Evolution is a well-documented and highly evident scientific theory. Sadly, it is much harder to bring a physical product to existence with evolution. (Although it does happen, take for example, Japanese crabs with samurai faces on them.. thanks to selection by fishermen, the crabs with apparent faces on their shells were always thrown back because of the drowning of Antoku and believing the samurai still walked the seas.)

Anyway, I'd like to ask those who deny evolution, what other science do you find invalid?

Let's try.. alternating current. There's no more scientific evidence for the existence of alternating current, yet it's helping to power your home at this very moment.

Radio waves. Still no more evident than evolution, but go flip on your AM/FM receiver and see what happens.

Gravity. No more fact than evolution, but we all know that what goes up must come down.

Photosynthesis. Well, tell me, can you breathe?

Etc..

Evolution is a fact, we know it happens.. and there is no evidence that change between species is anything more than long-term evolution.
So I'd like to ask, does evolution just happen to be the only widely criticized well-documented and evident scientific theory? Where are the religious people denying that space has no gravity, because the bible says the earth rests on pillars/foundations? Where's the argument for heaven existing in the clouds? Why aren't more people (there are some, see flatearthsociety) claiming that the earth is flat? After all, the Bible says you can see every part of it from a high place.

The answer is simple.. because evolution does not fit with the Biblical story of creation. Accepting evolution would mean denying faith, and faith is very good at protecting itself.

Well, I guess history just repeats itself. Before, the big heretic claim against the Church was that the earth revolved around the sun and not the opposite. Well, in a modern age, we know the exact answer to that. I have no doubt that if we should advance as a society into the future, one day, people will look back at the argument against evolution just as we currently do at the church's persecution of simple astronomical knowledge.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Evolution is a scientific fact and has been observed time and time again. Look at influenza for example we create a vaccine and it evolves rendering that vaccine useless. Those who deny this fact are naive and poorly educated.

Generally the people who don't believe in evolution (and no I'm not one of them) don't have an issue with micro-evolution like what you see with viruses and the like. They argue against macro-evolution.. where one species can split into several others essentially randomly.

This can be observed as well for example look at how many species of ants exist or canine etc. Fossil evidence also proves that evolution exists.

No actually, it doesn't. Fossil "evidence" can do no more than lead you to an assumption. However, it's not proof of anything.

And what would constitue "proof"? A photographic timelapse of a species evolving over millions of years?

If you make proof impossible, you'll never find proof. It is a proven fact though.

Here's an example of artificial selection, human-guided evolution.



Looks kind of like a samurai doesn't it? Fishermen in Japan throw these crabs back because of superstitions about the 1185 Battle of Dannoura. They feel that these crabs are samurai who still walk in the sea. The more your shell looks like a samurai as a crab, the less likely you are to get eaten in Japan and the more likely you are to reproduce.

What does that have to do with evolution? Proof of a process that takes millions of years isn't possible and most certainly doesn't exist. There's about as much evidence for it as there is for God.

Err, as it happens, I'm a Quantum Skeptic. I'm also an Atheist *shrugs*

I'm not sure what the percentages are like in America, but over here in the UK, I've met many Christians who are comfortable with the idea of evolution - it doesn't seem to clash with their beliefs at all.

Here in the States, I also see a good majority of Christians who are comfortable with evolution. Adaptation is evolution. What's the big deal?

Thats an example of Micro-Evolution, not macro, the ants are not evolving into beetles or spiders.

I could be wrong, but I think thats Micro...

There is tons of proof in regards to the reality of evolution.

Simpler organisms do not need millions years bacteria and viruses for example can evolve very quickly. There is also proof of human evolution with the last 10,000 years as well for example our jaws used to be much more defined because we never used tools to assist our eating. Look at how many species of arachnid exist or primates including humans.



Fossils can be used to connect the dots and tell us more about the history of life on the globe then you realize. Fossils are the physical evidence that evolution over long periods of time not only occurs but will always do so. We can observe evolution on a small scale which is backed by the observations made by physical evidence is proof whether you believe it or not is up to you.

This is very simple:
Evolution = fact
Creationism = Fiction

There, did that help?

I am aware of Micro-evolution, and am also aware of the ability of nature to adapt to changing surroundings. However, I do not believe in macro evolution.


No, that is an opinion.

While I agree with that statement, I really don't think its relevant here, obviously no one is going to just believe you saying that, if that were the case, this would have been settled long ago, please, if you're going to add something, let it be something relevant to the discussion.

Now, as for fossil evidence, I don't know if any of you believe this (and I really really hope you don't, because it's probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard.) but I have spoken with people who believe that fossils aren't proof of evolution because they believe that God put the fossils there to try to trick us into believing it, try to test our faith in him Honestly, if you just look into it a little, there is plenty of evidence for evolution. Such as this site http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm The third paragraph from the bottom, dealing with fossils a little bit, while it may not be the best site on the net, it provides some info.

This is very simple:
Evolution = fiction
Creationism = fact

look how easy that was

I'd like to see you prove its just an opinion lol

When the evolutionites prove evolution as fact, I'll believe it.

Well, evolution has more of a basis than creationism, I mean, evolutionists have evidence that can, if not prove evolution, at least make it seem plausible, while Creationists just have the Bible, which can't be proven to be true.

Neither can it be proven as false. Innocent until proven guilty eh? It's innocence has been debated and questioned, but it has yet to be proven guilty. Evolution and Creationism are two possibilities, neither of which have proof. IMO, if something cannot be proved with evidence, nor experienced by people don't even discuss it. Evolution is merely looking at a past fact. I really don't even understand why we debate our origins. It doesn't really matter, we are in the now and we should be preparing for what may or may not come in the future.

True, the future is important, but so is understanding our past.

Aye, but to spend time debating over the past which cannot be proven is a foolish waste of time. If it cannot be proven either way than we shall never know and debating that which is in the past and does not affect the present is pointless. Yes, knowing where we came from is good. But if we don't know for sure, and it comes to where we are spending lots of time arguing over it, than we have stopped moving forward. Anyways, have fun with this thread. COI OUT!!! *COI exists the thread, never to return*

But the thing is that there is proof of evolution that holds up and isnt "you have to believe" since evolution has more proof would that not make it more probable?

Do you ask the same of creationists ??They would have an even harder task to prove anything at all



fullywired

I definitely have full faith in evolution. Especially bacteria. For example, Staphylococcus aureus which cause boils, staph infection, and toxic shock syndrom. Also, there is the bacteria that cause gonorrhea and tuberculosis. These bacteria are becoming truly resistant and can cause life threatening illness or death. Truly, they're superbugs. Bacteria replicates so rapidly that this is the absolute quickest proof of evolution we have ever observed. Check out this article for more info on antibiotic resistance.

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/795_antibio.html

I suppose, however, I am not dictated by proof and evidence.



I have no need to. I know of God for myself.

(Child-Of-Israel @ Jul 19 2007, 05:18 PM)


Debating/arguing is one thing, but arguing often sheds a bad light on the necessity of understanding evolution. The subject has even made waves in the 2008 presidential race. Witness the Republican debate on May 3, when the question "Is there anybody on the stage that does not believe in evolution?" prompted U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo to raise their hands.

These candidates have scrambled to explain their denials. In so doing, they have highlighted a rift that not only separates scientists from evangelicals but also divides the public: a Gallup poll of 1,007 adults June 1-3 indicated that 53 percent of Americans believe that humans evolved over millions of years, while 66 percent believe in divine creation in the past 10,000 years. These figures add up to 119 percent, suggesting that Americans are profoundly ambivalent.

Such confusion about evolutionary theory jeopardizes the health of our nation. Further research is not a waste of time, imo


Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself" ~Ludwig Wittgenstein




The evidence for the evolutionary origin of species is every bit as strong as that for microevolutionary processes.

Occasionally, speciation is dramatic, as when new species arise instantaneously by hybridization between existing species. More common, though, is gradual geographic speciation. Populations of a single species living in different areas are subject to different evolutionary forces. They gradually diverge until they become two or more daughters of the original species.

The ingredients in this recipe are environmental variation, genetic variation and time -- no hand of God is required. Every stage of this process has been documented repeatedly as scientists have explored the patterns of geographic variation within species and described the emergence of new ones.

Moreover, because scientists know the rates at which certain genes change, they can often estimate when in the past species split apart.

If two cars started in the same place and traveled in different directions at a constant speed, you can calculate when they left their common starting point. Similar calculations can be made for genes changing at approximately constant rates. Biologists use these methods to reconstruct evolutionary history, including that of our own primate lineage.

I've always thought of a specific animal that to me proves that evolution is a very real process.

The Pitbull

These dogs were never intended by nature. Through a process of animal husbandry human beings created the Pitbull. Back in time, dog fighting rings were popular. The weaker dogs died in the fight and the stronger dogs prevailed. In order for someone to have a champion fighting dog, they'd obviously breed only the winning dogs.

