Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

**O'nus** · 01-06-2008 09:54 PM

Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

"It really happened"

Intro (Yes, its a long read, look here first):

This is intended to examine the problems with "its just a theory" and explain evolution as simply as possible. Focus on the certain sections as you see fit. At most, consider the videos at the bottom of this post.

"It's just a theory"
A theory is a coherent system of primitive concepts, axioms, and rules of inferene from which
theorems may be drived. It is a proposition or set of propositions offered as a conjectured
explanation for an observed phenomnenon, state of affairs, or event. (Colman, A. 2001).

Let's first look at what the phrase "it's just a theory" offers:
- That the theory should not be considered because it is a theory
- Implies an alternative explanation or none at all
- States that the theory is obviously not a fact.

Let's assume for a moment that evolution is just a "theory".

When evolutionists hear the phrase "it's just a theory", what they would like to hear are these alternative explanations or empirical disproval for the theory. Scientists endure to find out the true nature of things and how the world works. We strive to find the empirical nature of our existance, thus, truth prevails over pride.

Let us examine how this phrase disputes our "theory" Darwin`s approach began as a hypothesis and then came to fruition as fact, keep this in mind as we examine the following under the pretense that everything he said is "just a theory". So let us consider these key conceptual titles from "The Origin of Species" by Darwin himself to see his approach to evolution as a simple explanation or opinion of things:
- Variation under domestication
- Variation un der nature
- Struggle for existance
- Natural Selection: Or the Survival of the Fittest
- Law of Variation
- Difficulties of the Theory
- Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection
- Instinct
- Hybridism
- On the Imperfection of the Geological Record
- On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings
- Geographical Distribution
- Mutual Affinities of Organic beings: Morphology: Embryology: Rudimentary Organs

When the creationist rebuffs these with "it's just a theory" they little often take note of what is actually being said. The phrase does not actually offer any substantial criticism to what is being said and rests entirely on the idea that the theory is not a fact and can not be systematically disproven.
With this pretense, let us take key conceptual points from Darwin and see how this response works.
So, what I am going to do is take a key conceptual point from Darwin and respond with "that's just a theory" with the idea in mind that, it is not a fact and cannot be systematically observed (in others, can not be proven):

First lines from the "Origin of Species" read: "When we compare the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strike us is, that they generally differ from each other than do individuals of any one species or
variety in a state of nature."
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- This denies that there is a variation in nature. Of course, this is silly and they will continue to say that a God caused the variation, that the variation was with 'purpose' for a final end.

Wide ranging, much diffused, and common species vary most."
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- Again, they would likely make the step that this variation was with a purpose other than evolution.

Struggle for life most severe between species of the same genus.
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- This is simple fact and incontrovertable. The theist will have problems responding to this one because it asks of them to explain why God will let some species die and suffer while still being a good God. What has to be explained is why a God would cause so much suffering and death between
species. Of course, this is entirely conjecture and an opinion. It cannot be proven unless a God himself reveals itself and shows how they can cause all this pain and death. On this premise, I can also prove a pink elephant in my room with the same reasoning (ie. "i see a pink elephant" "but I do not" "yes, but I see it. Therefore, it is real"). Darwin offers this as a function of
natural selection.

Parts developed in an unusual manner are highly variable; specific characters more variable than
generic.
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- How can a creationist explain the variations between species? Explain that this form of evolution is, in fact, the working of God. That God caused this evolutionary step. So now, in the words of Ted Haggard himself, "you are accepting some of the facts, but not the whole, to support yourself".

The absence of intermediate varieties at the presentday.
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- Just a theory? Just a theory that neanderthals existed? There are clear fossil records and mounds of species (and their bones) to show the variety amongst species which we have established earlier. The only thing that a creationist can respond with is to try and integrate God somehow to say that is was Gods idea to do this when we have clearly established that this works
entirely and completely on its own without any supernatural influence.

Let's elaborate this one, because you may find humour in it.
My point here is that, the creationist is saying that God intended these steps of evolution. However, there is no reason to doubt then that this can happen without a God. God is not required for any of the abovementioned processes (and the creationist accepted this!) and there is no denying this because it's evidence of prolific and paramount in every environment. The only room for debate here is for the beginning
of existance itself.

