Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
Yah, millions of people who get tired of some haughty science people thinking they know everything. If science would just admit their theories are just well thought out (with some facts included) hunches, we'd all be home in time for dinner but noooooooo, some scientists are just too proud. Goodnight.Any reference support for the above?
Sorry, I guess I should change my comment down below from some scientists are haughty to most scientists are haughty. Just because 99% of scientists accept the THEORY of evolution doesn't make it 100% true factually. Plus, do you really think I'm going to believe a poll written up by Project Steve when Project Philip says, "Just go to bed, it's late". Goodnight.Actually, 99% of scientists accept the theory of evolution, including paleontologists. What rock have you been living under the past 100 years?
Please cite just one reference.Yah, millions of people who get tired of some haughty science people thinking they know everything.
Please cite just one reference.
Thus, even among scientists, the word “theory” can mean different things. Sometimes scientists use “theory” to refer to a new hypothesis that’s untested and unverified. Other times scientists use “theory” to refer to a well-substantiated explanation that’s strongly supported by the evidence. Because the term can have multiple, conflicting meanings, understanding what it refers to in a given context can be confusing. For that reason, to avoid confusion and ambiguity, if you want to express doubts about Darwinian evolution, it’s better not to say that “evolution is just a theory.” ..."An old joke about the response to revolutionary new scientific theories states that there are three phases on the road to acceptance: 1. The theory is not true; 2. The theory is true, but it is unimportant; 3. The theory is true, and it is important — but we knew it all along. … Theory for scientists is like water for fish: the invisible medium in which they swim.3
Please cite just one single reference for your claim above. This is the last time I have asked. Please focus.However, when scientists use the word “theory,” they don’t always mean a well-established idea that is supported by a broad range of evidence.
No, it's not.That is debatable.
This is strange. You say that whether or not evolution happens is "debatable" but you follow that up by acknowledging evolution happens but you're just not sure what taxonomic levels it extends to.Science has over-saturated the terminology used in describing evolution. But I will use the terminology I learned back in my 10th Biology Class (45 years ago).
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Animalia
- Phylum: Chordata
- Class: Mammalia
- Order: Primates
- Family: Hominidae
- Genus: Homo
- Species: sapiens
Evolution in the Species sapiens - no problem, evolution in the Genus Homo - sure, why not, evolution in the Family Hominidae - a tighter sure, why not, evolution in the Order Primates - very questionable (show me the evidence), evolution in the Class Mammalia - show me the evidence, evolution in the Phylum Chordata - show me the evidence, evolution in the Kingdom Animalia - show me the evidence and finally evolution in the Domain Eukaryota - don't worry about it, I don't even remember what that means or is.
Yes, Australopithecines are classified in the same taxonomic system as other organisms. Check out the Wiki page and look at the "scientific classification" info on the right side of the page.Now I have a question for those who truly believe in evolution (and I'm not trying to prove anything here, I'm just curious) as man is classified above into the different groups, could you do the same for Australopithecus afarensis. Thanks.
Can you name even just one? I work in biology and I've never seen a scientific article say what you claimed.This is info I've gathered from reading scientific articles and watching scientific documentaries. So, no I don't have any sources for my statement that I remember. But based on the number of times different articles or documentaries stated the same statement, I'm going to go with it as fact.
This point isn't about evolution, it's about general science. If you think scientific theories remain that way as long as there's no solid support, what do you think happens to them when they do get solid support? Do they remain theories, or do you think they become something else?As for your question on scientific theory, I'm not in need of knowing "what the next step above scientific theory is" to show that you are using "evolution in a vague form.
If you mean universal common ancestry, there's a ton of supporting evidence for it. Scientists the world over didn't just make it up out of whole cloth you know.Yes, there is evolution between Families, but you have absolutely no proof that something formed in some "primordial soup", grew eyes and legs, crawl out of the "primordial soup" and slowly evolved into a man.
By the same mechanisms that generate all new features, such as mutation, selection, drift, etc.However,, if you are claiming that the theory of evolution explains how new and complex features arise, please give us that explanation.
Okay, good.If you are saying that the theory of evolution tries to explain various traits,, I do agree.
Well of course there are traits that scientists haven't figured out the evolutionary history of yet. That's hardly surprising since over the 4 billion years that life has existed on earth, countless traits have arisen. So I don't understand what's significant in pointing out that there's a lot still to learn.If you are saying that the theory does explain these traits, you'll have to be specific, because there is a lot of evolution the theory fails to explain.
