<p>EDIT: What the heck? Why do my posts have a propensity to be on the top of pages?</p>
<p>Evolution - the change of genetic frequency over time. Anyone who denies the truth of evolution is denying a fact.
Terrible logic. The “time” part of the definition is not limited to long periods. I’ll do a mathematical proof:</p>
<p>Question: Does evolution exist?</p>
<p>Statement 1: Evolution is the change of genetic frequency over time in a species of organism.
Statement 2: The genetic frequency of small organisms have been officially observed to have changed.</p>
<p>Conclusion: By By Peano-Dedekind Axiom III, there exists at least a situation in which evolution occurs. To disprove, one must prove that, for all situations, evolution does not occur.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: I wrote my “proof” from a mathematical point of view. I understand science only deals with evidence. I used a mathematical viewpoint because evolution is supported to such an extent that the difference between it, as a theory, and a fact is almost negligible.</p>
<hr>
<p>If you still deny evolution, you are either:
Not understanding its definition
So stuck up in your belief that you are willing to deny the blatant truths in front of your eyes.</p>
<hr>
<p>Your “feather” and “thermal radiation organ” provide a horrendous argument. Features do not need to change to such great lengths to be part of evolution. A infinitesimally small change in the gene frequency (of feature) of any given species is sufficient enough to prove evolution.</p>
<p>You must be confusing evolution with natural selection. Evolution is without a doubt a natural phenomenon, but natural selective, the explanation Darwin gave for evolution, is much more debatable, though it is also most likely true.</p>
<p>I don’t believe you read the link you posted, for there was no direct quote from anyone calling for revisionism to be taught in the classroom.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you weren’t posting inaccurate justifications of your statements, I would not be posting anymore. However, you have persisted. As it is, I am not responding to further inquiries that do not serve to address my original point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You haven’t provided evidence of anything. Let’s break this down:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The original comparison stated that the reaction of a victim of a genocide would be the same of an evolutionary biologist confronted with denial claims.</p></li>
<li><p>I said that this was inaccurate.</p></li>
<li><p>You said that creationists and Holocaust deniers were one and the same in their way of thinking.</p></li>
<li><p>I said that this was inaccurate.</p></li>
<li><p>You said that creationists and Holocaust deniers both wanted their ideologies taught in the classroom.</p></li>
<li><p>I said that this was inaccurate.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>You see where this is going? You’re using the red herring tactic of argument, in which you seize upon one point that had nothing to do with my original criticism. The reaction of a victim of genocide confronted with the claim that the genocide did not happen is not comparable to that of an evolutionary biologist confronted with claims that evolution does not exist. That is an untenable position, and you know it, hence your reasoning in shifting the discussion to a tangential point.</p>
I think this is a drastic oversimplification of evolutionary theory.</p>
<p>
Your mathematical proof does not prove this. It has nothing to do with anything; trying to use math to establish scientific theories as “truths” is utter nonsense.</p>
<p>EDIT: @ryanxing: Actually, re-examining your post, I am almost certain you have confused the Theory of Evolution with the phenomena of genetic mutations.</p>
Nonsense. It’s a minor simplification at best. What else can I call it? Change of inherited traits of a species over generations? Evolution is not true only if all species are forever stable, which is not the case. Of course, people who do not fully believe in evolution would want to make its definition as specific as possible.</p>
<p>Although I admit using math was a stretch, I was using simple logic to show the prevalence of evidence for evolution</p>
<p>Again, this is just like Newton’s Law of gravity ultimately shifting to General Relativity. There are specific situations where evidence supports Evolution–this particular data point does. </p>
<p>But Evolution does not say that inherited traits of small organisms with short lifespans change with time. It says that inherited traits of all populations of organisms change through the generations. Speciation is an expected result of Evolution. The combined expectations of Evolution and Speciation should mean that all organisms derived from a common ancestor. The data models these theories, but these theories aren’t universally proven.</p>
<p>You might think this is nitpicking, or that this is somehow ignoring the mass accumulation of data that supports Evolution. ** But notice how Newton’s Law of Gravity had hundreds of years of experimental support and, ultimately, half of it was wrong and the other half was a limiting case**. (Assuming General Relativity is the correct description of gravity). </p>
<p>Theories are based on data, but data is also based on theories. It will require an alternative explanation to Evolution to see whether Evolution really stands the test. Because when a solid, alternative solution is presented, new experiments will be designed to test this theory. These tests have a much better chance of disproving Evolution, because they don’t focus the biased expectations of Evolution. </p>
<p>No one would’ve thought to test the redshift of light in strong gravitational fields during Newton’s time–because his theory had nothing to do with light. It took General Relativity for such experiments to pop up that showed the Law of Gravity did not hold.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not true. An example showing that the expected results of Evolution occur in a particular population is just that–an example. It is another data point supporting Evolution. To disprove Evolution, one only needs to find a SINGLE data point that doesn’t follow the theory. </p>
