Proof of Evolution

Im not going to debate further. All i can say is, use your critical thinking to evaluate these theories, learn to separate scientist OPINIONS from FACTS. Just because an opinion comes out from a scientist mouth, doesnt mean its fact.

Scientist have no bias in their interpretation of data? I find that hard to believe. They find a primitive skeleton which resembles a gorilla with elongated legs and they call it the evolutionary link between human and monkeys. They ignore genetic impossibilities by taking time out of the equation. They find one nerve in the human and call it evidence for ancestry from fishes.

They suggest fishes crawled out of water and now suggest there is no more reason for them to do so. Skin can grow over their gills through RANDOM mutation but yet there is no solid evidence for it. Can they demonstrate that any part of the gene can be expressed differently to encode for skin to cover the gills? Can they demonstrate how environmental stress changes the rate of mutation to RANDOMLY incorporate genes that would somehow allow the fishes to change anatomically? yes i've heard the same explanation over and over again to these genetic impossibilities - over millions of years, so one can disprove it since no one has lived that long. How long exactly does it take? How many generations before a favorable mutation shows up? No one knows for sure yet they are sure it can happen.

They manage to synthesize amino acids from elements and therefore suggest that earth's atmosphere was once the same as their test conditions. btw that theory is now replaced by a popular theory that earth was once covered by WATER rich with elements.

But without explaining or proving how amino acids can randomly come together to form proteins that in turn randomly link up with other proteins and substrates to start metabolic cycles ,they publicize their theory. There is entirely nothing wrong with that, but people put their faith in it, calling it logic. They take all this as fact while deriding others for putting their faith in an seemingly unproven, illogical religion.

Please I stress once again, I have nothing against scientist and facts, I don't agree with all opinions and unproven hypothesis touted as scientific facts.

rant over. i thank you all for a great discussion....
 
meh, 37 pages, is that some kind of record for a thread on SOFT? For an epic battle of an epic topic? like socialist vs capitalist, conspiracy theorist vs historian and evolutionist vs creationist?
 
taypeng81 said:
But without explaining or proving how amino acids can randomly come together to form proteins that in turn randomly link up with other proteins and substrates to start metabolic cycles ,they publicize their theory. There is entirely nothing wrong with that, but people put their faith in it, calling it logic. They take all this as fact while deriding others for putting their faith in an seemingly unproven, illogical religion.
Click to expand...

+1. The problem with beliefs.
 
Yeah, especially threads involving religion.

So fast and furious sometimes that before James know they exist and promptly lock, the pages have piled up damn fast. :mrgreen:
 
taypeng81 said:
Im not going to debate further. All i can say is, use your critical thinking to evaluate these theories, learn to separate scientist OPINIONS from FACTS. Just because an opinion comes out from a scientist mouth, doesnt mean its fact.

Scientist have no bias in their interpretation of data? I find that hard to believe. They find a primitive skeleton which resembles a gorilla with elongated legs and they call it the evolutionary link between human and monkeys. They ignore genetic impossibilities by taking time out of the equation. They find one nerve in the human and call it evidence for ancestry from fishes.
Click to expand...

I agree. :-D Obtaining solid evidence to support the idea of evolution is really difficult job, that's why it still remains as a theory. And scientists, being human themselves, can be biased at times (especially sciences that involves study of humans such as psychology and social science). They pick a stand first, then look evidences to support it, rather than the other way round.

There's still a possibility that creationism (and other explanations for origin of life) is correct. But the evidences we currently have at hand so far are more in favour of evolution, rather than creation by intelligent design.


You mentioned that "environmental stress changes the rate of mutation to RANDOMLY incorporate genes that would somehow allow the fishes to change anatomically".

Well, actually, the rate of mutation remains constant, regardless of environmental conditions. In fact, many of those mutations are undesirable. But a small percentage of those mutations turn out to be beneficial. Organisms which carry those beneficial genes will be better at reproducing and hence, eventually majority of the species population will have that gene.

Mutation can be observable within a short time span of a few years, or even days, as in the case of microorganisms which reproduce rapidly. That is why bacteria develop resistance to anti-biotic and anti-septic compounds so quickly. Small-scale mutation, such as this, will eventually culminate in species evolution over a longer time span.


One last thing to add. Yes, mutation is random. But that does not imply that it is improbable or illogical.

Imagine you throw a dice thrice and get the number '6' facing up three times in a row. Then you remark to yourself, "Wow, this is so improbable! There must be an invisible hand controlling the outcome of the dice."

But that is no longer remarkable, if you keep on throwing the dice, let's say, 1000 times. Surely, out of those 1000 throws, you will hit a '6' facing up three times in row. ;)

This analogy applies to evolution. This random mutation ceases to be that "incredible" or "improbable" if you consider the no. of generations that have passed since the first organism appeared on earth.
 