There are many other arguments held within the Origin of Species, such as modification and rates of modification. However, because of stubborn creationists, these arguments have barely (if at all) come to fruition in the public sector. I dream of the day that our people look back and see how
this fact was held back from the world in the exact same way that the heliocentric system was.

Conclusion; next time you say or hear someone say "that's just a theory" ask them to explain the alternative explanation because evolution does not account for the beginning of time.

Evolution is a Fact
After Darwins adventure on the HMS Beagle, he reaped a paramount of evidence for the evolutionary theory. In the years to come, a plethora of work has been done with fossil records and systematic observations. In the end, we have come to show how it is a fact and that the system of evolution
is the quintessential operating system of life itself. To say it is not a fact is to deny diversity, death, natural selection, hybridism, and more. If you still hold it is not a fact, you would have to show how the whole being of existance is actually the exact samething and that there is no diversity of intermediate species within any genus.

Edit:

I realized I should elaborate. Many creationists deny the age of the Earth, they argue that it is 10 000 years old or 5000 years old. However, the fact is that it is significantly older than that. Also, these same creationists fail to explain the existance of dinosaurs. This point itself is the very achilles heel of creationists which, it seems, is never paid attention. Or, at the most, accredited to God employing the evolutionary theory. But as we stated earlier, God is not required for this to occur. And because of that, even if this God existed, we do not need him. The further implications of this is what typically leads to the result of the majority of scientists being atheistic.

Mechanisms of Evolution:

Natural Selection:
Those things that can not survive in their enviornment, simply die off.
Those that can survive, will continue to reproduce. This is the survival of the fittest.

Mutations are passed on through generations to continue to adapt to perpetually changing
environemtnts.

Example:
- Say we have a large desert, yellow/beige as can be.
- We also have two rats; one beige, one black.
- We also have a hungry owl which routinely flies over the desert looking for something to eat.
- Which rat will be best at surviving?
- Obviously, the beige ones.
- How does this beige rat continue to exist? It learns the growing dangers in the desert, teaches
its young, etc. Those rats that fail at adapting, simply die. Those that adapt, survive and
reproduce.

It is really just as easy as that.

For the best explanation I have ever heard, please consider the great Carl Sagan. No one can explain evolution better themself than Carl Sagan (yes, Darwin is a rather terrible writer).
Please consider, you will enjoy:
Carl Sagan:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx0YxEGBf6U
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ4eZIC0MJo
(Roughly 17 minutes)

What do you think...?

*Cough* ThisWouldHaveGoneInAScienceForum*Cough*
~

**Universal Mind** · 01-06-2008 10:05 PM

Are you calling me a monkey?!!!

**O'nus** · 01-06-2008 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are you calling me a monkey?!!!

A bonobo, to be exact.

~

**Universal Mind** · 01-06-2008 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by O'nus

A bonobo, to be exact.

I've never opened a jar of peanut butter and seen a bonobo.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related

**O'nus** · 01-06-2008 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I've never opened a jar of peanut butter and seen a bonobo.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related

That would be a hillarious response.

*Opens jar* *Out pops out an ape!* "Holy shit! Evolution is real I guess!"

~

**Xei** · 01-07-2008 01:35 AM

Evolution is a theory, theory meaning 'a hypothesis which has repeatedly shown itself to be true'.

There is no such thing a 'fact' in the scientific method, claiming so shows an ignorance of it.

One might have thought Newton's theory of gravitation was a 'fact' as it is accurate as much as you can measure in virtually every test you do, but in reality it is not correct; Einstein's general theory of relativity is more accurate. And still it is just a theory that may be disproved with some falsifying evidence in the future.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

**O'nus** · 01-07-2008 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by Xei

Evolution is a theory, theory meaning 'a hypothesis which has repeatedly shown itself to be true'.

There is no such thing a 'fact' in the scientific method, claiming so shows an ignorance of it.

One might have thought Newton's theory of gravitation was a 'fact' as it is accurate as much as you can measure in virtually every test you do, but in reality it is not correct; Einstein's general theory of relativity is more accurate. And still it is just a theory that may be disproved with some falsifying evidence in the future.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Please read the thread before posting.

