****Official Bill Nye The Science Guy Thread******* (1 Viewer)

[GeauxTigers]

Please tell me what evolution is and then show me the proof.

Problem is evolution is defined as change over time. I have no problem with that. But it isn't very satisfying and does not do what you think it does- Prove that life and the complexity of life happened without God. It is just some water down definition that doesn't help anybody figure anything out.

If you don't know what evolution is, you shouldn't be in this conversation. Go do some research.Evolution is a proven fact. If you would have read my posts, every single organism that has ever lived has a common ancestor. It is a proven fact and it is that simple. If you ever took a biology class....or hell just go google it....you can even see the family tree of all living organisms and how they trace back throughout history of the Earth.

Life...or "the complexity of life"...happened. I never said God didn't have anything to do with it. Nobody knows if there is a God. But I do know evolution is a fact. I also know that life started somehow and how life started, can be explained scientifically. You don't need a god to explain how life started and you don't need a God to explain how the Universe started. However, that doesn't mean that a "God" didn't start the universe and put all things in motion, which eventually led to the first single celled organism that would evolve to humans.

Horology is shambles based upon gene sequencing. What we thought were common ancestors are not based upon DNA. Rather we call in convergent evolution or horizontal gene transfer. The point is the tree of life is a bush not a tree.Bushes not trees Excerpts from the article.

Here we discuss how and why certain critical parts of the TOL [Tree of Life] may be difficult to resolve, regardless of the quantity of conventional data available. We do not mean this essay to be a comprehensive review of molecular systematics. Rather, we have focused on the emerging evidence from genome-scale studies on several branches of the TOL that sharply contrasts with viewpoints such as that in the opening quotation [a quote by Dawkins that implies we'll get the TOL correct eventually] imply that the assembly of all branches of the TOL will simply be a matter of data collection. We view this difficulty in obtaining full resolution of particular when given substantial data as both biologically informative and a pressing methodological challenge. The recurring discovery of persistently unresolved clades (bushes) should force a re-evaluation of several widely held assumptions of molecular systematics. Now, as the field is transformed from a data-limited to an analysis-limited discipline, it is an opportune time to do so.”

Three observations generally hold true across metazoan datasets that indicate the pervasive influence of homoplasy at these evolutionary depths. First, a large fraction of single genes produce phylogenies of poor quality. For example, Wolf and colleagues [9] omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom (Figure 2D). Second, in all studies, a large fraction of characters genes, PICs or RGC disagree with the optimal phylogeny, indicating the existence of serious conflict in the DNA record. For example, the majority of PICs conflict with the optimal topology in the Dopazo and Dopazo study [10]. Third, the conflict among these and other studies in metazoan phylogenetics [11,12] is occurring at very “high taxonomic levels above or at the phylum level.

For instance, theory [34] and simulation analyses [8] predict that a small fraction of substitutions will be homoplastic by chance (about 2, depending upon model assumptions and evolutionary distances). However, analysis of the elephant/sirenian/hyrax dataset and the coelacanth/lungfish/ tetrapod dataset indicates that the actual level of homoplasy is ~10% of amino acid substitutions in the first case (178 homoplastic/1,743 total substitutions) and ~15% in the second case (588 homoplastic/3,800 total substitutions), several times greater than expected [8,34]. Similar high levels of homoplasy exist in datasets from other bushy clades [35] (unpublished data) and hold irrespective of analytical methodology [8].

“Although it may be heresy to say so, it could be argued that knowing that strikingly different groups form a clade and that the time spans between the branching of these groups must have been very short, makes the knowledge of the branching order among groups potentially a secondary concern.”

Whatever. Believe whatever your little heart desires.

 

[moleculo]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

 

[JZilla]

I've heard many scientists say that calling evolution a theory is like calling gravity a theory. It's entirely provable.

What does that mean?(Neither theory is provable.)

I just proved one of them. Do I get money?

Which one do you think you proved, and how did you prove it?

I think it is worth understanding why the theory of gravity cannot be proven, so I'll take a crack at guessing how a person might think he proved it and then explain why that wouldn't suffice.Suppose you drop an egg. The theory of gravity predicts that it will fall to the ground and make a mess. Suppose this is exactly what happens when you try it. Is the theory proven?

To be sure, your experimental result was exactly what the theory predicted. The theory is thus not disproven. But "proven" and "not disproven" are not the same thing.

For one thing, you can't be sure that your observation really was consistent with the theory. The theory of gravity doesn't simply predict that the egg will fall; it predicts that the egg will fall at a very specific rate. How do you know that the rate wasn't off in this case by 0.0000002% or so? Maybe your experiment did disprove the theory and you didn't even realize it.

More importantly, the theory of gravity doesn't predict simply that a dropped egg might fall toward the ground once in a while. It predicts that it will happen every time. If you can prove the theory of gravity by dropping a few eggs, then I can prove my theory that a roulette ball never lands on red 15 by giving the wheel a few spins. There is in fact no way to prove a universal theory by with a finite number of trials.

The most you can say about the theory of gravity is that none of our observations so far are inconsistent with the theory, to the best of our measurements. But that's exactly what we can say about the theory of evolution as well. Both theories have been confirmed and confirmed and confirmed and confirmed — but never proven.

So when MoO says to you, "there's no proof of evolution!" your answer is, "That is correct, sir. Have a good day."I know what you meant. I know by nature a scientific theory cannot be proven, only unproven. I think it is clear that jdogg was talking about layman's proof, aka mountains upon mountains of solid evidence. I think this kind of quibbling only provides ammunition to people who assert that evolution should not be taught because it's UNPROVEN. See also this entire thread.

Can't prove Ted Bundy killed all those girls either. Poor guy must have been fried for nothing.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

What I truly do not understand is how and when creationism became so intertwined with Christianity in general. An attack on creationism is not necessarily an attack on Christianity.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Please tell me what evolution is and then show me the proof.