I never believe in Evolution Theory also…the Charles Darwin Theory especially…. ….How can Man (humans evolved from Monkey) ?

Because in Evolution…the Old-Breed will cease totally (meaning if Man is Evolve from Monkeys or Apes) there would not be anymore Monkeys or Ape around anymore these days …that’s Evolution…and it wont be – Partially some evolve and some didn’t evolve right ? …some change and some dunno why? didn’t or cannot change – what kind of Evolution Theory is that lah ? …but that’s my Opinion here

And – my ancestor is no Monkeys for sure man….hahahahaha ! .

PS: - (JOKE) : - So if next time - when a friend of ours say to us (I believe in Charles Darwin Theory) - 1st thing we do is (Slap that Burger Face hard) ...then your friend will get into a shock and ask you with eyes wide opened (Hey..you seow har - slap me for what lah ?) ...then you say to him (Basket...you say I Monkey har and my ancestor monkey izzit?) ...Kekekekekeke ...(That's why I slap you lah..eng kai eh) Kekekekeke.

Ok lah - no joke no fun ... but yes this Topic is a little sensitive (so lets be very careful - as it can be touchy) ... cause for those that believe in (GOD) ...will never agree that we come from Monkeys...or The Evolution Theory....just be very careful in case it gets way too sensitive...control control a bit har.
 
Last edited:
only a theory? everything in science is only theory. Germ theory, theory of gravity, cell theory, theory of evolution etc.
Scientific theory is used to explain facts.

these Theories arise out of trying to explain observed facts,

the word "Theory" used in science is not the same everyday use of the word.
My oven is hot, and Megan Fox is hot, hot(temperature)<=>hot(attractiveness)
same word, different meaning

Thats why the argument ONLY A THEORY is nonsense, because scientists don't use it the same way

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

This video explains the definitions very well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIm2H0ksawg
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

"In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment."

"Criterion for scientific status

Karl Popper described the characteristics of a scientific theory as follows:

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory—an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence".)
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later describe such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem".)

One can sum up all this by saying that according to Popper, the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability."

based on this is Evolution Theory a "Scientific Theory"? or a phisolophical theory? I think it is more of a phisolophical theory because It cannot be falsified and tested. It also has very vague assumptions. usually scientific theories make very bold\risky predictions that defies common knowledge. but I dont see that in Evolution Theory.

Unlike the theory of relativity were we have observed that in a nuclear bomb\Plant, law of gravity it has been tested in dropping 2 balls of different weight on top of leaning tower of Pisa.
 
Last edited:
 
Karl's Popper's idea of scientific theory is not without criticisms, especially on the criteria of falsifiability

Evolution's theory is testable on a micro level, the inheritance of genes,genetic mutation, natural selection. These are testable ideas.
Using these testable ideas, scientist make inferences about the bigger picture of evolution of mankind.

In the same way, quantum mechanics, theories of relativity are testable. These ideas are used to theorize about black holes
In the strictest sense, black holes are not testable and falsifiable, does that make them any less scientific?

Newton's law of gravity. You can test how objects follow the motion of acceleration of free fall, but you cant directly test that to see if the free fall is due to gravity and not some other magical force that is causing the object to fall.
 
Last edited:
hifi_killer said:
Karl's Popper's idea of scientific theory is not without criticisms, especially on the criteria of falsifiability

Evolution's theory is testable on a micro level, the inheritance of genes,genetic mutation, natural selection. These are testable ideas.
Using these testable ideas, scientist make inferences about the bigger picture of evolution of mankind.

In the same way, quantum mechanics, theories of relativity are testable. These ideas are used to theorize about black holes
In the strictest sense, black holes are not testable and falsifiable, does that make them any less scientific?

Newton's law of gravity. You can test how objects follow the motion of acceleration of free fall, but you cant directly test that to see if the free fall is due to gravity and not some other magical force that is causing the object to fall.
Click to expand...

Black holes is just a bold prediction of the theory that has been discovered to be true as scientist have observed this phenomena in the Hubble telescope. Black holes is actually a proof that the theory is probably correct. the theory also predicts that we can extract large amounts of energy from any molecule. This has been proven by the atomic bomb.

Newton's law of gravity go only as far as explaining the characteristics of gravity on the observable level. basically the math only explains and predicts what will happen when you apply gravity. and these predictions you can actually test. but it never tried explaining why there is gravity.

Theory of Evolution Predicts that Apes has evolved into humans, is this some thing you can test? It also predicts that everything started from the big bang. Can we test this? It also predicts that life can start from a primordial soup. This is something we can actually test but no one has been able to do it.
 
Morlock said:
scientist have observed this phenomena in the Hubble telescope
Click to expand...
i hope you didnt copy that from somewhere without understand what it means..

