Evolution is only a theory not a law.

[esbo]

The odd thing today is that many people seem to think evolution is a God given fact when

in fact it is only a theory, ie unproven.

[zapatos]

The odd thing today is that many people seem to think evolution is a God given fact when

in fact it is only a theory, ie unproven.

Hee Hee. That's pretty funny. Generally the people who get their facts from God don't believe in evolution.

 

BTW, I hope you have a lot of body armor because the people you just invited to this party are well armed.

Edited March 14, 2012 by zapatos

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

esbo,

Part of the rules of this forum state that you have to provide evidence to back up your claims. So, if you think evolution is wrong, show us some proper scientific proof.

In addition, please read the rules of the Speculations forum and make sure you are aware of them.

[doG]

The odd thing today is that many people seem to think evolution is a God given fact when

in fact it is only a theory, ie unproven.

Your point?

 

Realize also that it is a scientific theory.

[esbo]

Well the proof is in the fact that if it was a law it would be called a law, fact is it it called a theory.

The the evidence is the wealth of literature which refers to the theory of evolution and the absence of literature

(from respected sources) which call it a law.

 

As there is no proof for evolution it is a theory not a law.

 

If someone can in fact provide a proof for evolution then I am happy to stand corrected.

[Phi for All]

The odd thing today is that many people seem to think evolution is a God given fact when

in fact it is only a theory, ie unproven.

Science doesn't attempt to "prove" things. It tests ideas and gathers evidence that either refutes or supports them, using a methodology that questions everything at every step. Whenever conclusions are drawn, they're used to make predictions and then those predictions are tested in the same manner.

 

Evolution has so much evidence to support it, and none that refutes it, that it has become known as a scientific theory, the most trusted designation science uses. Evolution can be seen to work, and brings together an enormous amount of understanding and knowledge.

 

So, I think you have to learn more about how science works before you criticize its methods.

[doG]

Well the proof is in the fact that if it was a law it would be called a law, fact is it it called a theory.

The the evidence is the wealth of literature which refers to the theory of evolution and the absence of literature

(from respected sources) which call it a law.

 

As there is no proof for evolution it is a theory not a law.

 

If someone can in fact provide a proof for evolution then I am happy to stand corrected.

Theories don't become laws in science the way they do in math. In science, hypotheses become theories once they are verified.

 

BTW, if you doubt evolution please opt for last years vaccine when you get your flu shot and leave the current supply for someone else that might encounter a more evolved strain than last years. I'm sure all strains are the same to you so last years shot should be good enough for you .

Edited March 15, 2012 by doG

[swansont]

Well the proof is in the fact that if it was a law it would be called a law, fact is it it called a theory.

IOW you don't understand what law and theory mean in terms of science.

[esbo]

Theories don't become laws in science the way they do in math. In science, hypotheses become theories once they are verified.

 

BTW, if you doubt evolution please opt for last years vaccine when you get your flu shot and leave the current supply for someone else that might encounter a more evolved strain than last years. I'm sure all strains are the same to you so last years shot should be good enough for you .

 

I never said they were all the same, there are many viruses out there, when one becomes extinct another one moves into it's territory.

As there are millions of different viruses there is no need for the evolution of a new one..

 

IOW you don't understand what law and theory mean in terms of science.

 

 

Is it not more the case that you don't know what they mean?

 

For example, here is a list of 10 scientific theories which turned out to be *wrong*.

 

 

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

[doG]

I never said they were all the same, there are many viruses out there, when one becomes extinct another one moves into it's territory.

As there are millions of different viruses there is no need for the evolution of a new one..

Ok. Let's make sure we understand what you are saying. Please clarify. Are you claiming the flu does not evolve and that you can support that claim or are you admitting the flu is in fact evidence of evolution?

[Ringer]

If evolution is false how about you explain why species diversity isn't virtually nil due to previous mass extinctions.

[zapatos]

Well the proof is in the fact that if it was a law it would be called a law, fact is it it called a theory.

The the evidence is the wealth of literature which refers to the theory of evolution and the absence of literature

(from respected sources) which call it a law.