Problem is evolution is defined as change over time. I have no problem with that. But it isn't very satisfying and does not do what you think it does- Prove that life and the complexity of life happened without God. It is just some water down definition that doesn't help anybody figure anything out.

If you don't know what evolution is, you shouldn't be in this conversation. Go do some research.Evolution is a proven fact. If you would have read my posts, every single organism that has ever lived has a common ancestor. It is a proven fact and it is that simple. If you ever took a biology class....or hell just go google it....you can even see the family tree of all living organisms and how they trace back throughout history of the Earth.

Life...or "the complexity of life"...happened. I never said God didn't have anything to do with it. Nobody knows if there is a God. But I do know evolution is a fact. I also know that life started somehow and how life started, can be explained scientifically. You don't need a god to explain how life started and you don't need a God to explain how the Universe started. However, that doesn't mean that a "God" didn't start the universe and put all things in motion, which eventually led to the first single celled organism that would evolve to humans.

Link?

I was hoping there was some new information on this that I had missed.

 

[GeauxTigers]

Please tell me what evolution is and then show me the proof.

Problem is evolution is defined as change over time. I have no problem with that. But it isn't very satisfying and does not do what you think it does- Prove that life and the complexity of life happened without God. It is just some water down definition that doesn't help anybody figure anything out.

If you don't know what evolution is, you shouldn't be in this conversation. Go do some research.Evolution is a proven fact. If you would have read my posts, every single organism that has ever lived has a common ancestor. It is a proven fact and it is that simple. If you ever took a biology class....or hell just go google it....you can even see the family tree of all living organisms and how they trace back throughout history of the Earth.

Life...or "the complexity of life"...happened. I never said God didn't have anything to do with it. Nobody knows if there is a God. But I do know evolution is a fact. I also know that life started somehow and how life started, can be explained scientifically. You don't need a god to explain how life started and you don't need a God to explain how the Universe started. However, that doesn't mean that a "God" didn't start the universe and put all things in motion, which eventually led to the first single celled organism that would evolve to humans.

Link?

I was hoping there was some new information on this that I had missed.

I am actually busy at work today, or else I would toss out some scientific evidence.

 

[JZilla]

Please tell me what evolution is and then show me the proof.

Problem is evolution is defined as change over time. I have no problem with that. But it isn't very satisfying and does not do what you think it does- Prove that life and the complexity of life happened without God. It is just some water down definition that doesn't help anybody figure anything out.

If you don't know what evolution is, you shouldn't be in this conversation. Go do some research.Evolution is a proven fact. If you would have read my posts, every single organism that has ever lived has a common ancestor. It is a proven fact and it is that simple. If you ever took a biology class....or hell just go google it....you can even see the family tree of all living organisms and how they trace back throughout history of the Earth.

Life...or "the complexity of life"...happened. I never said God didn't have anything to do with it. Nobody knows if there is a God. But I do know evolution is a fact. I also know that life started somehow and how life started, can be explained scientifically. You don't need a god to explain how life started and you don't need a God to explain how the Universe started. However, that doesn't mean that a "God" didn't start the universe and put all things in motion, which eventually led to the first single celled organism that would evolve to humans.

Link?

I was hoping there was some new information on this that I had missed.

I am actually busy at work today, or else I would toss out some scientific evidence.

Neslonesque shtick here

 

[Bonzai]

Please tell me what evolution is and then show me the proof.

Problem is evolution is defined as change over time. I have no problem with that. But it isn't very satisfying and does not do what you think it does- Prove that life and the complexity of life happened without God. It is just some water down definition that doesn't help anybody figure anything out.

If you don't know what evolution is, you shouldn't be in this conversation. Go do some research.Evolution is a proven fact. If you would have read my posts, every single organism that has ever lived has a common ancestor. It is a proven fact and it is that simple. If you ever took a biology class....or hell just go google it....you can even see the family tree of all living organisms and how they trace back throughout history of the Earth.

Life...or "the complexity of life"...happened. I never said God didn't have anything to do with it. Nobody knows if there is a God. But I do know evolution is a fact. I also know that life started somehow and how life started, can be explained scientifically. You don't need a god to explain how life started and you don't need a God to explain how the Universe started. However, that doesn't mean that a "God" didn't start the universe and put all things in motion, which eventually led to the first single celled organism that would evolve to humans.

Link?

I was hoping there was some new information on this that I had missed.

I am actually busy at work today, or else I would toss out some scientific evidence.

Neslonesque shtick here

Nice try, Mr. Cameron

 

[timschochet]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

A creationist is simply a person who believes that a supernatural being created all of existence, including life on Earth. If you are a Christian, then you are a creationist by definition.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So when MoO says to you, "there's no proof of evolution!" your answer is, "That is correct, sir. Have a good day."

I think it's important for us to distinguish ourselves from creationists by not lying. If we say that a scientific theory has been proven (in order to get it taught in school), we are lying to further our agenda. That's what creationists do; it's not what we should do.We should explain that nothing in science is proven, and ask whether we should therefore stop teaching the theory of gravity.

I know what you meant. I know by nature a scientific theory cannot be proven, only unproven. I think it is clear that jdogg was talking about layman's proof, aka mountains upon mountains of solid evidence. I think this kind of quibbling only provides ammunition to people who assert that evolution should not be taught because it's UNPROVEN. See also this entire thread.

Can't prove Ted Bundy killed all those girls either. Poor guy must have been fried for nothing.

