Really! Have you seen this DNA with your own eyes? Did it look like this ?
Posted on 01/13/2006 8:24:51 PM PST by WatchYourself
How can someone observe, study or experiment on evolution? Evolution is the process of something moving from one stage of development to another. What do we really have to scientifically prove evolution?
A scientist might have a fossil, but we can only speculate as to the age and appearance of the animal creating that fossil. No one has ever witnessed evolution of life, no one here now was there to observe, study and experiment. Like it or not, we can only form theories and beliefs about what might have been. As sound as these theories might be, they are and will always be theories. Evolution is simply a system of belief based on what we think might have happened. Those who believe in evolution have faith in the scientist’s abilities to speculate and imagine what might have been. This is not science. This is faith.
It is time we removed the phony and inaccurate label of ‘science’ from evolution and see it for what it really is - a religion, based on faith and a system of belief. If public schools are not allowed to teach religion, then the theories of evolution have no place in a public school classroom. If they are allowed to teach theories based on faith, like evolution, then creationism should be taught also.
(Excerpt) Read more at capitolhilljournal.com ...
Non-sequitur. Demonstrating that scientific theories that rely upon or conclude an ancient universe are false would not, in any way, demonstrate the existence of any deities. Evidence for the existence of a deity must stand or fall on its own merits
Other websites by Vexen
Read / Write commentsOntological Proof of God
(Descartes and St Anselm)
By Vexen Crabtree 2004 Nov 22
Descartes' (1596-1650CE) and St Anselm's formations of an Ontological Argument for the Existence of God is a traditional philosophical "proof" that has a number of flaws with it but is well-known and still referred to. It is primarily a "proof" that theists use to defend their own position than it is one that would be used to logically convince someone that a god must exist.
Descartes' Ontological Proof of God
Problem One: Solipsism
Problem Two: Perfection
Problem Three: Inherently Satanic
Problem Four: Ambiguous
Misc.
Conclusion
Couldn't both be true? More than one was created
- In chapter 1, animals were created BEFORE man. In chapter 2, animals were created AFTER man.
Again couldn't both be true? Animals were created, then man, then more animals?
- In chapter 1, birds (fowl) were created out of the water. In chapter 2, they were created out of the ground.
Again couldn't both be true?
Evolutionists even admit that evolution is only a theory
A theory requires proof by definition. It is not a opinion.
True
You should add that evolution is independent of how life got somewhere.
For example, if we were to introduce some sort of bacteria or lichen to Mars, it would evolve just as though it had originated there. It can't help it.
As long as life is reproducing, has heritable variation, and the environment favors the survival of some but not all, evolution happens.
You've not heard of scientific 'laws', like the 'law of gravity'? Gravity is observable; evolution is not. You doubt that gravity is a 'law'?
That you pull the "only a theory" line despite having told over and over again that a "theory" implies an explanation that has withstood rigourous testing and has amassed significant amounts of evidence demonstrates that you are fundamentally dishonest.
And just who has conducted this rigorous testing of evolution? No one has observed evolution actually occurring, especially macro evolution.
Something isn't true just because you claim it to be so; is it? What makes you so sure you are not the one who is being 'fundamentally dishonest'? Either that, or you are simply ignorant of the principles of logic.
There is considerable speculation involved weith evolution. evolutionists can provide any proof of transitional life forms (BTW, why would a 'transition form not be a 'new' life form?). Evolutionists can only predict that they will be found at some point. Talk about faith, or eould that be wild speculation?
Back in the day, during my brief career as a debater of creationists, I used to develop reasonably friendly relations with them, and I attended a few of their meetings, which often resembled some sort of nineteenth century amateur science society, ironically enough. During one of these small gatherings, a creationist lecturer was detailing the argument from design, and fell upon the particular example of the maple leaf seed, which is aerodynamically "designed" to fall in its familar manner. He contrasted this with a rock, which ( and these were his words ) JUST HAPPENED.