 

As there is no proof for evolution it is a theory not a law.

 

If someone can in fact provide a proof for evolution then I am happy to stand corrected.

The odd thing today is that any person can have access to such vast amounts of information at the touch of a mouse, and not realize how utterly ignorant they are of evidence known to children, and how sad and pathetic that makes them look.

 

Is this somehow evidence that evolution has stopped for some? Are they wilfully ignorant or feeble minded? What makes a person broadcast his ignorance for the world to see?

 

If someone can in fact provide a proof that this type of person is not in fact somehow impaired, I would be happy to see it.

 

In the pinball game of life, some people's flippers are just a little further apart than other's.

[esbo]

Ok. Let's make sure we understand what you are saying. Please clarify. Are you claiming the flu does not evolve and that you can support that claim or are you admitting the flu is in fact evidence of evolution?

 

I have seen no evidence that flu evolves, if you want to make that claim it is up to you to prove it.

 

What I can say is I know various flu viruses exist and when we become immune to one it seems other viruses take it's place.

 

That does not mean those viruses evolved, or at least I have seen no proof of it, as there are already millions

of viruses they have no need to evolve as there are plenty of spare ones knocking around. I see no evidence flu is evidence of evolution,

that is speculation until proven.

 

If evolution is false how about you explain why species diversity isn't virtually nil due to previous mass extinctions.

 

Well it is virtually nil in many cases, indeed it is nil in some I think.

 

Before long it will be just us, the rats, and the cockroaches.

[StringJunky]

Here's a good example of evolution with natural selection over a very short timescale. Intro:

 

"The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees.[1]

Since then, with improved environmental standards, light-coloured peppered moths have again become common, but the dramatic change in the peppered moth's population has remained a subject of much interest and study, and has led to the coining of the term industrial melanism to refer to the genetic darkening of species in response to pollutants. As a result of the relatively simple and easy-to-understand circumstances of the adaptation, the peppered moth has become a common example used in explaining or demonstrating natural selection"

Edited March 15, 2012 by StringJunky

[esbo]

The odd thing today is that any person can have access to such vast amounts of information at the touch of a mouse, and not realize how utterly ignorant they are of evidence known to children, and how sad and pathetic that makes them look.

 

Is this somehow evidence that evolution has stopped for some? Are they wilfully ignorant or feeble minded? What makes a person broadcast his ignorance for the world to see?

 

If someone can in fact provide a proof that this type of person is not in fact somehow impaired, I would be happy to see it.

 

In the pinball game of life, some people's flippers are just a little further apart than other's.

 

I am just sticking to the science which has been proven to me.

 

Children tend to believe anything adult tell them unquestioningly, I am an adult and require proof before I accept something as fact.

 

Seems to me your pinball machine is on tilt.

[ydoaPs]

I am just sticking to the science which has been proven to me.

 

Children tend to believe anything adult tell them unquestioningly, I am an adult and require proof before I accept something as fact.

 

Seems to me your pinball machine is on tilt.

 

How have bacteria gained the ability to metabolize nylon byproducts (chemicals that didn't exist until recently)?

[iNow]

How have bacteria gained the ability to metabolize nylon byproducts (chemicals that didn't exist until recently)?

Come on. That's too easy. Goddidit.

[doG]

I have seen no evidence that flu evolves, if you want to make that claim it is up to you to prove it.

Then you have you head in the sand. There is plenty of evidence of influenza evolution.

[zapatos]

I am just sticking to the science which has been proven to me.

 

Children tend to believe anything adult tell them unquestioningly, I am an adult and require proof before I accept something as fact.

 

 

Ok, fair enough. Please share with us the science proven to you that evolution is untrue. Or what parts of evolution you find to be false and why. Or what articles, websites, links supplied in this thread, etc. you've looked at that haven't convinced you. We'll be happy to address any specific areas you are questioning.

 

Others have shared with you their evidence that it is true. As an adult, I'm sure you'll reciprocate in this discussion forum by sharing your side of the issue. Since you opened the thread I can only assume to want to have a discussion.

 

Please start with any part of evolution you'd like, and tell us why you think it is wrong.

 

Thanks.

