Delphi User Said: Evolution is a theory, based on facts most religions are philosophies of men, backed up by scripture.
Dante Alighieri replied: It is also a fact in that there is the well-supported observation of evolution, both directly and indirectly.
You mean we’re here, so we evolved? I hope it’s not that simplistic for you.
Dante Alighieri replied: I don't understand this sentence though: "Evolution is a theory, based on facts most religions are philosophies of men, backed up by scripture." I know it's English but I haven't clue what you just said.
Evolution, much like a religion is a theory backed up by facts. Evolution is not a fact, because we can’t prove or disprove that we evolved from goo in the sea.
Delphi User said, 'First, I challenge you to show me a single instance of observed “speciation” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speciation Evolution within a species is not speciation, show us something that has evolved to the point there it is not genetically compatible with its grandmother.'
Dante Alighieri replied: Simple: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
I went, I read, What a pant load!
This is an example of the 'Stuff' on this site.
!!!begin cut
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
End Cut!!!
Cross breeding in Laboratory is not Evolution being observed in nature.
I did not read the whole site, I got bored over the repetitive “Experiments” which would produce sterile results, or breed back into the original species being presented as 'Proof it happened in nature' and stuck.
Nice try.
Dante Alighieri Said: You realize that the Law is a mathematical description of the tendency for objects will mass to accelerate towards each other, and that the theory is an explanation of that phenomenon - right?
Yes, I am the one who pointed out that Laws exist, theorys are creted to try to explain them. Your problem is that you have stated there is enough evidence to “Prove” evolution right. Good Luck.
Dante Alighieri Said: What do you mean precisely by "measurable?" Are you referring to rates of evolution or what?
If I drop a ball off of a building, and I know the exact height of the building, I can predict how long it will take the ball to reach the ground. IF Evolution were predictable we should be able to figure out where and when the next species will appear, and get photos.
Instead, we get “Well you have this fossil, then a miracle happens and 1.23460983 million years later we get this fossil that looks completely different, because this guy on the other side of the world evolved from the first guy, and… hey, why are you laughing back there, don’t you know this is irrefutable?”
Sorry, I couldn’t even fake this fakery seriously (Grin)
Dante Alighieri Said: Proof is non-existent in science though.
Proof: The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proofs
Most science have proof, atomic science has proof, math has proof, quantum physics has proof (Those are formulas that allow them to predict what will happen next to the last decimal place the instruments are good for (That is why Einstein was able to correct Newton, better instruments)
I don’t care what searches you did or will do, they are all papers on people trying to prove what you just said was un-provable, and for evolution, for now it is un-provable.
Dante Alighieri Said: Things can be simultaneously laws and theories - ergo, gravitation.
Here we go again, gravity is a LAW, and there are many THEORIES about it. Just because you have a theory about a law does not make your theory law nor does the reverse happen.
Things do not go both ways in reality, bicycles rust, rust never turns into bicycles.
Dante Alighieri Said: However, theories are the goals of science - explaining the observations.
Proof is the goal of science, something you have dismissed as impossible.
“Scientists dream great dreams, Engineers accomplish them.” – James Mitchners Space.
You sir are a true scientist.
"You mean we’re here, so we evolved? I hope it’s not that simplistic for you."
No; I'm referring to observed speciation, fossil evidence, comparative genomics, etc.
"Evolution, much like a religion is a theory backed up by facts. Evolution is not a fact, because we can’t prove or disprove that we evolved from goo in the sea."
Proof doesn't exist in science; evolution is a theory not a religion. Evolution does not address the origin of life. It addresses the diversity of life.
"I went, I read, What a pant load!
This is an example of the 'Stuff' on this site.
!!!begin cut
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
End Cut!!!
Cross breeding in Laboratory is not Evolution being observed in nature.
I did not read the whole site, I got bored over the repetitive “Experiments” which would produce sterile results, or breed back into the original species being presented as 'Proof it happened in nature' and stuck.
Nice try."
You want specific examples? Heard of ring species? Or, maybe mosquitoes? (Byrne, K. and R. A. Nichols, 1999. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity 82: 7-15.) By the way, proof is non-existent in science.
"Yes, I am the one who pointed out that Laws exist, theorys are creted to try to explain them. Your problem is that you have stated there is enough evidence to “Prove” evolution right. Good Luck."
No. You got it wrong. Laws describe the fact. Theories explain facts. Theories can incorporate laws to explain the facts, but they do not attempt to explain the laws. Proof is non-existent in science. There exists plenty of evidence for evolution. Maybe you should read Theobald's article. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)
"If I drop a ball off of a building, and I know the exact height of the building, I can predict how long it will take the ball to reach the ground. IF Evolution were predictable we should be able to figure out where and when the next species will appear, and get photos.
Instead, we get 'Well you have this fossil, then a miracle happens and 1.23460983 million years later we get this fossil that looks completely different, because this guy on the other side of the world evolved from the first guy, and… hey, why are you laughing back there, don’t you know this is irrefutable?'"
Sure evolution makes predictions. Haven't you heard of the predicted chromosomal fusion in humans, the prediction that trilobites would be found in the Pre-Siluran layer, or Darwin's prediction of PE?
"Most science have proof, atomic science has proof, math has proof, quantum physics has proof (Those are formulas that allow them to predict what will happen next to the last decimal place the instruments are good for (That is why Einstein was able to correct Newton, better instruments)
I don’t care what searches you did or will do, they are all papers on people trying to prove what you just said was un-provable, and for evolution, for now it is un-provable."
At no time does a scientists accept his research as true. If it were true, it would not be subject to change nor correction. However, that isn't the case. He make be confident that his results are accurate, but not true. Proof is non-existent in science. It does however exist in math.
"Here we go again, gravity is a LAW, and there are many THEORIES about it. Just because you have a theory about a law does not make your theory law nor does the reverse happen.
Things do not go both ways in reality, bicycles rust, rust never turns into bicycles."
Wrong. There is Newton's Law of Gravitation. His theory of Gravitation however was replaced with General Relativity. Motion wasn't absolute, etc. I'm not suggesting that the theory becomes a law or vice versa. What I'm saying is that things can be both laws and theories. If Gravity were just a law, it would be poor science as all we would be doing is describe gravitation but not actually explain it.
"Proof is the goal of science, something you have dismissed as impossible."
No it isn't. Theories are. Science attempt to explain natural phenomena around us. Theories are systems of explanations of the natural world. What are you talking about?
"'Scientists dream great dreams, Engineers accomplish them.' – James Mitchners Space.
You sir are a true scientist."
If the scientists hadn't done research in the first place, engineers would have nothing to apply. What are you talking about?