A calm debate

[emprworm]

"You know, it is very unscientific. You can't test it empirically, you can't do anything with ID so how the hell can it be scientific."

you cant test evolution scientifically. Evolution has more holes than swiss cheese. Kids need to be taught that. They need to know that the idea of a bunch of particles somehow just 'coming together' via a really biggy big lightning bolt (or whatever) to make a magical "protien" is a faith-based initiative. They need to know that the very conditions that created this magic protein would have also killed it- but that somehow....very very magically...this cute 'lil protein manages to survive...and being the tough 'lil cookie that he is....he even replicates..wow. And not just that....the protiens grow to lifeforms....which grow to things like mollusks...and then the mollusks eventually become elephants and even dinosaurs.

lol. Here is what I have to say to that load of poppycock:

"You know, it is very unscientific. You can't test it empirically, you can't do anything with cross-special evolution so how the hell can it be scientific."

[emprworm]

Christianity vs. Evolution argument makes about as much sense as Buddhism vs. Quantum Physics

what are you talking about? If you are comparing the idea that the Universe was created to a fallicious fairy tale then you and I are diametrecally opposed.

I do not say "The universe was Created vs. Evolution" is like "Lies vs. Truth" or "A bunch of stories Vs. Practical Reality"

Intelligent Design is the theory that this UNIVERSE (not just biological life) is the construct of a designer.

Looks like you and I have less in common than I thought, Edric, if you are going to compare ID to Buddhism.

[Edric O]

Emprworm, you completely missed what I meant in that post...

I wasn't comparing Christianity to Buddhism any more than I was comparing Evolution with Quantum Physics. I was comparing the two arguments. Comparing the comparisons, if you will.

[emprworm]

ok..fine, Edric, but we are not talking about Christianity. We are talking about the scientific theory of Intelligent Design. It says nothing about any specific religion.

[Dunenewt]

I've got one word for you lot:

Dinosaurs

[sneezer3]

I've got one word for you lot:

Dinosaurs

Then i have one name for you.

Dr. Kent Hovind

and btw Dinosaurs where in the bible. ;)

http://www.chick.com/catalog/videos/creationseminar.asp

EDIT oh yeah. and for you Creationists. his vidoes are discounted here. by about a dollur. :)

physicists call the force that brings them together "the strong force".

Could you please go into some more detail? i mean. of course theres something holding them togather. no matter what its called. so tell me. if that isn't it what is the binding force of an atom?

Evolution has more holes than swiss cheese.

neat little saying, i'l remember that.

[TMA_1]

"Evolution and natural selection are completely accepted by the scientific community. Darwin's theory is almost to the point where it'll be called Darwin's Law. There is no reputable theory competing with natural selection."

Well... somebody has been lacking in their study.lol I am glad your highschool drilled into you the proof of evolution. I see the light now as well. ;)

good grief. Even a professor of biology or zoololgy will tell you it is nowhere near a status of absolute truth. It is the only real idea that scientists can use without getting spiritual or metaphysical. The only problem is, if you want to prove evolution, you would have to contact H.G. Wells and use his time machine to go back in time.lol

[emprworm]

Thank you TMA. You are so correct.

[Dunenewt]

Incorrect is the word you are looking for.

There is no theory to compete with Darwin's

[sneezer3]

Incorrect is the word you are looking for.

There is no theory to compete with Darwin's

I think he ment what he said. and there actully is. and please stop spaming with nothing to support your arugements.

[nemafakei]

Remember that even though evolution is not totally proven, it's certainly a lot closer than creationism.

[emprworm]

closer than creationism? And just how do you know this? lol.

"Incorrect is the word you are looking for.

There is no theory to compete with Darwin's"

Yes there is. It is called Intelligent Design. And it has the backing of numerous scientists. It doesn't compete *in your mind* because *your mind* is already made up. The current state of the 1.5KG mass of gray matter inside your caranium is completely irrelevant to the veracity of ID as a scientific theory. You teach both theories to children, and let them make up their 1.5 KG mass of gray matter FOR THEMSELVES just as you have FOR YOURSELF.

[Dunenewt]

Maybe - in *my mind* i realised that religion just causes arguements (like its doing now)

[nemafakei]

What do you mean how do I know this? Well, I compared what exists of creationism evidence and logic supporting it, then looked at evolution evidence and reason supporting it, and found that creationism is very much lacking.

[sneezer3]

Remember that even though evolution is not totally proven, it's certainly a lot closer than creationism.

closer than creationism? And just how do you know this? lol.

He has a point. and keep in mind it actully takes much more faith to belive Evolution.

[Acriku]

C'mon empr, the ID theory is totally a biased creationist theory, and who says it needs a designer? Even aristotle said it didn't, so where is your proof? Your "scientific" evidence? Where is the empirical data that is not opinion? If you go to the article I posted, it will tell you all about the fallacy of ID theory.

And also, evolution is closer because it follows Occams razor for one. It does not put in a supernature that is not needed, but this is only one reason.

Sneezer, if you want him to back up his arguments, back up yours that shows there is a theory valid enough to compete with Darwin's theory. I seriously question the credibility of numerous (which is not majority, hmm I wonder why?) scientists that back up ID theory. Because the ID theory is not a scientific theory, or it is and you just haven't shown to me that it is, with no effort whatsoever. So sneezer, empr, whoever that believes the ID theory to be with evolution, explain to me and the community how it is scientific. That's all I'm asking for now.

And evolution is proven already. It exists. I challenge you right now to get a pack of 20 biologists, or one if you can't find 20 (I can't either ;)), and ask them(him/her) if evolution exists. You will definitely find an overwhelming majority to say yes. Also ask them(him/her) if there is a distinct difference between micro and macro evolution. You will find an overwhelming (if not all) majority to say no, because microevolution, which has been proven and you yourself TMA said you acknowledge the existence of microevolution, is the same as macroevolution, but with the fact that macroevolution is microevolution over a long period of time. If you have enough alterations of the genes living through the offspring, will you not find a different organism eventually? And that is macroevolution. We can't prove it because we simply haven't been here long enough. But is common sense, or should be, to most people that this does happen. An organism cannot stay the same after so many permanent gene alterations over a long period of time.

And here is how evolution is scientific:

Let's first list the basic criteria necessary for a theory to qualify as scientific:

Consistent (internally and externally)

Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)

Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)

Empirically Testable & Falsifiable

Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments

Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)

Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)

Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Is evolution consistent?

Yes, evolution is internally consistent. While there are holes and disagreements as to how evolution occurred and there are some gaps in the evidence for evolution, the idea of common descent is still overwhelmingly supported by the evidence and the basic understanding of how changes take place in living organisms. Evolution is also externally consistent because, contrary to the claims of some, it does not contradict solid findings in any of the other physical sciences.

Is evolution parsimonious?

Yes, evolution it is completely naturalistic and does not add unnecessary concepts. Evolution as simply the genetic changes over time does not rely upon any entities or concepts which do not otherwise exist in science. Evolution as common descent also does not require us to imagine anything new or unusual to add to the universe. So far, the theory of evolution is the simplest and most reliable explanation of the current diversity of life on our planet.

Is evolution useful?

Yes, the theory evolution is very useful. It is the unifying principle of the life sciences, which includes medicine - this means that much of what is done in the medical sciences could not occur without the background premise of evolution. Evolutionary theory also suggests lots of problems for scientists to work on and it provides an overall paradigm for solving current problems within the life sciences.

Can the theory of evolution be tested?

Evolution, when addressing common descent, is largely a historical science. This means that it relates to actions that are supposed to have happened in the distant past, and this makes testing the theory complicated because, unless time travel is invented, we cannot directly test the theory.

However, this does not mean that the theory is not testable at all. As with other historical investigations, you can make predictions and retrodictions (to utilize present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event or state of affairs - e.g., to "retrodict past eclipses" as opposed to predicting future eclipses) based on the theory.

What this means is that we can state that we would expect to find certain things (say, certain types of fossils) when looking at the historical record, and if those things are found, it supports the theory. Thus, while we cannot perform the kind of direct tests like we can in physics and chemistry, the general theory of evolution is testable just as other historical theories are testable.

Can the theory of evolution be falsified?

Falsification of evolution as common descent would be complicated because of the vast amount of supporting evidence for it. The idea of common descent does not rest on one simple idea or single piece of evidence, so to falsify it would require some very significant findings rather than a single bit of anomalous data.

For instance, while finding one fossil in rocks that are much older than would be expected (say, a primate in Precambrian rock) would be improbable, it would be a stretch to say it would falsify evolution. Realistically, one anomaly against all the evidence would be a hard sell, and to be honest, while it would certainly raise issues (and creationists would have a field day), it would probably be chalked up to unknown error.

On the other hand, if a general pattern of finding fossils in rocks reliably dated to much different ages than expected was seen, that would deal a serious blow to the idea of common descent. One possible example of this might be if primate or mammal fossils started consistently turning up in Precambrian rocks - in such a situation, evolution would be in trouble.

What is important to understand here is that evolution rests upon a general and widespread pattern of evidence from a number of different fields. Because of that, a similarly general pattern of contradictory evidence would be required to falsify evolution. Isolated anomalies might at most force a modification of evolutionary theory, but they wouldn't cause it to be dismissed.

Another possible manner in which evolution might be falsified is if our understanding of physics and chemistry changed such that the laws and tests used for determining the age of the earth were found to be incorrect, and new tests showed that the earth was quite young, perhaps on the order of several thousand years. In such an event, the principle of common descent which is the basis of evolutionary theory would be dealt a fatal blow. There are also other any number of other ways in which evolution could be falsified, so there are ways in which the idea of common descent could be invalidated.

Is evolutionary theory correctable and dynamic?

Yes, evolution is dynamic and it is also correctable because it is based solely on the evidence. If the evidence changes so will the theory - as a matter of fact, subtle changes to aspects of evolutionary theory can be observed by anyone who regularly reads biology journals and pays attention to the scientific debates.

Is evolutionary theory progressive?

The idea that a scientific theory should be "progressive" means that a new scientific theory should build on the scientific theories that came before it. In other words, a new theory must explain what previous theories explained at least as well as they while providing a new understanding for additional material - something which evolution certainly does.

Another way to understand how scientific theories need to be progressive is that they can be shown to be superior to competing theories. Thus, it should be possible to compare several explanations for the same phenomena and find that one does a much better job than the others. Some creationists try to argue that evolution is a "religion" because scientists never consider any possible alternatives, but this is certainly untrue. Figure 1 graphically shows what the basic ideas about origins of life look like.

And here are competing theories with evolution: *note image not included*

Figure 1. The vertical direction is time and the horizontal is change of characteristics of life forms. (a) Common descent; (b) Transformationism. Note that species can change significantly but that they have independent starting points. No common ancestry.; ©, (d) and (e) Creationism. (d) and (e) are creationist explanations for extinctions and/or appearance of new species over time such as are shown in the fossil record. Note that while the creationist paradigms are drawn as straight lines some minor variation might be allowed (i.e. within "kinds".)

A major "competitor" for Darwinian evolution was a theory by Jean-Baptist Lamark published in his Philosophie Zoologique (1809). This theory is usually called transformationism. Transformationism proposes that species originated independently (not via common ancestry) but can and have changed significantly since their creation. Lamark's mechanism of evolution is frequently referred to as Lamarkism and has since been discredited, in large part because it is simply not supported by the data.

The general theory of evolution does quite well at meeting the criteria for scientific theories. How about the scientific method: was the idea of common descent arrived at scientifically? Yes - the idea was arrived at by examining nature. Looking at existing species, examining their characteristics and commonalities, and considering how they arose led to the idea of common descent. What's more, that idea is and has been tested repeatedly. So, the general theory was arrived at using the scientific method.

The general theory of evolution was arrived at using the scientific method and it meets the criteria for scientific theories. Yes, evolution is science and it is scientific.

Both of these quotes are from http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_science.htm a website even empr goes to ;)

Sneezer, why does it involve more faith? Please explain.

[Edric O]

Actually, no. Nema is right. Evolution is almost fully proven, while the proof for creationism is, how shall I put this, non-existant.

Of course, creationism does not equal Intelligent Design, so Emprworm has a point as well.

BUT... Since when is Evolution incompatible with Intelligent Design? It is very much possible that evolution was started and directed by a higher being.

[Edric O]

Ah... atheism.about.com... I used to be a regular poster on their forums until about a year ago, when I decided I had enough of their intolerance and bigotry. (don't get me wrong, the site is very informative, but the forums might as well have a swastika on every page)

[Acriku]

Edric, because it doesn't follow the Occam's Razor, there is no need to add a higher being. It isn't necessary. Keeping it simple ;)

[nemafakei]

"takes much more faith to belive Evolution"

If so, it only requires more strength of will because of human fallacies... we are predisposed to superstition, a product of evolution itself - pandemic 'fear of the dark'.

[Edric O]

That may well be so, Acriku, but just because something doesn't follow Occam's Razor, that doesn't automatically make it false.

Want a proof for evolution? Me and the atheism.about.com forum. That's where I got most of my arguing skills from. You see, in such a hostile environment, I was forced to evolve in order to survive. :)

[Edric O]

OH MY GOD

*jaw drops*

Take a look at the atheism.about.com forums. You know that NationStates game I posted about in General? THEY HAVE A WHOLE DAMN SUB-FORUM DEDICATED TO IT!!

Looks like it's time for Edric O to return... you think they missed me? ;D

[Acriku]

It does not make it true if it follows occam's razor, but it does make it more likely than creationism. That was what sneezer or empr said to the contrary.

[emprworm]

NEMA: "What do you mean how do I know this? Well, I compared what exists of creationism evidence and logic supporting it, then looked at evolution evidence and reason supporting it, and found that creationism is very much lacking."

It is lacking according to you. It is not lacking according to scores of other scientists around the world. My point is to let EACH PERSON DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. They do not need Nema and Acriku deciding for them. Teach them both theories and if they think one lacks evidence then so be it. Or are you too scared? Is evolutionary theory so weak, that it cannot withstand a competing theory? You atheists talk all the talk, but when it all comes down, your views are as frail and fragile as a glass house, or a baby's soft gentle butt.

I am not scared of evolutionary theory. It poses no threat to me. You guys are actually THREATENED by ID. What does this tell me? It tells me that you know it has enough credibility such that many will denounce the dogma of evolution, and that threatens you. lol.

EDRIC:

"Actually, no. Nema is right. Evolution is almost fully proven, while the proof for creationism is, how shall I put this, non-existant."

Evolution is not proven even in the slightest. Where is this so-called "proof?" WHERE? SPEAK IT OR BE SILENT. lol :)

get $250,000.00 bucks for proving evolution here: http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

ACRIKU:

"Edric, because it doesn't follow the Occam's Razor, there is no need to add a higher being. It isn't necessary. Keeping it simple "

Out of the three possible scenario's for the universe, the agnostic/atheists positions of #2 or #3 are by far the most complex. There is nothing simple whatsoever in 'something from nothing'. The miracles of Jesus are less amazing than such a postulation. At least Jesus took already existing water and simply re-arranged its already existing molecules into wine. The Great Miraculous Atheists claim that there was nothing existing and then something existed ....not nearly as simple as water to wine. Besides, you have no proof that the universe must always follow Oscam's Razor anyway. Do you?

[Acriku]

I will not judge empr because he has not explained to me how ID is scientific.

I will not judge empr because he has not explained to me how ID is scientific.

I will not judge empr because he has not explained to me how ID is scientific.

I will not judge empr because he has not explained to me how ID is scientific.

Ok phew, anyways, children at impressionable ages do not decide for themselves. Their parents, teachers, peers, (mostly peers) decide for them. That is common among all kids, they don't decide for themselves drugs are good, but their peers decide for them. And boy if you could see my boots shakin'! Woo doggy! Anyways, the reason I don't want ID theory taught in a science class is because nothing I have read or heard tells me it is scientific.

Threatened by ID? No, I am threatened by creationists going to the supreme courts trying to take evolution down (a proven theory, being taken from science classes because it conflicts their hardcore beliefs) or putting creationism in. I want my chidren to learn about proven theories, and various other theories to explain the world around them scientifically, not from things originating from an old book.

Evolution dogma? Read my post before this, it proves evolution is a science.

Evolution is proven. In labs and controlled environments scientists have observed microevolution, ask any biologist / micro biologist. In biology, everything is clear under the light of evolution (quote, forgot sayer) And common sense tells us that if an organism has enough gene alterations through microevolution, the organism will eventually become a different species. Do you refute all of this? < Serious question. Can I have that money cash or check? I prefer cash. In ones.

Actually, adding supernature to a theory that does not require a supernature to be true, makes it very complex. Since we do not even have proof of a supernature, the complexity soars.