Which Theory of Evolution Do You Believe?

@ FirenzeVeritas - Many people who argue against evolution do so because they do not understand it. The straw-man caricatures of evolution commonly presented by creationists are illogical, implausible and unscientific. But they are only straw men and don't accurately represent what evolutionary theory really says. When presented in its true form, the theory of evolution is not only simple and plausible, but is the only explanation of biological diversity that is scientific and consistent with the facts.

One of the most common misrepresentations of evolution is to extend it beyond its boundaries, claiming it says more than it actually does. The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of the universe, the origin of the earth or even the origin of life. Evolution concerns itself only with the subsequent development of life once it already existed. The manner in which life first came into being is irrelevant to evolutionary theory.

Another common creationist distortion is to charge that evolution is "just a theory," as if this were a point against it. In truth, however, to label it "just a theory" is to support it, not denigrate it. In scientific parlance, "theory" does not mean "wild guess" or "hunch," but rather describes a scientific idea that is strongly supported by evidence and has stood the test of time. A scientific theory must also be testable and falsifiable. If there is no imaginable test that could be performed to check a hypothesis, or if there is no evidence that could possibly prove it wrong, it can never become a theory. Furthermore, evolution is more than just a theory. It has been directly observed to occur, and thus, in addition to being a theory, it is also a simple fact, as undeniable as gravity or the sphericity of the Earth.

It is also important to point out the difference between a theory and a law, which is another common misunderstanding. Basically, in science, a law is a description of some feature of the natural world. A theory is an explanation of that feature. In other words, laws say what happens, while theories explain why it happens.

For example:
1. Newton's law of gravity states that two objects attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. It says what happens, but not why. It does not explain what gravity is or how it works. - / - A theory of gravity, such as Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, explains why this happens.

2. Hubble's law states that the observed redshift of light coming from astronomical objects is proportional to their distance from the Earth. It states what happens, but not why it does. - / - The Big Bang theory explains this observation by stating that the universe is expanding.

3. Mendel's laws of inheritance describes certain patterns in how traits are passed from parents to offspring. It says what happens, but not why. - / - While theories of molecular genetics explain these observations by referring to the structure of chromosomes, genes and DNA.

Theories do not change into laws as evidence accumulates to support them. Rather, theories are the highest order science can achieve to explain why natural phenomena happen. Coming up with theories is the goal of every branch of science.

Excellent post Gnu!

@ Winston Niles Rumfoord - You're mistaken. It's because it doesn't strive to. In as much as plate tectonics theory says nothing about the creation of black holes.

In it's essence, the creationist message actively discourages humanity from trying to find out the definite answers for life's mysteries. Your comment is basically rhetorical and meant to paralyze us with the sheer overwhelming complexity it implies. This is the exact opposite of the impulse that gives rise to science. It's not the enlightening spark of curiosity that drives us to make new discoveries, but instead the desire to remain in the dark, stay ignorant, and to be easily discouraged by anything we don't already understand. The creationist message in reference to science conveys that it is impossible to really figure out the real answers to our mysteries, "So why even try? "Just agree that God did it in a miracle and then call it a day!"

Gnu you seem to really know your science. I personally disagree that creationists discourage the pursuit for answers to life's mysteries. Many creationists look to science to reinforce their beliefs. Some will fall back on "because the Bible says so" but there are intelligent Christians out there who believe in scientific advancement. I, for example, firmly believe in the evolution of life. It does not contrast with my belief system.

Gnu you seem to really know your science. I personally disagree that creationists discourage the pursuit for answers to life's mysteries. Many creationists look to science to reinforce their beliefs. Some will fall back on "because the Bible says so" but there are intelligent Christians out there who believe in scientific advancement. I, for example, firmly believe in the evolution of life. It does not contrast with my belief system.

I have to agree. There are many scientists who have a religious faith that want to pursue research to help explain how things go together. They are not happy with the "God did it" any more than a non religious person. It's the HOW that makes the difference. Much like a theory as you explained

The Human Genome Project is the most famous example..

Very good posts Gnu.

There is no reason to believe that life came from outside the Earth.  The chemicals of life are abundant here.  We are made of the most common elements found on Earth.

From abiogenesis, to precellular life, to single then multicellular life, it's all explainable as an entirely Earthly phenomenon.

If someone can show that life definitely came from outer space, we'd have to accept it.  So far, no one has.

Panspermia simply complicates the issue of abiogenesis.  It's not necessary.

DF

Prof. Krauss is a likely Nobel Prize winner.  Here is a lecture on the subject of your post.

DF

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Are you trying to tell me that evolution investigation does not push back beyond "life", and explore the origin of life? If that were known, would it not be included in the discussion of evolution? 

So are Buicks. Why don't we have natural evolved Buicks driving around, mutating with each model year? 

Winston, the difference is life.  Buicks are not alive.  They do not reproduce themselves.  This should be obvious to anyone even casually involved in the subject.

DF

Lighten up, DF.

Then tell us how these elements became alive, and self-replicating. 

