Evolution: Is it fact or just a dumb theory?

Question

First, what is the definition of a theory: "explanation of a problem based upon observations and experiments". Since no one has ever observed evolution, and evolution can't be tested, by definition, it isn't a theory. Rather, it's an unproven and unprovable hypothesis. Therefore, to be believed, evolution has to be accepted by faith.

There's nothing wrong with faith, I have a faith. My faith says that God created man in His image. Man is not related to monkeys, but is a created being.

Look at the dumb things that Atheists believe. From a single cell, all life came. Conclusion, man is not only related to monkeys...............man is related to bananas!!!! This is what evolution teaches.

Who agrees with me, that this is a dumb theory?

You don't believe that they teach man and bananas are related. Go look at some school text books, you might be surprised at what you read.

Music girl..........The fact that we need flu shots every year has nothing to do with evolution. What happens with flu shots, they kill off some viruses, but there are other viruses that have a natural immunity to the vaccine, and reproduce viruses with that immunity. What you should do is read Mendellian Genetics for a complete explaination. By the way, this is not only not evolution, but is the opposite of evolution, because there's a loss of genetic material in the viruses that died off.

Answer 1

I do. But it's the glue that holds our new atheistic America together so they really don't want to give it up and will fight for it to be taught to our children at all costs. Even if they know it's a lie!
I have to tell armandsteel that the Bible told us to wash our hands and about how to avoid germs way before science caught up.

Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould put it this way"Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." In other words, Throughout the geologic layers, which supposedly formed over eons - the various kinds of fossils remain essentially unchanged in appearance.They show no evolution over long ages. Paleontologists call this "stasis."
Wouldn't a fossil record, showing all animals complete when first seen, is what we'd expect if God created them whole, just as the Bible says?
Austin H. Clark, the eminent zoologist of the Smithsonian Institution, was no creationist but he declared:
"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediates between the major groups of phyla.
This can only mean one thing. There can only be one interpertation of thisentire lack of any intermediates between the major groups of animals - as for instance betweenbackboned animals or vertebrates , the echinoderms, the mollusks and the arthropods
If we are willing to accept the facts we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or in other words that these major groups have from the very first, borne the same relation to each other that they have today."
.British science writer Frances Hitchens wrote" On the face of it, then, the prime function of the genetic system would seem to be to resist change ; to to perpetuate the species in a minimally adapted form in response to altered conditions, and if at all possibe to get things back to normal. The role of natural selection is usually a negative one : to destroy the few mutant individuals that threaten the stability of the soecies.
Why aren't fish today, growing little arms and legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers?Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
Evolution Is not visible in the past, via the fossil record. It is not visible in the present, whether we consider an organism as a whole, or on the microscopic planes of biochemistry and molecular biology,where, as we have seen, the theory faces numerous difficulties. In short, evolution is just not visible. Science is supposed to be based on observation.
L. Harrison Matthews,long director of the London Zoological society noted in 1971:"Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parrallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither up to the present, has been capable of proof.
Norman MacBeth wrote in American Biology Teacher:
"Darwinism has failed in practice. The whole aim and purpose in Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is to construct reliable phylogenies(genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed...Darwinism is not science."
Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup declared in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:
I suppose nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology;for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar" Darwinism" vocabulary -- "adaptation","selection pressure","natural selection", etc.--thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we will be able to make real progress in the understanding of evolution.
As natural selection's significance crumbles, the possibility of God, creation and design is again making a wedge in scientific circles. In a 1998 cover story entitled"Science Finds God" Newsweek noted:
"The achievments of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing # of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God...According to a study released last year, 40% of American scientists believe in a personal God---not only an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a diety to whom they can pray."
Author David Raphael Klein may have said it best:
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camoflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron, and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident-- such a personbelieves in a miracle far more astonishing than any in the Bible."

Answer 2

Evolution is not a blind process. It is one where the environment (EVERYTHING) is one such that only a certain group of life forms are ABLE to actually survive on it. If a house stays in one piece through a storm, it survies. If not, a different one is built, one that can survive such a storm. This is not an exactly accurate way to describe it, but it does get the point over. The rest of this will be more detailed.

Evolution just seems to be a logical extension of the fact that things that exist will exist, and things that cannot exist will not exist. What we are surrounded by is the only possible result of this environment's existence.

Flu shots, to take from your question, ARE an actual example. There is a loss of the genetic material that is unsuited to their environment (the human body). The genes that enable the survival of the flu are reproduced and survive.

Genetic material is added when mutations occur. Ever heard of cancer caused by radiation? A cell mutates, malfunctions, and often causes a death. Now, consider the idea that that changes the genetic material of a single germ, and it enables this germ to survive. What does it do? Reproduce, of course! With nothing to hinder its survival, it can reproduce until it causes problems for itself or until new challenges arise (new vaccines, immunizations, etc).

Because it is impossible for some things to exist in a place that they can not survive in, a change is inevitable. We are shaped by our environment, which in turn, has enabled us to shape our environment. Flu shots are one way that we ensure the spreading of our genetic material as a race.

