Evolution is only a theory not a law.

[hypervalent_iodine]

but not evolution!!

 

I will go through the rest of the stuff later.

 

 

...Seriously?

 

Do you actually not know what evolution is or are you just here to troll us?

[doG]

That's natural selection.

 

 

but not evolution!!

 

I will go through the rest of the stuff later.

 

natural selection

 

natural selection, process that results in the adaptation of an organism to its environment by means of selectively reproducing changes in its genotype, or genetic constitution.

 

A brief treatment of natural selection follows. For full treatment, see evolution: The concept of natural selection...

 

 

Natural selection is a basic process of evolution.

[swansont]

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

 

No, it is not.

 

What you have presented here is the "science was wrong before" gambit, and half of the items on the list aren't even theories, they are simply discoveries. Which garners a big, fat "so what?" as a response. You take down a theory by showing how it isn't supported by the evidence and/or makes incorrect predictions, not by parading around other theories that were taken down by the process I just described.

[Appolinaria]

but not evolution!!

 

I will go through the rest of the stuff later.

 

I don't understand how you can simultaneously believe in natural selection and not evolution.

[Arete]

This is a copy paste from you other thread which it appears you didn't take the time to read.

 

 

http://science.kenne...3380theory.html

 

" Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms. Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science. Furthermore, notice that with any of the above definitions of law, neither scientists nor nature "conform" to the law. In science, a law is not something that is dictated to scientists or nature; it is not something that a scientist or nature has to do under threat of some penalty if they don't conform."

[Ophiolite]

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.

Perhaps one of these might help:

 

http://www.specsavers.co.uk/

 

http://optometristlist.com/

[StringJunky]

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).

 

That example clearly illustrates, what I said elsewhere to you, that evolution is a mix of random mutation and serendipity ("right time, right place"); The sooted trees and surfaces of the IR was the 'serendipity' part for the black version of the moth.

 

If you take your blinkers off you'll see evolution doesn't require any intelligence to drive it.

[Tres Juicy]

Oh dear... This again.

 

What don't you understand about evolution?

 

Evolution is the process by which a species changes over time.

 

Genetic mutation occurs and is acted upon by natural selection

 

Simple

Edited March 15, 2012 by Tres Juicy

[ewmon]

I think we should differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution (aka speciation).

 

Microevolution is the "peppered moth" scenario ... natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. Cause-and-effects mechanisms have been observed and proven. This is how easy it is to understand microevolution. American anthropologist Carleton Coon led a dig in North Africa in the first half of the 20th Century, where they hired rural, uneducated laborers to do the actual digging. One day during a rest break, Coon (with a translator) decided to try to explain natural selection to these men, which was the reason for their dig. The men didn't understand, and there was murmuring among them. Then, one man in the back who had remained attentive and silent spoke up. He said, for people living in caves, the tall ones would bump their heads and maybe die, but not the short ones, so short people survive in caves. Out on the plains, the tall people can reach the fruit on the trees, but the short people have a harder time harvesting the fruit, so the taller people survive on the plains. Coon was astonished that such an uneducated man could grasp the concept so quickly and articulate it so well.

 

Macroevolution/speciation is the divergence into species. The mechanisms have not been observed or proven. The time scales are huge. Not one instance of speciation has been observed (except, apparently, for that one instance of bacterial cell lines maintained in laboratories over 20 or 30 years). Let's say, for example, that by whatever means, speciation occurs -- what should be two individuals (male and female) of one species are actually of a new species. One mating pair is the lowest amount of genetic diversity, which scientists claim either dooms their species to extinction due to lack of genetic diversity, or is the glorious start of a new species. Both views cannot be true, and in fact, they point in opposite directions.

 

Take the human/ape split. I don't doubt that it happened (somehow), but as far as I'm concerned, the mechanism is mostly unknown. Chimps, our closest ape relatives, have 24 chromosome pairs; humans have 23. Human chromosome pair #2 seems to be two ape chromosome pairs fused together. So, evolution currently claims that:

• both a male and a female human mutant must have been born and healthy,
  
• they must have been born close enough in time and space to be a mating pair,
  
• they must have been fertile, and
  
• they somehow had enough genetic diversity to survive.
  