Here is one...
So you're actually arguing that the theory "falls short" because scientists haven't figured out the evolutionary history of every single trait that's ever existed over 4 billion years? That's an odd argument.So, according to the facts, yes, the theory does fall short of explaining diversity, and complexity.
Good to know, thanks. I'm not interested in philosophical debates about "truth".Me.? No.
I didn't say that.
There is a difference between studying something, and knowing the truth about something.
Wouldn't you agree?
No it's not, and it certainly isn't so just because of your post. Maybe this surprises you, but definitions and usages of words don't hinge on your posts at CF.Look, when the rubber hits the road, it's just a scientific hunch. You guys just make it sound like it is something more than it is.
What mechanisms explain how complex features arise?By the same mechanisms that generate all new features, such as mutation, selection, drift, etc.
That's odd you think it's okay now.Okay, good.
So, then the theory does not explain them.Well of course there are traits that scientists haven't figured out the evolutionary history of yet. That's hardly surprising since over the 4 billion years that life has existed on earth, countless traits have arisen. So I don't understand what's significant in pointing out that there's a lot still to learn.
If a person says they have a theory that humans have big feet because they fly into space where gravity stretches their feet, but they cannot explain how various growths in feet occur, would you find it odd if someone pointed out that their idea is lacking?So you're actually arguing that the theory "falls short" because scientists haven't figured out the evolutionary history of every single trait that's ever existed over 4 billion years? That's an odd argument.
That's good, because I was wondering why you raised it.Good to know, thanks. I'm not interested in philosophical debates about "truth".
What mechanisms explain how complex features arise?
I don't understand. The page about complexity lists the same mechanisms I posted to you.From what I last read...
Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:
How is it that you have the explanation, but scientists don't claim to understand how.
We may have gotten our posts crossed, but as long as we both agree that evolutionary theory explains how traits arise, then we're good.That's odd you think it's okay now.
Then why did you disagree when I said it before.
Or were you disagreeing with something else?
If so, please let me know what it was you disagreed with.
I guess I don't understand your point. Scientists haven't figured out the entire evolutionary history of every single trait that's ever existed on earth. And that means what?So, then the theory does not explain them.
What don't you understand about the theory's lack in providing an answer for new varied and complex traits?
I guess, but that's not one bit analogous to evolutionary theory.If a person says they have a theory that humans have big feet because they fly into space where gravity stretches their feet, but they cannot explain how various growths in feet occur, would you find it odd if someone pointed out that their idea is lacking?
For the same reason geologists conclude that the layer of basalt they dug up came from a volcano, or archaeologists conclude the pottery artifact they find was made by people, etc.The theory of evolution proposes an idea, that takes observed adaptations... many of which they do not understand, and cannot explain, and extrapolates, those observations to something that no human can observe, and you accept it, because...?
Who said it can't be verified?I find it odd that someone is willing to believe and argue for an idea that cannot ever be verified, while arguing against facts that show the failure of the theory to explain "simple" observation, yes.
When you see basalt, do you think it's just an idea that it was produced by a volcano?I would think that facts should be more acceptable than ideas.
Huh? The mechanisms are things we see happening today.If one could explain every "mechanism" they claim to have the knowledge about, their ideas might be more... worthy of acceptance.
So if scientists used their understanding of evolution, its mechanisms, and evolutionary relationships between taxonomic groups for real practical purposes, would that mean anything to you?For example, I would not take my car to a mechanic that does not understand half the mechanisms and processes of a vehicle's engine. Would you?
I would go to a mechanic who understand 99% of the engine's mechanisms, in the light of the fact that he make a "extraordinary" claim.
Please quote.The ones I named in the post you're replying to.
I don't understand. The page about complexity lists the same mechanisms I posted to you.
We do not agree on that.We may have gotten our posts crossed, but as long as we both agree that evolutionary theory explains how traits arise, then we're good.
There is no need to.I guess I don't understand your point. Scientists haven't figured out the entire evolutionary history of every single trait that's ever existed on earth.
You can ask those who want an explanation for every situation, and event, in history to confirm the scriptures.And that means what?
Did you just say "seeks to explain"?I'm pretty sure that's the case with every branch of science that seeks to explain past events, such as geology, cosmology, archaeology, etc.
I guess, but that's not one bit analogous to evolutionary theory.
For the same reason geologists conclude that the layer of basalt they dug up came from a volcano, or archaeologists conclude the pottery artifact they find was made by people, etc.
Again... thank you.In the entire time we've been studying life, the only way we've seen new traits arise is by evolution. So it's very reasonable to conclude the same was true in the past.
Scientists.Who said it can't be verified?
Don't you know what a hypothesis is?When you see basalt, do you think it's just an idea that it was produced by a volcano?
The mechanisms are the conditions that produces the results.Huh? The mechanisms are things we see happening today.
That's the whole idea... to learn from.So if scientists used their understanding of evolution, its mechanisms, and evolutionary relationships between taxonomic groups for real practical purposes, would that mean anything to you?
No. You mixed us what I said, with what you are thinking.Also, you seem to have mixed up scientists not having explained the evolutionary history of everything that's ever existed with them not understanding evolutionary mechanisms. Those aren't the same thing.
I guess you didn't read the page you linked to, which is a little odd.Please quote.
I guess you're not aware of the field of experimental evolution or of the existence of field studies, both of which directly observe and document how evolutionary mechanisms produce new traits.We do not agree on that.
The theory seeks to explain, or proposes an explanation.
That does not say, it explains it.
Would you accept something to be an explanation for something, if it is not true?
I'm getting the impression that you're operating from a strict binary mindset, where things are either proven/verified, or are merely assumptions.Did you just say "seeks to explain"?
Then why are we arguing?
That's all I said.
In the same way that cosmologists "assume" the earth was round and orbited the sun 200 MYA, or climatologists "assume" the water cycle operated the same back then, or physicists "assume" the force of gravity was the same.
Nothing you posted says that macroevolution can't be verified.Scientists.
I don't have my notes with quotations from these, but I can quickly pull up something, I'm sure.
Here we go.
Testing hypotheses in macroevolution
Highlights
You seem to be suggesting you know things the scientists do not know, so please, don't hide what you know.
- Macroevolutionary processes cannot be directly observed or manipulated.
- Tests of macroevolutionary hypotheses resemble classical experimental design.
- Most tests weigh plausibility of explanations rather than provide decisive answers.
Tell us the test that will verify LUCA, and one that will make the phylogenetic tree anything more than a hypothetical.
You're either missing or avoiding the point. It's about a process producing an outcome/phenomenon. Basalt comes from volcanoes, and new traits come from evolution.Don't you know what a hypothesis is?
Of course you do. It's an idea, isn't it.
If you claim the basalt cane from place x, and you cannot prove it, because the basalt could have come from places w, or x, or y, at a time when the volcano you assume - x, lay dormant for hundreds of years, you have proposed an idea, which you cannot prove, and if you are anything like those big headed scientists @Hvizsgyak referred to, who think they know, you won't realize you are being very extremely irrational.
No, mechanisms are processes such as mutation and genetic drift.The mechanisms are the conditions that produces the results.
Wow, so you're not only an evolutionary biologist, you also specialize in herpetology and biochem!The mechanisms attributed to the adaptation to venom are assumed, and are all wrong.
That is said about many other adaptations.
It looks like you don't understand what I'm referring to. Seems strange from a person who's such an expert in evolutionary biology that he can declare the work of evolutionary biologists to be "all wrong".That's the whole idea... to learn from.
That's why surgeons don't cut your gall bladder, when they want to cut a tumor in your brain.
That's why Mimicry is used.
That's why they are using DNA to clone... not that everything learned is used wisely.
Disadvantages of Genetic Engineering
Genetic engineering has several disadvantages, including the risk of spreading invasive species 8 9 , uncontrollable population growth 8 , and higher risk of increasing allergies. 8 9 The process of genetic engineering can lead to the creation of organisms that are better adapted to different environments, potentially becoming invasive species that harm the environment and other organisms. 8 Additionally, disease is a natural factor that helps control population growth, and removing this factor through genetic engineering could lead to uncontrollable population growth. 8 Furthermore, the transfer of allergens in genetically modified (GM) foods can cause allergic reactions, especially in pregnant women who might alter their offspring's genetic codes and expressions. 8 9 Genetic editing is irreversible, and unforeseen effects could have serious consequences.
Many biologist happily carry out their work without the need for the theory of evolution.
James Tour, Bill Carson and other scientists contribute greatly to society, without accepting a theory that promotes an idea that goes contrary to the scriptures they value.
