Britain, Evolution doubts grow...

[Daradon]

Ok, well I do believe evolution has 99% of the answer, and I don't believe in a 'creator' or 'designer' as such. And I do get scared that some people believe the age of the earth is only 10,000 years, or 5,000 uears, or whatever their 'book' tells them. That's probably the worst part.

But I do think that there is still somethings missing in the theory. Whether it will round out on it's own as we get to know more in the next 100 years, or whether there will be a more noticable revision so to speak, I'm not sure.

Perhaps we will be able to prove more down the road that we just can't now.

That's just my personal opinion as I understand everything. I know many many parts of the theory are proven without a doubt, I still think it's not as exact as other laws or theories.

I kinda have it up there with Quantum theory. Basically true, but still lots more to learn or add. I think that's fair.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Ok, well I do believe evolution has 99% of the answer, and I don't believe in a 'creator' or 'designer' as such. And I do get scared that some people believe the age of the earth is only 10,000 years, or 5,000 uears, or whatever their 'book' tells them. That's probably the worst part.

Definitely, its when obvious truths are in people's faces and they deny them based on a 2000 yr old story that is upsetting.

But I do think that there is still somethings missing in the theory. Whether it will round out on it's own as we get to know more in the next 100 years, or whether there will be a more noticable revision so to speak, I'm not sure.

See I don't get what you mean here, its so overwhelmingly clear and SIMPLE. This theory has beyond Biology the Geological record, Fossils, and many other Scientific disciplines that all agree on this theory and build upon its original foundation.

Are there 'small' things we yet don't understand about it, sure its possible, but to deny evolution is as I said before like denying the holocaust. The evidence is overwhelming and any rational being would agree.

Perhaps we will be able to prove more down the road that we just can't now.

That's just my personal opinion as I understand everything. I know many many parts of the theory are proven without a doubt, I still think it's not as exact as other laws or theories.

I kinda have it up there with Quantum theory. Basically true, but still lots more to learn or add. I think that's fair.

If you compare Evolution with Quantum Theory, to borrow the most common joke of Science today; "You just don't understand Quantum Theory."

Evolution by 99% of the worlds Scientists is no more in doubt than Atomic Theory or Germ Theory.

Quantum Theory or Quantum Mechanics is only remotely understood by a tiny number of humans, probably under 10,000 humans could get the mathematics and theorems proposed by the top Physicists.

Evolution in comparison to Quantum Theory is like comparing finger paint to Painting the know universe as a blind monkey in a box that could hold 2 clear states of existence.

[AC]

This should be a must read for those arguing over theory vs. fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.

The terms "fact" and "theory" can be applied to evolution, just as they are to gravity. Misuse and misunderstanding of how those terms are applied to evolution have been used to construct arguments disputing the validity of evolution.

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Thor

See I don't get what you mean here, its so overwhelmingly clear and SIMPLE. This theory has beyond Biology the Geological record, Fossils, and many other Scientific disciplines that all agree on this theory and build upon its original foundation.

Are there 'small' things we yet don't understand about it, sure its possible, but to deny evolution is as I said before like denying the holocaust. The evidence is overwhelming and any rational being would agree.

If you compare Evolution with Quantum Theory, to borrow the most common joke of Science today; "You just don't understand Quantum Theory."

Evolution by 99% of the worlds Scientists is no more in doubt than Atomic Theory or Germ Theory.

Quantum Theory or Quantum Mechanics is only remotely understood by a tiny number of humans, probably under 10,000 humans could get the mathematics and theorems proposed by the top Physicists.

Evolution in comparison to Quantum Theory is like comparing finger paint to Painting the know universe as a blind monkey in a box that could hold 2 clear states of existence.

Crap, I was trying to quote you, not thank you.

But I never denied evolution, stating only that I think it will continue to be added to as our understanding increase. Especially when it comes to macro evolution.

I was reading an article, it was posted here on CP actually talking about 'jumps' in life or evolution (in respects to the possibility of finding fossil life on Mars). There's still 3 or 4 points in the whole process where although we can surmise, predict and assume what happened, with probably a good deal of certainty that we are right, we still don't know for sure.

One of those periods has to do with cell membranes, I think one has to do with amino acids and proteins, I can look it up again. The point being, that it is a big theory, with many facets, and is NOT as airtight as say gravity.

As well, I have to agree with Rathji in saying though, that it's NOT the same as denying the holocaust. (Nor do I believe that should be something that's thrown around) One is a historical event that didn't even take place that long ago, another is a scientific theory which some people have trouble grasping.

As far as QM goes, well I was just trying to find another theory that was as of yet unfinished to use as an example, I didn't really claim to say I had a firm grasp on all of it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...evolution.html

There is no polite way to say this, but its clear that those who doubt Evolution are as stupid as those who deny the Holocaust or deny the world is round.