To get a statistical grasp of the chance of this happening, let's look at the formation in modern times of a [new] species of "über-humans". With all the genetic testing that we've done so far, how many people have been found to have 22 chromosome pairs, where two human chromosome pairs have fused to form one über-human chromosome pair? I don't know of any. Then two über-human mutants must be born in close physical proximity (even a hundred miles might be too far away for them to "find each other"). And temporal proximity (a female born 40 years earlier than the male means she's left her child-bearing years by the time he's mature enough to mate). And they must both be fertile, which is questionable. And after all these things, there must somehow be enough genetic diversity in the pair for the new species to not only survive, but to thrive.

 

To summarize, I accept microevolution, but to me, the mechanisms of macroevolution are mostly unproven -- at least the way evolutionists now claim it happens. I don't doubt that speciation occurred/occurs, but there's lots of unknowns that makes the current "theory" questionable.

[Phi for All]

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

But you didn't.

 

You just denied the real evidence that was shown to you. That's a very bad habit. Sticking your fingers in your ears helps no one.

 

What you need to do is refute, not just deny. To refute evidence, you need to show how it is wrong, not just say it's wrong.

 

To refute a theory, you need to provide more evidence against it than is used to support it. You've heard the term, "preponderance of evidence", yes? It's a concept that is key to whether an hypothesis becomes a theory.

 

I'm going to give you this link to the Scientific Method. I don't expect that you'll read it, since it's pretty obvious you haven't read any of the links that have been provided, but it's important for future readers to see that everything in our power was done to help you understand what evolution really is, and how prominently it figures in modern biology.

[Arete]

I think we should differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution (aka speciation).

 

It's a dangerous division - as it's a description of the same process over different time scales. Given the predilection of the ID crowd to "believe" in micro evolution but not "macro" evolution, I think it's necessary to point out that what is actually occurring is a continuum and the "micro"-"macro" separation is akin to separating time into days and months. Accepting "micro" evolutin but rejecting "macro" evolution is like saying you believe in days but not months.

 

The mechanisms have not been observed or proven. The time scales are huge. Not one instance of speciation has been observed (except, apparently, for that one instance of bacterial cell lines maintained in laboratories over 20 or 30 years).

 

Speciation, as defined by postmating reproductive isolation has been observed in Drosophila and Wolbachia

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/12/6709.short

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2640819

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2407714

etc.

 

Observational evidence for ecological speciation exists.

http://rstb.royalsoc.../1587/354.short

http://www.sciencema.../5915/737.short

http://dspace.mit.ed...le/1721.1/61788

etc

 

To summarize, I accept microevolution, but to me, the mechanisms of macroevolution are mostly unproven -- at least the way evolutionists now claim it happens. I don't doubt that speciation occurred/occurs, but there's lots of unknowns that makes the current "theory" questionable.

 

Chromosomal speciaton is simply one model of speciation - Chromosomal fusions also don't necessarily lead to reproductive isolation - metacentric fusions lead to reduced fitness of hybrid offspring and can operate as isolating mechanisms once accumulated in allopatric populations, but the suggestion that chromosomal rearrangement itself drives speciation fell out of favor in mainstream evolutionary theory some time ago.

 

sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/2/153.short

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Not one instance of speciation has been observed (except, apparently, for that one instance of bacterial cell lines maintained in laboratories over 20 or 30 years).

This is not true. For example:

 

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

 

Let's say, for example, that by whatever means, speciation occurs -- what should be two individuals (male and female) of one species are actually of a new species. One mating pair is the lowest amount of genetic diversity, which scientists claim either dooms their species to extinction due to lack of genetic diversity, or is the glorious start of a new species. Both views cannot be true, and in fact, they point in opposite directions.

A species does not start with a single mating pair. The simplest possible example of speciation would be a group of animals separated from others of their species. Minor changes will become established in the group over time, until the net effect of these cumulative minor changes is to render the group reproductively incompatible with the rest of the species. At no single point is there a threshold where a parent is a different species than a child, and the child has nobody to mate with.

[Phi for All]

I think we should differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution (aka speciation).

There is no evidence that some kind of divider is necessary between what you call micro and macro in terms of evolution. Those terms have been coined by people who were trying to come to grips with the visible, tangible evidence of evolution that can't be denied.

