Evolution is a fact, same as gravity.

[T. Sankara]

A fact? Well, I would describe a fact as being a theory that was implemented, and for hundreds of years, never proven wrong.

 

A theory I would describe as a newly implemented thought to explain a hypothesis.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

A fact? Well' date=' I would describe a fact as being a theory that was implemented, and for hundreds of years, never proven wrong.

 

A theory I would describe as a newly implemented thought to explain a hypothesis.

[/quote']

 

Not quite. You're sort of right about the theory bit, but you're way off base with fact.

 

A fact is what is. It is what happens. Things fall down/towards the center of mass of an object (in short hand: gravity). Gene frequencies change between generations (evolution).

 

A theory is a possible explanation for a fact. Note that, in order to be a theory, it must have been tested time and time again, with no one test contradicting the hypothesis (note that this is referring to tests that correctly follow their procedures, not failed tests). If it has been tested enough, it becomes a theory.

[T. Sankara]

A fact? Well' date=' I would describe a fact as being a theory that was implemented, and for hundreds of years, never proven wrong.

 

A theory I would describe as a newly implemented thought to explain a hypothesis.

[/quote']

 

Not quite. You're sort of right about the theory bit, but you're way off base with fact.

 

A fact is what is. It is what happens. Things fall down/towards the center of mass of an object (in short hand: gravity). Gene frequencies change between generations (evolution).

 

A theory is a possible explanation for a fact. Note that, in order to be a theory, it must have been tested time and time again, with no one test contradicting the hypothesis (note that this is referring to tests that correctly follow their procedures, not failed tests). If it has been tested enough, it becomes a theory.

 

Well my knowledge has been expanded. xD

[The Dark One]

@ the Red argument that was going on before: "Red" is a word we give to frequency of light that our brains consistently interpret as being that particular color. Stop splitting hairs here. Yes, red exists because that frequency of light exists. It doesn't matter what the hell you call it, it's the same phenomenon.

 

@ Subjective vs Objective:

 

Humans are only capable of gaining information about the "objective reality" through their senses, which are themselves subject to error and subjectivity. Thus, there really is no basis for objectivity. Mindscatter, how do you know that objective reality will last forever? When you are dead, you will no longer be able to perceive this reality, so you will have no evidence of its continued existence.

 

@ ways to observe evolution: Get out a microscope. Watch a bacteria divide. You'll notice that during cell division, the DNA of this bacteria is replicated. Look closer. Now you'll begin to notice some errors. It would seem that the two sets of DNA aren't completely identical by the end of the process. This is called mutation. Some bacteria mutate much more often than do others, and bacteria mutates more often than do other forms of life.

 

As it so happens, when you change the code that builds life, the life it builds tends to change along with it. When this change, however slight, gives the organism to which it belongs an advantage, that organism is at least fractionally more likely to survive in the future. That means more reproduction. Many of these changes are irrelevant, and many of the relevant ones barely make a difference (meaning circumstances could destroy that organism before it has a chance to reproduce), but given enough time, they will add up to cause noticeable changes.

 

This is called the Theory of Evolution. Yes, the Theory. It proposes that the changes observed over time are caused by the process of Natural Selection. That is, an organism better able to survive will do so more often than one which is less able. The survivors breed, thus improving the gene pool.

 

There really isn't much doubt to be had. A and B can't be true without allowing for the truth of C. And nobody who actually has any scientific background believes otherwise.

 

Creationist scientists, unless they keep themselves completely away from biology, aren't scientists. Why? Because they aren't approaching observable data with the proper use of the scientific method. In other words, they're being illogical.

[T. Sankara]

So then if evolution is a theory, why does everyone claim it to be fact? T_T

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

So then if evolution is a theory' date=' why does everyone claim it to be fact? T_T

[/quote']

 

Because evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact. The Theory of Evolution is a theory.

[Dark]

Damnit. I should've voted Chaos Pudding for best debator.

 

Creationists came first Evolutionists=Atheist jackasses who want to prove a non-existent point.

Screw you Darwin

 

Jinzo Night Live material is good.

 

Damn Gravity and its name.

I want to call it God trying to sustain us on the ground.

 

And I call villians people created by God to destroy the good people.

 

But apparently God is good.

 

...

I broke God. D:

 

Hey brushfire what is your IQ?

