and also the one used by scientists in my field

Your field must focus on a narrow aspect or application of the theory then.

I do not understand the noun to which your 'that' is referring.

I was responding to your inclusion of the definition aprt in this sentence. maybe I misunderstood:

Furthermore, experiments could be and have been devised to disprove every aspect of the theory of evolution and - importantly, for the definition of a theory - none has yet.

I would also like to ask why you're focused on natural selection.

I'm not. I use the term because it duistuinguishes the scientific and non scientific parts of the theory in a way that most people can grasp easily. That is, I am focussing on those aspects of the theory that are not part of the theory of natural selection.

The phrase 'scientific theory' makes no sense; what other kind of theories are there

Scientific refers to the modern scientific method. Scientific theories can be tested with the modern scientific method.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/science-methodology.html

Scientific theories can be distuinguished from mathematical theories, which are the only ones that can be proven in the strictest sense, historical theories, which are based on limited information and more difficult to resolve, theological, philosophical, metaphysical, etc.

So is the question: "is evolution scientific"

yes.

It is also a fact.

From a scientific perspective, the term fact is meaningless, unless it refers in the simplest sense to direct observations, but even then it is on shaky grounds.

 [ send green star]

That's a rather unusual way to define it.

To the lay community it may seem unusual or lacking; however, that's the primary definition I've been taught for years and also the one used by scientists in my field.

You can't devise an experiment to test that. That is absurd.

I'm sorry, but I do not understand the noun to which your 'that' is referring. I and/or others can't devise an experiment to test what?

I would also like to ask why you're focused on natural selection. Evolution is not natural selection. Natural selection is one of the four forces of evolution (according to current theory) - what about the other three?

It seems to me that the question, "is evolution a scientific theory" doesn't make sense. The phrase 'scientific theory' makes no sense; what other kind of theories are there? So is the question: "is evolution scientific", or "is evolution a theory"?

In closing: "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 do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome. And human beings evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered." - SJG

- orfan

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Evolution - the change in allele frequencies from one generation to the next

That's a rather unusual way to define it. Most natural historians would describe that definition as severely lacking in substance, ie incomplete.

This is a far more reasonable way to define evolution and natural selection. Obviously it's a bit short as well, but I will elaborate if you can't fill in the blanks yourself:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation.

Furthermore, experiments could be and have been devised to disprove every aspect of the theory of evolution

For natural selection yes. But not for evolution.

and - importantly, for the definition of a theory

You can't devise an experiment to test that. That is absurd.

Science is dynamic; our body of knowledge is always being added to.

I didn't claim otherwise. The basic method however remains the same:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/science-methodology.html

Just because we don't have all the answers in nice little packages right now doesn't mean we should stop asking questions altogether.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#strawman

 [ send green star]

In lieu of replying to all the incorrect information and/or uninformed opinions in the above thread, let me affirm that, yes, evolution is indeed a scientific theory. First, one must differentiate between the use of the word evolution scientifically, meaning that evolution happens, and in lay terms, which also encompasses a set idea of how it happens. Evolution - the change in allele frequencies from one generation to the next - has been observed and demonstrated countless times. Furthermore, experiments could be and have been devised to disprove every aspect of the theory of evolution and - importantly, for the definition of a theory - none has yet. Science is dynamic; our body of knowledge is always being added to. Just because we don't have all the answers in nice little packages right now doesn't mean we should stop asking questions altogether.

-orfan

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Evolution?

Seems to me to be a contradiction to a widely held sweeping generalization...the proverbial exception to the rule.

 [ accepted]

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

 [ send green star]

on the new american politics group:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=10647&pst=760309

 [ send green star]

Science is a method of study.

What do you suppose the curriculums are teaching if not science?

 [ accepted]

This happens because they have had to remove education about what science really is from the curriculum,

What is in the curriculum?

What is science?