+1

It was an excellent post, gnu; however, I have not said I could not accept evolution with direction from God. I also contend that current evolutionary studies DO attempt to discover and explain the initial creation of the "first cell." That may be a very small component of it, but it's definitely there. Simple genetic courses on the other hand, do not

I will fully admit that biology, of which I have a small grasp, is not my major, and while neither is math, I am a verbalist, so please don't refer to the earth as a sphere. Yes, I'm sure I've been guilty of such in day to day conversation, but we all know it really isn't.

Excellent post Deep, perhaps the best one yet...

To quote Gnu:

"The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of the universe, the origin of the earth or even the origin of life. Evolution concerns itself only with the subsequent development of life once it already existed. The manner in which life first came into being is irrelevant to evolutionary theory."

Is it possible that you don't know enough about the thing that you think you're railing against?

You can contend what you like but it doesn't make it true. I think you're confusing what you think evolution is with abiogenesis which is in a somewhat related field but it has no part in evolutionary theory. This is what I meant about what it'll take to have an apples to apples conversation about this stuff.

I’ve been wondering who would be the first nut to try the new GNU.

It has to be unoi the new atheist. To many humanist meetings.

He is using the new atheist name so he can argue with me. LOL

Gnu atheists: The term "Gnu Atheist(s)" was recently invented by Jerry Coyne (edited to add: actually, invented by Hamilton Jacobi), apparently as a way of having a confused dig at those who criticise some atheists for being abusive; but it's as handy a term as any other here for those I would normally term the extremists, and those into atheism for their own narcissism rather than for the sake of atheism itself.

Gnu atheists would be those loosely self-identifying as New Atheists but not actually of that group of five described above. This group would include those like Ophelia Benson, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, frequent commentators like Hitch, Ken Pidcock, etc.

Don't answer a question with a question, you big ape!

============================

Why GNU  copied and pasted all that from Ebon Musings and didn't even give the site credit.
He dont know c rap about science.

My my. Your question was answered before you asked it. I re-answered it with a quote, just in case you still didn't get it. Then I asked you a polite question in order not to assume (which you guys do too much of). Here's another question for you: is it true that you actually have a science degree too?

GNU, I know more about these atheist sites than you do.

i'll catch you every time.

Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't the origin of life be an aspect to the evolution of life? Does the evolution discussion begin when life is evident, with no regard to how it originated? Would that not be part of of the whole theory? 

It will be interesting to see the response to this since no credit was given to the site and yet they seemed very willing to accept all the accolades given about the post.

Actually Jimi, Ram may be smarter than you think. He pointed out an intellectual theft by being versed. I will admit that he will never reach you intelligence level with your "this is stupid, na na na boo boo" type remarks, but he is trying.

Thanks for admitting your ignorance on the subject. It allows for clarification and learing. And thanks for answering my 1 question with 3 of your own. (I thought that was verboten! lol) Answers: no. yes. no.

Don't you consider the origin of life an evolutionary process, too? 

Well, yes, in the same way that the Big Bang is a part of the evolution of the universe.  But that is evolution with a small "e."

When discussing the Grand Theory of Evolution, it involves biological processes ONLY.  The instant a complex molecule gain the ability to replicate itself governed by random mutation and natural selection, the story of Evolution began.

Origins theory is a separate field of study involving chemistry, not biology.

Winston, this is very basic, Science 101 stuff.

I 100% agree but I must ask: What the heck?  You constantly insist that your invisible man explains these mysteries quite succinctly.  Make up your mind.

Come on unoi evolution by random selection has been abandoned long ago.

Evolution is by adaptation and environmentally influenced genetic changes that can be inherited.

B50,

Please read this summary of a study.  I've almost no doubt that you will be unable to grasp what this study is actually saying.  You have a great deal of time and energy invested in Homeschooling and, no doubt, are very passionate about it.  But there is more to it than you are alluding to.  http://www.ericdigests.org/2000-3/home.htm

what you will not grasp is the fact that comparing home schoos to public is an unfair comparison.  You are cherry picking your data to support your stance while ignoring the fact that ANY student who has a deeply involved parent will do well in school no matter what venue is used.

But, hey, at least you get to completely avoid the discussion of the theory of evolution and not be fired for it.

yes unoi the 'invisable man' is the answer you might as well come to grips with the axiom.

A little light reading. LOL

http://www.discovery.org/artic.../ReturnofGdHypth.pdf

Stephen C. Meyer
Whitworth College
___________________________________

Historian of science Frederic Burnham has stated that the God hypothesis is now a more respectable hypothesis than at any time in the last one hundred years. This essay explores recent evidence from cosmology, physics, and biology, which provides epistemological support, though not proof, for belief in God as conceived by a theistic worldview. It develops a notion of epistemological support based upon explanatory power, rather than just deductive entailment. It also evaluates the explanatory power of theism and its main metaphysical competitors with respect to several classes of scientific evidence. The conclusion follows that theism explains a wide ensemble of metaphysically-significant evidences more adequately and comprehensively than other major worldviews or metaphysical systems. Thus, unlike much recent scholarship
that characterizes science as either conflicting with theistic belief or entirely

THE RETURN OF THE GOD HYPOTHESIS ' Stephen Meyer. All Rights Reserved.

