a redshift of 1 is roughly ten times as far away as one at a redshift of 0.1. (The redshift-distance relation is not quite linear, but this is a fair approximation.) If the two quasars were intrinsically similar, the high redshift one would be about 100 times fainter because of the inverse square law. But it is, on average, of comparable apparent brightness. This must be explained as quasars “evolving” their intrinsic properties so that they get smaller and fainter as the universe evolves. That way, the quasar at redshift 1 can be intrinsically 100 times brighter than the one at 0.1, explaining why they appear (on average) to be comparably bright. It isn’t as if the Big Bang has a reason why quasars should evolve in just this magical way. But that is required to explain the observations using the Big Bang interpretation of the redshift of quasars as a measure of cosmological distance.

By contrast, the relation between apparent magnitude and distance for quasars is a simple, inverse-square law in alternative cosmologies. Most large quasar redshifts (e.g., z > 1) therefore have little correlation with distance. A grouping of 11 quasars close to NGC 1068, having nominal ejection patterns correlated with galaxy rotation, provides further strong evidence that quasar redshifts are intrinsic

Soak it up.

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

A
And the natraul selction, Why would an animal grow wing stubs if it was really survival of the fittest. The wing stubs would slow them down and make them less mobile and easier for a predator to attack.

Im still 50/50 on evolution. I just need answears.

If you fell out of a tree, would you rather have no wing, or half a wing to slow you down 50% before you hit the ground? Ever seen a flying squirrel?

Same with half an eye--better than no eye at all, right?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

If you fell out of a tree, would you rather have no wing, or half a wing to slow you down 50% before you hit the ground? Ever seen a flying squirrel?

Same with half an eye--better than no eye at all, right?

Intresting point. So i belive that you are saying that they formed the wing stubs while in that tree. I would like to make the point that the creatures in the tree would be very small and they would reach a terminal velocity before they hit the ground. this is where the force from the air resistance will equal the force from the weight of the object. This would make the wing stubs complelty irrevlevant unless the creture was able to put enough force into using these wing stubs to lessen the reached terminal velocity.

Originally Posted by celestra

So read this again and reorganize your thoughts.
Thanks

I read it, and I may never organize my thoughts again. Reading your "arguments" is like listening to a toddler play piano--all the noises are there, but it ain't music.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I read it, and I may never organize my thoughts again. Reading your "arguments" is like listening to a toddler play piano--all the noises are there, but it ain't music.

What a primitive response.... how about you fix your piano and re read it again?
what she said is totally debatable. And its more acceptable than the monkey theory. Especially when it gets to the mixture of our own DNA.
Didnt you know? scientist found out that we have over 24 alien races mixed in our own DNA. I guess your piano, is not there yet to reach it.

Originally Posted by ethen

A fact is just an objective chunk of information, it makes no implications in of itself.

A theory is, more or less, the explanation we use to reconcile the facts.

I think you will find that my post focused entirely on thoes things that are systematically observable rather that an explanation of facts or observations. The resulting theory of the evolutionary process and natural selection is also systematically observable and, therefore, empirical.

I think I see where you are going with the rest. Where theory is actually, in the scientific field, an empirical approach with evidence. The layman intends to use the term "hypothesis" but accidentally uses "theory" which, of course, mean completely different things.

What do you think...?

~

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

Intresting point. So i belive that you are saying that they formed the wing stubs while in that tree. I would like to make the point that the creatures in the tree would be very small and they would reach a terminal velocity before they hit the ground. this is where the force from the air resistance will equal the force from the weight of the object. This would make the wing stubs complelty irrevlevant unless the creture was able to put enough force into using these wing stubs to lessen the reached terminal velocity.

A sqirrel without wings or wing stubs is not going to fall for long enough to reach terminal velocity from most trees.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I read it, and I may never organize my thoughts again. Reading your "arguments" is like listening to a toddler play piano--all the noises are there, but it ain't music.

When I read your reply, I’m thinking how primitive a human being can be. Now with your answer you will not get any attention. I’m replying feeling pitty for you. If you are so much into challenge what are your arguments. Instead of writing a stupid remark write some more useful information. NO words
Pathetic.

