Public acceptance of evolution

[gsdx]

We cannot prove a theory, only disprove it.

Once upon a time, people believed that Black Holes existed. Physics told them that they could or should exist. But nobody had ever seen one. Black Holes were nothing more than scientific speculation. They existed only in theory as dictated by physics and defined theoretically by physicists.

However, when people knew what to look for, they started looking for them and, by golly, they found them!

Black Holes were no longer theory. They became scientific fact and the black hole theory ceased to exist.

Once upon a time, scientists theorised that the Earth was the centre of the Universe (usually based upon religious beliefs) until Copernicus came along and theorised otherwise. His theory has been proved to be correct. Same with the 'Flat Earth' theory.

And just because some people don't believe in Black Holes or a heliocentric solar system or a round Earth doesn't make them any less real. They simply have no evidence beyond their beliefs to prove otherwise.

Theories can be proved. However, some may not be proved to the extent where they become scientific fact. For instance, nobody can see Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, but they can see Relativity in action and gather evidence of the Theory's existence. When enough evidence is gathered which makes the theory 'more likely than not' to be true, it is generally accepted as fact even though it remains a theory. As far as I know, there is no evidence disproving the General Theory of Relativity. It works every time.

I'm not particularly scientifically minded. I don't sit around pondering science and physics all day long. But I read about it and learn about it, and what I've written here is based only on my knowledge of the subject.

 

[bankside]

I know what you meant but for the sake of clarity, rather than saying "theories can be proved" it would be better to say "hypotheses can be supported by new evidence.

Wooffy, you added some clarity to what I was saying btw so thank you. Also, another word about theories: they are a framework for facts. Theories also make predictions regarding evidence which has not been found, but ought to be found if the theory is valid.

The discovery of black holes is an example. We had a theory based on real data about observed celestial phenomena. . The hypothesis was that that theory would extend into unproven ground with a prediction of the existence of black holes. We now have better and better evidence to support the validity of that hypothesis. What was once hypothesis is more and more accepted theory, because it explains the facts. And because new evidence aligns with predictions of the theory.

 

[randomfreak]

@gsdx: Wow, your post really opened my mind! My mindframe was that a theory is the "why" and "how", whereas an "X exists" statement is not a proper scientific theory because it's neither testable nor falsifiable. (Like how can you prove that Santa Claus does NOT exist? You can't.) Likewise, I'd consider "a black hole exists" to be a conjecture rather than a scientific theory, even though scientists arrived to that conclusion through valid deduction. However, your post made me wonder if we can elevate that conjecture into the status of theory...

And when you mentioned the "flat earth" theory... The "flat earth" theory was disproved by showing that the Earth's surface has curvature. Now we "know" that the Earth is indeed a sphere. So you're right, I guess some theories can be "proved". o_o I cannot imagine how you would disprove it, but I would refrain from using the word "proven" because it suggests 100% certainty. For instance, there is a chance that space around Earth is distorted, and that the Earth is actually a cylinder, but because of these distortions, we perceive the Earth as a sphere. Of course, the chance is really, really close to 0%, but we can still disprove the theory and turn our world upside down. "The Earth is spherical" is virtually 100% certain, but not exactly 100%, just extremely close to it.

The theories about space orbitals can be reached through reason and observation, but it has to be testable (makes predictions) and falsifiable (results don't match predictions). Evidence for the heliocentric theory actually "disproves" the geocentric theory. I think of it as, rather than supporting itself, the theory kills off opposition and is the only one left standing (at the time). Even the part about how planets move in perfect circles around the sun has been disproved because we weren't able to PREDICT the movements of some planets, which shows that the theory is false. We find that modifying the theory to include elliptical orbits made the predictions highly accurate. Now, if we see observations that are wayyyyy off the predictions, then it would disprove the theory, but so far we haven't found such observation. Note that making a million correct predictions does not make a theory any truer than making a thousand correct predictions.

Sorry if I seem too forceful. I just like polite debates and haven't had one in a while. XD I enjoyed reading everyone's posts.

 

[wooffy]

Wooffy, you added some clarity to what I was saying btw so thank you. Also, another word about theories: they are a framework for facts. Theories also make predictions regarding evidence which has not been found, but ought to be found if the theory is valid.

Thank you. I like yours, "a framework for facts". Such elegant conciseness - not something I usually achieve.

 

[killdawabbit]

Swerve:

"I read a book a few years ago about creationism vs. evolution...

And what intrigued me the MOST was that it really takes FAITH in either belief...

With that it mind, one belief offers redemption and the other one doesn't...