Is it too much of a stretch to consider the fact that it affects other life forms as well? Obviously, it's in different degrees and in different ways, but the result is something that accomplishes the same thing: survival.

Oh, and what is so stupid about us being related to bannanas? Something that is unusual to you, as Galileo's heliocentric "theory" was to the people of his time, cannot be discounted simply for that reason.

Is it unusual that a tree can have its branches cut off and survive? The only reason that you seem to discount evolution and not the idea that trees can live through quite a bit is that you find evolution unusual.

Besides, doesn't all life share some common characteristics? We all reproduce. We all take in nutrients and give out waste products. Is it not too absurd to think that we may be (in a rather distant way) related?

This is the way I view it as a whole: Things that survive today exist tomorow, and things that do not survive today will not exist tomorrow.

I hope that this is as thought-provoking as I want it to be (Though it may be selfish of me)
-Eric

Answer 3

Adaptation and change are demonstrable, as is the intelligent order of the universe. Where science diverges from faith, there you find ignorance...that is to say, lack of information.

Now I have noticed both sides of the Argument of Evolution ("argument" being now a more accurate description than "theory"), that vitriol and animosity is more commonly the evangelical technique than is reason and tolerance.

Vitriol and shrill oration furthers neither side of the "Argument" and basically makes most observers cease to care, and therefore to detach.

Therefore, there are far less people today who give a flying crap about whether evolution is fact or foolhardy, simply because the embittered parties to both sides of the argument are simply too foul to associate with.

Realistically, there is enough evidence to make the line of reasoning both for and against evolution plausible. That being the case there are chances that both sides of the argument have portions of the truth, and additional evidence should be requisite before declaring a conclusion.

Possibly evolution occurred and creation didn't.

Possibly creation occurred and evolution didn't.

Possibly both creation and evolution occurred separately.

Possibly both creation and evolution occurred together.

Possibly neither creation nor evolution occurred.

But one thing that is certain...hatred born of ignorance continues to occur.

Where hatred exists there is neither science nor faith.

David

Answer 4

For starters, evolution as you seem to mean it, the sudden creation of new species has been observed about 100 times that I can find. Second, that is not the definition of a theory and there are other branches of science that cannot do experiments or testing as you mean it. Two simple examples are economics and meteorology. It would be unethical to induce a depression just to test the impact of money on production. Likewise, it is pragmatically impossible to rewind the weather or to induce massive weather systems.

The test of a theory is its ability to predict.

It turns out to do this quite well. In fact, biologists are currently tracking changes in the human genome and how they propagate. They are taking global blood samples over generations and watching how mutations and which mutations seem to work well in which environments.

Now you seem to confuse this with Mendelian genetics. Mendel, it is true, was a founder of genetics through his meticulous observations, but they do not belong to him and his genetics are no different than Darwin's, Crick's or any current biology professor except of course the handful of religious professors who cannot accept the body of science and need to add a God in.

Man is, in a sense, related to bananas in the sense that we both share the genetic material of a common, albeit distant ancestor.

While you believe evolution is not testable that is clearly not true. You just lack the training and education to figure out how to test it. You would be surprised at the creativity and skill of people at the doctoral level. Statistics becomes a field far more profound than anything taught at the undergraduate level and more complex as well. Undergraduates do not worry about hidden Markov processes, those in proteomics do. Proteomics is in fact impossible without evolution. You can actually, if you had the clearance, go and touch things that can only exist if there is evolution. Evolution is touchable, observable and observed. I am attaching references that you can take to an academic library and verify this fact.

Intelligent design is a dumb theory. Not only does it go against the observable data, it actually would permit the ability to disprove God, at least in the tautological sense. It is foolish to create a theory where someone with an inadequate level of knowledge in predicate calculus could disprove God.

Let me provide a simple example.

We know that all observed biological species die using a statistical curve called the "bathtub curve." Also, designs of physical objects by the untrained and incompetent follow the bathtub curve. Intelligently designed engineering projects fail at increasing rates. Only through the absence of intelligence and skill can you get a bathtub curve.

Therefore, using tautology.

God is the designer of all non-animal and non-man made things.

Intelligently designed things fail and an increasing rate as time or activity pass.

Unintelligently designed things fail along the bathtub curve.

Biological life fails consistently using a bathtub curve.

Therefore God is unintelligent.

Any theory that calls God dumb is a dumb theory OR correct. You can decide which. Biologists who are competent and believe in God do not accept intelligent design because by the obvious implication, there is no God. God could exist, without intelligent design, but no competent biologist wants to call God dumb. So they accept evolution and leave God out. They accept that Genesis is incorrect, just as the bible is wrong about the Earth being flat or the center of the universe.

Below are a list of instances of speciation. Check them out at the library.

Answer 5

Really! You don't know about the moths in England during the industrial revolution? Go read about it and come back and tell me we have never seen evolution in action. What about mosiquitos who are becoming resistant to toxins.

Here, just for the record:

Science (from wikipedia)

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

Educate yourself please.

Answer 6

All life is related to all other life... and that is a beautiful thing.