Originally Posted by celestra

First of all I did not bother myself reading all your long post. Looks like you absrobed too much information without analyzing it through.

Thank you for your most amazing criticism and advice, O great one. Please, we both know there is no need to say such things.

I disagree with Darwins theory.
I even wrote an essay about it. Ill post it here for your information. Certainly we are not monkeys.

I think that you will find that there is no evolutionist that disagress with this. Humans are humans - not monkeys.

If we would agree with the fact that we live in a machine world as Newton, Descartes and Einstein stated in their works, every human either a random mutation by Darwin’s theory, how can we explain the sudden increase of human intellectuality changed in one century?

How come it took us million years to evolve from apes to Homo sapiens who used basic natural instruments for survival, when in only 50 years we could produce a machine unique of its kind such as computer that can perform incredible functions? One hundred years ago, people used candles instead of lights, used carriages instead of cars and suddenly cars were introduced as the new vehicle in 1900.
I understand we evolve intellectually and move forward but who can explain the sudden huge advancement in only few years? Einstein would argue with his notion of atoms, billions small particles that form a physical human being that can randomly mutate and most likely produce cell arrangement.

I do not see how this disputes evolution. This only propogates it.

Descartes would explain the fast increase of technology due to some chemical reactions produced in our brains.
But our body is composed of 8 billion atoms and the certainty of atoms each fusing together is one to 8 billion, so it is impossible that the majority of atoms when fuse, create a sudden change in intellectuality, even if this is true it would take billions of years to get to stage where we are. Yes we are composed of atoms, but I disagree on the fact that we act upon some chemical reactions happening in our mind.

Sorry, but simply disagreeing is not sufficient. The fact is that if you have an increase of dopamine, you will become more excited - this is inarguable. There are various other neurotransmitters that incontrovertably influence your concsiousness. If you can dispute this, I am very willing to read it. However, please pardon me when I say I have a great lack of confidence that you can disprove the entire science of neurology.

Darwin dismissed a fact in his theory that leads to a misunderstanding, if every human being has unique fingerprint and unique DNA and on our planet habited by 8 billions of human beings live, if we were a random mutation, at least one pair of human being would have the same DNA, which is not the case.

Please show me where he disagreed with this because this seems completely opposite to the content of the Origin of Species. Furthermore, chaos theory is an integral function to evolutionary theory in contemporary times.

If human being origins from apes, how come apes still exist in form of animals if we started to grow and evolve physically in the same environment? Creation started with all living beings surviving together until the state of Earth changed and islands formed from collisions out of space, the story of Big Bang for example. We can assume that after one comet fall on Earth separation occurred in the continents, some species dispersed on different places.

...

You think that, becaues one species arises, that all previous species should be extinct? It is survival of the fittest, not replace the obsolete. For someone who claims that I know nothing of what I am talking about, I find it hard to take this seriously.

This phase lets assume is called the beginning of the evolvement.
On one side apes live on an island and on the other side of the continent reside the other apes. There is a small probability that these apes on two different continents will evolve in the same way physically, due to their different environment.

Precisely.

It is impossible that one island of apes evolves into a human being while the other one does not. Since the evolvement starts at their point when they split up, they should evolve in the same way, maybe in shape differently, but intellectually the same, unless some other factors contribute to their evolvement. They go trough environmental changes possibly differently, but Darwin explains that only one population one an island evolves while the other one doesn’t make a lot of effort. He thought that is why apes still exist. He proclaims as if time stops for one species to evolve mentally while the other evolves too fast. The probability of highly intellectual mutation is low and mutations in a population can be expected to obey more regularities than those among individuals, because of the similarities in survival benefits and the laws of large numbers.

No, it is not a matter of effort or deliberate action. Furthermore, your straw-manning the argument by isolating the environmental factors and stochastic system.

So read this again and reorganize your thoughts.
Thanks

For the purpose of mutual enlightenment; Likewise.

What do you think...?
~