<p>This is the unique situation of theories and proofs. Disproving a theory is easy. Proving it is very difficult–even more so in science than in math.</p>
<p>And BTW the mutations of a population of organisms does not disprove Creationism, either. You would need to show that organisms derived from a common ancestor–not just show a case where Evolution occurs as expected. Otherwise, Creationism could still explain the derivation of organisms while Evolution merely describes short-term fluctuations.</p>
<p>Designing tests that actually have a good chance of disproving Evolution requires great creativity–the same great creativity required to devise upholding Theories in the first place. </p>
<p>It is yet to be seen if Evolution describes reality or if the next great burst of creativity is still to come. Until then, we build off of Evolution because it models the data better than Creationism. As I’ve said, this doesn’t prove Evolution or disprove Creationism. One simply trumps the other in our narrow vision of understanding.</p>
So this argument comes down to a small wording to the theory (not that there are any absolute definition of it anyways)? I don’t understand what else there is to argue. Does the gene frequency (or trait) change within the populations of an organism over generations? Yes. So I don’t understand what’s your point. Even if (a huge, gargantuan if) you find a species that doesn’t conform to evolution, then congratulations, you found out that not **all[/bold] species conform to evolution; nonetheless, evolution still exists. Also, evolution does not imply speciation in all situations.</p>
<p>The common ancestor theory is separate from my argument. I will only focus on the existence of evolution, and not its implied (I don’t think the common ancestor theory is even part of the evolution theory. I could be wrong though) results.</p>
<p>I haven’t learned Physics yet so I can’t say anything about gravity or general relativity. But they are completely different from Biology in the sense that they relied heavily on mathematical procedures.</p>
<p>Evolution is not a hard theory to garner evidence for. As the name of this thread implies, science is compared to religion. Science (evolution, in this particular case) have much more evidence than any religious belief. Unfortunately, as Sithis pointed out, some people just don’t give a damn about empirical research and would rather stick to their less plausible beliefs of spirituality/existentialism/whateverism.</p>
<p>@ Sithis: Everything, regardless of how specific or vague it is, have degrees of vagueness and specificity. Scientific theories should be careful not to cross the line on either side. Too vague will indeed have many holes, while too specific will leave out too many possibilities. A theory should be specific enough to just accomplish its aim. I firmly believe my definitions are accurate enough to pass.</p>
<hr>
<p>This is a *****tily weak post indeed. I will come back to this thread once I gain more rhetorical skills, how many more years that may be. >_> This is why I want pure science to be complete separate from the humanities and philosophy (thus “immune” to rhetoric and all the BS that comes from people who wants to prove their own theories). Science search for truths through empiricism, and it’s unfortunate that certain people who disapprove of scientific theories have say in what is scientifically inaccurate or not.</p>
Well, they have a say in the scientific community if they can demonstrate things scientifically.</p>
<p>
LOL. Without philosophy, there would be no science. Nothing escapes philosophy my friend, nothing. There is even such a thing as “philosophy of science,” look it up. And the humanities; well, they keep science ethical.</p>
<p>EDIT: I don’t know though, ryanxing…it seems that you want to make the scientific Theory of Evolution = genetic mutations (or “variation”, if you wish). From wiki: “Evolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make particular variants become more common or rare.” Your definition of evolution seems half-accurate.</p>
<p>Yes, I see now. You have what I would consider a misconstrued idea of what Evolution is. </p>
<p>You can feel free to call a change in the statistical distribution of traits over several generations within ONE population of small organisms Evolution. It is simply a definition, and although I don’t think it’s generally agreed upon, I can roll with it. </p>
<p>In this case, we have shown that Evolution exists–by definition. You are defining the data acquired as Evolution. We have not shown that Evolution is universal to all species (or ANY other species). We have not shown the Evolution leads to any kind of Speciation. We have not even shown the cause of Evolution. You have only shown that there is a unique situation where Evolution occurs. It could very well be that this species has a unique characteristic, and we are simply calling this characteristic Evolution (just like some bacteria split via a special process called binary fission.) </p>
<p>It is like saying that Earth orbits around the sun as predicted by Newton’s Law of Gravity, and then defining the gravitational pull by the sun on the earth as Newton’s Law of Gravity. Then yes, Newton’s Law of Gravity is true–it’s just not necessarily useful in describing any other gravitational interaction.</p>
<p>Do you see why this limiting definition of Evolution is somewhat meaningless? Evolution is not trying to describe how one strain of bacteria changes its traits with time. It’s trying to explain the development of all species–both within each species and among all species</p>
<p>Using your definition, Creationism and Evolution are not at odds. Most people would say that Evolution and Creationism are at odds.</p>
<p>Also, re-reading #1389, I just noticed you said that you want science to be completely separate from philosophy, and then you say “Science searches for truths through empiricism.” Empiricism is a philosophy. You are contradicting yourself.</p>
<p>Also, if you think philosophy and the humanities are just a bunch of BS rhetoric, you do indeed have a lot to learn.</p>
<p>Oh, I see you edited your post or I had missed other things before.</p>
<p>
Any scientific theory could have many holes. That’s just the nature of science. If it leaves out possibilities that arise experimentally, it will be revised or rejected and replaced with a new theory. I’m not sure you understand how science works.</p>
<p>
Perhaps in your mind, but I think that I am not out of place in saying that the scientific community would probably disagree with you.</p>
<p>Broad theories that cover a sweep of phenomena are not inherently vague or filled with holes. </p>
<p>Quite the opposite is possible. General Relativity predicts the existence of black holes. The Pauli Exclusion Principle predicts that electrons can’t overlap because they have separate quantum states. So how do White Dwarfs–which are held together by electron degeneracy pressure–become black holes? At least one of these principles/theories is partially incorrect, because it is too narrow and doesn’t address both areas of theoretical physics. </p>
<p>On the other spectrum, we see the combination of what used to be thought of as separate forces/interactions: electrical, magnetic, gravitational, weak, strong. Electromagnetism was combined long ago, but now it seems electromagnetism and weak force stem from the same interactions and actually become the same force under high energies. Thus, 3 of the 5 previous interactions have been proven the same under certain conditions–which means they could stem from the same physical phenomena (some Boson crap–I’m not familiar with how this part works). If the other 2 can be combined, then we’d have a Theory of Everything. Even though this would be the broadest possible theory in particle physics, it still wouldn’t inherently have “holes.” In fact, if all 4 forces stem from the same phenomena, the theory couldn’t have holes. It would be an observable fact one day, when subatomic particles are viewable. Much like the existence of atoms or electrons is a fact today, even though it was theorized long before it was seen.</p>
<p>I wish I could give more relevant examples in Biology, since that’s the topic, but I’m not really familiar with the science. I just want to show you that your quote is nonsense.</p>
<p>Abuses of Christianity are inherent in any Christian by that standard. Biblical literalism is impossible. Any time anyone says something that is not lifted from the Bible, another person claims that it is not actually the teaching of Jesus.</p>
<p>So your argument basically reduces to religious differences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But X is not institutional whereas Y is. If the codified teaching is that certain clergy can sin but cannot make mistakes with regard to certain aspects of the faith, it doesn’t matter what the “tendency” to a particular behavior is because the codified teaching has completely and deftly sidestepped your charge of hypocrisy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not different from making a judgment about the Bible. Your fear of clericalism seems inconsistent with Christianity as a whole because I have not met a single person who takes the Bible literally, which means asserting to some degree the will of God. The way in which this is presented is irrelevant to the fact that it exists, or to its accuracy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. That’s not true at all. The only result of that study is the result itself – that Christians are happier. If I asked you to prove Christianity, what would you say? The idea that no faith is involved is silly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Evolution is scientifically verifiable in that we certainly can observe changes in species given historical records. That can happen at any time. And you are already conflating science and religion by equating Christianity and evolution – your example of Armageddon is ridiculous. That involves something that is external to our tangible universe, whereas evolution does not.</p>
<p>If you are defining evolution as “any change from generation to generation” then of course it is true!</p>
<p>When most people say evolution, they mean “the theory which states that all diversity in life arose from the changes which occur from generation to generation.”</p>
<p>The first definition is useful science. The second is an unconfirmed hypothesis. You should be careful to indicate which you are arguing for, as many people take evidence for the first and then portray it as proof of the second.</p>
<p>The keyword is “unquestionable”. I may make assertions about what I believe to be the intent of God and the meaning of certain passages, but I recognize the fact that I may be wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In which case the religion is fine and I have no problem with it. I think that institutional religion tends to be bad, but if a particular case of it isn’t bad, then it isn’t bad!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The key difference is between whether the person asserts that they are right regardless of the Bible, and whether their followers are expected to think for themselves or simply accept the conclusions of their leaders.</p>
<p>When counseling a brother or sister in Christ, I may make assertions, and I may even be harsh, but I realize that I am mere human.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When have I even suggested that no faith is involved? Any belief about events in the past or future is going to be based on faith, usually almost entirely so.</p>
<p>And if the result of a study agrees with the predictions of a model, then that adds credibility to the model. That is how science works: we test models by comparing actual results with predicted results.</p>