Evolution or Creation?

[galaxus]

i go with theory. not because i believe in creationism but because i agree with the arguement that nothin in science can 100% be proven. i think this argument would be accepted in a phylisopical class, but scientist defined fact as somthing so probable that it would be silly not to accept it as true.

i'm a science guy and evoultion is very logical and proven to some degree, but i still think its just a theory.

your thoughts?

 

[ManiacalMadMan]

Evolution is a fact. Look around the proof is every where.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I also have a serious problem with the statement "nothin in science can 100% be proven" - I beg to differ.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

People who object the loudest to the theory of evolution being called that are usually athiests operating from the assumption that anyone denying the factual basis of evolution must be working an angle on a creationist agenda. I've never really thought that was fair. It's possible to prove things false in science, it's not really possible to prove something is true. The best we can hope to do is adopt whatever theory is or seems to be the best and then revise that or adopt something else in the eventuality that this theory in part or in whole is ever proven false. Everything in science is a theory. Evolution, the way most people think of it, namely the theory that all life on the planet evolved from simple organisms and that humans and other modern primates share a common ancestor, is a flimsier theory than most because it is not testable and until we invent time travel, not observable. One of the most important cornerstones of the scientific method is being able to reproduce results in a controlled environment. When you are talking about things that happened before man even walked the face of this planet, the only evidence of which is fossil records, then you are delving into historical conjecture. Not hard science. Even if you could observe some forms of microevolution taking place today, there's no way to prove what happened yesterday. We can only make guesses.

Again, the people who get most uppity when you make these arguments are usually those that are afraid that you're going to follow it up with "and therefore God must exist." Which is just silly, on both sides of the argument.

 

[Drifterwood]

It's a theory.

The existence of creationists does however make me wonder whether humans are evolving.

 

[galaxus]

Evolution is a fact. Look around the proof is every where.

the only proof i see is average human height increasing through the centuries and the ability of certin animals adapting to thier enviornment.

we still haven't found that missing link yet. philisopicoly speaking , its still theory to me. but realisticaly its so likely, right now we might as well call it fact. we should have more theories in the future.

 

[DC_DEEP]

That depends upon what you mean by your thread title.

That organisms do evolve over time is fairly obvious. The conclusions one draws from partial evidence are, however, dubious at times.

 

[mindseye]

It's a model for understanding how something works, and it's a model which has been validated over and over and over again.

In the same way that gravity is "only a theory", evolution is "only a theory", but it's a theory that has been so well-tested that it deserves the same level of acceptance as gravity.

 

[galaxus]

That depends upon what you mean by your thread title.

That organisms do evolve over time is fairly obvious. The conclusions one draws from partial evidence are, however, dubious at times.

Ok... well to clear it up we aren't talkin about organisms or cells growing, reproducing, or learning. i'm talkin "humans evolving from primates". i forget the nomenclature for naming a species, but i 'm sure primates and homo sapiens are of different species. so could a new species spilt from and old one?

maybe my last question is a lil inaccurate but thats one way of how i understand the thought of evoulution.

 

[HazelGod]

In the same way that gravity is "only a theory", evolution is "only a theory", but it's a theory that has been so well-tested that it deserves the same level of acceptance as gravity.

NIC and ME make an excellent point that most of the braying jackasses on both sides of the argument are too dense to grasp. Yes, evolution is a theory.

Theory in academic and scientific circles carries a very different connotation than when used in the vernacular. It's a model that has been well conceived based on evidence and observations, reviewed and tested continuously under the scientific method, and still tends to hold true. In the common parlance, theory refers to something more akin to an hypothesis...a rough idea that might possibly explain something.

The OP's assertion that he's a "science guy" being so closely followed by his opinion that evolution is "just a theory" is entirely self-defeating. Anyone with even the meanest formal training in any of the sciences would already understand these distinctions.

Reading his followups, I'm a bit confused as to what the actual question is. Are you asking whether we believe in the general paradigm of evolution theory? Or are you asking the more specific and personal question as to whether we believe it pertains to human and other primate development?

 

[SomeGuyOverThere]

Any science is a theory as it is proven by observation of the world. Logically there is no basis for anything shown in this way, as there is no logical way to assert a cause and effect relationship based on previous experience.

However, even theories with basis in scientific method are far more convincing than plucking a devine entity out of nowhere and saying that it created the universe.

Mainly because such an "answer" poses more questions than it solves.

 

[dong20]

Ok... well to clear it up we aren't talkin about organisms or cells growing, reproducing, or learning. i'm talkin "humans evolving from primates". i forget the nomenclature for naming a species, but i 'm sure primates and homo sapiens are of different species. so could a new species spilt from and old one?

'Primate' isn't a species, it's an order, containing different genus' and species of which humans are only one. Chimpanzees, Gorillas etc are members of the primate order.

The sequence is (according to what I learned at school and read since) so I'm open to correction:

Kingdom: Animalia>Phylum: Chordata>Class: Mammalia>Order: Primates>Family: Hominidae>sub family Homininae>Tribe>Homini>Genus: Homo>Species: H. sapiens>Subspecies: H. s. sapiens (us humans)

For chimps it's the same until Tribe,* when it becomes:

>Subtribe: Panina>Genus: Pan>
Two species :
1 - Pan troglodytes - with four sub-species P verus, P Troglodytes troglodytes, troglodytes vellerosus and Pan schweinfurthiand
and,
2 - Pan paniscus (Bonobos)

* Sometimes chimpanzees etc will be found placed in the the family Pongidae (Great apes).

This classification was commonly used by anthropologists to exclude humans, placing us alone in the Hominidae family (along with our extinct ancestors). I don't think it's common to do that any more but I'm not an expert. We are grouped with Chimps and Gorillas (Tribe Gorillini>Genus Gorilla), whereas Orangutans are in in their own Ponginae subfamily, genus Pongo.

Membership of the Genus Homo requires (I believe) a 97% DNA similarity or more with the Human genome and couple of other factors I can't remember though I think capacity for 'language' was one, some therefore place chimpanzees and Gorillas in Genus Homo along with Humans, depending on which DNA classification one believes I suppose. There are other elements but I can't recall, them.

I'll shut up now.

 

[frans240]

Everything is energy..and so are we... what one believes in is true for that person..you'll get the "proof" you are looking for...all the time... science is the 20th and 21st newest all powerful doctrine (religion) if it can not be proven it can not exists... bull if you ask me..and more so coming from a knowlege base that has yet to begin to understand the infinite wonders that are around us...evolution is more a guide line, bible..but still no one (in science) has publicly proven the fact that homo sapiens were "suddenly"there, wiped out the neanderthaler, and cro magnon and developped a lot of skills (social ect) within a matter of 35.000 years..where according to the evolution theory it would have taken more then a couple of hundred thousand years!! That is why argeology is still looking for the "missing link"!!!

:biggrin1:

 

[bobabooey69]

There are no dinosaurs in the bible.
But God is in the bible.
There are dinosaurs in museums.
But God is nowhere to be seen.

So evolution for the win!

 

[galaxus]

The OP's assertion that he's a "science guy" being so closely followed by his opinion that evolution is "just a theory" is entirely self-defeating. Anyone with even the meanest formal training in any of the sciences would already understand these distinctions.

Reading his followups, I'm a bit confused as to what the actual question is. Are you asking whether we believe in the general paradigm of evolution theory? Or are you asking the more specific and personal question as to whether we believe it pertains to human and other primate development?

when i say i'm a "science guy" that doesn't mean i have a doctorate in any type of science field. i'm just saying i enjoy to learn and talk about scientific topics. i still ave a lot to learn in many things.i'm just 19.

i'm not asking what u believe in. i'm asking is there enough proof for you to think that we evoled from primates?


i'm not this person thats saying "if it can not be proven it can not exists" because that is bull. just the thought of evolution doesn't convince me (a derivative of this thought might), just like creationism many other things in the bible doesn't convince me because it was written by man.

 

[dong20]

..
i'm not asking what u believe in. i'm asking is there enough proof for you to think that we evoled from primates?

We didn't evolve from primates, we are primates. See above ^^^ :smile:

 

[fortiesfun]

Evolution, the way most people think of it, namely the theory that all life on the planet evolved from simple organisms and that humans and other modern primates share a common ancestor, is a flimsier theory than most because it is not testable and until we invent time travel, not observable. One of the most important cornerstones of the scientific method is being able to reproduce results in a controlled environment. When you are talking about things that happened before man even walked the face of this planet, the only evidence of which is fossil records, then you are delving into historical conjecture.

I'm of the impression that evolutionary theory is far more testable now that it is possible to sequence and read DNA. Thirty years ago, evolutionary theory depended entirely on the fossil record, but now it is fairly easy to see the genetic relationships among species. (It is how we know, for example, that Neaderthals did not interbreed with Homo Sapiens and disappear into our gene pool, but simply died out.)

And I think you are overstating the extent to which all science relies on replicable results in a controlled environment. That is really only true of experimental science. There are many natural phenomena, surely, that are directly observable but can't be reproduced in a controlled environment. (The thawing of the polar ice-caps, for example.)

I'm asking is there enough proof for you to think that we evoled from primates?[/B]

I think there is ample evidence, now, to support the theory that all primates (including homo sapiens) evolved from a common ancestor. I suspect that is what you mean. If you are seriously a "science guy" and want to delve into this beyond the superficial arguments, I think the classic on this subject is still Stephen Jay Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.

 

[ohgoonthen]

Evolutionary Theory as proposed by Charles Darwin et al is really a fact because God told me it was.

Did you hear the one about the dog with two dicks?

 

[SomeGuyOverThere]

i'm not asking what u believe in. i'm asking is there enough proof for you to think that we evoled from primates?

Well the claim that we are evolved from previous primates (as pointed out, we are primates...), is atleast backed up by DNA and the few fossils that we are lucky enough to own.

The alternative is backed up by a 2 thousand year old book that claims the world was created at a time that mankind had already invented glue. So take your pick...

If anyone has a better theory than both of the above then please air it now so that I can go and write a thesis in it and become world famous.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I'm of the impression that evolutionary theory is far more testable now that it is possible to sequence and read DNA. Thirty years ago, evolutionary theory depended entirely on the fossil record, but now it is fairly easy to see the genetic relationships among species. (It is how we know, for example, that Neanderthals did not interbreed with Homo Sapiens and disappear into our gene pool, but simply died out.)

Yes, so far as that goes. They do seem to have died out.
But, on a slightly different note, is it not accepted by some peeps that there was likely some interbreeding between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens? (Granted, not enough to cause subsumption of the Neanderthals into the human gene pool.)
There is so much to-and-froing in this area that, frankly, I don't even try to keep up.