I'm focusing... wait, I think I see a reference in the distance coming into view. Darn!!! It got away. Don't worry, I'll keep tryingPlease cite just one single reference for your claim above. This is the last time I have asked. Please focus.
Cladistically sounds like a scientific word for "hunch"No, it's not.
This is strange. You say that whether or not evolution happens is "debatable" but you follow that up by acknowledging evolution happens but you're just not sure what taxonomic levels it extends to.
If evolution happens at the species, Genus, and family levels, that means that whether or not evolution happens is not debatable.
Also, there is no difference between evolution within a species or beyond the taxonomic level of species. It's the same mechanisms operating, just viewed over longer timescales.
Yes, Australopithecines are classified in the same taxonomic system as other organisms. Check out the Wiki page and look at the "scientific classification" info on the right side of the page.
Dan from Dedunking - youtube channel.Can you name even just one? I work in biology and I've never seen a scientific article say what you claimed.
This point isn't about evolution, it's about general science. If you think scientific theories remain that way as long as there's no solid support, what do you think happens to them when they do get solid support? Do they remain theories, or do you think they become something else?
If you mean universal common ancestry, there's a ton of supporting evidence for it. Scientists the world over didn't just make it up out of whole cloth you know.
You guessed wrong, and evidently give more credit to yourself than is due.I guess you didn't read the page you linked to, which is a little odd.
Yes. Like saying there are several ways that monkeys MAY fly, like maybe in a parachute, a plane,... but we don't know which of those, if any, since someone could also have thrown them.The page about complexity says "There are several ways such complex novelties may evolve" and then it lists things like advantageous intermediates and co-opting.
Why are you guessing wrong all the time.I guess you're not aware of the field of experimental evolution or of the existence of field studies, both of which directly observe and document how evolutionary mechanisms produce new traits.
Please don't.I trust I don't need to explain how seeing a mechanism generate a new trait is not "seeking" or "proposing" an explanation.
I'm sorry,. Were you asking me a question, or assuming what you think you know?I'm getting the impression that you're operating from a strict binary mindset, where things are either proven/verified, or are merely assumptions.
You think too much of yourself.If that's so, I recommend you work on not doing that.
I'm not talking about evolution.In the same way that cosmologists "assume" the earth was round and orbited the sun 200 MYA, or climatologists "assume" the water cycle operated the same back then, or physicists "assume" the force of gravity was the same.
In that regard, evolution is no different.
How well do you understand English?Nothing you posted says that macroevolution can't be verified.
Keep going...Think of it this way, when a genetic test shows that a man is the father of a child, has paternity been verified? When a genetic test shows that my ancestors were Scandinavian, has it been verified?
New traits come from adaptation, but if you prefer the word evolution, that's okay, I do not dispute evolution... for the hundredth time.You're either missing or avoiding the point. It's about a process producing an outcome/phenomenon. Basalt comes from volcanoes, and new traits come from evolution.
For the thousandth time, I do not dispute evolution.What other process besides evolution do you think produces new biological traits?
Random fluctuations is not a condition? Okay. Either way does not make a difference to me.No, mechanisms are processes such as mutation and genetic drift.
Pardon me?Wow, so you're not only an evolutionary biologist, you also specialize in herpetology and biochem!
I'm not sure what you are asking.When are you planning to write up a response paper to the ones cited in the Wiki article?
I don't recall saying "the work of evolutionary biologists is "all wrong"".It looks like you don't understand what I'm referring to. Seems strange from a person who's such an expert in evolutionary biology that he can declare the work of evolutionary biologists to be "all wrong".
From my knowledge of reading up on gene sequencing, it helps researchers in areas that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.I'm talking about how our knowledge of the mechanisms of evolution, plus our knowledge of the relative relatedness of different groups, has helped scientists figure things out like the functions of genetic sequences. Isn't that a form of verification? After all, if the underlying framework of evolutionary common ancestry was all wrong, applying it shouldn't give us consistent and useful results.
Yes.If you use an inaccurate framework to analyze a data set, your results should be wrong, shouldn't they?
And what do you think a theory becomes after it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?Dan from Dedunking - youtube channel.
A theory remains a theory until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Not sure what you mean for your last statement.