I was galvanized, and breaching all decorum, I confronted him immediately - "Here you say a rock JUST HAPPENED ..." etc. etc. I don't remember my exact statement, but I certainly wasn't going to let this pass.
This didn't phase him at all, and he immediately retrenched, "Well, of course, I believe in the flood ..." etc. etc. but to me these were hollow words. The cat was out of the bag.
But what gave that bacteria life?
Your ignorance as to the definition of a a term as basic as 'scientific theory' disqualifies you as anyone to be taken seriously in this debate. Are you really that ignorant?
To be a theory, it must be testable. Evolution is not testable. Since it is not testable, evolution fits much better within the definition of a scientific model than a theory.
BTW, I also consider ID/creation to be a model since neither of those are testable, either. At least I am intellectually honest in that regard. You on the other hand, are simply uninformed.
Certainly does seem strange, could you post a link or book title where the evidence is laid out?
And just who has conducted this rigorous testing of evolution?
Well, it started with Aristotle so you have a lot to catch up on.
I'm SO glad you asked...
The way that science is being taught in the U.S. (and indeed, in much of the West) is abysmal. Theory may be well tested, but it is still theory. Fact is fact, a documented occurrence or artifact. A bone in my hand is a fact. The DNA from that bone is a fact. These facts are able to support theory, but in true science theory is supposed to follow fact - theory should not "shut out" fact simply because is does not fit the model theory which has been adopted. This is most evident in the "global warming" theory which has been put forward as fact, taught as fact, and embraced as fact, facts be damned. In reality, any science which might accompany the debate on global warming is nullified by the dogma of having adopted a theory without searching for the facts - even if the facts do NOT support one's pet theory.
The study of climatology would be far better off if we could really look at the facts and and develop theory from them, rather than push a pet theory and dismiss all facts but the ones that support the pet theory. So too it is with any science. My mother is a physicist, my father is an engineer, so let me eludicate: this has always been a problem. The study of physics has become bogged down over the years because of the pet theories of one person or another, when in reality the data is so rich right now that one perhaps should spend less time defending theory and more time developing it from the data coming in. IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE that antiquated theories developed over the last century in physics are blown away when one factors in deep space phenomena. (On the other hand, when approached with an open mind, it is amazing how many times early physicists were right on the money!)
Likewise, in Engineering, specifically with the space program, much grief has been caused by agendas interfering with good engineering - it is difficult to design a space craft with maximum safety for human beings when the primary concern of the agency is to embrace "green" foams designed to fit in with faulty greenhouse gas/aerosol theories advanced by ecologists.
In medicine, it is hard to advance the common good of millions in the third world when the ruling bodies ban DDT and deny first world technologies to third-worlders because of faulty global warming theory. Science suffers when dogma takes over.
So too it is with evolution. Linear evolution is being challenged in the field, but you would never know it in the classrooms. Early hominid lines are stretching back further and further, and the indications are of parallism in evolution rather than linearism. So why is it that this is not being taught? Why is it that this information is disavowed in favor of outdated, antiquated theory? It is because it is easier to teach dogma than it is to teach science. If science is truly the goal, then the fossils should be laid upon the table, and theory should be matched with the facts - THEN the facts can be matched with theory if science supports that.
We are doing this in some areas, most specifically with genetic studies. The reason? It is a new science, and the discoveries are rolling in so fast that it is almost impossible to put forward a static, unchanging view of DNA, genetic mutation, or genetic manipulation. If we did so, and did not allow and further discussion of new and challenging material, it would be the end of the science of gene manipulation - and it would spell the death of genetic research.
This has happened to origin studies in Biology. Anything relating to the study of early hominids is relegated to dogma - it must fit with the officially held view, and none must question or introduce anything that challenges linear evolution. In higher circles, any whiff of deviation from the official view is met with censorship, even though new discoveries and new ways of envisioning the development of Man might advance the theory of Evolution in new and unusual ways. So paranoid is this line of thought, my discussion of the theory of Evolution here was considered to be "anti-science" even though, in truth, I consider myself to be an aficionado of anthropology and an amateur paleontologist.
