Thread: Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

Originally Posted by Oneria

i think anyone who believes in evolution deserves to come from monkeys

I have a challenge for you. Explain in two paragraphs or more the theory of evolution in a genuine manner. Mystic could not do it, so let's see if you can. Do the best you can to give a true summary of the theory of evolution. I am very curious to read what you think it says. Something tells me that you would have no Earthly idea what to write or else would say things that are just flat out false. Let's see what you can do with it.

After you do that, tell us specifically where your disagreements with it are. I bet you can't do that either. Saying that people deserve punishment for believing in evolution and that the punishment should be that their ancestors are monkeys does not qualify as a debate point.

Evolution is simple
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1GhYGEoRfo

Originally Posted by Korittke

Evolution is simple
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1GhYGEoRfo

That is one of my favorite South Park episodes. Mr. Garrison's understanding of the theory of evolution is really not that different from what most creationists think it says. I bet Mystic and Oneira think what Mr. Garrison said is not that far from what the theory actually does say. If they ever have the nerve to tell us what they think the theory says, I bet they sound a lot like Garrison.

Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual. There are still complex things in ourselves and our minds in particular that evolution cannot explain.

Originally Posted by Idolfan

Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual. There are still complex things in ourselves and our minds in particular that evolution cannot explain.

The existence of atoms is a theory. The existence of black holes is a theory. The explanation for continental drift is a theory. The explanation for why volcanoes erupt is a theory. The idea that the position of the moon affects the tides is a theory. "Theory" is not synonymous with "opinion somebody pulled out of his ass". It takes a great deal of evidence for something to become a well documented scientific theory.

"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." - Isaac Asimov

Originally Posted by Idolfan

Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual. There are still complex things in ourselves and our minds in particular that evolution cannot explain.

We've come full circle in this thread. Evolution, which is genetic change over time, is a fact, and the overwhelmingly agreed upon theory used to explain it is natural selection.

There is nothing within ourselves that we have identified that evolution cannot explain.

Natural selection is not evolution. It allows adaptation to the environment though selective reproduction of the traits available to any particular species, but does not explain how one species makes the change into a completely different species. The missing links remain missing, and the theory of evolution remains a theory.

Yes, we share DNA with other species of animals, but DNA is simply the basic building blocks of life. Atoms are the building blocks of DNA. We are carbon based life forms. Does that mean we evolved from lumps of coal?

Originally Posted by Idolfan

Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual. There are still complex things in ourselves and our minds in particular that evolution cannot explain.

In a way you are correct, evolution is a theory but then so is gravity and the earth orbiting the sun and plate tectonics.....I could go on and on but the point is this:

Just because something is stated as a theory does not make it any less true. There are huge amounts of evidence supporting these theories. I think they are still called "Theory" for a few reasons 1) there is more to learn and 2) it is hard to reproduce in a lab due to limitations but the models and understanding of these concepts fit very well to the evidence found in nature.

Stating things as a theory is a very poor attack on a idea and I would suggest providing evidence against it if that is what you intend to do

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Natural selection is not evolution. It allows adaptation to the environment though selective reproduction of the traits available to any particular species, but does not explain how one species makes the change into a completely different species. The missing links remain missing, and the theory of evolution remains a theory.

Well it is a good point you make but natural selection is one of the core principles behind evolution. As far as I know (and I may be wrong here I am not a biologist or anything) changes in species occur when they become isolated from the remainder of the species due to geographical environments or constraints and continue to change until the 2 species become genetically incompatible. But like I say im no expert lol

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Yes, we share DNA with other species of animals, but DNA is simply the basic building blocks of life. Atoms are the building blocks of DNA. We are carbon based life forms. Does that mean we evolved from lumps of coal?

In a way that is true saying as we are the remnant of "star dust".

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have a challenge for you. Explain in two paragraphs or more the theory of evolution in a genuine manner. Mystic could not do it, so let's see if you can. Do the best you can to give a true summary of the theory of evolution. I am very curious to read what you think it says.

To be fair, could you give a similar summary of a sincere, thoughtful religious person's outlook? I've found the disconnect runs both ways.

Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual. There are still complex things in ourselves and our minds in particular that evolution cannot explain.

The laws of physics are ultimately theories at the end of the day. Somehow I don't imagine you'll stop getting on planes because our understanding of the physics that keeps them airborne is 'just a theory'

And what things can evolution not explain? That's a very bold claim.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

To be fair, could you give a similar summary of a sincere, thoughtful religious person's outlook? I've found the disconnect runs both ways.