So what we have today is animal that is anatomically conducive to fighting and killing.

The fact that mankind can alter and manipulate the evolutionary process of an animal to me proves that evolution exists.

If it can be manipulated than it is real.

at is basic essence evolution is jsut saying thngs change this is part of the process we are always changing....
everything is changing we are the changed and the changer.....this is so observable its hard as heck to miss.... life is the process of change IMO....

Im not a scientist lol...but I still believe it as fact so to speak....

But see you calling it NOT fact...so since you are so sure, I for one would like to see you PROVE it's not fact

Ah but there is a difference in the two...

Evolution is called a theory....(and a lot say - just because its called a theory dont mean its un-true)it explains how we came to evolve in so much detail...that makes sense

The bible doesnt...it claims to be true/fact....HUGE difference there mate!....it more or less tells us we were created by a magical being lol God POOF from dust came man !!lol...but see man was no were near as smart and as advanced to be able to come up with a theory like evolution...so he resorted to MAGIC....done at the hand of a supernatural being....it was much easier for man back then to take in....like writing a fairy tale IMO

OK, here is the interesting thing, if a Christian (Creationist) begins talking about "evolution" talking about the origin of life, he is immediately chastised for confusing abiogenesis with evolution because they are different things, but from reading KBA's OP and some of the replies, when believers in evolution says evolution and talk about how Christians don't believe in evolution it's OK for them to use the terms interchangeably.

I do not believe abiogenesis is true, I also do not believe that macroevolution is true, but have no problem with microevolution.

I cannot think of any other scientific theory I completely disagree with, but then all other THEORIES are not sold to us as fact with no real way to be proven.

I didn't ask you if you knew god .I asked if you ask the same proof of creationists as you are demanding of evolutionists


fullywired

Religion is just one theory that is sold to the masses with no proof or on no authority whatsoever... ..????

Article by Steve Olson published in The Washington Post

If you want to know one reason why the debate over teaching evolution remains so contentious, consider the stickers some school boards have wanted to paste in high school biology textbooks. They label evolution a "theory, not a fact," suggesting that an alternative explanation is possible.

It's a clever strategy. Even people sympathetic to evolution often don't know how to respond to the assertion that evolution is "just a theory." And the opposite claim -- that evolution is a fact -- can generate skepticism among those who don't like to be told what to think.

But these stickers use the words "theory" and "fact" in a very misleading way. The biggest problem is that "theory" has two separate meanings. In common usage, "theory" means an idea or a hunch: "I have a theory about why she left him." No one really knows what the reasons were, but we can guess.

That's not what "theory" means within science. When scientists speak of the theory of gravitation, cell theory or evolutionary theory, they are talking about scientific concepts that have been so thoroughly tested that they are very unlikely to change. Theories are the results of decades or centuries of scientific effort. They draw on many interconnected observations and ideas. They are the end products of science, not stages on the way to the truth.

In science, a hunch or conjecture is called a hypothesis, not a theory. When Copernicus proposed in the early 16th century that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa, his idea was a hypothesis. But four centuries of observation and thinking have convinced us that heliocentrism is a theory, not just an intriguing idea. It is compatible with everything we know about the solar system and explains observations that cannot be explained in other ways.

Ideally, English would have a different word for these comprehensive organizing concepts in science. But for now, "theory" is doing double duty. So calling evolution a theory may seem to denigrate it in everyday terms, but in scientific terms that's high praise.

I never even mentioned Abiogenesis. You're putting words in my mouth. Yes, if you follow the evolution rabbit hole it leads back to abiogenesis but that's for another discussion.

I WOULD, however, scoff at you for even differentiating between "macroevolution" and "microevolution". They are the same thing, macro is simply a compounding effect of micro. There is, technically speaking, no such thing as micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution is less change from evolution, macro is more change. "Species" is not some magic line that can't be crossed. It's simply a larger amount of change.

I am not taking IAMS side sis when i say this next part
I know sis...that's why it's classed as a faith lol....if it were proved as fact, then it wouldnt be a faith

Just saying lol (((hugs))))

i agree there is no other way to these beleifs other than faith... i assumed most are aware of this but you never know thanks for adding it....

thats why i find an irony in those that are relgious debate religious beliefs unless its to reinforce what they beleif by getting others to beleif it.......ther is nothig to talk about when you take it into the realm of faith ..faith is sort of a free for all anything goes ......from purple turtles to flying dogs ....

