evolution is a myth

Originally Posted by Tailsnake

Sorry to be nitpicky, but this point always annoys me:

Evolution is a FACT, Natural Selection is a THEORY

People often conflate the two, but evolution is an observable process; we can witness it happen and we can induce it in lab environments. The theory is the mechanism behind this change. Gravity is in the same boat (i.e. Gravity is a fact, Newtonian Gravity, General Relativity, Entropic Gravity, etc. are Theories)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...ory_a nd_fact

yeah i remember reading about e. coli cultures evolving citric acid metabolism or something. plus the whole deal with fossils that provide pretty much incontrovertible evidence for evolution (if not natural selection, like you said). no rabbit fossils 65 mn years ago, but tons of dinosaur fossils, now dinosaurs are extinct (ok birds..but that's beyond the point) and rabbits are all over the place. obviously, species are being evolved, and being removed continuously.

Doesn't evolution have more evidence backing it than gravity does?

Micro evolution is observable. Is not macro evolution the same, but with added time? Really, anyone who doesn't acknowledge its validity at this point is being irrational.

That being said, a mind of reason should affirm that anything can change in light of new evidence. If, hypothetically, evolution is negated 100 years from now by a theory with heavier evidence supporting it, it would be the role of scientific minds everywhere to welcome this new veracity.

Originally Posted by grovad

...
That being said, a mind of reason should affirm that anything can change in light of new evidence. If, hypothetically, evolution is negated 100 years from now by a theory with heavier evidence supporting it, it would be the role of scientific minds everywhere to welcome this new veracity.

Evolution is largely fact (and self-evident). The modern synthesis and the culmination of evidences of evolution by means of natural selection is explained by the theory proposed.

She just questions it, I guess she finds it hard to believe. I’m not sure exactly why, its not something that pops into conversation a lot. Its not important. I think you guys are getting the impression she’s some crazy creationist or something…

Evolution is a FACT, Natural Selection is a THEORY (too lazy to quote multiple people).

Sorry about that. But I figured for this discussion it didn’t matter so much. At least not with my objective.

But it is true that biology as whole does not make sense without the basis of evolutionary theory (same),


Probably, though I doubt either of us are really as far enough into the field to make that claim for real. Either way, that’s not the point. As I’ve said before, its entirely possible to have beliefs/ideas/whatever that run counter to your standard field, and still be competent. I’m just making that point.

And I promise its not me. I agree with natural selection, evolution, etc. And I'm certainly not going to try to prove its untrue, the evidence is about as good as it can be. I’m just making a point against the OP, that you can’t define what people believe/accept/whatever based on what they study, where they work, etc, which I read they were doing in their post. honestly read it as a little too narrow minded for my tastes, since I know people straddling the fence. Besides, they seemed to be looking for examples or something about how it was possible, so...

Originally Posted by RyanC

Evolution is largely fact (and self-evident). The modern synthesis and the culmination of evidences of evolution by means of natural selection is explained by the theory proposed.

I know. Hence, hypothetically.

Originally Posted by britb

I’m just making a point against the OP, that you can’t define what people believe/accept/whatever based on what they study, where they work, etc, which I read they were doing in their post. honestly read it as a little too narrow minded for my tastes, since I know people straddling the fence.

I am not saying that you can define a person's acceptances based on their study but rather it would make more sense if their acceptances corresponded/matched with their studies. I mean, would an agnostic/athiest go to a seminary for their studies?

I am assuming they are choosing their study path with their own free will.

Originally Posted by britb

Besides, they seemed to be looking for examples or something about how it was possible, so...

Its true, I was looking for examples of such people. I wanted to see their reasoning behind it.

Okay so can we DEFINE evolution here, so we know what we're all talking about and we're all on the same page? Because the term evolution can include many things, INCLUDING natural selection.

Originally Posted by britb

Probably, though I doubt either of us are really as far enough into the field to make that claim for real. Either way, that’s not the point. As I’ve said before, its entirely possible to have beliefs/ideas/whatever that run counter to your standard field, and still be competent. I’m just making that point.