Of course I can do that. I used to be a Christian, and I have studied Eastern religion a great deal. Search my posts in the R/S forum and you will see that I don't make ignorant comments about religious teachings. I try to make sure I know what I am talking about when I debate people. What does it have to do with whether Oneira and Mystic understand the subject of this thread? I don't think Oneira and Mystic are able to give a substantially detailed explanation of what the theory of evolution says, yet they make insulting comments toward those who believe in it. What does my ability to say what a religious belief system involves have to do with whether or not they know what they are talking about?

A litle more than six thousand years ago, God existed without the world. He decided to create the world. He did so in six days and then rested on the seventh. In the world he created, he created a man named Adam by blowing clay. Soon afterwards, a woman named Eve came into existence from one of Adam's ribs. They were the first man and woman. Later, a fallen angel named Satan showed up in Adam and Eve's Garden of Eden and tempted Adam to eat a fruit from the tree of knowledge, something God said specifically not to do. Adam ate the fruit any way. As a result, Adam and Eve were no longer naked and sin existed in the world. It has been with humans ever since. However, the sin that resulted from eating the fruit is necessary for the existence of free will. Because of free will and sin, God later spoke to a prophet named Moses. God was in the form of a burning bush. He instructed Moses on his ten big rules for humans to follow in using their free will in order to avoid sin. For a long time, God's rule was that people who use their free will to violate those laws or his other ones do not get into Heaven, and the only other place to go after death is Satan's Hell, a terrible place most commonly believed by Christians to be a place of eternal torture by burning in a fire.

After 4,000 years of Earth's existence, God decided to change the rules on getting into Heaven. He wanted to give people a chance to get into Heaven even if they sin, so he came to Earth in the form of his son and had himself tortured to "death" and resurrected so that people could believe that story and accept God in the form of his son Jesus as their savior from the punishment for sin. That allowed him to change his rule. Jesus is going to come back to Earth in the future and round up those who are allowed to go to Heaven. Many other things happen soon after. The world will end, and Satan and the people not allowed into Heaven will spend eternity in a lake of fire while those in Heaven experience bliss for eternity.

There you go. In case you were asking for their perspective on why only creationism makes sense, the argument is that something cannot come from nothing and that if God did not exist, something would have had to have come from nothing. They also believe that the universe is so fascinating, complicated, complex, and impressive that only something with intelligence could have created it. In case you were asking what the creationist perspective is on why evolution does not make sense, I can only tell you the few arguments I have heard for it. I have never heard one give a solid counterargument to the theory of evolution because every time I hear them try, they give false explanations of what the theory of evolution says. That is why I challenged Mystic and Oneiroa to tell me what it says, and I have a feeling they are not going to do that. Here are some of the arguments I have heard creationists make against evolution.

- Monkeys do not give birth to humans now, so why should we believe that they did at one time? (false premise concerning the theory of evolution)

- If humans came from gorillas, then why don't we have hispanic gorillas, Chinese gorillas, Eskimo gorillas, and Indian gorillas? (false premise concerning the theory of evolution)

- If animal life can come from non-animal cells, then why don't ants appear in unopened jars of peanut butter? (false premise concerning the theory of evolution)

- Evolution would be too much of a coincidental accident to be real. (false premise concerning the theory of evolution)

- Scientists do not know every single step involved in the evolutionary process, therefore they have no reason to believe they have identified any of the steps. (false premise concerning the nature of scientific knowledge)

- 4.5 billion years is not long enough for protein to evolve into humans. (Until people who claim that can explain the theory of evolution, that false statement cannot be debated with them effectively. It is so substanceless there is very little room for even a short conversation about it.)

Does that work for you?

Even though I beleive in it, evolution is still a theory and people shouldn't be considerting it completely factual.

Wrong. Evolution is an observed fact. Darwin's attempt to explain it is a theory, with ample evidence and as of yet no evidence to the contrary, therefore we can assume that it is true.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Of course I can do that. I used to be a Christian, and I have studied Eastern religion a great deal. Search my posts in the R/S forum and you will see that I don't make ignorant comments about religious teachings. I try to make sure I know what I am talking about when I debate people. What does it have to do with whether Oneira and Mystic understand the subject of this thread?

You're right, I did run off-topic, more so considering the individuals in question are far from "sincere, thoughtful religious" people. I was thinking more about the perceived conflict between evolution and Christianity, or science and religion generally, from which this debate largely stems (except in the case of rare birds like Mystic).