Yes, "proof" means different things in different contexts. In law, proof is a synonym for evidence. The jury found that the state met its burden of proof against Ted Bundy — which means only that Bundy was very likely guilty, not that he was certainly guilty. In math, proof means a logical deduction that implies total certainty. (It doesn't really have a meaning in science; the word is simply not used in a properly scientific context.)When a creationist says that evolutionary theory shouldn't be taught in school because it hasn't been proven, he is likely committing a fallacy of equivocation. His implicit argument probably goes something like this:

1. Evolution hasn't been proven (in the mathematical sense of being established with total certainty).

2. Something shouldn't be taught in school unless it's been proven (in the legal sense of being established with sufficiently convincing evidence).

3. Therefore, evolution shouldn't be taught in school.

He is trying to use both meanings of the word at once to suit different purposes. That's a logical fallacy.

We can call him on that without saying anything that could be construed as overstating our case, however. We can point out that evolutionary theory is supported by absolutely overwhelming evidence, but that science has nothing to do with mathematical or logical proof.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

A creationist is simply a person who believes that a supernatural being created all of existence, including life on Earth. If you are a Christian, then you are a creationist by definition.

In common usage, a creationist (short for young-earth creationist) is someone who believes that the earth is about 6,000 years old.To avoid confusion, a theistic evolutionist should not describe himself as a creationist.

 

[moleculo]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

A creationist is simply a person who believes that a supernatural being created all of existence, including life on Earth. If you are a Christian, then you are a creationist by definition.

fair enough. I'm embarrassed by evolution deniers. is that a little more appropriate?

 

[JZilla]

So when MoO says to you, "there's no proof of evolution!" your answer is, "That is correct, sir. Have a good day."

I think it's important for us to distinguish ourselves from creationists by not lying. If we say that a scientific theory has been proven (in order to get it taught in school), we are lying to further our agenda. That's what creationists do; it's not what we should do.We should explain that nothing in science is proven, and ask whether we should therefore stop teaching the theory of gravity.

I know what you meant. I know by nature a scientific theory cannot be proven, only unproven. I think it is clear that jdogg was talking about layman's proof, aka mountains upon mountains of solid evidence. I think this kind of quibbling only provides ammunition to people who assert that evolution should not be taught because it's UNPROVEN. See also this entire thread.

Can't prove Ted Bundy killed all those girls either. Poor guy must have been fried for nothing.

Yes, "proof" means different things in different contexts. In law, proof is a synonym for evidence. The jury found that the state met its burden of proof against Ted Bundy — which means only that Bundy was very likely guilty, not that he was certainly guilty. In math, proof means a logical deduction that implies total certainty. (It doesn't really have a meaning in science; the word is simply not used in a properly scientific context.)When a creationist says that evolutionary theory shouldn't be taught in school because it hasn't been proven, he is likely committing a fallacy of equivocation. His implicit argument probably goes something like this:

1. Evolution hasn't been proven (in the mathematical sense of being established with total certainty).

2. Something shouldn't be taught in school unless it's been proven (in the legal sense of being established with sufficiently convincing evidence).

3. Therefore, evolution shouldn't be taught in school.

He is trying to use both meanings of the word at once to suit different purposes. That's a logical fallacy.

We can call him on that without saying anything that could be construed as overstating our case, however. We can point out that evolutionary theory is supported by absolutely overwhelming evidence, but that science has nothing to do with mathematical or logical proof.

I agree with everything you're saying, but I don't think it's dishonest to use the word "proof" when referring to an abundance of evidence. I think the English language allows for that.

proof/pro͞of/

Noun:

Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

"Gravity is real!" "Prove it!" "*plunk*"Not very scientific but adequate for this particular social conversation, in my opinion. MoO's arguments in particular are based on lack of absolute scientific proof, and while he refuses to address any real points regarding evidence, you can be sure that anyone and everyone who is against the teaching of evolution gains strength and resolve in their position when they see the words Evolution Is Unprovable. Is it true? Of course it is, of all scientific theories. Is it necessary to slap somebody with it when they are speaking accurately in layman's terms on a societal issue? Not to me.

 

[Marvin]

So when MoO says to you, "there's no proof of evolution!" your answer is, "That is correct, sir. Have a good day."

I think it's important for us to distinguish ourselves from creationists by not lying. If we say that a scientific theory has been proven (in order to get it taught in school), we are lying to further our agenda. That's what creationists do; it's not what we should do.We should explain that nothing in science is proven, and ask whether we should therefore stop teaching the theory of gravity.

I know what you meant. I know by nature a scientific theory cannot be proven, only unproven. I think it is clear that jdogg was talking about layman's proof, aka mountains upon mountains of solid evidence. I think this kind of quibbling only provides ammunition to people who assert that evolution should not be taught because it's UNPROVEN. See also this entire thread.

Can't prove Ted Bundy killed all those girls either. Poor guy must have been fried for nothing.

Yes, "proof" means different things in different contexts. In law, proof is a synonym for evidence. The jury found that the state met its burden of proof against Ted Bundy — which means only that Bundy was very likely guilty, not that he was certainly guilty. In math, proof means a logical deduction that implies total certainty. (It doesn't really have a meaning in science; the word is simply not used in a properly scientific context.)When a creationist says that evolutionary theory shouldn't be taught in school because it hasn't been proven, he is likely committing a fallacy of equivocation. His implicit argument probably goes something like this:

1. Evolution hasn't been proven (in the mathematical sense of being established with total certainty).

2. Something shouldn't be taught in school unless it's been proven (in the legal sense of being established with sufficiently convincing evidence).

3. Therefore, evolution shouldn't be taught in school.

He is trying to use both meanings of the word at once to suit different purposes. That's a logical fallacy.

We can call him on that without saying anything that could be construed as overstating our case, however. We can point out that evolutionary theory is supported by absolutely overwhelming evidence, but that science has nothing to do with mathematical or logical proof.