 

9001

[T. Sankara]

Damnit. I should've voted Chaos Pudding for best debator.

 

Creationists came first Evolutionists=Atheist jackasses who want to prove a non-existent point.

Screw you Darwin

 

Jinzo Night Live material is good.

 

Damn Gravity and its name.

I want to call it God trying to sustain us on the ground.

 

And I call villians people created by God to destroy the good people.

 

But apparently God is good.

 

...

I broke God. D:

 

Hey brushfire what is your IQ?

 

9001

 

inb4Vegeta

[The Dark One]

So then if evolution is a theory' date=' why does everyone claim it to be fact? T_T

[/quote']

 

What I was speaking of, evolution as an extension of mutation through natural selection, is what is known as the theory of evolution. I was making the point that even this, which is a scientific theory rather than a fact, is so rooted in the science of today, so self-evident, so logical, that nobody who has any considerable information on the topic questions it. Improves it, maybe. But outright disproval is really just not on the table anymore. There's far too much evidence in support of it.

 

Evolution as a fact is just the changes in organisms now from organisms in the past. It doesn't try to explain how wolves of the past evolved side by side with humans into the domesticated dog of today. It just realizes that Canis domesticus didn't exist 10 million years ago.

[T. Sankara]

So then if evolution is a theory' date=' why does everyone claim it to be fact? T_T

[/quote']

 

What I was speaking of, evolution as an extension of mutation through natural selection, is what is known as the theory of evolution. I was making the point that even this, which is a scientific theory rather than a fact, is so rooted in the science of today, so self-evident, so logical, that nobody who has any considerable information on the topic questions it. Improves it, maybe. But outright disproval is really just not on the table anymore. There's far too much evidence in support of it.

 

Evolution as a fact is just the changes in organisms now from organisms in the past. It doesn't try to explain how wolves of the past evolved side by side with humans into the domesticated dog of today. It just realizes that Canis domesticus didn't exist 10 million years ago.

 

Thanks. ^_^

[The Dark One]

So then if evolution is a theory' date=' why does everyone claim it to be fact? T_T

[/quote']

 

What I was speaking of, evolution as an extension of mutation through natural selection, is what is known as the theory of evolution. I was making the point that even this, which is a scientific theory rather than a fact, is so rooted in the science of today, so self-evident, so logical, that nobody who has any considerable information on the topic questions it. Improves it, maybe. But outright disproval is really just not on the table anymore. There's far too much evidence in support of it.

 

Evolution as a fact is just the changes in organisms now from organisms in the past. It doesn't try to explain how wolves of the past evolved side by side with humans into the domesticated dog of today. It just realizes that Canis domesticus didn't exist 10 million years ago.

 

Thanks. ^_^

 

Sure! ^.^

[Death Metal]

Evolution remains a theory because it is somewhat hard to prove that a full grown human evolved from a microscopic bacteria. It is much more plausable than any other theory though.

[Tentacruel]

In my opinion there are no true facts. Because there is always the theory that we were all created 10 seconds ago by crab shaped crabs from the crab nebula.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

In my opinion there are no true facts. Because there is always the theory that we were all created 10 seconds ago by crab shaped crabs from the crab nebula.

 

Where's the evidence that supports that theory? Because the evidence that everything is as it seems is much greater than that. I guarantee it.

---

Evolution remains a theory because it is somewhat hard to prove that a full grown human evolved from a microscopic bacteria. It is much more plausable than any other theory though.

 

Don't talk about what you don't understand, ok?

[Dark]

I think Chaos established evolution exists because of his bird example.

 

Again, adaptation.

 

But what we don't know for sure is that our ancestors were similar (or even the same) as ancestors of the ape, for example. While there is substantial evidence in it's favor, you cannot make an infallible claim about that. Which is why some people oppose that (macro-evolution, IIRC).

 

If you think micro-evolution doesn't exist, you have major problems.

[Tentacruel]

Of course. Micro-evolution has been confirmed as a scientific fact, I can agree with that.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

I think Chaos established evolution exists because of his bird example.

 

Again' date=' [b']adaptation[/b].

 

But what we don't know for sure is that our ancestors were similar (or even the same) as ancestors of the ape, for example. While there is substantial evidence in it's favor, you cannot make an infallible claim about that. Which is why some people oppose that (macro-evolution, IIRC).