That's a very interesting point, and I believe it to be the case as well. This same phenomenon can then be found all across mathematics, at least, and I would suppose that it is found in other scientific communities as well.

For example, the first-order predicate logic is the 'first' and most-studied logic (in our present mathematical paradigm, at least), and so much of mathematical logic has been specialized using this particular logic. There are some mathematical logicians who believe that first-order predicate logic isn't the one (out of our present choices) that we ought to use, but who are perfectly fluent in their discipline. In this case, it seems like a perfectly understandable and justifiable metaphysical issue with the first principles of the discipline, and thus seems to be easily reconcilable with the discipline in application.

I don't see a difference between a logician in such a community and a biologist who doesn't believe in evolution (and here I do mean evolution, not only natural selection - despite the bandying about of the word 'fact', many scientific phenomena have been redefined based on what constitutes valid empirical reasoning). I think the only reason this seems so unacceptable to some is the popularity (what I mean by this is that popularity tends to 'de-abstractify' what are inherently metaphysical ideas) of evolution relative to other topics. In other words, when particular scientific ideas are converted into corresponding ideas in popular science, it seems that the idea of science as a model is translated into the idea of science as fact. This can account for the variation, I think.

Originally Posted by Strategy

Okay so can we DEFINE evolution here, so we know what we're all talking about and we're all on the same page? Because the term evolution can include many things, INCLUDING natural selection.

When I wrote the inital post I was defining it as "the theory that all organisms on Earth are related by common ancestry and that they have changed over time, predominantly via natural selection." <- this is from bio 1m03 lectures.

Presumably, people in the thread also defined it as "any change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time, especially, a change in allele frequencies." <--- also from that class

Originally Posted by Mahratta

That's a very interesting point, and I believe it to be the case as well. This same phenomenon can then be found all across mathematics, at least, and I would suppose that it is found in other scientific communities as well.

For example, the first-order predicate logic is the 'first' and most-studied logic (in our present mathematical paradigm, at least), and so much of mathematical logic has been specialized using this particular logic. There are some mathematical logicians who believe that first-order predicate logic isn't the one (out of our present choices) that we ought to use, but who are perfectly fluent in their discipline. In this case, it seems like a perfectly understandable and justifiable metaphysical issue with the first principles of the discipline, and thus seems to be easily reconcilable with the discipline in application.

I don't see a difference between a logician in such a community and a biologist who doesn't believe in evolution (and here I do mean evolution, not only natural selection - despite the bandying about of the word 'fact', many scientific phenomena have been redefined based on what constitutes valid empirical reasoning). I think the only reason this seems so unacceptable to some is the popularity (what I mean by this is that popularity tends to 'de-abstractify' what are inherently metaphysical ideas) of evolution relative to other topics. In other words, when particular scientific ideas are converted into corresponding ideas in popular science, it seems that the idea of science as a model is translated into the idea of science as fact. This can account for the variation, I think.

The 'science' used by anti-evolutionists is awful. Your analogy with mathematicians sounds nice, but there really aren't any competent biologists that argue against evolution, just quacks.

Well, I'm muslim, but personally for me I see the theory of evolution and religious explanations as two separate entities that exist seperately from each other.... I can't really get it into my head that one is more right than the other or any such thing... I just appreciate the points of both?

I thought this topic was kind of interesting, and you should tell your friend that not all mutations work out so well. There are those that are lethal, and so the organism carrying that mutation will die out, and mutations that are proven to be 'useful' at that moment in time are then passed on to the offsprings, and so on. As a side note, you should try youtubing a video where Richard Dawkins shows the laryngeal nerve of a giraffe, and this also demonstrates how evolution doesn't always work out so well...

In my opinion, the dumber you are, the more heavily you lean on religion. It was a great invention back in the day where it gave the uneducated (who didn't have access to as much knowledge as we do, and were more isolated) some guidelines to run by, but to believe in something without any proof in this day and age is just stupid.