Evolution, as I have stated, is asserting that there is diversity in species, multiples of genus, natural selection, etc. It is a fact that it happens.

If you really want to go that route, then we could bring up Cartesian doubt and say that your existance is also not a fact. You do not know that you exist, you cannot prove you do, it is only a theory that you do.

~

**Universal Mind** · 01-07-2008 01:45 AM

Originally Posted by Xei

Evolution is a theory, theory meaning 'a hypothesis which has repeatedly shown itself to be true'.

There is no such thing a 'fact' in the scientific method, claiming so shows an ignorance of it.

One might have thought Newton's theory of gravitation was a 'fact' as it is accurate as much as you can measure in virtually every test you do, but in reality it is not correct; Einstein's general theory of relativity is more accurate. And still it is just a theory that may be disproved with some falsifying evidence in the future.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

It is improper for a scientist to publish a theory and call it a "fact", but it makes perfect sense for us on this site to be so sure of a theory that we call it a fact. It is like in criminal court cases when people are "innocent until proven guilty". It would be improper for the judge to say before the verdict that it is a "fact" that the person is guilty, but we can legitimately get on this site and say, "Come on. The verdict has not been handed down, but he is not innocent. He's guilty as sin. It's a fact."

Evolution is no longer considered a "theory" any way. It is now a "law". As O'nus just said, it has been observed. The existence of gravity is a law because it is an observation of what happens. What causes gravity is a theory.

**Xei** · 01-07-2008 01:56 AM

Oh okay, I thought you were referring to Darwinism.

If you really want to go that route, then we could bring up Cartesian doubt and say that your existance is also not a fact. You do not know that you exist, you cannot prove you do, it is only a theory that you do.

By the way, Cartesian doubt states exactly the opposite of this.

**O'nus** · 01-07-2008 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by Xei

"If you really want to go that route, then we could bring up Cartesian doubt and say that your existance is also not a fact. You do not know that you exist, you cannot prove you do, it is only a theory that you do."

By the way, Cartesian doubt states exactly the opposite of this.

Oh, I meant prove your existance to other people. It, of course, is a fact that you can prove to yourself that you exist.

I think, with that said, we're on the same page, right?

~

**Mystic7** · 01-07-2008 03:26 AM

Evolution is not fact. It's also bogus. Evolution theory is another illogical religion. I don't know where you got this rubbish from. But it wasn't from inside your little head O'nus. No I am not entering a debate with timewasters.

**O'nus** · 01-07-2008 03:46 AM

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Evolution is not fact. It's also bogus. Evolution theory is another illogical religion. I don't know where you got this rubbish from. But it wasn't from inside your little head O'nus. No I am not entering a debate with timewasters.

Beautiful. You somehow managed to use a bunch of words and actually say nothing at all.

Let me summarise what you said for you:

"You are wrong and stupid"

About as intelligent as a douchebag.

Instead of making such vapid comments, please consider actually contributing comments with a form of substance other than trying to attempt a "holier-than-thou" sanctimonious comment which survives vicariously through complaints as such because it is, in its essential form, a pathetic form of argument that is completely derived from ignorance and lack of intellectual perspicacity.

Please prove me wrong and formulate a response with some form of substantial contribution that does not wreak in sanctimonious subtext with the obvious narcisisstic intent of getting attention.

Failure.

Edit:
Notice that I also used references to support what I am saying.

~

**♥Mark** · 01-07-2008 03:47 AM

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Evolution is not fact. It's also bogus. Evolution theory is another illogical religion. I don't know where you got this rubbish from. But it wasn't from inside your little head O'nus. No I am not entering a debate with timewasters.

Well I'm convinced.

**Mystic7** · 01-07-2008 04:06 AM

I was going to repond, but it's such a bunch of rubbish that I think I'll wait for you to define your personal belief in a nutshell of why you think evolution is something that is truth above all truths about reality. When you can decide what and why you think what you do...Then I won't have this look on my face when you write a string of nonsense designed to look scientific in your eyes

**♥Mark** · 01-07-2008 04:08 AM

You didn't actually read it, did you? (It's okay, I didn't either ^__^)

**Mes Tarrant** · 01-07-2008 04:15 AM

Here's the reason why Mystic and co get worked up and really upset in the face of facts. Religion has been a very important part of these people's lives, probably from a very young age. Religion gives them hope, it gives them something positive to rely on in an otherwise very uncertain and sometimes scary world. Religion is like their rock, and they are going to fight you for the death to protect it. So what if you convince them that there is no God - what are they going to do with the rest of their lives? Where are they going to find the strength that religion has given them, the same strength that atheists have long since learned to find elsewhere?