Evolution is evolution...KBA has it right...

If evolution occurs in one species it occurs in all species whether or not it is the most complex organism or the simplest.

Just because you do or don't believe something does not make it fact. Next thing you know people will be saying that Jesus rode around on a T-Rex....

From my blog, but it fits here as my answer to the OP

I as a Christian believe science and religion are quite compatible principles. Anyone who uses either side as a tool to disprove the other is not looking at the big picture. To me it is like comparing sound to taste. Both are viable and separate and yet we as individuals may be more partial to one or the other.

I believe God gave every man and women reason and intellect and within those is the ability to build science. Without either we would not be able to comprehend what our purpose was designed for and what we should design for our own purpose.

Wisdom and education go hand in hand. Even Jesus when choosing the apostles picked intelligent free thinkers to spread the gospel.
An example was Luke who was a physician, a man of science and reason.

For thousands of years man has believed first, that he could fly like the birds. That proof has only been with us for the past one hundred years. It was first an attractive idea that is now possible. It was once but a dream of many men and became a reality for the Wright brothers.

We know inside of us lies an unbiological/unmaterial entity we deem to be the soul. Without believing first we will never identify it and someday science may even prove it.
I wonder if before the invention of radio if conversation about the possibility of radio waves could have been thought of as within the spiritual realm.

There could be a form of undiscovered and unmeasured energy used during creation. It could be interpreted as part of the essence of God. And constitute evidence of a benevolent creator. If science can someday prove this it would come as quite a shock to some but others would still refuse to believe mainly because it’s not in their best interest to do so.

How many people died laughing at those who believed that someday man will fly amongst the clouds and maybe even to the moon?

How many people died laughing at those who believed that someday man could talk to his brothers half way around the world?

How many people died laughing at those who believed that someday man would have iron chariots that require no horse?

Science and spiritually share a special bond within the ability to reason and invent.

The inventor is not subject to His invention, but He does establish a code (law) of Creation and chooses as well as desires to works within its frame work much like a architect has a pre-conceived plan and design for his creations. Natural law, known and unknown has a purpose and design. As man is part of that creation and is in part in the original image of God we are privy as to the laws that govern creation through reason and learnt knowledge. We only have the ability of pro-creation now but our created destiny is within creation itself, science fits within God’s plan, and I believe quantum physics is the door to understanding creation.

Is it possible for human to have all the answers and proof or must we rely a certain amount to hope and faith? Science is continually changing as new discoveries are made on a daily basis, the answers occasionally send us back to the drawing board and sometimes open an entirely new form science and reasoning. For instance quantum physics was for the longest time pure speculation and theory and now is receiving the credit and attention it deserves.

We have a tendency to except scientific principles as dogma and in essence it has become a form of religion unto it self. With some adherents, so dogmatic that they reject anything to the contrary as being foolish and born of ignorance. Our personal view is blinded by our own arrogance and self worth to the point of actually stiffening our scientific progress as well as neutralizing our spirituality. We place our faith in proof and speculation and give little credit toward old wisdom and ancient knowledge, New and Improved has become the god of the twentieth century.

In reality if a man was to know all there is to know about this planet we call home we would consider him to be a genius among men. Yet even if it were possible to have all that knowledge we must also consider that this planet of ours is but a grain of sand in the vastness of the universe and that knowledge is extremely limited and miniscule leaving us right back were we started with speculation and faith.

Although I admire science and appreciate the strides it has taken us I personally have more faith in the Creator than I do in the sciences. And as I said before if I had a tendency to lean toward taste over sound it does not make the reverse wrong.

If it is not possible to know everything there is to know then I believe a foundation of faith is greater than a foundation of uncertainty to build my life upon. So I personal lean more toward faith than sciences yet have the utmost respect for both.

Irish

WOW Irish that was amazing and so well written...yes you are right, people did laugh at the geniuses ...they arent laughing now lol...


I believe God created these genisus men and women for a reason...to help us grow and all part of discovery...<--so is science and faith (of the religious kind)

KBA very well said, you woudl make an incredible teacher...

If you think that's funny, you wanna see what he wrote in the other thread

same as it ever was.......


The OP asked "what other theories do you invalidate"

Yet it has become yet another evo vs creo tongue wagging exercise.


meh. have at it and let the best theory win.

There is no proof that macro is the compounding effect of micro, sorry, there's theory, but no proof.

I am a biologist and while I don't specialize in evolution, I do have a solid educational foundation on the matter.