:greatposting:

 

[JZilla]

Doubt I'll have any allies on this and it's probably a battle I should not have chosen but I think you know where I'm coming from. Maybe this is too much serious business to me but growing up poorly educated and having kids of my own, I feel very strongly about the fundies and their negative impact on education. I know you're right but I felt like it was unnecessary to go at jdogg's point with all this. Not a single creationist in here will choose to see the complexity of your point anyway.

No point going round and round about it. You are correct. Evolution is absolutely unprovable. I am an ####### for trying to keep this at the creationists' level. Lets talk some more about infinite past.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

A creationist is simply a person who believes that a supernatural being created all of existence, including life on Earth. If you are a Christian, then you are a creationist by definition.

That's not how the term "creationism" is used in ordinary english.Edit: What MT said.

 

[MasterofOrion]

I've heard many scientists say that calling evolution a theory is like calling gravity a theory. It's entirely provable.

What does that mean?(Neither theory is provable.)

I just proved one of them. Do I get money?

Which one do you think you proved, and how did you prove it?

I think it is worth understanding why the theory of gravity cannot be proven, so I'll take a crack at guessing how a person might think he proved it and then explain why that wouldn't suffice.Suppose you drop an egg. The theory of gravity predicts that it will fall to the ground and make a mess. Suppose this is exactly what happens when you try it. Is the theory proven?

To be sure, your experimental result was exactly what the theory predicted. The theory is thus not disproven. But "proven" and "not disproven" are not the same thing.

For one thing, you can't be sure that your observation really was consistent with the theory. The theory of gravity doesn't simply predict that the egg will fall; it predicts that the egg will fall at a very specific rate. How do you know that the rate wasn't off in this case by 0.0000002% or so? Maybe your experiment did disprove the theory and you didn't even realize it.

More importantly, the theory of gravity doesn't predict simply that a dropped egg might fall toward the ground once in a while. It predicts that it will happen every time. If you can prove the theory of gravity by dropping a few eggs, then I can prove my theory that a roulette ball never lands on red 15 by giving the wheel a few spins. There is in fact no way to prove a universal theory with a finite number of trials.

The most you can say about the theory of gravity is that none of our observations so far are inconsistent with the theory, to the best of our measurements. But that's exactly what we can say about the theory of evolution as well. Both theories have been confirmed and confirmed and confirmed and confirmed — but never proven.

I think you are missing the point on several levels. First you are equating the theory of evolution (TOE) with the theory of gravity . As you mentioned you can drop an egg many times and get the same results. Gravity is testable and you can make predictions with it. That is not true with evolution. You can not test it (for the most part tiktaalik may be an exception) , it is not repeatable and you certainly can make only limited predictions for it. That does not make TOE non-scientific. We have all kinds of sciences that are not repeatable like geology. But for the most part these sciences provide the best explanation for historical facts. For example, we see a lava rock and we know that only volcano's make lava rocks, we can state that lava rock we found was made by a volcano. This is the same logic TOE uses but it also the same logic Intelligent design uses. The point is nobody is saying that you have to prove TOE the same way you prove the theory of gravity for it be taught in school. Historical sciences (paleontology, geology, evolution....) can be taught as long as what they teach is true. There are many new finding in rRNA, retro viruses, new fossils, epigenetics, DNA sequencing .... that are turning our current understanding of evolution on its head. Everything we thought we knew about evolution may be false. So do we teach something when we find it isn't right?

 

[JZilla]

I think you are missing the point on several levels. First you are equating the theory of evolution (TOE) with the theory of gravity . As you mentioned you can drop an egg many times and get the same results. Gravity is testable and you can make predictions with it. That is not true with evolution. You can not test it (for the most part tiktaalik may be an exception) , it is not repeatable and you certainly can make only limited predictions for it. That does not make TOE non-scientific. We have all kinds of sciences that are not repeatable like geology. But for the most part these sciences provide the best explanation for historical facts. For example, we see a lava rock and we know that only volcano's make lava rocks, we can state that lava rock we found was made by a volcano. This is the same logic TOE uses but it also the same logic Intelligent design uses.

The point is nobody is saying that you have to prove TOE the same way you prove the theory of gravity for it be taught in school. Historical sciences (paleontology, geology, evolution....) can be taught as long as what they teach is true. There are many new finding in rRNA, retro viruses, new fossils, epigenetics, DNA sequencing .... that are turning our current understanding of evolution on its head. Everything we thought we knew about evolution may be false. So do we teach something when we find it isn't right?

100% fabrication by youWe should teach kids what we know to be true

 

[CBusAlex]

Gravity is testable and you can make predictions with it. That is not true with evolution. You can not test it (for the most part tiktaalik may be an exception) , it is not repeatable and you certainly can make only limited predictions for it.

This is also not true. The theory of evolution also makes predictions, and those predictions are testable.

 

[MasterofOrion]

I think you are missing the point on several levels. First you are equating the theory of evolution (TOE) with the theory of gravity . As you mentioned you can drop an egg many times and get the same results. Gravity is testable and you can make predictions with it. That is not true with evolution. You can not test it (for the most part tiktaalik may be an exception) , it is not repeatable and you certainly can make only limited predictions for it. That does not make TOE non-scientific. We have all kinds of sciences that are not repeatable like geology. But for the most part these sciences provide the best explanation for historical facts. For example, we see a lava rock and we know that only volcano's make lava rocks, we can state that lava rock we found was made by a volcano. This is the same logic TOE uses but it also the same logic Intelligent design uses.

The point is nobody is saying that you have to prove TOE the same way you prove the theory of gravity for it be taught in school. Historical sciences (paleontology, geology, evolution....) can be taught as long as what they teach is true. There are many new finding in rRNA, retro viruses, new fossils, epigenetics, DNA sequencing .... that are turning our current understanding of evolution on its head. Everything we thought we knew about evolution may be false. So do we teach something when we find it isn't right?