Until science can COMPLETELY PROVE evolution -- the results above don't really surprise me; nor, do they trouble me..."

I agree.


Passels:


"There are no peer-reviewed papers that support creationism. None. Because it's inherently unscientific. "

Presupposition and circular reasoning . Surely I don't need to explain why.

"Honestly, creationists would be better debaters if they actually read something written since the nineteenth century. Studying evolution didn't begin and end with Darwin."

Your statement here disproves your claim that evolution is a fact. 'Scientific facts' change rather frequently. Almost every generation of so-called scientists is proved wrong by the next.
And your assumption that creationists haven't read Darwin and every evolutionist since is laughable.


MercuryJones:

"You can't point to any body of science that is "against" evolution. I doubt you could point to any accredited university that would air such claims in its science education."

More presupposition and foggy circular reasoning. It seems to be epidemic on this thread.

nguypete:

"Oh my god, I don't know how to explain this to you -- there is no missing link.

Do you understand how things evolve? Things don't pop out in phases, it's transitional, growing and dynamic.

You arn't a baby one day and turn into a tween in the next. "

You just contradicted yourself. Where are all those transitions in the fossil record? There are probably millions of them missing. Even the evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould realized this and therefore presented his punctuated equilibrium theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Even the 'official evolutionary scientists' are in disagreement among themselves. Doesn't speak well for the 'facts' does it?

WaGWaG:

"Religious belief has evolved as much as humanity has. It began at some point around a fire, when communication finally grabbed ahold of our tongues and allowed us to speak to one another beyond just the physicality of the world and onto deeper musings.

When we finally started asking "What is the sun?" "What is the moon?" "My fallen brother, where do you live now?" "Why are we here?" Someone started giving answers (some cheeky, cynical caveman no doubt). And these answers caught on to groups of people. These stories helped to explain the world and humanity's place in it.

And then it leapt forward, people began claiming land, battling, killing, taking, all behind the impossible power of their own god(s). This was when those explanations of the sun moved beyond mere musings and into a way to control people. And like the tides, religions overtook and then faded back, and then a new religion swept in and consumed the old. And then that religion receded only to be changed by a new wave of religion. And so on...

Much of this absorption and destruction of religions is done when a new culture has come in and taken control of old. And it is in this that you see religion's purpose at that time, control the masses.

Fast forward to more modern times, the specific issue of sexuality and religion. Why are all these gods obsessed with their creations sexualities? Because at our most basic, biological level, we are all sexual--reproductively driven beings...it's something WE ALL share, so it is an important element to control.

Now, on to how this all fits into public acceptance of evolution through natural selection. Once the advent of true science comes, it begins answering the questions that were asked so very long ago, and they answer them with such finesse, beauty and quite often finality. This is sure to bother the men who sit high in the thrones of the major religions, that control that they have is in jeopardy. What are they to do? They instill a sense of mistrust in science and those that pursue scientific truths. They advise their communities to not take science's word for it, do not forget the explanations for the world and its workings that were established a millennia ago.

Public disbelief (although I don't like using the word belief at all) in evolution is directly related to so many religious factions that intend to suppress knowledge (even in tiny, incalculable ways), in order to maintain a slipping stranglehold on their power."

And exactly how was this an improvement over ape 'thinking'.


Pianist:

"Well, even if they DID read them, and I suspect some do, none of them are intellectualy capable, or academically trained sufficiently to actually understand the data."

How do you explain the future creationists who graduated from the same schools as evolutionists?

"By the bye, I believe humans and great apes are, taxonomically speaking, both members of the Hominidae Family. See? We're family."

The family, genus, species concept is simply a construct created from presuppostion.


MercuryJones:

"I've yet to encounter anyone who refutes evolution that actually understands evolution."

That doesn't mean they don't exist. How big is your world and how many non-evolutionists have you talked to? All of them?

"You say "I bend toward where the science goes", but talking about "the missing link" just demonstrates how far from science you are on this.

There really is no body of reputable scientists who claim evolution is disproved in any way. It is the basis of the entire science of biology."

Missing link already addressed. 'Reputable scientists'? Presupposition. Again!

"And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch."

What? Only one scientist? What did he base his calculations on? Are you sure there aren't other 'scientists' who have come up with a different calculation?
The entire paragraph is preposterous.

WaGWaG:

"People, we're all entitled to our own beliefs, sure. But you're not entitled to your own facts."

Presupposition.

randomfreak:

"Now, because many theories about the same thing can be true at once, we only mount evidence to judge which theory is the most probable."