The most profound thing I can say to those who don't believe in evolution is that I wish you really had the opportunity to study the evidence in detail, through first hand experience.

Those who have not studied a fossil or have analyzed results from tests such as carbon dating can't truly have the feeling of "beautiful data" scientists, such as I, have. It is true their are anamolies is some tests, but as any person knows, with repeated trials and specimen samples, probability has a way of sorting everything out. (Unless of course the test is faulty)

""There is no proof that macro is the compounding effect of micro, sorry, there's theory, but no proof.""
What sort of proof are you looking for to link the two IamsSon? One occurs above and the other below the species level. You are speaking as if they are two totally different things. KBA is correct in his assumption. If macro evolution is proven by a certain litmus test or standard, micro must automatically exist. You are misusing the term theory (as fullywired pointed out other users have done). There is proof of evolution.

-I also would like to make it clear that many people confuse the most basic principle of human evolution.-

Humans evolved from apes and monkeys- WRONG

Humans and apes/mokeys share a common ancestor- CORRECT

Personally for me it's the bit in the theory about natural selection picking the best that is hard to swallow. if you said "oh and this is just what we randomly have ended up with" I would feel better. When you start saying the best will always be selected that sounds like faith to me.

But other science that i disagree with would be the existence of Dark Matter. Just seems like junk they made up to get the numbers right, ie weight of the universe. The general assumption that laws of physics will act the same in other places as it does here. My reasoning in saying this is if you assume a unified field theory, electro magnism is going to somehow effected by the existence of matter. Gravitation being spacetime warped in an as yet unknowable 4th dimension by the existence of matter. It seems to me that areas of space far between galaxies where matter is least plentiful stuff will work differently.

Sorry im sure ill get flamed or something.

if you take http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism and instead take "reality" to exist in Gods mind, and me as an independent observer this is closer to what i believe. I dont know about the rest of you, I assume your are either other observers or nonexistant.

Its not faith at all. Lets take bacterial antibiotic resistance as an example (Because its what I deal with in my paticular field most frequently and can explain the best)

This diagram explains it in a very laymans terms, but it is good nonetheless.


Before the selection takes place there is a mixture of highly resistant and low resistant bacteria. This is due to mutations in the bacterial genome. Once an antibiotic is introduced to the culture of bacteria, they will begin to die. It is important, however, to make sure you expose the bacteria to the antibiotic for an extended period of time because the highly resistant bacteria will survive. This is why your doctor doesn't want you to stop taking an antibiotic when you begin to feel better during treatment. You will end up sicker as a result due to the highly resistant bacteria repopulating the culture. Since asexual reproduction is quick and produces genetically identical offspring, only highly resistant bacteria are produced. This can lead to a whole host of complications. The highly resistant bacteria are best suited to the environment, therefore they survive and continue to reproduce.

I hope I explained this correctly enough for you to understand. If you have any questions just let me know, I'll be glad to clear it up.

EDIT
travelnjones, natural selection is a principle that can do nothing else besides favor a species that has evolved to better fit its environment. It doesn't make any sense for a bird to develop a beak that can no longer crack open nuts in an environment rich in nuts. It just couldn't and wouldn't happen, unless another food source was more readily available, in which case the bird will develop a beak to better handle that paticular food.

As for the dark matter issue, there is evidence to support it right now. It isn't somthing scientists just thought up to get numbers right. Any self respecting scientist wouldn't even think about doing that. Physics isn't my specialty so I can't speak much about it, but I can only say that your idea of holistically, scientists just think up things out of the blue and making them fit is wrong.

I agree evolution, as in the change over time of a population of organisms is proven... that's microevolution. We can see a population of let's say lizards, whose environment undergoes a change from humid to arid slowly change to a population which can thrive in the arid environment, basically because those lizards which had traits which allowed them a greater chance of success in the arid environment continued to thrive, while those members of the population who did not have traits that lent themselves to survival die off, and as the lizards who did have the propensity to survive continue to breed they reinforce those traits necessary for survival. The interesting thing is that the surviving population will most likely have lost genetic information in the process not gained it. So, although we can see lizards change into lizards which can cope with changes in environment, we have yet to see a lizard turn into a hare, so, although microevolution can be seen to occur, we can't say the same for macro evolution.

What branch of biology are you involved in?

I have found that some folks just don't understand what a scientific theorum is, so they find it easy to discount what they don't know. Additionally, many Christians expect science to validate their Holy Book without understanding that their Book is neither science nor history.

Peace,

RadicalGnostic