A discussion on evolution...

[Excellen Browning]

So it is wrong to say that it is factual that matter is composed of atoms? Given that it's only atomic theory, of course.

There's crystallographical techniques that allow us to visualize molecular structures up to the hydrogen atoms (which is a relatively new development) It allows us to confirm the existence of atoms in molecules, the way certain types of bonds are structured or ordened. Being able to visualize such things adds great credibility to anything, IMO.

as for whatever snowy has to say... Explain to me in formal logic why atomic theory and evolution theory do not have the same value or credibility as "theory which attempts to explain the happenings and forces of the universe" or any other such definition of "theory" you may want to use(please be sure to define theory though).

[Snowy_One]

Because evolution is a theory derived from our own observations of fossils. It is not something easily experimented with, something that cannot be reproduced, and something that happened in the past. That doesn't mean it's untrue, but it's certainly different even though it falls under the scientific definition of 'theory'. Atomic theory is something that can be tested and re-tested in a lab, evolution between species is something that can only be observed by finding fossils and making deductions as to why things are that way, but it cannot be 'proven' 'observed' or 'tested', only 'noted that there are differences and arguments given as to why they are that way'. If you stumbled onto the scene of a crime, you might be able to put together the pieces as to how things happened, you might be right, but you're only capable of making a deduction as to how things happened and they could have happened in a completely different way than what you think.

That's why evolution and atomic theory are different. It's not a knock for or against either. Just acknowledgement that they are different and acknowledgement that, because they are different, they can't be handled the same way.

[Excellen Browning]

Maybe I should have explained it better, but formal logic in the sense that I used it, is reducing each statement to one of the following structures that do not need proof of themselves.

If A, then B

If not A, then not B

If A, then not B

If not A, then B

Not A and B at the same time

I believe this is the stoic formal logic system. But I digress.

Also lacking definitions.

[-Cynthia-]

Think of science, particularly archaeology, like one huge game of Phoenix Wright. Everything can seem to fit in perfectly and point to one person as a murderer then, BAM! Some new piece of evidence comes to light and totally changes everything, yet every step forwards moves us closer to what really happened and the biggest crime is to ignore the truth in favor of pushing your own personal theory (which could result in poor little Maya getting sent to jail!).

I think you're still making scientific theories out to be more mercurial than they really are. New evidence may change a theory, but only after lots of testing by various sources and even in the end the original theory is almost never entirely discarded. Comparing a scientific theory to a court case isn't a very good comparison- scientific theories must undergo rigorous confirmation to even be considered a theory in the first place.

[Esau of Isaac]

Because evolution is a theory derived from our own observations of fossils. It is not something easily experimented with, something that cannot be reproduced, and something that happened in the past. That doesn't mean it's untrue, but it's certainly different even though it falls under the scientific definition of 'theory'. Atomic theory is something that can be tested and re-tested in a lab, evolution between species is something that can only be observed by finding fossils and making deductions as to why things are that way, but it cannot be 'proven' 'observed' or 'tested', only 'noted that there are differences and arguments given as to why they are that way'. If you stumbled onto the scene of a crime, you might be able to put together the pieces as to how things happened, you might be right, but you're only capable of making a deduction as to how things happened and they could have happened in a completely different way than what you think.

That's why evolution and atomic theory are different. It's not a knock for or against either. Just acknowledgement that they are different and acknowledgement that, because they are different, they can't be handled the same way.

Now you're simply displaying your ignorance of the theory of evolution. It's an observed phenomenon, and as clearly true as atomic theory. In terms of validity they are both equally grounded.

Evolution isn't an educated guess. We are as sure of common ancestry as we are that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

[Original Alear]

Because evolution is a theory derived from our own observations of fossils. It is not something easily experimented with, something that cannot be reproduced, and something that happened in the past. That doesn't mean it's untrue, but it's certainly different even though it falls under the scientific definition of 'theory'. Atomic theory is something that can be tested and re-tested in a lab, evolution between species is something that can only be observed by finding fossils and making deductions as to why things are that way, but it cannot be 'proven' 'observed' or 'tested', only 'noted that there are differences and arguments given as to why they are that way'. If you stumbled onto the scene of a crime, you might be able to put together the pieces as to how things happened, you might be right, but you're only capable of making a deduction as to how things happened and they could have happened in a completely different way than what you think.

That's why evolution and atomic theory are different. It's not a knock for or against either. Just acknowledgement that they are different and acknowledgement that, because they are different, they can't be handled the same way.