If Religion keeps pushing doubt against a fact like Evolution, we need to find better ways to explain and show the average citizen of the world that this isn't some 'contraversial' theory, but fact.


Lets let Sir David Attenborough speak on this:


http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=uz7U4k522Pg


Anyone who doubts Evolution is as stupid and ignorant as Holocaust deniers and people who doubt gravity.


No more polite disagreement, this kind of anti science has to end, its not OK to doubt truth because you follow some particular belief system based on 2000 yr old books.

Get a grip. Anti-semitism and a belief in certain creation myths are not even close to the same thing.

And what are you going to do? Force them to believe in evolution?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Crap, I was trying to quote you, not thank you.

But I never denied evolution, stating only that I think it will continue to be added to as our understanding increase. Especially when it comes to macro evolution.

Macro or Micro, the fact is micro is the most recent 'pile on more evidence to the mountain' part of evolution, when you look at genetics and modern science of the last 20-30 yrs.

I was reading an article, it was posted here on CP actually talking about 'jumps' in life or evolution (in respects to the possibility of finding fossil life on Mars). There's still 3 or 4 points in the whole process where although we can surmise, predict and assume what happened, with probably a good deal of certainty that we are right, we still don't know for sure.

True. We have a lot of unique situations to comprehend when it comes to how does life arise, what are the conditions for it to occur and how common or uncommon is it in the universe.

One of those periods has to do with cell membranes, I think one has to do with amino acids and proteins, I can look it up again. The point being, that it is a big theory, with many facets, and is NOT as airtight as say gravity.

Absolutely, but you are I think (correct me if I'm wrong) confusing origins of life with Evolution. Evolution does not claim to explain origins, as much it theorizes life from a simple beginning to a complex diversity which we see all around us today.

As well, I have to agree with Russic in saying though, that it's NOT the same as denying the holocaust. (Nor do I believe that should be something that's thrown around) One is a historical event that didn't even take place that long ago, another is a scientific theory which some people have trouble grasping.

Well, I'd be blamed for Expelled tactics stating the Holocaust in my argument, which I shouldn't have to begin with, but its the passion in my frustration against those who deny Evolution that made me do it, that and the booze which I consumed during the UFC party tonight

However, the Holocaust has evidence, but it mainly relies on testimony of actual proof, people who witnessed it and could verify its existence.

In Evolution, we can test and prove its existance today, tommorow and in the future. Time does not hinder it, we can through the fossil record see evolution in action, we can see it in virology (study of viruses), and in modern medicine much of what we use to treat and cure illments we owe to our understanding of Evolution.

As far as QM goes, well I was just trying to find another theory that was as of yet unfinished to use as an example, I didn't really claim to say I had a firm grasp on all of it.

Well QM as you know is so far from unfinished that its on many planes above evolution. QM is in such a theorem based existence and has varied ideas on whats going on at the quantum level of existence.

But in Evolution, there isn't much 'unfinished business' as you state, its more like we have a Mona Lisa painting of 1 million pixels, Evolution has given us over 900,000 pixels of this painting, and when you stand back and look at this painting you can clearly see its the Mona Lisa. But its not complete.

Yet to any reasonable person, its clear you are looking at the Mona Lisa, even if a few spots are missing.

Evolution does have the distinct challenge of having to deal with hundreds of millions of years. Even if we can show clearly transistional fossils and use modern science to build upon the fossil record to clearly show Evolution as the closest thing to fact we can achieve.

Can we learn or see new things 'within' Evolution, most certainly. But the basis of Evolution and its massive mountain of evidence can at this point be 'tweaked' at most, its not like we are unsure IF evolution occurs, but might debate the small finer points of macro/micro issues and other debated points by Biologists. Either way, 99% aren't aruing IF evolution occurs, they are debating some of the finer points.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

Get a grip. Anti-semitism and a belief in certain creation myths are not even close to the same thing.

And what are you going to do? Force them to believe in evolution?

You can only teach them and hope they turn around their backwards belief.

You don't see the parallels, but its belief without evidence that we fight against and which is the biggest proponent against Evolution.

I did also mention those who believe the world is flat, flat earth followers do actually exist btw, and I see them as no different than those who deny Evolution.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

You can only teach them and hope they turn around their backwards belief.

You don't see the parallels, but its belief without evidence that we fight against and which is the biggest proponent against Evolution.

I did also mention those who believe the world is flat, flat earth followers do actually exist btw, and I see them as no different than those who deny Evolution.