The chance explanation has proven more popular, but has severe liabilities
as well. First, the immense improbability of the fine-tuning makes straightforward
appeals to chance untenable. Physicists have discovered some seventy separate
physical or cosmological parameters that require precise calibration in order to
produce a life-sustaining universe (Barrow & Tipler 1986; Gribbin & Rees 1991;
Ross in Dembski 1998). In Nature s Destiny (1998), Michael Denton documents
many other necessary conditions for specifically human life from chemistry,
geology, and biology. Moreover, many individual parameters exhibit an
extraordinarily high degree of fine-tuning. The expansion rate of the universe
must be calibrated to one part in 1060 (Guth 1981: 348). A slightly more rapid rate
of expansion by one part 10 60 would have resulted in a universe too diffuse in
matter to allow stellar formation. An even slightly less rapid rate of expansion by
the same factor would have produced an immediate gravitational recollapse. The
force of gravity itself requires fine-tuning to one part in 1040 (Davies 1983: 188).
Thus, our cosmic explorer not only finds himself confronted with a large
ensemble of separate dial settings, but with very large dials containing a vast array
of possible settings, only very few of which allow fora life-sustaining universe.
In many cases, the odds against finding a single correct setting by chance, let
alone all the correct settings, turn out to be virtually infinitesimal. Oxford
physicist Roger Penrose notes that a single parameter, the original phase-space
volume, required such precise fine-tuning that the Creator s aim must have been
to an accuracy of one part in 1010 (exp 123). Penrose remarks that one could not
possibly even write the number down in full, since it would be ‘1 followed by
10123 successive ‘0 s! more zeros than the number of elementary particles in
the entire universe. Such, he concludes, is the precision needed to set the
universe on its course (Penrose 1989: 344).

Originally Posted by Unobtanium:

 

MAJOR FINDINGS - DEMOGRAPHICS
Home school parents in the study had more formal education than parents in the general population; 88% continued their education beyond high school compared to 50% for the nation as a whole.

Many home school parents were formally trained as teachers. Almost one-fourth of home school students (24%) have at least one parent who is a certified teacher.

The median income for home school families ($52,000) was significantly higher than that of all families with children ($36,000) in the United States.

Almost all home school students (98%) were in married couple families. Most home school mothers (77%)did not participate in the labor force; almost all home school fathers (98%) did work.

Home school students watched much less television than students nationwide; 65% of home school students watch one hour or less per day compared to 25% nationally.

The distribution of home school students by grade in grades 1-6 was consistent with that of all school children. Proportionally fewer home school students were enrolled at the high school level.

So since home school families according to this are: better educated, maybe have a teacher (almost 1/4 is not 'many'), maybe make over $52,000 (all the families I know don't), couples is probably true since it's hard to homeschool and have a job as a single parent, (duh), my kids watched tv as much as anyone or actually watched stuff on the computer, (better choices), I only taught the high school level, this makes them not part of the norm. None of this negates the fact that homeschool kids do as well or better on standardized tests than their public counterparts.

''''''Edited to add, since this study is over 10 years old, things have changed. Single parents can order school on cd's or have computer classes for their kids.( http://www.aophomeschooling.com/products.php).  Many places online offer a highschool education without religion.''''''

You are cherry picking your data to support your stance while ignoring the fact that ANY student who has a deeply involved parent will do well in school no matter what venue is used.

I am not ignoring that nor cherry picking anything, it was never brought into the discussion. Of course having a parent who gives a crap helps any kid. The fact that a homeschool family, by default, helps their kid more is obvious. To deny that would be cherry picking.

Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
But, hey, at least you get to completely avoid the discussion of the theory of evolution and not be fired for it.

See above, arrogant atheist. I am so glad you know everything.

Before I put up any data about homeschool, I said you would shoot it down, you did. That topic is ended.

Ramm is correct, gnu copied.

http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/whatevoisnt.html

Being a writer (and at least 10% of my income to prove it), I have two terms for those instances. If he/she had only said anonymous, I could have used the term "non-attribution." It seems it's worse than that. Plagiarism. My, my... Please retract my excellent post remark concerning Gnu.

Nothing wrong with a little topic evolution, carry on with the home school topic. I see both sides of that and must admit I lean toward public schooling, but that belief could be changed. Everyone give it your best shot.

I think the homeschool topic is dead before it starts. Ironically, it's like a religion discussion. Homeschoolers are the 'evil atheists' and everyone else is the "Christian Right".

Anyway,  back to that pesky evolution:

http://www.remnantreport.com/c...cle_id=102&sub=3

Random chance cannot account for the complex design of DNA. It is statistically and mathematically impossible. In the last 30 years, a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of preexistent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 (ten to the one hundred billionth power). Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds that just the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 10 to the 40,000 (ten to the forty thousandth power). The odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering.