[Mezla PigDog]

Gem Windcaster;353780 said:

You cannot observe that tiny step being made a thousand times. You cannot observe if it have happened and will happen a thousand times, or to what end. You cannot observe the way it happens.......

........The theory of evolution has not encountered any inconsistencies, because it has not encountered any observation at all. Connecting dots is not observing.

What do you call observing single nucleotide polymorphisms accumulating in microbial populations over time? Scientists in the agricultural and medical fields have collected biological samples over the last 100 years and stored them so that they can be revived and have their DNA sequences typed today. I personally have physically seen the accumulation of DNA changes over time that confer things like drug and pesticide resistance through well characterised biochemical pathways. Eventually these specimens will evolve into different species as those that have been exposed to the agents mutate in one direction and those that have not will stay more constant.

Due to the very nature of evolution that it occurs over millions of years, we can't watch new limbs or organs develop in their entirity in multicellular organisms, but we can (and do) observe the basic subunits evolving.

Species have been observed to genetically change in response to their environment. Fact. Geographically distinct populations of the same species change in different ways and become distinct from each other in terms of the biological species concept. Fact.

[Obdigore]

Gem.

How is this not evolution being observed?

[Gem Windcaster]

Mezla PigDog;353810 said:

What do you call observing single nucleotide polymorphisms accumulating in microbial populations over time? Scientists in the agricultural and medical fields have collected biological samples over the last 100 years and stored them so that they can be revived and have their DNA sequences typed today. I personally have physically seen the accumulation of DNA changes over time that confer things like drug and pesticide resistance through well characterised biochemical pathways. Eventually these specimens will evolve into different species as those that have been exposed to the agents mutate in one direction and those that have not will stay more constant.

Due to the very nature of evolution that it occurs over millions of years, we can't watch new limbs or organs develop in their entirity in multicellular organisms, but we can (and do) observe the basic subunits evolving.

Species have been observed to genetically change in response to their environment. Fact. Geographically distinct populations of the same species change in different ways and become distinct from each other in terms of the biological species concept. Fact.

Again, those adaptations and changes in genetic material is long way from making a fish into a monkey.

I don't dispute evolution in the form you are talking about. However, it proves nothing. You're still connecting dots. The amount of genetic changes required for the real big steps have not been observed.

And I am not even mentioning how big step it must be for a rock to become a living organism.

Again, I don't dispute that DNA has a certain amount of range in which it can adapt. Again, it proves nothing. Limits have not been tested. And as you say limbs have not been seen growing. You say it is the nature of evolution.

It is the nature of the theory of evolution that it cannot be observed. Fact.

EDIT: this post was for you too, Obdi.

[Obdigore]

It can and has been observed Gem.

Much as the link I posted. Just because more complex/longer lived organisms have not been observed by science for forty five thousand generations does not mean it does not happen.

You claim as a fact that evolution cannot be observed, when it has been. Read the link I gave you, the subjects mutated, and that mutation took over because it was stronger in that environment than the unmutated stock. That is evolution.

[Gem Windcaster]

Obdigore;353825 said:

It can and has been observed Gem.

That's your opinon.

Obdigore;353825 said:

Much as the link I posted. Just because more complex/longer lived organisms have not been observed by science for forty five thousand generations does not mean it does not happen.

True, but it doesn't prove that more complex/longer lived organisms have evolved either.

Obdigore;353825 said:

You claim as a fact that evolution cannot be observed, when it has been. Read the link I gave you, the subjects mutated, and that mutation took over because it was stronger in that environment than the unmutated stock. That is evolution.

Yes, and I have not disputed that mutations occur. I would never do that. It still doesn't make a fish into a monkey. I'm sorry, but those mutations doesn't prove that mutations can fill bigger gaps in evolution. You're still. Connecting. Dots.

[Obdigore]

Gem, can you disprove the theory of evolution?

We see things change, much like the link I posted above. Just because we have NOT seen people change in the time we are keeping records (instead we are changing the environment to suit us) does not mean things to not evolve.

Do you have a theory on how we got to where we are today with all the species, subspecies, and localized subspecies that is better than evolution? I would love to hear it.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Connecting the dots of evolution seems a whole lot more reasonable than connecting the dots of creationism.

Dot 1: The bible says God created everything. Dot 2:Therefore, God created everything, because the bible says so.

Now, there's some impressive dot connecting.

[Gem Windcaster]

Obdigore;353833 said:

Gem, can you disprove the theory of evolution?

We see things change, much like the link I posted above. Just because we have NOT seen people change in the time we are keeping records (instead we are changing the environment to suit us) does not mean things to not evolve.

Do you have a theory on how we got to where we are today with all the species, subspecies, and localized subspecies that is better than evolution? I would love to hear it.

I am not trying to disprove anything. All I am saying is that the theory of evolution cannot be proved. And that I wish that people that believe in the theory of evolution would recognize the fact that it is a belief.