[Ophiolite]

There is no evidence that some kind of divider is necessary between what you call micro and macro in terms of evolution. Those terms have been coined by people who were trying to come to grips with the visible, tangible evidence of evolution that can't be denied.

This is incorrect. There have been a number of reputable 'evolutionists' over the years who have suspected there was a distinction and that some additional mechanism might come into play to cause macroevolution. While this idea is not well supported by currently available evidence it was a plausible and reasonable option to consider. It is unfortunate that creationists have seized upon a valid terminology for their own devilish ends.

 

One mating pair is the lowest amount of genetic diversity, which scientists claim either dooms their species to extinction due to lack of genetic diversity, or is the glorious start of a new species. Both views cannot be true, and in fact, they point in opposite directions.

You seem to be under the impression that we move in a single generation from one species to another. Such is not the case. Divisions into species is an artifact of the convenient human practice of classifying. A family tree of organisms may contain different species, genera, orders, even phyla at opposite endss, but between adjacent individuals in the tree their is generally no dramatic difference. Edited March 15, 2012 by Ophiolite

[Phi for All]

This is incorrect. There have been a number of reputable 'evolutionists' over the years who have suspected there was a distinction and that some additional mechanism might come into play to cause macroevolution. While this idea is not well supported by currently available evidence it was a plausible and reasonable option to consider. It is unfortunate that creationists have seized upon a valid terminology for their own devilish ends.

My bad. I should have said "used" instead of "coined". Good catch, +1.

[iNow]

It's hard to take a thread like this seriously. It's 2012 and yet some people still think that "it's just a theory" is somehow a valid argument against evolution. More than anything, it's an indicator of the extreme lack of education and intense ideological stance of the person putting forth the argument.

 

In the spirit of silliness, here are some on-topic cartoons.

 

 

 

 

 

[esbo]

I don't understand how you can simultaneously believe in natural selection and not evolution.

 

Because it is not evolution, it is the same species it is just variation within the species, following your

logic black man are a different species from white men, do you you seriously expect people to believe that??

It's also slightly racist.

.

[Phi for All]

Because it is not evolution, it is the same species it is just variation within the species, following your

logic black man are a different species from white men, do you you seriously expect people to believe that??

It's also slightly racist.

.

You're Begging the Question here. You're calling racism based on your own assumption. Fallacious, circular reasoning and WRONG.

 

You need more than hand-waving to qualify as a good argument.

[esbo]

I don't understand how you can simultaneously believe in natural selection and not evolution.

 

Because it is selection within the same species, you are never gonna naturally select an elephant from a butterfly,

that just aint gonna happen.

 

Ginger haired people are never gonna evolve into a different species.

 

That's just ludicrous

 

This is what you lot fail to understand, variation within a species is limited.

 

That is why evolution had never been observed or reproduced in the lab.

 

Until it has it remains a theory because a theory must be proven before it comes a law.

 

On and by the way the link to 'scientific theory' in wikipedia is unverified, I think some of

you are being mislead by someone hacking wikipedia and putting in false unverified definitions.

 

 

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

 

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009)

[immortal]

Because it is selection within the same species, you are never gonna naturally select an elephant from a butterfly,

that just aint gonna happen.

 

Ginger haired people are never gonna evolve into a different species.

 

That's just ludicrous

 

This is what you lot fail to understand, variation within a species is limited.

 

That is why evolution had never been observed or reproduced in the lab.

 

Until it has it remains a theory because a theory must be proven before it comes a law.

 

 

This is a clear indication of your lack of understanding on how evolution by NS works. Speciation happens due to reproductive isolation and wastage of gametes.

[Edtharan]

How about being able to do an experiment yourself that has evolution occur right in front of your face.

 

What you need:

Pencil and eraser

Several pieces of paper (or you could use a word processor if you want to save paper)

2 Coins

 

And a fair bit of time (a few hours at least).

 

Setup:

- On one piece of paper write a word (about 6 letters will do). Put this aside so you can remember it. We will call this the target word.

- On another piece of paper write random letters (call this the see word). It doesn't need to be the same number as the word you wrote. Also, unless you have a lot of paper, it is best if you write small.