Except all the mechanisms that drive evolution have been observed, documented, and studied. That's why I brought up experimental evolution and field studies.Yes. Like saying there are several ways that monkeys MAY fly, like maybe in a parachute, a plane,... but we don't know which of those, if any, since someone could also have thrown them.
You're misunderstanding then. They're simply saying the same thing I said earlier, that scientists have figured out the evolutionary history of some, but not all, things. And those things they haven't figured out yet are opportunities for research.This is not saying we know. This is questioning the possibilities, which may not be the conclusions, since blah blah blah.
So was I. You don't know that experimental evolution and field studies are some of the main ways scientists test aspects of evolutionary theory?I'm not taking about evolution.
I'm talking about the theory of evolution.
And it not only seeks to, it actually does explain what we see.I'm saying the theory of evolution seeks to explain what we see,
But you're wrong. Various aspects of evolutionary theory can be, and have been, verified.but it extrapolates on what we see, to assume what we do not see, and that cannot be verified.
You can accept or deny whatever you like. And as long as we're discussing evolutionary theory, you're just wrong (as noted above).Are you saying everyone is supposed to accept an idea - hypothesis that cannot be verified?
So am I, and the fact remains that it's reasonable for scientists to conclude that new traits arose via evolutionary mechanisms in the past (since that's how we always see them arise today).I'm not talking about evolution.
I'm talking about the theory of evolution.
That's ridiculous on its face. Obviously if it were only a hypothesis, it couldn't be a theory.If you are saying that, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis, we can agree.
Sorry but I'm not about to go with your empty assertions and opinions over the consensus conclusions of the scientific community. You're free to believe whatever you like, but no one else (especially actual scientists) is obligated to even notice them, let alone adopt them.LUCA is the first of those hypotheses, which comes from the idea that all life share one common ancestor.
Next, the phylogenetic tree. Remove that, as well, and the whole idea of macroevolution is history.
Then many people might say 'yes, the theory could be correct, despite the fact that the mechanisms may not all be known, or correct '.
However, the ideas proposed stand in the way of many serious scientists who are looking at the evidence also.
Some can, some can't. So?So, technically, the theory of evolution is a hypotheses, because unlike the shape of the the earth, which can be observed,
The ideas the theory proposes, cannot be observed.
Please provide a citation or source for this claim.This is why you have thousands... yes... thousands of scientists... even if 3% of them, some in the same field of study - biology, who do not swallow the idea.
That's completely wrong. Your ignorance of how experimental evolution and field studies help verify aspects of evolutionary theory is causing you to make some fundamental errors.Unlike the shape of the earth, which all physicists can agree on, because the observable evidence is available, the ideas presented in the theory of evolution, exist only in the mind of the 97% scientist, who are willing to look at "dried bones" and put their various opinions on them. Then agree, so as to have a consensus.
Please provide a source or citation for this claim.It's even been documented that many of these scientists only agree, so as to keep their job, or gain noble prizes
No, I'm not about to try and teach a course in evolutionary biology here at CF. There are plenty of resources out there for people who want to learn.For the thousandth time, I do not dispute evolution.
The theory of evolution is what I am discussing.
Perhaps you can tell me, why you believe you came from a microscopic, bag-like sea creature, in some warm pond.
That's the root of the theory of evolution, so it's appropriate to start there.
No, you're just wrong. You claimed evolutionary mechanisms are "conditions that produce results". They are processes (such as mutation, drift), not conditions.Random fluctuations is not a condition? Okay. Either way does not make a difference to me.
You said "The mechanisms attributed to the adaptation to venom are assumed, and are all wrong".Pardon me?
I'm not sure what you are asking.
It looks like you are just being sarcastic. Typically what is prominent among people who wear those enormous hats that do not fit me.
I don't recall saying "the work of evolutionary biologists is "all wrong"".
Please quote my words where I said that.
No, not saying that.Also, are you saying that biologists are idiots or non-experts, because they do not accept a theory that promotes ideas they do not see any evidence for in their work as biologists?
No, you've completely misunderstood.From my knowledge of reading up on gene sequencing, it helps researchers in areas that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Sequencing DNA allows researchers to identify changes in genes and noncoding DNA, associations with diseases and phenotypes, and identify potential drug targets. It is a key technology in many areas of biology and other sciences such as medicine, forensics, and anthropology.
I don't see anything there about the theory of evolution. Do you?
Then logically, getting extremely accurate results is a very good indication that the framework (evolutionary theory) is correct.Yes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?