I know that science cannot allow this, because belief is not recognized as being part of science.

What's so shameful about recognizing the truth? :confused:

I think the scientific community would benefit from strengthen its own foundation by recognizing the fact that it is a bit hypocritical at times.

[Gem Windcaster]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;353845 said:

Connecting the dots of evolution seems a whole lot more reasonable than connecting the dots of creationism.

Dot 1: The bible says God created everything. Dot 2:Therefore, God created everything, because the bible says so.

Now, there's some impressive dot connecting.

I am not disputing that fact! I am readily admitting that it is a belief. It's a faith. It cannot be proven.

And it's got nothing to do with my other arguments.

[Obdigore]

Gem Windcaster;353847 said:

I am not trying to disprove anything. All I am saying is that the theory of evolution cannot be proved. And that I wish that people that believe in the theory of evolution would recognize the fact that it is a belief.

I know that science cannot allow this, because belief is not recognized as being part of science.

What's so shameful about recognizing the truth? :confused:

I think the scientific community would benefit from strengthen its own foundation by recognizing the fact that it is a bit hypocritical at times.

It IS the theory of evolution. However, theory in science is different than theory in other uses of the word. I thought you had understood that from what you posted a while ago.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Well, since at this point, if you eliminate evolution, creationism is the only other option, I think it's relevant. Unless you have another possibility?

And this thread is the creationism vs. evolution thread.

There is some belief involved in evolution, but that belief is based on evidence. Belief in creationism is based only on faith with no evidence.

[Gem Windcaster]

Obdigore;353855 said:

It IS the theory of evolution. However, theory in science is different than theory in other uses of the word. I thought you had understood that from what you posted a while ago.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.

[Obdigore]

From the Wiki page on theory.

Wikipedia said:

The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

If that is not what you are attempting to say, I guess I am not understanding where you are going?

[Gem Windcaster]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;353857 said:

Well, since at this point, if you eliminate evolution, creationism is the only other option, I think it's relevant. Unless you have another possibility?

And this thread is the creationism vs. evolution thread.

There is some belief involved in evolution, but that belief is based on evidence. Belief in creationism is based only on faith with no evidence.

You should read my other posts in this thread. I dispute this 'evidence' you talk about.

The difference between creationism and evolution is that evolution tries to prove something. Creationism doesn't. At least my creationism.

I really don't get the point of discussing creationism, or comparing it to evolution.

[Gem Windcaster]

Obdigore;353860 said:

From the Wiki page on theory.


If that is not what you are attempting to say, I guess I am not understanding where you are going?

I'm sorry, what's your point?

[Obdigore]

My point is that you don't have one and everyone is confused as to what you are claiming we are doing wrong.

[Gem Windcaster]

Obdigore;353866 said:

My point is that you don't have one and everyone is confused as to what you are claiming we are doing wrong.

My point? My point is that, as you can see in my first post, the sentence, or the meaning, "evolution is proved" is used a bit too much.

I'm not going to recant my posts, if you have any questions as to what I mean by a certain statement, just ask.

I'm not really saying you are doing anything wrong. I'm just saying the theory of evolution cannot be proved scientifically. Which most scientists will agree with.

[Obdigore]

No, the theory of evolution cannot be disproved scientifically, which means it is the best we have and is treated as an Evolutionary Theory.

There is PROOF that evolution happens.

You don't have to recant your posts, because they do not make sense.

[Gem Windcaster]

Obdi, I understand what you meant by the wiki quote now, yes that is what I mean.

Obdigore;353875 said:

No, the theory of evolution cannot be disproved scientifically, which means it is the best we have and is treated as an Evolutionary Theory.

There is PROOF that evolution happens, but there has been no proof that we did evolve from goo, however since nothing has yet to disprove this, it is the accepted scientific theory.

Hence, it is not proved. Hence, you need to decide if you believe in the theory or not. It's not like any scientific theory is magically burned into peoples minds as being a fact. You have to actually decide for yourself if you think it's a valid theory. Which I think is what you mean too.

However, for me, the "we don't have anything better" argument is just bullshit. I don't see anyone trying to come up with something better. Anyone arguing that there is no proof is seen as unintelligent, or worse, as a fanatic. Who are the fanatics I wonder? Where did the objective science go?

According to logic, you cannot prove that every swan is white, you can just prove that not every swan is white. In the theory of evolution there is no way of searching for black swans, and that is a problem.


Gah, I didn't want to recant my points, but here I am doing exactly that. I have a completely different philosophical standpoint that you guys, and I never really saw the point of discussing creationism or comparing it to evolution in the first place.

I will just answer questions on my previous posts, then leave you to it.

[Obdigore]

So what IS your theory then Gem?

How did we come to be?

Provide facts and your assumptions to rival the theory of evolution.