John 1:1  In the beginning was the Word,,,,

 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]

There is a fierce debate raging in the US between evolutionists and creationists. The same debate does not exists elsewhere in the world. This entire debate is based on a number of false beliefs. These include the beleif that evolution and creationism are scientific theories, and that science and religion contradict each other and can be debated on a sound philosophical footing.

The creationists involved in the debate are considered extremists by their own co-religionists. Likewise, real evolutionists steer well clear of the debate. In essence, this is a philosophical turf war. Many see the problem as creationists trying to pass off their beliefs as science. But it was the scientists who threw the first punch, by passing off evolution as science. Most evolutionists call their line of work 'natural history' so as not to mislead people into thinking they use the tools of science. Calling it science implies levels of verification that aren't there and undermines real science. This happens because they have had to remove education about what science really is from the curriculum, and the fight between extremists from both sides has painted a negative view of science in the public eye.

 [ send green star]

vote here:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/poll_submission/101121

 [ send green star]

We're pretty good at predicting the behavior of a billiards ball after being hit by another billiards ball.  That doesn't mean that we know what has actually happened in all of the collisions of billiards balls in the past.  And it doesn't mean that we can predict what is going to be done by the person holding the cue.

We're pretty good at predicting the behavior of lots of planets.  That doesn't mean that we know all the behavior of the planets in the past.  It doesn't mean that we know how the planets developed.

We're pretty good at predicting that offspring are different from parents.  We're not so good at predicting exactly how the offspring are going to be different -- just that they're going to be different.  We have a pretty good idea that offspring have been different from parents for a long, long time.  We might assume that the changes from parents to offspring are random or that they follow physical laws or that they are intelligently guided, but so far we haven't really been able to prove any of those assumptions.

There's this nagging little problem -- at the same time that physicists are trying to tell us that there seems to be some kind of awareness between the smallest non-living particles, some biologists are trying to insist that intelligence plays no role in the development of living things.  I'll make a prediction that paradigms are going to collide.  That doesn't mean that I know what has happened to all paradigms in the past.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

No one is under that miscinception. See this thread for more info:

What is an experiment?

Evolution is observable and testable.

Macroevolution is not observable. We can only observe what we assume to be the results of macroevolution. It isn't falsifiable either.

Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work.

Perhpas, but the litmus test is always whether the explanation for how things work is falsifiable. Otherwise it is little more than mysticism.

Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study.

Actually, they can do experiments to test their theories. You'll be relieved to know that the motion of stars and what they emit is governed by the same laws controlling earthly processes.

and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences

We do not contest that the parts of the theory of evolution that are scientific are scientific. What we are trying to point out is that the unscientific parts are not scientific. Evolution as it is generally understood includes some theories which are not scientific. Natural selection as it is generally understood encompasses all of the scientific components of the theory. The fact that a theory is based in part on scientific theories does not make it scientific. You'll find many fraudsters spicing their claims up with what are by themselves scientific principles.

 [ send green star]

Y'all are downright pathetic.  Just repeat it until everyone gives up, then pretend like you proved something.

Right?

Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b6

 [ accepted]

Especially intellectual.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

Popper went further and stated that a hypothesis which does not allow for experimental tests of falsity is outside the bounds of science.

 [ send green star]

in all seriousness, evolution can be proven as a theory or a science by manipulating info.

Kansas and Foxnews=extreme right. 

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Does anyone know what this ruling is based on?

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,187232,00.html

But critics of evolution got a boost in November when the Kansas Board of Education adopted standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory.

 [ send green star]

Why would you bring that to an entirely different thread?

Are you afraid of actually staying in one place.  The thing is, you put the very same response elsewhere.  You're an odd bird...I guess people do odd things when the facts don't support their position.

As I said before...YES, worms are also your distant cousins.  You don't want to believe that, so you won't.  Only the evidence is at hand to suggest it is an acceptable evaluation of biodiversity.

As to faith, a BELIEF in God requires faith.  Science requires no such thing.  The sad thing is that you don't have enough faith to believe in God on your own without science somehow being used to convince you he is real.  That's sad.

My personal relationship with God has nothing to do with scientific findings.  However, my interpretation of scripture is colored significantly by the findings of science.  These little things, though, matter little in the grand scheme of faith and God's impact on the world.

Do you think God will look favorably on those who had to ignore natural facts about the world in order to believe in him?  You're just a doubting Thomas in disguise, methinks.

 [ accepted]

Why would you bring that to an entirely different thread?

Are you afraid of actually staying in one place.  The thing is, you put the very same response elsewhere.  You're an odd bird...I guess people do odd things when the facts don't support their position.

As I said before...YES, worms are also your distant cousins.  You don't want to believe that, so you won't.  Only the evidence is at hand to suggest it is an acceptable evaluation of biodiversity.

As to faith, a BELIEF in God requires faith.  Science requires no such thing.  The sad thing is that you don't have enough faith to believe in God on your own without science somehow being used to convince you he is real.  That's sad.

My personal relationship with God has nothing to do with scientific findings.  However, my interpretation of scripture is colored significantly by the findings of science.  These little things, though, matter little in the grand scheme of faith and God's impact on the world.

Do you think God will look favorably on those who had to ignore natural facts about the world in order to believe in him?  You're just a doubting Thomas in disguise, methinks.

 [ accepted]

that's 100% backwards.

Evolution, while not entirely proven, is at least real science.

It's 'creationism' that's utter fantasy and in no way derived from truth.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Evolution did not happen

Creation did

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

"Evolution" has an explanation for this biological mystery, known as the Theory of Common Descent.  How does Creationism explain it?

That's just it, it's a theory, not a law.

While you're "researching as you type," go ahead and see if you can tell me why, out of over 390 naturally occurring amino acids, the proteins used by every single living organism are made up of the same 22.  Then, see if you can tell me why the DNA of every living organism in the world is in the form of a double-helix.  Now that scientists have "cracked the DNA code", they've found that the "language" of that code is the same for, you guessed it, every living organism in the world.  

How does that DISPROVE Creationism?  Why couldn't a Creator have us all share the same codes, just in differrent combinations?  That just shows that a Creator could have come up with a clever complex idea to use for ALL living organisms.  Since apes look a little alike humans and share common things, people think it's okay to call it our distant cousin.  We share a lot in common with special worms, too.  Does that make worms our distant cousins, also?  No, because if Science said they were, it would be bizarre because we look NOTHING like worms.  Everybody tries to prove Evolution, when it has already been said that neither Evolution, nor ID can be 100% proven.  Science is based on observation, and you can not observe either.  The debate between Evolution and ID would never end because they are both based on faith in certain clues.  You can take those clues in 2 different ways.  I'm sure you all know that when people make up their mind, it is extremely rare to change their mind.  Therefore if I understood what Freediver said in Intelligent Design Part II, they need to be talked about in 2 different conversations. 

 [ accepted]

I understand mtDNA and how we use it to figure out evolution. The article says that "the evidence from mtDNA, which has suggested that all modern humans come from one woman". I guess my question was how would a scientist prove that??? Why not a small closely related interbreeding population?

Cheers,
Yvette

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

My point was that the same individual can hold two contradictory and mutually exclusive beliefs simultaneosly, which is one definition of madness.  >

You missed my point though. The fact is that they AREN'T holding contradictory views. You automatically assumed that geologists all accept the uniformitarian assigned ages to the strata and thus it is a contradiction for them to believe in a 6000 year old earth and believe in dinosaurs and look for oil in the strata etc. It is not.

It like being an astrophysist and simultaneosly believing that the earth is flat.  The contradiction exists regardless of which model David prefers.  >

The contradiction only exists if in fact all geologists believed as you seem to think they do and if the geologist you mentioned actually held to the old ages for the strata and the 6000 years for the earth.

So please educate yourself that I'm not favoring one model over the other.  Believe whatever you choose, just don't push it down the throats of others.>

How exactly does one push it down the throat of others? And no...I don't need to educate myself on this. Just maybe be more articulate.

 [ send green star]

What about the fact that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees and bonobos?

In all fairness, we share 96% of our DNA with earthworms and fruit flies.  So, what's your point?

 [ accepted]

Here is a link which puts it in laymans terms rather then real technical terms for you. It also goes into some other interesting items involving the mtdna.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/eve.asp

Here is also a link about the 98% concept you might find interesting.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp

 [ send green star]

I live in Oklahoma, both the bible belt and the oil patch.  I find it weird, to way the least, that educated and successful petroleum geologists understand the strata going back to the dinosaurs six days a week, and equally strongly believe the 6000 year biblical age of the earth on the seventh day.>

That is because you have accepted the uniformitarian assumed dates for those geological layers as fact. You in essence are taking the assigned dates from one interpretive model and then judging another completely different model by those assumed dates. I know creationists who are in that field and as any of them can tell you the uniformitarians assumed ages are irrelevant to the process of finding oil. What is relevant is the type of geological formation. One could call them by literally any name and the operational science would still be the same. In other words you assume that strata is that old. They do not. They would hold to the catastrophic geological formation for the most part.

As long as knowledgable people can do that, what chance is there to settle the questions discussed above.  Pick the theory (the "truth") that you prefer, or make up a new one, but don't try to prove it!>

Actually just educate yourself on the actual concepts involved first and understand the different models.

 [ send green star]

What about the fact that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees and bonobos? What kind of evidence are you looking for?

And David...I am interested in seeing those mtDNA studies which show that humans originated from two individuals. How would it be possible to prove that given it was so long ago? (ie - two individuals vs a population of individuals?)

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

This passage has stood at wikipedia for at least a few months:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorini

Current opinion based on radiocarbon dating indicates that the eruption occurred between about 1650 and 1600 BC. These dates, however, conflict with the usual date from archaeology, which is between about 1500 BC and 1450 BC.

Some scholars believe the radiocarbon dates to be completely wrong.

General article on radiocarbon dating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

I live in Oklahoma, both the bible belt and the oil patch.  I find it weird, to way the least, that educated and successful petroleum geologists understand the strata going back to the dinosaurs six days a week, and equally strongly believe the 6000 year biblical age of the earth on the seventh day.

As long as knowledgable people can do that, what chance is there to settle the questions discussed above.  Pick the theory (the "truth") that you prefer, or make up a new one, but don't try to prove it!

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

It would be awfully specifi-centric of us to assume that humans have evolved for 4 million years, while apes have just stayed the same.

Best guess for common ancestry of apes and hominids rests in ardepithecus ramidus.

 [ accepted]

let me restate 12:55 PM
I have seen no evidence that human evolution from apes. Is this incorrect?  [ send green star]  [ flag for review]

Nope not incorrect, 100% correct. I do not know of any serious scientist that ever proposed that man came from apes. The closest thing is that there is evidence that both Man and apes share a common origin although man developed in one direction and apes in another. Except for the so called "backyard scientists" no academicaly credited scientist has ever proposed man came from apes, unless it was tongue-in-cheek.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Forbidden Archeology
The Hidden History of the Human Race
by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson

Over the past two centuries, researchers have found bones and artifacts showing humans like us existed millions of years ago. But scientists have suppressed, ignored, or forgotten these pieces of evidence. Prejudices based on current scientific theory have acted as what Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson call a knowledge filter. According to Cremo and Thompson, we have thus come to accept a picture of prehistory that is largely incorrect. Forbidden Archeology is a call for a change in today's rigid scientific mindset. Bringing to light a great number of long hidden artifacts and skeletal remains, Cremo and Thompson challenge us to rethink our understanding of human origins and the accepted methods of science itself. An abridged version of the book is available named The Hidden History of the Human Race.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

Carl Sagan stated, "Vedic Cosmology is the only one in which the time scales correspond to those of modern scientific cosmology."

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Google "emanationism". Much more satisfying than any other explanation for existence. Everything comes from nothing or does everything come from consciousness.

Vedic Cosmology is yet another ancient Vedic science which can be confirmed by modern scientific findings and this is acknowledged by well known scientists and authors, such as Carl Sagan and Count Maurice Maeterlinck, who recognized that the cosmology of the Vedas closely parallels modern scientific findings.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

David I agree with nearly all you say above. But do have a question about this part.

"Correct...but those changes came from the original pair having that large amount of genetic information within them at the beginning. As family groups moved out different dominant traits were emphasized within small breeding populations and become dominant in different ethnic groups."

If that is correct does that mean that some of the groups have lost some of the genes from the origianal parents? In other words they no longer have the full genetic background of the ancestors so therefore would not be able to replicate progeny that would be the same as the ancestorial genetic pool.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

I have 7:20 AM
never heard of evolution to have been proven scientifically, am I wrong? I think there is no definitive proof of how we were created or evolved.  [ send green star]  [ flag for review]

Amanda as David H. Pointed out above. It depends on how you define evolution. If you define evolution in terms that organisms under go change over time, then evolution has been proven, through general observation. Good example both Great Danes and Chihuahuas have the same original dog ancestor, but it is apparant some changes occured in the past few centuries.

Now for the second part, no definite proof has been shown for how evolution occurs except in that caused by human intervention, be it by selective breeding, genetic engineering or cloning.

Some of the new species have been the result of genetic engineering through gene splicing. The glow in the dark pigs being currently bred in Korea (if I remember right) are just one of the more recent examples. In the past were the so called plantimals animal and plant cells being spliced to produce plants that can produce animal enzymes or proteins.

Has evolution occured in Humans? Let us assume that the general belief we all have a common ancestor is true. Then that means we have the same origianal parents, which would have left us with the choices of 2 skin colorings, 2 hair colorings, 2 eye colorings etc. However if you look at the human population we come in an almost infinite variety of sizes, shapes, colors and various peripheal differences. So it is safe to assume some changes took place.

Now as far as the production of totaly new species. I think the squirrels in Costa Rica can shed some light on that. The Squirrel poplutions are seperated in small patches extending from southern Costa rica to the north. The squirrels can interbred with adjacent populations but breeding is not viable between seperated populations. The population has changed from a small chipmunk looking plant eater in the south to a large carnivrous weasal looking squirrel in the north. The northern and southern squirrels are now definetly two distinct seperate animal groups, but it can be shown through a still living pathway how they changed. All the ancestrial in betweens are still alive.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

In agreement freediver. Actually evolution is a proven fact. The theories are concepts on how and why evolution occurs. so far most explanations as to the how, are  theories as they have yet to be replicated under laboratory conditions. Most likely it will eventualy be found that there are several methods by which it occurs. However one area that is observable is human intervention in which selective breeding is used to develop hybrids with desirable traits. This has been done for several centuries some of the products can be seen in chickens, pigs, cattle and vegetables. a few critters we take for granted were not here 300 years ago ie: St. Gertrudis cows, Hampshire Hogs, Angus Bulls, Beefsteak tomatos, Idaho potatos etc.

The theories are as to why evolution occurs, outside of human intervention.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation.

 [ send green star]

Every now and then I get the feeling that us humans tend to take what should be simple, re-arrange it, then explain it to the point it becomes infinitly complex.

Evolution is  one of those things.

 First question should be "What is a definition of Evolution?" I seldom see people even agreeing on that. My simple definition would be: "The process that results in decendents having traits different from their ancestors"

My suggestion is that prior to attempting to discuss any points about evolution, let us find a common definition that we all agree on.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

An old thread about New Scientist magazine:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=6387&pst=366945&archival=1

 [ send green star]

I think that there is a place for magazines for laymen. I know that I enjoy reading the general articles in the more general mags which then help me understand the more technical articles in the journals. For example, in terms of creation science I enjoy the layman "Creation" magazine quite a bit. I also enjoy the peer reviewed technical journal "TJ" as well.

In terms of the UCS....I hadn't visisted in quite a while to even look in so couldn't say exactly what had been going on. When I left it was primarly the "ROD crowd". It was pretty funny though....all I had to do was just post any statement or opinion immediately they went bonkers screaming for me to leave and calling for me to be blocked.

 [ send green star]

If that group you mentioned is the Union of Concerned Csientists or something like that, then I'm a member too.

As far as New Scientist goes, though, I find it invaluable as a source of information. It may be "watered-down" science, but at least I can understand it, and it's taught me a hel of a lot.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

There is a lot of interesting stuff here in the first post:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=156&pst=36680

This is my favourite bit:

According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.

 [ send green star]

There is some interesting discussion of mutations in bacteria here:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=555&pst=443553

 [ send green star]

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html

In fact, the following description of the experimental method from Newton's Optics could easily be mistaken for a modern statement of current methods of investigation, if not for Newton's use of the words "natural philosophy" in place of the modern term "the physical sciences." Newton wrote, "As in mathematics, so in natural philosophy the investigation of difficult things by the method of analysis ought ever to precede the method of composition. This analysis consists of making experiments and observations, and in drawing general conclusions from them by induction...by this way of analysis we may proceed from compounds to ingredients, and from motions to the forces producing them; and in general from effects to their causes, and from particular causes to more general ones till the argument end in the most general. This is the method of analysis: and the synthesis consists in assuming the causes discovered and established as principles, and by them explaining the phenomena preceding from them, and proving the explanations."

http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=45&l=&c3=

Of all the steps in the scientific method, the one that truly separates science from other disciplines is the process of experimentation. In order to prove, or disprove, a hypothesis, a scientist will design an experiment to test the hypothesis.

 [ send green star]

I have started a thread in accoustic coffee house. Please keep an eye on it while I am away and make sure it doesn't get out of hand:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=1067&pst=451343&archival=

 [ send green star]

One problem is that a good portion of the scientific world defends "Darwinism/NeoDarwinism" despite advances made in knowledge (expl) Welcome to Annual Reviews

  & then there's

William J. Beaty and his take.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

OK I know I've been told to leave this alone, but this one bothered me on so many different levels I needed to respond to it somewhere:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=250393

First off, humans are aquatic apes. Many evolutionists attribute our physical features to adapting to an aquatic lifestyle. That doesn't mean the mutation could be helpful, even for people living such an aquatic lifestyle - and there are plenty who still do. The mutation is no more likley to be beneficial than a dolphin being born with legs.

 [ send green star]

2-3%, probably theistic evolutionists make up the majority of these.  It disappoints me that a lot of materialists scoff and will not even read on the subject.  But on the other hand, I also know creationists who will not give evolution the time of day.  It works both ways. 

 [ send green star]

When I get time I will start another thread.  It will include alternatives to gradualism.  Are you interested in punctuated equilibria? 

 [ send green star]

Just a quick heads up on the abbreviations.

ID= Intelligent Design

YEC= Young Earth creationism

OEC= Old earth creationism.

Oh..and by the way..I am still a "member" of the UCS group. They haven't blocked me. Of course if I even remotely ask even the most innocent question I get the inquisition and all kinds of nasty responses. (I haven't posted much since the evolution threads but posted one simple question on another thread asking about the UCS's official position on some nuclear issues that had been posted. I even stated I didn't want to start a debate but was simply curious where they stood.....lol...one of the hosts called me lazy and said I was harassing the group. I am quite certain that no matter what I say I will be blocked if I show my head. They are quite happy in their little world of censorship....but for now I am still reading the posts there. Some are interesting...others are simply political nonsense.)

 [ send green star]

Cheryl, you can start a new thread on the details of evolution if you want, unless you think it is relevant to this discussion. I'm interested in the more recent theoretical developments.

Also, please go easy with the abbreviations.

 [ send green star]

Classic microevo. processes include natural selection, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.  Also, we could include isolating mechanisms, other factors involved in speciation.  >

Were you aware that YEC agree with and include all of those concepts within their model?

 [ send green star]

I think they put ID between YEC and OEC because they can be found in both camps.  ID is rather overarching a concept, reminds of Paley's Argument from Design. 

 [ send green star]

Classic microevo. processes include natural selection, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.  Also, we could include isolating mechanisms, other factors involved in speciation. 

Macroevo. is colloquially  defined as "evolution above the species level," but is really a more complex subject than implied by that definition.  Macro includes such as rate of evo. change, pace of evo. change, extinction of a lineage, branching of a lineage, adaptive radiation, morphological trends and changes in lineages (body plan changes), species sorting, emergence of new features (eg, segmentation), these are some of the important components of macroevolution. 

 [ send green star]

Maybe you know of no such group because they are VERY few in number.  Did I not say that I started with the most extreme end of Special creationism?   I disagree with your assessment of Flat Earthers; I am talking about an actual organisation here that I have read volumes on, so please don't patronise me.  And just because you don't know any geocentrists, doesn't mean they do not exist, though in very few numbers.  Unless you know all 6 billion people on this planet, which I doubt, keep an open mind here. 

Next on the continuum is Young Earth Creationists, followed by Old Earth Creationists--which includes Gap Creationism, Day-Age creationism, Progressive Creationism, and Evolutionary creationism.  After, comes Theistic evolutionism, Agnostic Evolutionism, and finally, we come to Materialist Evolutionism.   (Scott 47-70: 2004).

Since you already seem to "know" everything, I will not expound unless directly asked to do so, and when I have time.  Please excuse my curtness.  I am going through other things right now, and may be a bit edgy for the next couple of weeks.  Thanks for understanding. 

 [ send green star]

This is how I split up evolution and natural selection (or macro and micro evolution):

Natural Selection:

Heritability of traits

Adaption of a species to changes in the environment (eg the clasic example of the moth species in England changing colour in response to pollution changing the colour of the tree trunks they rest on). This is an emergent property from heritability.

Also, many researchers these days try to quantify (statistically) the heritability of certain traits - eg growth rate. This allows them to measure the suitability of a species for a targetted breeding program.

(Macro) Evolution:

Beneficial mutation (referred to by creationists as the hopeful monster theory).

Universal common ancestry and the origin of the species.

Trying to piece together the (historical) evolutionary tree from the fossil record.

 [ send green star]

I wasn't just talking about "microevolutionary" concepts, vague as that description is.  Perhaps evolution itself is not testable, but the ideas behind it are.  We can test by consequences.

  But as you asked for an explanation of the evolution/creationism continuum, I will happily oblige.  Maybe you will find your own place on the continuum?  It starts with the most extreme form of Special creation (Flat Eartherism) to the most extreme of Evolution (Materialist Evolution).   I will start today with the most biblically literal two, Flat Eartherism and Geocentricism.  Freediver, if you're reading this, I am not bringing Creationism in here to support or reject it, merely to explain it on the continuum I mentioned in an earlier post.  I promise it is relevant! 

1. Flat Eartherism--These are the most strict of biblical literalists.   Flat Earthers believe that many passages in the bible infer that the world is circular and not spherical in shape.  There is an organization known as the International Flat Earth Research Society, which claims about 3,500 members in all.  Samuel B. Rowbotham is the individual responsible for Flat Earth revival in the 19th century, and cited "76 scriptures in the last chapter of his monumental 2nd ed Eearth Not a Globe" (Schadewald 1987: 27).  For these Flat Earthers, content of the Bible supercedes scientific findings--since they are in contrast to strict biblical interpretation, these scientific findings must be erroneous. 

2.  Geocentrism     Advocates of geocentrism accept that Earth is indeed spherical in shape, but reject that the Sun is the centre of our solar system.  They (much like Flat Earthers) reject virtually all modern physics, geology, astronomy and biology.  Both the Flat Earthers and Geocentrists adhere to the ancient Hebrew perception of the Earth, insomuch they believed that it was a disk-shaped structure, and that the heavens were suspended in the sky by a dome that arched over solid land.  The land in turn was surrounded by water.  The dome was perceived as a firmament of sorts--like a solid, metallic-like structure that could be shaped.  See the book of Job for plenty of verse on the firmament, but one such passage goes as follows:  "Can you beat out the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal?"  Job chapter 37, verse 18.    Stars are regarded to be small objects, not the massive suns that they are.   Also, they speak of waters above the firmament--a body of water that comes to the Earth as rain through "windows of heaven." 

Geocentrists believe that the Earth, its life, and humans are central to God, and as a symbol of that importance, our planet would be centrally located in the solar system.  Some claim that our galaxy is central to the universe itself.

 [ send green star]

David, I stand by my statement that you cannot test for God.  I *am* familiar with the subject matter, actually, but am on the opposite side of the fence of you.  As it happens, I see creationism and evolution as a continuum, not a dichotomy.   That continuum is nicely spelled out in a book I am currently reading. 

Despite claims to the contrary, there are ways to test for evolution.  If you ever want to read about these findings, just let me know.  I have volumes of papers about the subject matter, many books and articles as well.   I am constantly studying so I can be on par when I resume course study (which likely will be a few years). 

 [ send green star]

not sure where to look for Creationism thread, dear...sorry I can't be of more help. 

David, creation science, as it is called, is not testable, cannot be falsified, and therefore has no place here.  As Freediver put it--and though I do not agree with him concerning evolution not being a theory, I do agree on this--science is a methodology!!!  God cannot be proven or disproven by using scientific method, nor is it intended to do so. 

 [ send green star]

One must be quiet - to listen !

Yes, i specificaly didn't want to discus creationism on this topic, therefore was looking for The thread and couldn't find it. If asking about the right topic qualifies for discussion, then i don't know ... i apologize.

.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

1. i must have missed the creationism other then just a question for a site.

2. what of the dogma of science?

3. i would think some of us are tired of being flagged and attempt open discussions just to find they are not open. not mentioning any names but we know who we are.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

SPECIFICALLY mentions "no creationism!" 

This has nothing to do with creationism. Please do not discuss creationism in this thread.

The bold is Freediver's text.  Just thought I'd point that out, for those of us who are here to discuss science.  Thanks. 

 [ send green star]

Sigh...

The scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof.  Montagu 1984:9

I thought this was discussion for science, not dogma.   

 [ send green star]

Thats alright Ann. I was just curious about your theory. Even if it is not scientific it has got the hypotesis element involved, and this IS also a scientific tool, so much i have learned here, lol.

Yes, i must say Freediver, your statement that 'Science is purely a methodology' is very enlightening ... for me, thats the discovery or better: the statement of this weekend. Thank you!

p.s.: i was looking for the thread on creationism, pls help. whats the title of the thread ?

. 

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Interesting Ann, are you saying we have already destroyed all the Planets or just Mars ?

.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Ariane wrote:

 5:16 AM
To put it bluntly. Evolution is a load of crap. God is the one who created everything for us to enjoy!

Are you able to state either of your assertions in a manner that allows others to design experiments in order to test them?

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

This one was recently delted from the UCS group. I won't post the whole thread because a lot of it was abusive. But if anyone wants a copy of what they posted there I may be able to get it for you.

evolution is not a scientific theory

Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory.

The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.

Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory.

Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation.

Just because a theory is not scientific does not mean that it has no merit. However, claiming that a theory is scientific lends it undeserved authority and diminishes the authority of science.

The modern scientific method arose during the scientific revolution - after the renaissance.

Observation of nature and speculation do form part of the scientific method. That is how new hypotheses are formed. However they should be immediately checked to see whether they are scientific or not.

I started a new thread because Dale kept insisting that the other thread was about creationism. This has nothing to do with creationism. Please do not discuss creationism in this thread. There is another thread about creationism vs evolution which I tried unsuccessfully to bring this discussion into.

 [ send green star]