The ugly thing, in my view, is that some people don't see the beauty in that... they see a threat to their importance, not the beauty of being connected to all other life.

Evolution has been observed. Your assertion that it hasn't shows your ignorance on the subject. Have you not ever wondered why we need a new flu shot each year?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.evolutionhappens.net/

EDIT - Seems you need another link...

http://www.rpi.edu/~tsanga/evolution.html

Actually, maybe you should start with a definition of "evolution" as it pertains to science...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

Now to address your "points" -

"...but there are other viruses that have a natural immunity to the vaccine,"

Where did they come from? They weren't there before the vaccines were used. How did they get the immunity?

"What you should do is read Mendellian Genetics for a complete explaination."

I understand Mendel's ideas. Thanks. But where did this vaccine resistance appear from in the first place? Vaccine resistant strains don't appear until the virus has been exposed to the vaccine for a time.

"By the way, this is not only not evolution, but is the opposite of evolution, because there's a loss of genetic material in the viruses that died off."

[sarcasm]Wow. That's such a brilliant observation... [/sarcasm]

Ever heard of natural selection? You know, the mechanism by which information is either "kept" or "deleted" from the gene pool?

One of the most important things evolution does is get rid of genes that are not suited to survival.

As for the general idea of info loss and addition... the word "evolution" means change. Both a loss of information and an addition of information are changes.

I feel I am wasting my time. Hopefully not, but it seems to me that if you actually wanted to learn something about evolution, you'd be asking these kinds of questions in the Biology section.

You have a LOT of reading to do.

Answer 7

Ah, classic. First you redefine "scientific theory" and then you "win the argument". Only in your own head, bub.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

FRUIT FLIES. BACTERIAL LIFE. In essence, we can readily observe evolution in anything with a sufficiently small lifespan. For larger specimen with longer lifespan, you will not be able to observe evolution in your lifetime, you will have to look at indirect evidence such as the fossil record.

Here is a bonus, observed speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Answer 8

You sound like you believe in Intelligent Design. If so you should also believe in Intelligent Falling as an alternative to the Theory of Gravitation. After all Gravitation is just as dumb a Theory as Evolution.

God created man? Who created God?

Answer 9

It is ridiculously easy to believe in evolution and believe in God, because evolution is simply a creation of God. There is nothing more ego-blowing than for a ridiculously sheep-headed unthinking Christian to declare that man made God in his image, oops, I meant man made in God's image.

Natural selection and survival of the fittest has been observed, theories of genetics has been tested and proven, and evolution is not mearly a simple theory that can be brushed aside, but instead a culmination of centuries of research and scientific thought.

My good man, didn't you know Darwin himself was a man of faith? Man is related to a banana in as much as God made both of them, by creating and ruling over the laws of physics and nature that created both of them. Your genes are so close to that of a the most minimal creature, a fruit fly for example, by the simple fact that both of you are alive, process food to create energy, and breathe in oxygen, all of which are very complicated procedures.

Instead of calling off evolution as a load of poppycock, read your bible, ignore the indoctrinations of your uneducated "authorities" of religion, and isntead learn about the wonders of human anatomy, ecology, biology, and even evolution. THrough knowledge you will realize that instead of going against God, for the spiritual person it simply affirms Him. How else could a single cell branch off into millions of billions of fantastic species? It could only *be* God.

Answer 10

Your assertion that evolution has not been observed is absolutely incorrect.

Take, for example, last year's H5N1 influenza scare. This particular strain of the influenza virus originated in jungle fowl. It then adapted itself, or mutated, to survive in domesticated poultry. After a while, the virus then mutated to a form that was more easily transmissible to humans, which set off a global pandemic scare.

Another example of evolution that set off a public health scare occurred quite recently. A man that had been diagnosed with tuberculosis boarded a plane from Greece to the U.S. A few days later, he was detained and put into quarantine. The man had originally been misdiagnosed with a strain of TB known as XDR-TB, or extensively drug resistant tuberculosis. This strain has evolved from a strain known as HDR-TB, or highly drug resistant TB.

This brings me to my point: is mutation not evolution?

Mutation in simple organisms, such as viruses, is caused by new environmental conditions that the organism must adapt to to survive. This premise is the basis of evolution.

This evolution has been witnessed first-hand by microbiologists and virologists in laboratory settings, with the aid of microscopes, in experiments that caused the microorganism to adapt through variable environmental conditions.

Long-winded, sure. Contains grammatical errors, absolutely. But I have eliminated any (reasonable) doubt that your assertion that evolution has not been observed is false. This renders your entire point invalid.

Now I need a drink. A big drink.

Oh, and my banana cousins want to kick your ***

Answer 11

sensible layout isn't a shown actuality from now on than Evolution concept is. (I even have yet to work out the place technological understanding has made the indisputable fact that it truly is a shown actuality and that it conflicts with no longer something) sensible layout is in keeping with a concept or faith and has no longer something to do with medical evidence and should no longer be linked with evidence. faith is a concept equipment. medical theories substitute all the time. (observe the word..."We now know...") it truly is vanity to assert that something is now shown to be actuality while new information shows previous theories are often incorrect.