 

If you think micro-evolution doesn't exist, you have major problems.

 

Oh, no, we know for sure. We don't know for sure the exact evolutionary path, but we know that chimps and modern humans had the same common ancestor.

 

Oh, and for further reading, here's a list of all documented cases of observed macroevolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[Tentacruel]

I think Chaos established evolution exists because of his bird example.

 

Again' date=' [b']adaptation[/b].

 

But what we don't know for sure is that our ancestors were similar (or even the same) as ancestors of the ape, for example. While there is substantial evidence in it's favor, you cannot make an infallible claim about that. Which is why some people oppose that (macro-evolution, IIRC).

 

If you think micro-evolution doesn't exist, you have major problems.

 

Oh, no, we know for sure. We don't know for sure the exact evolutionary path, but we know that chimps and modern humans had the same common ancestor.

 

Oh, and for further reading, here's a list of all documented cases of observed macroevolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I just personally beleive that its kind of harsh to call everything you beleive "fact." There are many people who do not beleive in macro evolution. No offense to you, of course.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

I think Chaos established evolution exists because of his bird example.

 

Again' date=' [b']adaptation[/b].

 

But what we don't know for sure is that our ancestors were similar (or even the same) as ancestors of the ape, for example. While there is substantial evidence in it's favor, you cannot make an infallible claim about that. Which is why some people oppose that (macro-evolution, IIRC).

 

If you think micro-evolution doesn't exist, you have major problems.

 

Oh, no, we know for sure. We don't know for sure the exact evolutionary path, but we know that chimps and modern humans had the same common ancestor.

 

Oh, and for further reading, here's a list of all documented cases of observed macroevolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I just personally beleive that its kind of harsh to call everything you beleive "fact." There are many people who do not beleive in macro evolution. No offense to you, of course.

 

To not believe in macroevolution is to not believe in gravity. It is a fact. It has been observed.

 

Listen, you can't just not believe facts. They are what they are. You can't just stick your head in the sand and refuse to listen. Go ahead and argue against the theories, try and make ones that explain things better, but don't ever disbelieve the facts.

 

For instance, the periodic table is a table of facts. In order to have a viable theory involving chemistry, it must not contradict the facts, i.e. the periodic table.

[The Dark One]

Evolution remains a theory because it is somewhat hard to prove that a full grown human evolved from a microscopic bacteria. It is much more plausable than any other theory though.

 

Actually, it remains a Theory because that is the most certain status that can be given to a scientific explanation for an event.

 

In other words, you can't prove things in science. You can only disprove things, and suspect things. ^.^

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Evolution remains a theory because it is somewhat hard to prove that a full grown human evolved from a microscopic bacteria. It is much more plausable than any other theory though.

 

Actually' date=' it remains a Theory because that is the most certain status that can be given to a scientific explanation for an event.

 

In other words, you can't prove things in science. You can only disprove things, and suspect things. ^.^

[/quote']

 

Plus the fact that he's confusing the fact of evolution with the Theory of Evolution.

[Tentacruel]

But see, one could argue that macroevolution is not a fact. One could also argue that gravity is not a fact and that invisible rubber bands are chaining us to the planet. Anywayz, can you give an example of macroevolution that was tested? Please use small words, I'm not good at science.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

But see' date=' one could argue that macroevolution is not a fact. One could also argue that gravity is not a fact and that invisible rubber bands are chaining us to the planet. Anywayz, can you give an example of macroevolution that was tested? Please use small words, I'm not good at science.

[/quote']

 

Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself. And I linked you to an index of a bunch of documented cases of speciation, which is the accepted base form of macroevolution.

[Tentacruel]

But see' date=' one could argue that macroevolution is not a fact. One could also argue that gravity is not a fact and that invisible rubber bands are chaining us to the planet. Anywayz, can you give an example of macroevolution that was tested? Please use small words, I'm not good at science.

[/quote']

 

Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself. And I linked you to an index of a bunch of documented cases of speciation, which is the accepted base form of macroevolution.

 

Embarrassing myself? Its the freakin internet. Please. Look I've tried to be nice about it. Can't you just accept that some people might have an opinion that is different than yours? I was totally open to your opinion, but no... You just have to act so freaking superior.

[Luna Lovegood]

Maybe God causes Gravity and Evolution [/sarcasm]