I can't even begin to address this
incredibly incongruous statement. What am I missing here? How can two or more differing theories be true at the same time? And even if we assume that they could all be true why the need to find the most probable?


"So far we have not found a fossil that is in the wrong era, even though scientists have looked hard."

Thanks for a perfect example of circular reasoning.

"There is no "missing link." Evolution is all about small, incremental changes. Imagine the number line. To make it more concrete, let's talk about, say the length of a horse. Imagine that at timepoint A we find the horse to be 2m long, and at timepoint B to be 4m long. Do you scream "but you can't say that the horse grew longer, because for the horse to become 4m long, it must've been 3m long first. Because we have not found a horse that's 3m long, your theory cannot be true!" And then imagine if we DO find a horse that's 3m long between timepoints A and B. People will scream again "but to get to 3m long, the horse needs to be 2.5m long first! Show me the 2.5m horse or else you're just making things up!"

The missing link is not at all about variations within species. The missing link refers to a transition between SPECIES. And there is not a single one in existence in the fossil record. If evolution were true there would be a great amount of transitional species in the fossil record.

"The basic "proof" for natural selection is the experiment with the guppies. I forgot the name of the person who did this, but the experiment has been replicated several times with consistent results. Natural selection happens."

Again, NOT evolution. No transition between species. Same with bacteria.

wooffy:

"In colloquial (everyday) use, a "theory" is just an idea, what a scientist might call a hypothesis.

In scientific terms, a theory is a systematic explanation of the some part of the natural world. It is more complex than a "law", and thus subject to revisions, tweaking, or minor points of disagreement - but on the whole is supported by evidence and has been thoroughly examined."

Only difference between the two is the second paragraph is more wordy.

barnbuddy:

"Since the same bronze age theology that embraces the young earth and eden also calls gays and lesbians abominations, I'd imagine it would concern you."

I'll leave this for another thread if I can remember to. Too much to say on the subject and some may consider this post too long already.

 

[nguypete]

^I don't mean to be a little cuntress but what do you keep meaning by saying "circular reasoning" because I think you do need to explain.

I know what circular reasoning is, but how does it pertain to what I or others posted? You keep saying you don't need to explain, but I don't get it. So please do.

 

[killdawabbit]

Circular reasoning is a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For example:

"Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this."

Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition — "politicians are untrustworthy" — in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.

You guys start off with unproven presuppositions to try and prove your points.

 

[lostnfound]

Not to get into semantics, but regarding proving theories:

In science, you don't prove. You only disprove (or falsify) the null hypothesis. So technically, you could say, "You prove by disproving first..." I know, it's slightly complicated and we could argue about logic and philosophy on and on....

Regarding evolution, I agree with what one poster stated: that the best evidence of evolution is to look at smaller organisms around us right now, like how bacteria is becoming more drug resistant. Even the HIV-1 strain is an excellent example of evolution! Most virologists agree that that the HIV virus is becoming less virulent. Although there was the discovery of anti-viral therapies, HIV strains are becoming less deadly. Why? Like all viruses, HIV can only live off of a host; without a host, a virus is considered non-living. So, from an evolutionary standpoint, it is an advantage for the virus if the host (human) lives long. This means that if the host lives longer, then the chances of the virus transmitting to another host is increased: an advantage.

Oh, here's an interesting hypothesis: the so called "missing-link"... Some are saying it's pre-archaea. Everyone knows that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. Prokaryotes have two categories: archaea and bacteria. Archaea is unique in that it can live in very extreme environments, which is interesting because at the beginning of time, the environment on earth could've been inhospitable. So, the theory is that whatever organism came before archae must be the missing link.

Which begs the question, how did the last common ancestor come to be? A series of spontaneous reactions? We know that DNA strands can be synthesized spontaneously at the right acidity, temperature, basically following the laws of thermodynamics.

The mystery of life.... and interesting question to ponder about.

 

[nguypete]

killdawabbit,

Biology 101 - You can never find a fossil that will be the missing link because species within one generation don't evolve to another species the next which is what you're implying and what people think of as the "missing link."

Species is defined as a taxonomic group whose members can interbreed.

You take a common ancestor, than you have various populations and somehow they're isolated for a long enough period of time to accrue enough mutations where they can't breed with each other even though they came from the same ancestor.

Take a look at the picture I attached. Our evolution wasn't clean, some groups didn't survive because they couldn't adapt fast enough and possibly weren't just lucky.

Here's another example: Pretend a wall goes up tomorrow separating everyone and it was impossible to get through, within dozens of generations you'll see varying differences already due to isolation and environment (you already see that now with Asians more likely than not having a lactose intolerance from historically lack of dairy in diet) but most likely each side will still be able to breed with those on their side. However throw in half a million years and lift the wall, those two sides may not be able to breed with each other and can be categorized as a different species.

Lift that wall and for some reason with the new environment to deal with (let's say the east basically destroyed their environment and were slowly dying out, and now the west moving in and blah blah the people in the east slowly become a minority and die out...

What you'll have is two separate species diverging from the Homo sapian because if we flew back in time, the current population would most likely not be able to reproduce with it's ancestor 500,000 ago, now let's say the Homo "west" survives and becomes dominant and we are those creatures sitting at a computer 500,000 years later. You're asking me to provide the missing link but it wasn't one generation that seperated the Homo sapian from the Homo "west" or Homo "east", it's every single tiny mutation, and those thousands of slight mutations becoming so prevalent in the population that they're essentially dominant (e.g brown eyes) and individual born that is a part of chain.

So there is no missing link, just fossils that show the progression of our family tree.

Does that make sense?

 

[killdawabbit]

blah, blah, blah....where are the fossils of transitions from one species to another? They are not there.
Thanks for admitting there is no 'missing link'. There should be at least thousands of them in the fossil record. The tree shows separate species with no in between forms.

 

[nguypete]

Now I'm just going to be a cuntress.

You're a fucking idiot if you don't understand that there is not a missing link because 1) there's literally an impossibility of your conception of a "missing link" and 2) fossils are rare and you're essentially asking for a fossil from every generation born from an Australopithecus in the last 4 million years.

Every form is a fucking "in between" form because there is a starting point and no end until every last one of us dies out. 1 million years from now, we'll be a fucking in between form.

Blah blah blah, now if you'll excuse me -- I'm going to go on my merry way being intellectually superior to you.

icks up his degree in Science and walks aways:

 

[killdawabbit]

Now I'm just going to be a cuntress.

You're a fucking idiot if you don't understand that there is not a missing link because 1) there's literally an impossibility of your conception of a "missing link" and 2) fossils are rare and you're essentially asking for a fossil from every generation born from an Australopithecus in the last 4 million years.

Blah blah blah, now if you'll excuse me -- I'm going to go on my merry way being intellectually superior to you.

icks up his degree in Science and walks aways:

There's no missing link because fossils are rare? LOL. There are millions of fossils. But not transitions between species.

Is that the same kind of degree Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein had? They were wrong. You know that, right?

 

[wooffy]

wooffy:

"In colloquial (everyday) use, a "theory" is just an idea, what a scientist might call a hypothesis.

In scientific terms, a theory is a systematic explanation of the some part of the natural world. It is more complex than a "law", and thus subject to revisions, tweaking, or minor points of disagreement - but on the whole is supported by evidence and has been thoroughly examined."

Only difference between the two is the second paragraph is more wordy.

Can I submit the bolded part to FailBlog?

 

[bankside]

Missing Link:

Unless you can show me the graves of every one of your ancestors going back to Adam and Eve, they never existed. Clearly you were placed here by Satan.

 

[gsdx]

There's no missing link because fossils are rare? LOL. There are millions of fossils. But not transitions between species.

Do you have any idea what conditions it takes to create a fossil? Not every creature which ever lived becomes a fossil. The fact that we know as much now about prehistoric creatures is astounding when you think how very few fossils have actually been discovered. In many cases, we're very lucky to discover a few fossilised bone fragments.

 

[MercuryJones]

MercuryJones:

"I've yet to encounter anyone who refutes evolution that actually understands evolution."

That doesn't mean they don't exist. How big is your world and how many non-evolutionists have you talked to? All of them?

I didn't say they don't exist. I said I've yet to encounter one. Fuck your little straw man.

"You say "I bend toward where the science goes", but talking about "the missing link" just demonstrates how far from science you are on this.

There really is no body of reputable scientists who claim evolution is disproved in any way. It is the basis of the entire science of biology."

Missing link already addressed. 'Reputable scientists'? Presupposition. Again!

No presupposition. If you say you go where the science goes, as the other poster did, go where the science goes: evolution.

"And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch."

What? Only one scientist? What did he base his calculations on? Are you sure there aren't other 'scientists' who have come up with a different calculation?
The entire paragraph is preposterous.

If you're going to quote me, get it right, [Text: Removed by Moderator].

 

[nguypete]

Killdawabbit,

Fossils are rare [Text: Removed by Moderator], it takes very special and specific conditions for remains to become fossilized. Now imagine those remains on this earth trying to last millions of years undisrupted by plant life, animal life, weather, earthquakes, flooding and human destruction over the last couple thousand years.

Not to mention, we don't have a legion of millions of anthropologist going around specifically trying to find an imaginary "missing link."

 

[MercuryJones]

Not to mention, we don't have a legion of millions of anthropologist going around specifically trying to find an imaginary "missing link."

Naturally, since every creature that has ever lived is a link. Creationists would have you present the remains of every living creature, sequentially. And then they'd still say it's not really proof.

 

[killdawabbit]

"Fossils occur commonly around the world although just a small proportion of life makes it into the fossil record. Most living organisms simply decay without trace after death as natural processes recycle their soft tissues and even hard parts such as bone and shell. Thus, the abundance of fossils in the geological record reflects the frequency of favourable conditions where preservation is possible, the immense number of organisms that have lived, and the vast length of time over which the rocks have accumulated."

http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/whatisafossil.htm

"Don't disregard that unusual mark on a rock, it could be a geologic imprint of an insect, shell, tooth, bone, twig or leaf from life forms prior to the Ice Age," says Tom Berg, chief of the ODNR Division of Geological Survey. "Ohio has an abundance of fossils dating back as much as 500 million years, when the region was covered by warm, shallow seas filled with abundant sea creatures."
According to the new book, Ohio fossils are most commonly found along hillsides, stream valleys, man-made excavations and in quarries -- any place that opens an exposure to bare rock. While fossils can be found all throughout the state, an abundance of fossils are known to exist in areas around Cincinnati, Toledo and eastern Ohio.

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/news/may97/fossils/tabid/12853/Default.aspx

Grand Canyon has so much more than pretty scenery. It contains an amazing diversity of rock formations with an abundance of fossils hidden within. The sedimentary rocks exposed throughout the canyon are rich with marine fossils such as crinoids, brachiopods, and sponges with several layers containing terrestrial fossils such as leaf and dragonfly wing impressions, and footprints of scorpions, centipedes, and reptiles. Ancient fossils preserved in the rock layers range from algal mats and microfossils from Precambrian Time 1,200 million to 740 million years ago to a multitude of body and trace fossils from the Paleozoic Era 525-270 million years ago.

http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/fossils.htm

 

[nguypete]

"Fossils occur commonly around the world although just a small proportion of life makes it into the fossil record. Most living organisms simply decay without trace after death as natural processes recycle their soft tissues and even hard parts such as bone and shell. Thus, the abundance of fossils in the geological record reflects the frequency of favourable conditions where preservation is possible, the immense number of organisms that have lived, and the vast length of time over which the rocks have accumulated."

http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/whatisafossil.htm

"Don't disregard that unusual mark on a rock, it could be a geologic imprint of an insect, shell, tooth, bone, twig or leaf from life forms prior to the Ice Age," says Tom Berg, chief of the ODNR Division of Geological Survey. "Ohio has an abundance of fossils dating back as much as 500 million years, when the region was covered by warm, shallow seas filled with abundant sea creatures."
According to the new book, Ohio fossils are most commonly found along hillsides, stream valleys, man-made excavations and in quarries -- any place that opens an exposure to bare rock. While fossils can be found all throughout the state, an abundance of fossils are known to exist in areas around Cincinnati, Toledo and eastern Ohio.

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/news/may97/fossils/tabid/12853/Default.aspx

Grand Canyon has so much more than pretty scenery. It contains an amazing diversity of rock formations with an abundance of fossils hidden within. The sedimentary rocks exposed throughout the canyon are rich with marine fossils such as crinoids, brachiopods, and sponges with several layers containing terrestrial fossils such as leaf and dragonfly wing impressions, and footprints of scorpions, centipedes, and reptiles. Ancient fossils preserved in the rock layers range from algal mats and microfossils from Precambrian Time 1,200 million to 740 million years ago to a multitude of body and trace fossils from the Paleozoic Era 525-270 million years ago.

http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/fossils.htm

[Text: Removed by Moderator]

I'm glad you think fossils are so common than we can just flip over rocks and find perfectly preserved and intact organisms. Finding insects is understandable because they reproduce fast, have high population densities and are across the globe... too bad Australopithecus and other homonids weren't ranging in the billions with heavy population densities on every single continent (we weren't always the top of the food chain too) and happened to be at places with prime conditions for fossilization. We didn't even make it to the Americas until about 13,000 years ago.

Again, I'm glad the Grand Canyon has fossils, but you won't find your missing link there.

Here's a geographic distribution image for you -- I know my words (and facts) are hard to comprehend.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Humanevolutionchart.png