In my experience, most people in Western culture who consider themselves Christian or simply believe in God do not reject evolution. I suspect more are coming to do so because of the insistence of vocal minorities that the two must conflict, a reflection of equally extreme and rigid views on both sides.

Your response to my request for "a sincere, thoughtful religious person's outlook" is a good case in point. I would characterize your summary as an unexamined, dogmatic, and literalist outlook, suggesting that you can't even conceive of a "sincere, thoughtful religious person." Most people who derive their views in whole or in part from the canonized Bible do not treat the text as an infallible history book. They have some ideas of their own about the meanings of different stories and passages. And, like you and I, most Westerners, Christian or otherwise, view religious crusaders as, in Tony Blair's words, "nutters."

Promoting the idea it's religion vs. science, all or nothing, just does the nutters' work for them.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

And what things can evolution not explain? That's a very bold claim.

The dellusional extremist are certainly an amusing bunch. How about, the universe. Realize your idea of science is limited for once. Or do you know everything like the pope?

1.tao is correct about most people who believe in God not believing the Bible to be literal.

2. I believe in a higher power, but I do not see how this would conflict with evolution. When you think about it, wouldnt a higher being want the world to be able to develop itself? I would think that would be the most beautiful thing it could create. It would be like a cosmic movie to see life's trails, successes and failures. Hell not only life but the whole universe developing thanks to the laws set up, what more could such a being want then to enjoy watching his work? Without having to constantly interfere.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

The dellusional extremist are certainly an amusing bunch. How about, the universe. Realize your idea of science is limited for once. Or do you know everything like the pope?

Evolution can't explain the universe? I'm shocked.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Your response to my request for "a sincere, thoughtful religious person's outlook" is a good case in point. I would characterize your summary as an unexamined, dogmatic, and literalist outlook, suggesting that you can't even conceive of a "sincere, thoughtful religious person."

I was just telling you what I was taught, what the Bible says, and what I thought most Christians believe, at least most Christians in my region. If most Christians think the Bible is not literal, then there is a whole spectrum of beliefs that could be considered Christianity. Making a book of rules symbolic when it determines a person's eternal destiny is a really bizarre concept. I can tell you what their books says, but it would take me as many characterizations as there are such Christians to tell you what they think. Once you say a book is purely symbolic, there is no limit to what it can be interpreted as saying. There is no book titled The Disciples' Guide to What Jesus Said He Really Meant When He Spoke Symbolically by The Twelve Disciples or "Burning Bush" Means "Hallucination Revealing The Truth About Nirvana I Found While on Mushrooms" and Other Things I Was Really Saying by Moses.

I think a lot of literalists are sincere. I question their intelligence and sanity, but I think a lot of them believe exactly what the Bible says.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think a lot of literalists are sincere. I question their intelligence and sanity, but I think a lot of them believe exactly what the Bible says.

Of course they are sincere. Same with the Koran. Sure, some people have realized that they can't live in modern society and follow their religion (all that rock-throwing, etc.), but a lot of people would like to change things back so that they could, and in some places they still are doing it that way.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was just telling you what I was taught, what the Bible says, and what I thought most Christians believe, at least most Christians in my region. If most Christians think the Bible is not literal, then there is a whole spectrum of beliefs that could be considered Christianity.

The plethora of denominations and millions of "basically Christian" non-churchgoers do indicate that's the case, yes. Fundamentalists are way too powerful and plentiful in the U.S., no doubt, but they're not the only "real" Christians, nor, in my experience, the majority; they're just the loudest. If you were born among them, I'm sorry. Still, plenty of people hear the "fairy tales" as children, come to question them as young adults, and either on their own or through the guidance of reasonable Christian adults come to see that while the stories may not be perfect documents of history and material cosmology, they still have meaning and truth. Others just "take what you can use, leave the rest," not a Christian scripture, but a natural attitude to take toward a religious text if you don't intend to devote years to contemplating it anytime soon. "Rulebook" and "bullshit" are not the only options.

The general point I'm making here is that if you're discounting all Christians as fundamentalists, or fundamentalism is your only understanding of religion, then you're letting personal prejudice obscure crucial elements of the debate, to the detriment of both your position and the conversation as a whole.

More to the point of evolution and its main opposition, Creationism, you're missing the most basic criticism--not that Creationists have misunderstood science, but that they've misunderstood their basis for opposing it: religion.