Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Accept the Theory of Evolution

Just A Theory? Do You Even Science?... I don't believe in evolution, I accept it as a scientific theory.

In science, a theory holds more weight than just a fact does. A theory is not something we think of in the middle of the night after too much coffee and not enough sleep, that is an idea. 

A theory in science means a large body of information that has stood a lot of testing. 
consists of a number of different hypothesis and many different lines of evidence which show clear consistency. 

a theory is something that has been tested many times, then is built on, revised and continues to be reworked in order to give an accurate representation of reality. 

no theory is ever regarded as absolute truth. 
theories are only well supported, testable explanations that provide natural explanations for natural phenomenon. 

all scientific explanations are tentative because the search for knowledge is always blind. 
science is about discovering the unknown, about what we don't know. 

Theories have predictive ability, theories are ba<x>sed on observation, deduction, consistency and evidence by physical process that we know and understand. 

testing is blind and lacks fixed ideas. If the testing isn't blind, it's not science. It is not a search for an explanation.

Supernatural causation is not a part of science because there is no way to test it. There is no evidence for the supernatural and no predictive ability which can be tested in reality. 
You can not use it to explain the natural world. 
Science can not be built on a negative argument.

Adaptation is evolution. when a population gets geographically divided, eventually the changes accumulated through genetic variation becomes great enough that two descendants that share a common ancestor can no longer reproduce. They are now two different kinds, two different species. Evolution doesn't explain origins, it only provides a way to explain why there is variation in species and proves that all animals share a common ancestor with each other.
No scientists will state that nothing can create something nor does evolution support that in any way.

Evolution is supported heavily by the fossil record and genetics. If even one fossil was out of place in the geological record, the entire theory would be proven false. So far that has not happened.

The cells of all great apes, like chimpanzees, gorillas, and the orangutang contain 24 paris of chromosomes. if humans share a common ancestry with them, you would expect us to have the same number. but surprisingly humans cells only contain 23 pairs. Typicall on the ends of every chromosome, you should find genetic markers called telomeres, in the middle you should find a different genetic markers called centromeres. but if the mutation occured in the past causing two pairs of chromosomes to fuse, we should find evidence in those genetic markers. Finding a structure like this would explain why humans have one pari fewer than the great apes. It exists in chromosome number two. All the mutations predicted by common descent by means of natural selection are present on human chromosome number two. Evolution has made a testable prediction and it has passed. Modern genetics and molecular biology support the theory of evolution in great detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chromosome_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ancestor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
turtlesplash
one of the things i love about the theory of evolution is the essentially magical implications - that we evolved through apes from dust - that the sun basically cooked the Earth until the rocks came to life - mad shit - and i'm not saying this is absolutely what happened but it is one the most reasonable inferences to make from the theory - and people actually think science is dry and predictable!
dinosaurcavemandude · 31-35, M
You are talking about abiogenesis, not evolution.
Evolution only explains why diversity exists on earth.
Its only the theory that we all share a common ancestor.
turtlesplash
i never said otherwise - i just love the implications of the theory and how ironically they juxtapose with the values of scientific materialism
runtom
There is nothing magical about the theory of evolution, like all science it is only based on observable measurable facts.
The only magical thing in this discourse is the creationist “miracle”, something which has no observable or measurable evidence.
Creationists seam to confuse evolution with the entire cannon of scientific knowledge. Evolution is only one very small part of our understanding the world and the universe.
Evolution and every other area of scientific study, from astrophysics to chemistry shows us that the Genesis version of creation was at best an ignorant explanation of the world or else just a nice story to keep the kids amused on a long donkey ride from Jerusalem.
turtlesplash
*sighs*
turtlesplash
you're really talking to me here at cross purposes here and addressing an argument i didn't really make - i was just pointing out how magical the implications of the theory seem - all science does is push back our ignorance a tiny bit as to the mind-boggling, incomprehensible nature of the cosmos
turtlesplash
all systems of knowledge are flawed, even systematically derived empirical knowledge - if scientific knowledge wasn't always essentially inadequate to explain reality it wouldn't progress like it does - but the scientific orthodoxies of today will be laughed at tomorrow --- religious knowledge operates in quite a different way and has quite different strengths and weaknesses - for its day it was actually quite scientific, but today only defensive and dogmatic religious types that lack imagination will insist that scripture is the literal description of reality - the power of religion lies in its symbolism, and in its capacity to produce and interpret meaning, which is why it won't die no matter how well science disproves elements of its specific claims - in fact anyone with a fairly sophisticated grasp of symbolic logic [and this is the logic that precedes and underlies rational logic] understands how deep the parallels go between religious creation narratives and scientific ones - especially those familiar with particle theory
turtlesplash
perhaps i didn't acknowledge enough the essential truth of the original story here though - although i don't agree that the search for knowledge is blind, i understand why the author says this relative to religion - and i accept the main point that science is not dogmatic and is more fluid than religious knowledge [this is its greatest strength]
turtlesplash
though i can't resist pointing out that in practice science can become as dogmatic as religion as most people DON'T make the distinction the author just did between theory and certainty, between the label and the thing-in-itself ----- one is reminded of the old joke, that you can measure the greatness of a scientist by how long their theories hold back progress in their field