[esbo]

Here's a good example of evolution with natural selection over a very short timescale. Intro:

 

"The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees.[1]

Since then, with improved environmental standards, light-coloured peppered moths have again become common, but the dramatic change in the peppered moth's population has remained a subject of much interest and study, and has led to the coining of the term industrial melanism to refer to the genetic darkening of species in response to pollutants. As a result of the relatively simple and easy-to-understand circumstances of the adaptation, the peppered moth has become a common example used in explaining or demonstrating natural selection"

 

 

That is not proof of evolution though is it? " Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration" this is an admission that

that darker coloured moths existed, so no evolution actually took place what happened is the darker moths did better than their lighter cousins and

grew in population.

And off course the exact same thing happened in reverse.

Darwin himself witnessed similar things and his theory was that the (mainly birds) evolved into different types, he speculated

this was due to evolution but of course it was more likely IMO that it was a similar case of the moths above, the existing more suited

breeds flourished and often a process of extinction happened.

That is why it remains a theory IMO, when you study many examples of evolution critically (as opposed to just swallowing what you are

told obediently, hook line and sinker).

 

 

It has got to the stage where many are putting forward evolution as a fact or law (for more political than scientific reason

when it fact it is a theory.

 

It has got crazy really, you can't even talk about it without being muzzled by the science thought police.

 

Lets face it if people are so confident of their theories they would not need to muzzle those who disagree with them.

 

That muzzling in itself is a very unscientific, and true scientist would welcome having his theory challenged, and people should

be very wary of the science thought police and censors, because that is what turns science into propaganda.

[Appolinaria]

, so no evolution actually took place what happened is the darker moths did better than their lighter cousins and

grew in population.

 

That's natural selection.

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

esbo: I think these two articles should be a good start for you.

 

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

[esbo]

Ok, fair enough. Please share with us the science proven to you that evolution is untrue. Or what parts of evolution you find to be false and why. Or what articles, websites, links supplied in this thread, etc. you've looked at that haven't convinced you. We'll be happy to address any specific areas you are questioning.

 

Others have shared with you their evidence that it is true. As an adult, I'm sure you'll reciprocate in this discussion forum by sharing your side of the issue. Since you opened the thread I can only assume to want to have a discussion.

 

Please start with any part of evolution you'd like, and tell us why you think it is wrong.

 

Thanks.

 

Well I have just provided that evidence in the recent posts here about butterfly's and viruses etc..

AS evolution is not proven the evidence is on those putting forward the theory to prove it.

 

My evidence is your lack of credible evidence.

 

I have just told you two parts which are wrong or lack sufficient scientific evidence.

 

I mean you are basically asking me to give example of evolution and then disprove them, this is an unfair

challenge for me because I have seen no valid conclusive evidence of evolution in the first place.

You are asking me to prove evolution then disprove it, an unfair task!! The onus

is on you to first prove it!!

[zapatos]

That is not proof of evolution though is it? " Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration" this is an admission that

that darker coloured moths existed, so no evolution actually took place what happened is the darker moths did better than their lighter cousins and

grew in population.And off course the exact same thing happened in reverse.

Darwin himself witnessed similar things and his theory was that the (mainly birds) evolved into different types, he speculated

this was due to evolution but of course it was more likely IMO that it was a similar case of the moths above, the existing more suited

breeds flourished and often a process of extinction happened.

That is why it remains a theory IMO, when you study many examples of evolution critically (as opposed to just swallowing what you are

told obediently, hook line and sinker).

 

 

It has got to the stage where many are putting forward evolution as a fact or law (for more political than scientific reason

when it fact it is a theory.

 

It has got crazy really, you can't even talk about it without being muzzled by the science thought police.

 

Lets face it if people are so confident of their theories they would not need to muzzle those who disagree with them.

 

That muzzling in itself is a very unscientific, and true scientist would welcome having his theory challenged, and people should

be very wary of the science thought police and censors, because that is what turns science into propaganda.

OMG!

 

Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[3] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place

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

[esbo]

That's natural selection.

 

 

but not evolution!!

 

I will go through the rest of the stuff later.