I am not religious. But, I don't need to be. I don't feel a gaping hole anywhere in my life. But fear of such a hole is what drives religious people to swear at you and to discard facts like a pile of shit. I think scientists/atheists should offer these facts to people who are eager to listen, not try to convince people who are unwilling to budge. This obviously applies to the other side too - I just want those Christian fundamentalists who shout at people in the street that God will kill them to leave us alone!

I'm not saying you're forcing anything on anyone, O'nus. I always find your posts very intellectual and objective. But this, I think, is the reason behind certain short-fused religious people.

To each his own, I guess.

**Mystic7** · 01-07-2008 04:15 AM

I had a good look at it. Noticed it was irrelevant, boring, explaining the explanations of itself over and over in a loop of petty definitions, trying to sound authority like with strawman arguments. While ignoring and not even mentioning core concepts. No gold stars for this one.

**♥Mark** · 01-07-2008 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

stuff

Quite right. But the cruel irony is that the ones who are unwilling to listen to reason are the ones that need to hear it most.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

No gold stars for this one.

I count five.

**Mes Tarrant** · 01-07-2008 04:23 AM

Originally Posted by Mark75

Quite right. But the cruel irony is that the ones who are unwilling to listen to reason are the ones that need to hear it most.

That's very true. I propose we stop worrying about them and let them be.

**Mes Tarrant** · 01-07-2008 04:25 AM

I know there is more. I was just trying to categorize people into two rough groups for nothing more than to simplify my explanation.

**♥Mark** · 01-07-2008 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

That's very true. I propose we stop worrying about them and let them be.

Would only that they stopped blowing us up.

**Mes Tarrant** · 01-07-2008 04:26 AM

Originally Posted by Mark75

Would only that they stopped blowing us up.

Okay okay. We let the non-violent ones be.

**Mystic7** · 01-07-2008 04:30 AM

Here's the reason why Mystic and co get worked up and really upset in the face of facts. Religion has been a very important part of these people's lives, probably from a very young age. Religion gives them hope, it gives them something positive to rely on in an otherwise very uncertain and sometimes scary world. Religion is like their rock, and they are going to fight you for the death to protect it

My rock is the foundations of reality itself. Religion and science (real science and religion not pretend) can play a part of that reality. But it's more than a "religious" person. Human beings are more. Saying someone is upset and worked up is pretty amusing over the internet when you can't see them. In addition it's very simple minded of you to say this in general about people you don't understand and have never met. Something heretics like to indulge in. You are religiously anti-religious. That's why you label me like you do. Because I don't fit into your understanding. Whatever the case your much more likely to succeed at something that you believe and have faith in. Than if you have faith that you can't do something in doubt. That will decrease your chances of being successful. No matter what your belief system is. Wether you call something science or religion. Dogma or truth.

**♥Mark** · 01-07-2008 04:34 AM

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Okay okay. We let the non-violent ones be.

But as long as "having faith" exists and is taught as valid "reasoning", the potential for such people exists, too. Aside from that, the simple fact that these religions aren't true is a perfectly good reason to say that they aren't true.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

My rock is the foundations of reality itself. Religion and science (real science and religion not pretend) can play a part of that reality. But it's more than a "religious" person. Human beings are more. Saying someone is upset and worked up is pretty amusing over the internet when you can't see them. In addition it's very simple minded of you to say this in general about people you don't understand and have never met. Something heretics like to indulge in. You are religiously anti-religious. That's why you label me like you do. Because I don't fit into your understanding. Whatever the case your much more likely to succeed at something that you believe and have faith in. Than if you have faith that you can't do something in doubt. That will decrease your chances of being successful. No matter what your belief system is. Wether you call something science or religion. Dogma or truth.

You are wrong and stupid.