I object to antiquated, outdated, and frankly sometimes wrong information being presented as science simply because it has become "official". The day that governments take an "official" position on science, and stifle discussion or discovery, is the day science dies...
They have killed any discussion on anything but the official position of evolution, and in doing so, have turned the science of Origin into dogma.
That's nothing. Once I saw a semi-trailer with the registration number, 65536 .
And just where did Aristotle get his training in micro or molecular biology?
Agreed.
connectthedots said "To be a theory, it must be testable. Evolution is not testable. Since it is not testable, evolution fits much better within the definition of a scientific model than a theory."
How is evolution not testable? The main pretext of evolution is that every once in a while, a genetic strain will appear that is more suitable to survival. Gregor Mendel, that underappreciated monk, proved without a doubt that certain genetic traits can be passed on from pea plant to pea plant, thereby loosely proving that advantageous genetic traits will be passed on to offspring. This passing on will, in turn, give the offspring with the genetic advantage a better cahnce for survival, or the tools to outcompete plants of inferior genentic makeup. Survival of the fittest at its most basic.
SotF is the primary precept behind the concept of evolution, yet you state that evolution is "untestable" and go so far as to belittle someone else? Fantastic.
Explain to me how, exactly, you consider evolution to be "untestable".
You've not heard of scientific 'laws', like the 'law of gravity'? Gravity is observable; evolution is not. You doubt that gravity is a 'law'?
This demonstrates your ignorance. A law is merely an observation of fact. A theory is the explanation of the facts. Theories are generally held in higher regard than laws. This is partially because many scientific "laws" don't always hold true. Newton's laws are a good example of this, including Newton's "law of gravity".
I don't trouble m'self too much about how that was. It's a miracle.
But when I was about ten years old, I started discovering fossils in shale along the faultline that runs through Portsmouth RI. Collected samples of about half a dozen ferns and leaves over the course of a summer.
I did a little reading and found out that these types of fossils and the shale were pegged at about 56 million years-old....Carboniferous Era.
One day it occurred to me that some of this 56 million year-old rock I was splitting had what seemed to be organic remains of the plant membranes in them...greeny stuff. Many were more with crystalline deposits...sort of asbestos-or pyrite-looking material. But others had goo....green goo... that I could wipe away...like fresh grass stains.
I started to wonder just how old this rock and these fossils were, so I was spurred to make a survey of the plants growing around the area to see how many specimens I could find that 'matched' or at least closely resembled the fossil imprints I was finding in split 56 million year-old shale.
That year in grammar school, I put together a science project that displayed the fossils and their counterparts I found growing in the same area.
The teachers were scratching their heads. It was rumored that I had talent as a sculptor...that I fabricated the fossils. Except for my science teacher, who knew the fossils were authentic...we later went together to collect more....and just shrugged his shoulders as to how it could be that several 56 million year-old fossils were still growing, and that seemingly organic material remained in some discoveries. He related that we don't know more than we know.
Since, I've become aware of Creationist assertions that fossils are not as old as the geologists say....largely poo-pooed by real geeks in white lab coats. I don't know...nor do I care much. But I think there's some merit in the argument, based on what I saw.
My story...stickin' too it.
If you're a fossil expert, I'm still curious about the explanation for my observations. I never did become a fossil scientist. I got into a band. There were girls.
Really! Have you seen this DNA with your own eyes? Did it look like this ?
To be a theory, it must be testable. Evolution is not testable. Since it is not testable, evolution fits much better within the definition of a scientific model than a theory.
You are a legend in your own mind and thats a pretty big handicap.
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
by Laurence Moran
Copyright © 1993-2002
[Last Update: January 22, 1993]
When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
Also:
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
Also:
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:
A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15
There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.
There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.
We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."
In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.
Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.
The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....
So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.