 

Ok, we are now ready to prove to you evolution is real.

 

Follow these steps:

1) Using the seed word, make a copy of it, however, when writing each letter out, flip the coin. If it is a heads, leave the letter as is and go on to step 3, otherwise do step 2.

2) If the coin is a tails, flip 2 coins and do the following:

a) If the two coins are both heads, change the letter so that it is one move towards 'A'. If the letter was 'A', then the letter becomes 'Z' (this gives us a wrap around). For example if the letter was 'G', then the letter becomes 'F'.

b) If the two coins are both tails, change the letter so that it is one move towards 'Z'. If the letter was 'Z', then the letter becomes 'A' (this gives us a wrap around). For example if the letter was 'G', then the letter becomes 'H'.

c) In any other case, go to step 4

3) If the coin is a heads, flip two coins and do the following:

a) If the two coins are both heads, remove the letter from the word (note: if this causes the last letter to be deleted, then this word scores 0 - see below about scoring)

b) If the two coins are both tails, add a random letter before this letter

c) in any other case, go to step 4

4) Repeat steps 1 and 2 until you have 10 words

5) Compare each word you made in steps 1, 2, and 3 and the seed word with the target word. Do this by applying these rules:

a) For each letter in the tested word that is in the target word give the word +1 points, but only count a letter once for each time it is in the target word. For example if the test word was "kjlss" and the target word was "sure", as the letter 'S' appears in both, the word would get +1 point, but as the target word only has the letter 'S' once, the test word, even though it has 2 letter 'S' in it, still only gets 1 point form this

b) If the target word has the same letter in the same place, then it gets a +1 point for each match. For example if the test word was "sjsjsu" and the target word was "sure", then as the first letters of both are 'S', then the test word gets +1 points. However even though there is the letter "U" in both, it is not in the right place so doesn't get the point. These points add to the points in rule (a).

6) Select the word with the highest score (or a random one from the words with the equally highest score). This word is not the new seed word. Erase all other words besides the target word (or just use a new piece of paper)

7) Repeat this procedure from step 1 until the words match exactly.

 

If you follow these instructions, then you will get evolution. You have replication (making the 10 copies of the seed word), you have mutation (when you use the the coin to indicate what letters are changed) and you have selection (when you score the words and then choose the next seed word).

 

Evolution is a process, and evolution of living organisms is just one instance of the process. In this example, we are using a set target for the selection, but it doesn't have to be (try it again, but half way through change the target word).

 

If you want more examples of this have a look at these videos:

[Arete]

 

That is why evolution had never been observed or reproduced in the lab.

 

Until it has it remains a theory because a theory must be proven before it comes a law.

 

 

 

You might wish to go back to one of the two posts where I linked to a number of studies which do exactly this.

or read these ones:

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9724.short

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ujWvn-wiBsoC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=speciation+experiments&ots=rgqxM_TNgO&sig=na9h2JqeDmaE_3hD77WmkJ1GsNo#v=onepage&q=speciation%20experiments&f=false

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/278/1704/399.short

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/suppl.1/9955.short

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00665.x/full

 

PLEASE read the post about the relationship between scientific laws and theories. Theories DO NOT become laws. They are different entities entirely and no hierarchy is implied whatsoever.

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

 

 

Repeating something that isn't true does not make it true.

[Tres Juicy]

So you're saying that you're ok with evolution but not speciation?

[esbo]

Natural selection is a basic process of evolution.

 

No natural selection is just natural selection ie any kind of selection from a group of thing,

ie if I select fish and chips from the menu that is my natural selection, it's a long way

from evolution, the chips have not turned into a turnip and the fish has not turned into

a turkey.

[John Cuthber]

I guess you know the basic idea of evolution- the kids are similar to the parents but there's a bit of variation. If the kids have some variant that gives them a competitive advantage they will have more kids, in their turn, than those who don't have that advantage.

So that advantage becomes more common in the group as a whole.

 

OK, That's a simplistic description of evolution. If you say it doesn't happen, why not?

It's more or less tautological that the meaning of the word "advantage" here is that they will have more kids so those kids too will have that advantage.

What stops it working?

without some means to explain how evolution can fail, there's no sensible way to deny it.