Mendelian genetics was derived from - as far as I remember it - fairly acceptable experimental procedure. Well, perhaps there was something relatively unrefined about the method - but, in the same way that a continent isn't ignored because it wasn't expected, I don't leave off my trail because I caught a scent while my nose was where it wasn't supposed to be.

And it seems to me it's been subjected to more rigorous analysis since...

Then there are discoveries made in genetics. I don't know that I would say these support or undermine evolution - I'd simply say that these are important tools in analyzing it. I'm not a scientist, but it seems to me discoveries in contemporary genetics have placed the theory of evolution under a more rigorous examination.

Comparing a scientific theory to a court case isn't a very good comparison- scientific theories must undergo rigorous confirmation to even be considered a theory in the first place.

It's a good comparison insofar as court cases and scientific theories are controversial. Why that is, I have no idea and no clue. However, territorialism only takes things so far.

[redturtle806]

I'm a Geologist with some religious views. Fuck me right?

On one hand, I'm familiar with the earth's history to the point I can draw out a diagram of every age, epoc, and era of earth from memory, while describing the evolutionary development in each. There's clear developments in each, and part of my professional career will depend on being to identify the age and species of fossils in certain areas. There's also things such as carbon and K-Ar dating, which are built on relatively stable science.

One the other hand, I've seen the effect religion has in prisons and high drug areas; turning absolute pieces of shit into decent human beings. Imo one of the biggest things people forget about Christianity is that Jesus walked among the poor and criminals; and you might be surprised to see its value in these areas even If you view the Bible as a simple book. However the wealth some people put into churches makes me sick, Christians are supposed to help the poor with that money.

....and my professional opinion is that I have no idea what to think. I don't like it when people call me an ignorant fool for being religious, nor do I like it when religious people try to force their beliefs through legislation. If people are gonna believe they will, but you can't legislate morality. Tbh I just don't know what to believe, and couldn't really care less about knowing for sure. Where's the fun in life without a little mystery about what comes next?

Edited February 4, 2013 by redturtle806

[Excellen Browning]

One the other hand, I've seen the effect religion has in prisons and high drug areas; turning absolute pieces of shit into decent human beings. Imo one of the biggest things people forget about Christianity is that Jesus walked among the poor and criminals; and you might be surprised to see its value in these areas even If you view the Bible as a simple book. However the wealth some people put into churches makes me sick, Christians are supposed to help the poor with that money.

I prefer Islam to Christianity in that sense, considering in the Quran it's written several times helping the poor is a part of the duty of a muslim. It's also written duties are for those that care about them, but in the end, to my knowledge, in countries like Egypt a poor person receives quite a bit of charity from the people around it. Maybe not inconsequentially, Islam seems to be more appealing to young people from poor, urban areas in America, than other religions.

[Snowy_One]

Now you're simply displaying your ignorance of the theory of evolution. It's an observed phenomenon, and as clearly true as atomic theory. In terms of validity they are both equally grounded.

Evolution isn't an educated guess. We are as sure of common ancestry as we are that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

You might want to read your own link. Almost all of those were examples where the off-spring were sterile mixes of two different species, mutations that were sterile, or speculative. I shouldn't have to state the obvious but... if the off-spring can't reproduce, then it's useless to evolution. Personally, I won't accept something as valid proof of evolution until we've had two different breeding species emerge from one prior one and are incapable of breeding with each other.

[Esau of Isaac]

You might want to read your own link. Almost all of those were examples where the off-spring were sterile mixes of two different species, mutations that were sterile, or speculative.

1.) Only a few were noted as sterile, which does absolutely nothing to combat the evidence stated in the slightest.

2.) Of course it's speculative. There's pages of explanation prior to the examples that point out why this is. You don't just have a fish transform into a human overnight, it takes an extremely long period of time exposed gradually to radically different environments. It is explained why these examples are evidence of speciation.

Personally, I won't accept something as valid proof of evolution until we've had two different breeding species emerge from one prior one and are incapable of breeding with each other.

You should probably read the page I posted again then.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Excellen Browning]

No one brings up island gigantism?

Really?

[Raven]

Dragonflies, and insects in general, used to be much larger than their modern-day variants because of the large amounts of oxygen that used to be in the atmosphere during prehistoric times. It's believed that the decrease in oxygen levels has seen them shrink in size over millions of years. There are fossils to prove such things existed. Evolution for the sake of adaptation to new environments.