I see the parallels and I've honestly stopped caring. I am absolutely sure the world will keep on running just fine if a certain minority of the population refuse to accept scientific explanations for naturalist phenomena. Time to move on. Time to stop portraying your enemy as inhuman, stupid monsters. Time to stop getting passionate over a scientific theory when there are much larger political/economic problems to be solved.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

I see the parallels and I've honestly stopped caring. I am absolutely sure the world will keep on running just fine if a certain minority of the population refuse to accept scientific explanations for naturalist phenomena. Time to move on. Time to stop portraying your enemy as inhuman, stupid monsters. Time to stop getting passionate over a scientific theory when there are much larger political/economic problems to be solved.

All things are connected, if you can believe Evolution is false its a point that affects the rest of your logical brain.

I can't stop caring, the world is heading for ideological conflicts that will most defiantly affect our children;s future.

You can't ignore those who ignore science over faith, you can't ignore people who refute truths over faith.

Its not a minority, its not a insignificant part of the world.

I don't see those who disagree as enemies, or inhuman monsters. I see them as misinformed, well intention people who need to be given the facts and logic behind the things they fight against and then for them to make up their own minds based upon both sides of the argument.

Obviously the logical side usually wins, at least we hope.

[Daradon]

I will agree that QM is more unfinished than evolution, for sure I understand that. It was simply the first thing I could think of that made more sense to compare evolution to as a theory compared to your first comparison of the law of gravity.

As for the jumps, some of them may be origins of life questions, but I know a few of them were already in the evolutionary period. I'll take a look. I guess it all depends on where you say, 'a simple beginning' started. Did it start with the first one-celled organism? First multi-celled organism? Somewhere after?

Maybe this is where a lot of people get hung up on it and where confusions and arguments occur.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I will agree that QM is more unfinished than evolution, for sure I understand that. It was simply the first thing I could think of that made more sense to compare evolution to as a theory compared to your first comparison of the law of gravity.

As for the jumps, some of them may be origins of life questions, but I know a few of them were already in the evolutionary period. I'll take a look. I guess it all depends on where you say, 'a simple beginning' started. Did it start with the first one-celled organism? First multi-celled organism? Somewhere after?

Maybe this is where a lot of people get hung up on it and where confusions and arguments occur.

Jumps are what we see as 'gaps' in Evolution, clearly the gaps occur because we are dealing with such an immense time frame and something that isn't easily evidenced.

Evolution and the theory starts at the start of life, so we do expect a primitive single cell to evolve into all life today.

DNA shows us just how likely this idea is, being that we share a high percentage of DNA to all life on earth, especially the higher primates.

I agree though, when it comes to Evolution in North America we've failed at truly explaining the simplicity and genius of what Darwin came up with. Science and the most brilliant minds in Science are often very bad at bridging the gap from the Science world into the world of every day people.

We need a new Carl Sagan. Attenborough has done a lot for naturalists, but in the US I would doubt more than a small percentage would have a clue who he is, seen any of his work, or be inspired by his passion and life's work on the natural world and his contributions to evolution.

[Vulcan]

I don't ask science to explain god and I don't ask god to explain science. It's when the atheists and the religious start mixing the two that we have problems.

[Cheese]

Evolution Vs Creationism

theory - an explanation or system of anything.

Evolution is a fact. Shocking and controversial this might sound, but bear with me. I'm not talking about Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. I'm talking about the changes in the gene pools of all species that occur every single day due to births and deaths. If you accept that most members of a species do not all have the exact same DNA (which is easily demonstrated), and you accept that sexual reproduction combines the DNA of two parents to form a slightly different combination of genes, and you accept that not all creatures survive long enough to be able to reproduce, then....
You have accepted that evolution is an observed, natural fact. That's all it is. A change in the genes over time. Evolution happens. Things evolve. That's what it means. There is no debate in the scientific community as to whether or not evolution is a fact. It is a fact of nature, just like gravity.

The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is an attempt to describe what is happening, how and why. The theory describes the facts and the evidence.

A good theory can also be used to produce predictions about future observations based on the known facts and evidence. A theory should also be falsifiable - this means that it should be possible to think of an experiment that would prove the theory wrong if it is not sound. One of the big problems with creationist hypotheses is that they are not open to refutation - any possible set of evidence can be explained away with some variation on "God did it, for Mysterious Reasons".
"Theory" as used by scientists has a quite different meaning to "theory" as used by a bloke you met in the pub. A theory is an attempt to explain a observed phenomenon using evidence and experiment, not a wild guess or something that just popped into your head a moment ago.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Daradon

^^^ I've always wondered about that. Isn't it the Law of Gravity?

What is the difference between a theory and law?

Isn't it part of Newtons Law of Motion (or something like that?)

Newton's law of gravity is a perfect example of the difficulties here.

First, sometimes the wrong word is used for things, as is the case with the "Law of Gravity". Newton's analysis of gravity isn't a law, it's a theory. Calling it a law is a misnomer.