100% fabrication by you FalseWe should teach kids what we know to be true True

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Gravity is testable and you can make predictions with it. That is not true with evolution. You can not test it (for the most part tiktaalik may be an exception) , it is not repeatable and you certainly can make only limited predictions for it.

Haven't we been through this?Evolution makes rather numerous predictions that are constantly being tested — like, every single day.

Skim through this document and note all the times it says "Potential Falsification," and then consider how often that potential has a chance to be realized. Every time a fossil is dug up, every time a new species is observed, evolutionary theory is tested.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Gravity is testable and you can make predictions with it. That is not true with evolution. You can not test it (for the most part tiktaalik may be an exception) , it is not repeatable and you certainly can make only limited predictions for it.

This is also not true. The theory of evolution also makes predictions, and those predictions are testable.

other than tiktaalik when has evolution made a prediction that came out to be true. It makes assumptions after the fact. If it fast evolution did it, If it is slow evolution did it, what we find evolution did it. But it does predict that something will be fast or slow. In fact evolution is mostly a historical science, looking at past events, not future events.

 

[shader]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

A creationist is simply a person who believes that a supernatural being created all of existence, including life on Earth. If you are a Christian, then you are a creationist by definition.

The term "creationist" is generally accepted as 6,000 year-earthers. I don't describe myself as a creationist, though I believe that God created the earth.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

A creationist is simply a person who believes that a supernatural being created all of existence, including life on Earth. If you are a Christian, then you are a creationist by definition.

The term "creationist" is generally accepted as 6,000 year-earthers. I don't describe myself as a creationist, though I believe that God created the earth.

Young Earth Creationist believe the 6000 year old earth. Creationist describes someone who believes that we had a creator.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Gravity is testable and you can make predictions with it. That is not true with evolution. You can not test it (for the most part tiktaalik may be an exception) , it is not repeatable and you certainly can make only limited predictions for it.

Haven't we been through this?Evolution makes rather numerous predictions that are constantly being tested — like, every single day.

Skim through this document and note all the times it says "Potential Falsification," and then consider how often that potential has a chance to be realized. Every time a fossil is dug up, every time a new species is observed, evolutionary theory is tested.

We have MT. But we have but that is a very old website and has not been updated. Things have really changed in the last few years. Epigentics alone is becoming a huge science that changes everything. DNA sequencing as well.BTW finding a rabbit in Cambrian is just a silly test if it has be rabbit. If it is saying we find things out of phase that is another matter because we do find fossils way out of phase. For example, we just found the oldest whale bone. The whale if far more developed than evolution predicted.

 

[shader]

sn0mm1s, Wanted to let you know I'm still planning to do a little research on whales. I have been slammed at work and went to the Scar-Vandy game last night, so I haven't had time to get to it. I don't like posting links and I don't like making assumptions on something I'm not well versed on. I've read articles on whale evolution plenty of times, but I like to refresh myself before I speak. Anyway, just letting you know I didn't forget one of the only pieces of actual scientific information anyone has posted in this thread, and I would still like to have a rational discussion on whale evolution, and not just link-spam you.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Gravity is testable and you can make predictions with it. That is not true with evolution. You can not test it (for the most part tiktaalik may be an exception) , it is not repeatable and you certainly can make only limited predictions for it.

Haven't we been through this?Evolution makes rather numerous predictions that are constantly being tested — like, every single day.

Skim through this document and note all the times it says "Potential Falsification," and then consider how often that potential has a chance to be realized. Every time a fossil is dug up, every time a new species is observed, evolutionary theory is tested.

We have MT. But we have but that is a very old website and has not been updated. Things have really changed in the last few years. Epigentics alone is becoming a huge science that changes everything. DNA sequencing as well.BTW finding a rabbit in Cambrian is just a silly test if it has be rabbit. If it is saying we find things out of phase that is another matter because we do find fossils way out of phase. For example, we just found the oldest whale bone. The whale if far more developed than evolution predicted.

How can that last sentence be true if evolution doesn't make predictions and isn't testable?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

+1

 

[Time Kibitzer]

The point is Dark Matter is not a proven theory. I can't just say that, I have to back it up.

What theory in science is "proven"?

Anything that has the word "law" in its name is close to being proven.

Second law of thermodynamics for example..

What does "close to being proven" mean in a scientific sense?Oh, and you were correct earlier in that saying evolution is not the umbrella, it is more a base. A foundation.

Law is the highest standard in science.. It is well above being a theory. I used the word "close" as hedge, not sure I had to do that.Evolution is not a base or a foundation. In fact it isn't even well defined. It use to mean NDT (neo Darwin Evolution)., where there was a mechanism, mutation plus natural selection, that was involved in making life diverse and gradually more complex. Now all evolution means is change of time. To so mushy a definition that it is anything but a foundation.

Is the above post dishonesty or ignorance or both?

Explain please.Evolution definition has changed over the years. For a very long time is Modern Evolution synthesis or NDT (neo Darwin evolution) was the standard. NDT has failed. We have new modern evolution theories which goes by the term Evo Devo. We also have found out that switches, found in what we thought was junk DNA, are very important to heritable change- this is called epigenetics. We also have found that by gene sequencing, mapping the DNA, that horizontal gene transfer is rampant at the lower levels and convergent evolution is rampant at higher levels. This has really screwed up homology and the tree of life. Example, Look at this question from a creationist web site which shows how the Tree of Life is really messed up. Truth is we don't have a known mechanism that makes organisms more complex over time. We have lots of ideas, but nothing to support why life evolved.

So the question is, what is evolution over and beyond change over time?

I think what you are failing to realize about the different evolutionary theories (neo-Darwinian modern synthesis, Evo Devo, gene-culture co-evolution, etc.) is that they ALL take it as fact that evolution HAS/IS/DOES happen, they just differentiate in how they think evolution goes about happening. Just because some scientists disagree about how evolution goes about occurring, it doesn't imply that there is any doubt among scientists that evolution does occur. So if your question is simply "What is evolution over and beyond change over time?", I'd advise going to wiki here, and pretty well everything under Key Topics and Processes and Outcomes 90+% of scientists would most likely agree on.

 

[Bull Dozier]

Gravity is testable and you can make predictions with it. That is not true with evolution. You can not test it (for the most part tiktaalik may be an exception) , it is not repeatable and you certainly can make only limited predictions for it.

Haven't we been through this?Evolution makes rather numerous predictions that are constantly being tested — like, every single day.

Skim through this document and note all the times it says "Potential Falsification," and then consider how often that potential has a chance to be realized. Every time a fossil is dug up, every time a new species is observed, evolutionary theory is tested.

We have MT. But we have but that is a very old website and has not been updated. Things have really changed in the last few years. Epigentics alone is becoming a huge science that changes everything. DNA sequencing as well.BTW finding a rabbit in Cambrian is just a silly test if it has be rabbit. If it is saying we find things out of phase that is another matter because we do find fossils way out of phase. For example, we just found the oldest whale bone. The whale if far more developed than evolution predicted.

How can that last sentence be true if evolution doesn't make predictions and isn't testable?

Ouch.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

A creationist is simply a person who believes that a supernatural being created all of existence, including life on Earth. If you are a Christian, then you are a creationist by definition.

The term "creationist" is generally accepted as 6,000 year-earthers. I don't describe myself as a creationist, though I believe that God created the earth.

Young Earth Creationist believe the 6000 year old earth. Creationist describes someone who believes that we had a creator.

Not in this context. When the topic is evolution, describing someone as a "creationist" means that the person disbelieves in evolution. People like me (theists who fully accept evolution) aren't on the "creationist" side here.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

A creationist is simply a person who believes that a supernatural being created all of existence, including life on Earth. If you are a Christian, then you are a creationist by definition.

The term "creationist" is generally accepted as 6,000 year-earthers. I don't describe myself as a creationist, though I believe that God created the earth.

Young Earth Creationist believe the 6000 year old earth. Creationist describes someone who believes that we had a creator.

Not in this context. When the topic is evolution, describing someone as a "creationist" means that the person disbelieves in evolution. People like me (theists who fully accept evolution) aren't on the "creationist" side here.

So you don't think we had a creator?

 

[jon_mx]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

A creationist is simply a person who believes that a supernatural being created all of existence, including life on Earth. If you are a Christian, then you are a creationist by definition.

The term "creationist" is generally accepted as 6,000 year-earthers. I don't describe myself as a creationist, though I believe that God created the earth.

Young Earth Creationist believe the 6000 year old earth. Creationist describes someone who believes that we had a creator.

Not in this context. When the topic is evolution, describing someone as a "creationist" means that the person disbelieves in evolution. People like me (theists who fully accept evolution) aren't on the "creationist" side here.

So you don't think we had a creator?

Believing there is intelligent design (creator) isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with believing in evolution

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

A creationist is simply a person who believes that a supernatural being created all of existence, including life on Earth. If you are a Christian, then you are a creationist by definition.

The term "creationist" is generally accepted as 6,000 year-earthers. I don't describe myself as a creationist, though I believe that God created the earth.

Young Earth Creationist believe the 6000 year old earth. Creationist describes someone who believes that we had a creator.

Not in this context. When the topic is evolution, describing someone as a "creationist" means that the person disbelieves in evolution. People like me (theists who fully accept evolution) aren't on the "creationist" side here.

So you don't think we had a creator?

Believing there is intelligent design (creator) isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with believing in evolution

Do you believe that god did anything to advance us along from being a single cell to where we are now?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

A creationist is simply a person who believes that a supernatural being created all of existence, including life on Earth. If you are a Christian, then you are a creationist by definition.

The term "creationist" is generally accepted as 6,000 year-earthers. I don't describe myself as a creationist, though I believe that God created the earth.

Young Earth Creationist believe the 6000 year old earth. Creationist describes someone who believes that we had a creator.

Not in this context. When the topic is evolution, describing someone as a "creationist" means that the person disbelieves in evolution. People like me (theists who fully accept evolution) aren't on the "creationist" side here.

So you don't think we had a creator?

Yes, I do. Many of us don't consider that belief to be in conflict with evolution.Edit: In other words, when you ask a Christian "Why does anything exist rather than nothing?" the answer is generally "God." It's in that theological sense that all Christians refer to God as a "the creator." Only a subset of Christians also believe in creationism as opposed to evolution.

 

[moleculo]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

What I truly do not understand is how and when creationism became so intertwined with Christianity in general. An attack on creationism is not necessarily an attack on Christianity.

It baffled me for a long time, too. Then I realized the creationism vs. evolution debate isn't really about science. The most vocal and vitriolic on the evolution side of the debate aren't advocating expanded acceptance of evolutionary biology as much as they want fewer people to believe in God. (1) Evolutionary biology is just another weapon to use in their war against religion. That's why so many supposed advocates of evolutionary biology don't want to acknowledge theistic evolution is a real view, much less the official position of most of the larger Christian denominations. If you really wanted to just expand knowledge of evolutionary biology, wouldn't it be prudent to pursue an avenue that wouldn't force someone to choose between science and religion when such a choice isn't necessary? Exactly.

The most frequently committed error by agents of change who take on the church is allow the debate to escalate into a referendum on organized religion. That's why the first pass at legalizing gay marriage failed in most states. Version 2.0 of the pro-gay-marriage campaigns are focusing more on the importance of correcting a previous error in rights distribution, and less on demonizing churches. They've gone from just saying that legalizing gay marriage won't affect churches to behaving in a way that shows that would actually be the case if the law changed. On this election cycle, there are even pro-gay-marriage coalitions that include churches. The old rhetoric never would have accomplished that.

There is a win-win solution for expanding acceptance of evolutionary biology. The question for both sides is, are you willing to set aside your hatred long enough to get it?

-----------

(1) This is the part where I preemptively acknowledge many biologists have no axe to grind against organized religion, nor any agenda beyond learning more about how living things live, adapt, and change. I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about the people with no formal higher education in science and appeal to biologists' authority without understanding it, yet want to use it to show religious people how dumb they are for being religious. They're like that Cobra Kai flunky standing behind the alpha, yelling "PUT HIM IN A BODY BAG, BILL NYE! YEAH!"

well said.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

A creationist is simply a person who believes that a supernatural being created all of existence, including life on Earth. If you are a Christian, then you are a creationist by definition.

The term "creationist" is generally accepted as 6,000 year-earthers. I don't describe myself as a creationist, though I believe that God created the earth.

Young Earth Creationist believe the 6000 year old earth. Creationist describes someone who believes that we had a creator.

Not in this context. When the topic is evolution, describing someone as a "creationist" means that the person disbelieves in evolution. People like me (theists who fully accept evolution) aren't on the "creationist" side here.

So you don't think we had a creator?

Yes, I do. Many of us don't consider that belief to be in conflict with evolution.Edit: In other words, when you ask a Christian "Why does anything exist rather than nothing?" the answer is generally "God." It's in that theological sense that all Christians refer to God as a "the creator." Only a subset of Christians also believe in creationism as opposed to evolution.

To clarify, you believe god had nothing at all to do with the entire process of evolution but you believe god 'sparked' life? If so, then I'd agree that that isn't creationism. Evolution says nothing about how life came to be. But to believe that, you have to completely disregard genesis.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

What I truly do not understand is how and when creationism became so intertwined with Christianity in general. An attack on creationism is not necessarily an attack on Christianity.

It baffled me for a long time, too. Then I realized the creationism vs. evolution debate isn't really about science. The most vocal and vitriolic on the evolution side of the debate aren't advocating expanded acceptance of evolutionary biology as much as they want fewer people to believe in God. (1) Evolutionary biology is just another weapon to use in their war against religion. That's why so many supposed advocates of evolutionary biology don't want to acknowledge theistic evolution is a real view, much less the official position of most of the larger Christian denominations. If you really wanted to just expand knowledge of evolutionary biology, wouldn't it be prudent to pursue an avenue that wouldn't force someone to choose between science and religion when such a choice isn't necessary? Exactly.

The most frequently committed error by agents of change who take on the church is allow the debate to escalate into a referendum on organized religion. That's why the first pass at legalizing gay marriage failed in most states. Version 2.0 of the pro-gay-marriage campaigns are focusing more on the importance of correcting a previous error in rights distribution, and less on demonizing churches. They've gone from just saying that legalizing gay marriage won't affect churches to behaving in a way that shows that would actually be the case if the law changed. On this election cycle, there are even pro-gay-marriage coalitions that include churches. The old rhetoric never would have accomplished that.

There is a win-win solution for expanding acceptance of evolutionary biology. The question for both sides is, are you willing to set aside your hatred long enough to get it?

-----------

(1) This is the part where I preemptively acknowledge many biologists have no axe to grind against organized religion, nor any agenda beyond learning more about how living things live, adapt, and change. I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about the people with no formal higher education in science and appeal to biologists' authority without understanding it, yet want to use it to show religious people how dumb they are for being religious. They're like that Cobra Kai flunky standing behind the alpha, yelling "PUT HIM IN A BODY BAG, BILL NYE! YEAH!"

There are lunatics, nutjobs, and overzealous peddlers of belief systems in all areas of human life. It's human nature. Perhaps I misunderstood your post but it seems you believe we should ignore science and facts if some people use said evidence to attack religion?

 

[Time Kibitzer]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

What I truly do not understand is how and when creationism became so intertwined with Christianity in general. An attack on creationism is not necessarily an attack on Christianity.

It baffled me for a long time, too. Then I realized the creationism vs. evolution debate isn't really about science. The most vocal and vitriolic on the evolution side of the debate aren't advocating expanded acceptance of evolutionary biology as much as they want fewer people to believe in God. (1) Evolutionary biology is just another weapon to use in their war against religion. That's why so many supposed advocates of evolutionary biology don't want to acknowledge theistic evolution is a real view, much less the official position of most of the larger Christian denominations. If you really wanted to just expand knowledge of evolutionary biology, wouldn't it be prudent to pursue an avenue that wouldn't force someone to choose between science and religion when such a choice isn't necessary? Exactly.

There is a win-win solution for expanding acceptance of evolutionary biology. The question for both sides is, are you willing to set aside your hatred long enough to get it?

I don't think advocates of evolutionary biology don't acknowledge that theistic evolution is a real view, so much so as that they saying there is no room for the idea of theistic evolution to be brought up in a science classroom, and rightfully so imo. There is no room for theistic talk in a science classroom given it's faith based and non-evidence based nature. And I also don't see how teaching someone about evolution by itself implies the lack of existence of a god, so the only people it forces to choose between science and religion is really the young world creationists.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The most vocal and vitriolic on the evolution side of the debate aren't advocating expanded acceptance of evolutionary biology as much as they want fewer people to believe in God.

Some of the most vocal on the evolution side of the debate are devout Christians.

 

[Topes]

Lots of folks getting sucked in by a satire site today.

 

[matuski]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

What I truly do not understand is how and when creationism became so intertwined with Christianity in general. An attack on creationism is not necessarily an attack on Christianity.

Surely this isn't that hard to understand?Has there ever been a non-Christian that pushed the bible's version of creation into our schools?

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

What I truly do not understand is how and when creationism became so intertwined with Christianity in general. An attack on creationism is not necessarily an attack on Christianity.

Surely this isn't that hard to understand?Has there ever been a non-Christian that pushed the bible's version of creation into our schools?

Either you missed my point or I'm missing yours. Plenty of Christians believe in evolution. I assume those Christians also believe in The Bible. Simply because one is a Christian doesn't mean they want to shove the stupidity that is Creationism down everyone's throat.

 

[matuski]

The most vocal and vitriolic on the evolution side of the debate aren't advocating expanded acceptance of evolutionary biology as much as they want fewer people to believe in God.

Some of the most vocal on the evolution side of the debate are devout Christians.

Does the truth require expanded acceptance? This isn't a religion.

 

[matuski]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

What I truly do not understand is how and when creationism became so intertwined with Christianity in general. An attack on creationism is not necessarily an attack on Christianity.

Surely this isn't that hard to understand?Has there ever been a non-Christian that pushed the bible's version of creation into our schools?

Either you missed my point or I'm missing yours. Plenty of Christians believe in evolution. I assume those Christians also believe in The Bible. Simply because one is a Christian doesn't mean they want to shove the stupidity that is Creationism down everyone's throat.

I understand, I'm just saying that obviously the two are intertwined due to the fact one arose from the other.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

To clarify, you believe god had nothing at all to do with the entire process of evolution but you believe god 'sparked' life? If so, then I'd agree that that isn't creationism. Evolution says nothing about how life came to be. But to believe that, you have to completely disregard genesis.

I'm not sure what you mean by "completely disregarding" Genesis. If you mean that you have to disregard a slavishly literal reading of Genesis, then sure, but the first several chapters of Genesis (and probably the entire book IMO) were never meant to be taken literally in the first place. There's nothing in the theory of evolution that requires a person to disregard the message of Genesis that you get from a non-literal reading, making it similar to Job and Johah.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I'm a conservative and a Christian and I am thoroughly embarrassed by creationists.

What I truly do not understand is how and when creationism became so intertwined with Christianity in general. An attack on creationism is not necessarily an attack on Christianity.

Surely this isn't that hard to understand?Has there ever been a non-Christian that pushed the bible's version of creation into our schools?

Either you missed my point or I'm missing yours. Plenty of Christians believe in evolution. I assume those Christians also believe in The Bible. Simply because one is a Christian doesn't mean they want to shove the stupidity that is Creationism down everyone's throat.

I understand, I'm just saying that obviously the two are intertwined due to the fact one arose from the other.

Gotcha. Yes, Creationism rose from Christianity. But lots of weird things offshoot from a main branch. What's baffling isn't that Creationism became popular among a few lunatics but that it's become relatively popular in America as a whole. I admit it's possible these folks have always existed as a much larger percent of the population than any of us realize and they're simply coming out of the woodwork.

 

[matuski]

To clarify, you believe god had nothing at all to do with the entire process of evolution but you believe god 'sparked' life? If so, then I'd agree that that isn't creationism. Evolution says nothing about how life came to be. But to believe that, you have to completely disregard genesis.

I'm not sure what you mean by "completely disregarding" Genesis. If you mean that you have to disregard a slavishly literal reading of Genesis, then sure, but the first several chapters of Genesis (and probably the entire book IMO) were never meant to be taken literally in the first place. There's nothing in the theory of evolution that requires a person to disregard the message of Genesis that you get from a non-literal reading, making it similar to Job and Johah.

This thread and this topic would not exist if Christians were able to agree on this. Your post of course makes perfect sense, but then we get folks like shader and golddigger who are going to fight to the death before allowing themselves to consider your position.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Gravity is testable and you can make predictions with it. That is not true with evolution. You can not test it (for the most part tiktaalik may be an exception) , it is not repeatable and you certainly can make only limited predictions for it.

Haven't we been through this?Evolution makes rather numerous predictions that are constantly being tested — like, every single day.

Skim through this document and note all the times it says "Potential Falsification," and then consider how often that potential has a chance to be realized. Every time a fossil is dug up, every time a new species is observed, evolutionary theory is tested.

We have MT. But we have but that is a very old website and has not been updated. Things have really changed in the last few years. Epigentics alone is becoming a huge science that changes everything. DNA sequencing as well.BTW finding a rabbit in Cambrian is just a silly test if it has be rabbit. If it is saying we find things out of phase that is another matter because we do find fossils way out of phase. For example, we just found the oldest whale bone. The whale if far more developed than evolution predicted.

How can that last sentence be true if evolution doesn't make predictions and isn't testable?

Easy, Evolution evolves. You can't disprove evolution anymore than you can nail jello to the wall. Finding a whale out of sequence doesn't disprove evolution to evolutionist. Evolutionists takes the new information and adapts and rework the script. This is exactly why evolution can not be falsified. There is nothing hard and fast with evolution that can not be adapted to fit into a script. In other words it is a concept rather than a theory.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

To clarify, you believe god had nothing at all to do with the entire process of evolution but you believe god 'sparked' life? If so, then I'd agree that that isn't creationism. Evolution says nothing about how life came to be. But to believe that, you have to completely disregard genesis.

I'm not sure what you mean by "completely disregarding" Genesis. If you mean that you have to disregard a slavishly literal reading of Genesis, then sure, but the first several chapters of Genesis (and probably the entire book IMO) were never meant to be taken literally in the first place. There's nothing in the theory of evolution that requires a person to disregard the message of Genesis that you get from a non-literal reading, making it similar to Job and Johah.

That is that baffles me about religion. How do you pick and choose what stuff is literal and which isn't? You don't take god creating everything as literal but I assume you take the virgin birth as literal.You say that you don't take it literally, but others surely do. Who is right?