Second, theories aren't promoted to laws (as was kind if implied elsewhere in the thread). The are different things. A theory is often (not necessarily though) composed of one or more laws. A law is an analytical statement about reality, a theory is a body of ideas or principles that explain a phenomenon.

Third, there's nothing special or different about a law that's different than a theory. A law can just as easily be invalidated or changed if new observations necessitate it. Observations had invalidated Newton's laws of gravity long before Einstein came along.

Originally Posted by Daradon

I mean there is the first law of thermodynamics and such like that.

I'm pretty sure gravity fits under a law, if it's not a rule in of it's self. That it's not just classified as a theory.

Gravity is a theory as well.

As has been said, in science there is no fact, no Truth, only the best understanding at any given time.

Gould has the perfect quote for this:

“In science ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent’"

That describes evolution perfectly.

Because keep in mind by the time something becomes an accepted theory, it's valid given the parameters of the theory, period. I'll use gravity again. Newton's theory of gravity was wrong, but it's still very much valid within a specific set of reality (as long as things don't move too fast, etc). Newton is good enough for us to launch probes to other planets and land them where we want. But Newton is wrong, Einstein is much better at explaining reality.

Likewise if another theory came along and supplanted evolution, Darwin's ideas wouldn't be thrown out, they'd be added to and modified (as the modern synthesis already does vs. Darwin's original writings).

As has been said, the fact of evolution is evolution is observed everywhere. The theory of evolution explains how it happens. The fact of gravity is if you trip you fall. The theory of gravity explains how it happens.

[troutman]

Amazing that there is still any doubt about this. Darwin's 200th birthday is in two weeks.

People sometimes try to score debating points by saying, "Evolution is only a theory." That is correct, but it's important to understand what that means. It is also only a theory that the world goes round the Sun -- it's just a theory for which there is an immense amount of evidence.

There are many scientific theories that are in doubt. Even within evolution, there is some room for controversy. But that we are cousins of apes and jackals and starfish, let's say, that is a fact in the ordinary sense of the word.

-- Richard Dawkins, "Nick Pollard interviews Richard Dawkins" (Damars: 1999)

http://www.darwinday.org/

Darwin Day is a global celebration of science and reason held on or around Feb. 12, the birthday anniversary of evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin. This year marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth.

[Kipper is King]

For me, evolution and God never are such a big squabble.

Evolution happened.

God exists.

Those two things in my mind are both true, and they do not cancel out each other. Why can't we say that while evolution did occur, it happened because God made it occur? Just because God may exist does not mean that science goes out the window, but the fact that empirical sciences "work" does not mean in my mind that God is not out there, or did not create us.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

Why can't we say that while evolution did occur, it happened because God made it occur?

We can say that, but what evidence is there for it?

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by troutman

Amazing that there is still any doubt about this. Darwin's 200th birthday is in two weeks.

People sometimes try to score debating points by saying, "Evolution is only a theory." That is correct, but it's important to understand what that means. It is also only a theory that the world goes round the Sun -- it's just a theory for which there is an immense amount of evidence.

There are many scientific theories that are in doubt. Even within evolution, there is some room for controversy. But that we are cousins of apes and jackals and starfish, let's say, that is a fact in the ordinary sense of the word.

-- Richard Dawkins, "Nick Pollard interviews Richard Dawkins" (Damars: 1999)

http://www.darwinday.org/

Darwin Day is a global celebration of science and reason held on or around Feb. 12, the birthday anniversary of evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin. This year marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth.

We evolved from a bunch of cells floating around in the water...just like a trout,man.

[TheDragon]

(I see that the conversation has shifted, but I just wanted to touch on something from the OP.)

I'm a bit confused as to why this is causing such a ruckus. The article states:

In the survey, 51 per cent of those questioned agreed with the statement that "evolution alone is not enough to explain the complex structures of some living things, so the intervention of a designer is needed at key stages."

A further 40 per cent disagreed, while the rest said they did not know.

So basically, those 51%, or about 1051 people said that they accepted the theory of evolution, but don't think that it alone is responsible for life as we know it on earth. Furthermore, that doesn't necessarily pertain to an intervention from a Judeo-Biblical god, does it? So, you could probably break down that 51% into sub-groups if you were ask them to elaborate.

Even if it did, what's the big deal? They aren't denying any science, are they?

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, accused Dawkins of evolving into a "very simple kind of thinker".

He said: "His argument for atheism goes like this: either God is the explanation for the wide diversity of biological life, or evolution is. We know that evolution is true. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

"I'm an evangelical Christian, but I have no difficulties in believing that evolution is the best scientific account we have for the diversity of life on our planet."

Those are pretty big words for an Archbishop, (Former.)

I'd take that as a sign of progression, actually.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by missdpuck

We evolved from a bunch of cells floating around in the water...just like a trout,man.

Trout are divine.