There is no way to directly observe a black hole directly. Black holes are invisible. You can only observe it indirectly via its related phenomenon, such as the gravitational lens effect, movement of galaxies.

thru gravitational lens, you are in fact observing the past - light that is highly red shifted.

and so observing black holes thru gravitational lenses is as valid as observing evolution of men through fossils.

Black holes are the ultimate frontier of 'untestablity'. Black holes are hypothesized to have a singularity at is core, a very well accepted hypothesis. Singularity = infinity. Scientific/mathematical equations go haywire with an infinity value (you can work out 1= 2 with infinity values). Is it possible to directly 'observe/test' this singularity?
Does this mean that this not science?

If i'm not wrong, black hole theories very much validated as scientific theories. if this is the case, Karl Popper's rules = epic fail.

Theory of relativity has nothing to do with nuclear bombs, fusion , fission etc.. Instead, i think you might mistook that for mass-energy equivalence
 
Last edited:
hifi_killer said:
i hope you didnt copy that from somewhere without understand what it means..

There is no way to directly observe a black hole directly. Black holes are invisible. You can only observe it indirectly via its related phenomenon, such as the gravitational lens effect, movement of galaxies.

thru gravitational lens, you are in fact observing the past - light that is highly red shifted.

and so observing black holes thru gravitational lenses is as valid as observing evolution of men through fossils.

Black holes are the ultimate frontier of 'untestablity'. Black holes are hypothesized to have a singularity at is core, a very well accepted hypothesis. Singularity = infinity. Scientific/mathematical equations go haywire with an infinity value (you can work out 1= 2 with infinity values). Is it possible to directly 'observe/test' this singularity?
Does this mean that this not science?

If i'm not wrong, black hole theories very much validated as scientific theories. if this is the case, Karl Popper's rules = epic fail.

Theory of relativity has nothing to do with nuclear bombs, fusion , fission etc.. Instead, i think you might mistook that for mass-energy equivalence
Click to expand...

I did not say you can actually see black holes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
"Despite its invisible interior, a black hole can be observed through its interaction with other matter. "

if there is no way to observe black holes then why did someone have written the above quote in wiki lol.

and black holes are not a theory, it is a prediction. a bold prediction that has been observed to be true. I don't think you are capable of differentiating a theory from a prediction from a hypothesis.

Sorry I was talking about E=MC2 mass–energy equivalence. but the theory of relativity lead to the discovery of this equation. but most people actually consider this as part of Einstein's special relativity theory. same as the big bang theory being part of the evolution theory.

http://hubpages.com/hub/How-Does-A-Nuclear-Bomb-Work

this article states that
"This theory directed the process leading to the creation of the Atomic bomb."

As for fossils, you can never be sure that those fossils had off springs could you? you can't even be sure 100% of the date of the fossils. so you cannot compare fossils to black holes because black holes you can actually see stars and matter being pulled apart. mind you the prediction of a black hole and all of its properties (invisible, pulling matter apart, etc) has been predicted long before it has been discovered.

here is a link of black hole pictures from hubble

http://space.about.com/od/blackholes/ig/Black-Holes-Pictures-/

and if Karl Popper's rules fail, please do state an alternative because I am trying to establish a standard as to what a theory is. if we can't even establish what a theory is then we can't even have a debate about Evolution Theory can we?

Honestly you have not posted any links or references and I have posted a lot. so how do I know that what you are saying now is true?
 
Last edited:
predz23 said:
only a theory? everything in science is only theory. Germ theory, theory of gravity, cell theory, theory of evolution etc.
Scientific theory is used to explain facts.
Click to expand...

Sorry man but you definitely do not get the take of what a theory really means.

You said theory of gravity. Alright, which theory of gravity are you exactly referring to?

Theories explain what is observed but there can be other probable answers that are actually the truth.

Let's take Einstein's theory of general relativity. He explained it as a curvature of space-time, thus implying the idea that gravity, actually, is not a real force itself because it's just mass making out a warped space-time.

However, there are others who wholesomely believed that gravity is a force itself. Newton's theories of gravity, although long uprooted by Einstein's general relativity, still apply today and it doesn't really make sense that two theories can be applied for gravity?

Besides Newton and Einstein, quantum mechanics have also been busy trying to figure out gravity because unlike other fundamental forces, gravity displays no particle nature. So we have the theory that the graviton exists, the string theory, the M-theory, the theory of gravity at quantum level, etc.

And the list goes on. All to explain gravity.

These are all science, all scientific theories. All usable to explain the phenomena of gravity but each of the theories is unable to exist in harmony with another. And based on your so-called observable fact(by the way, phenomena is the correct word, not fact).

So tell me, what exactly is your idea of a theory? You're gonna take it as your total truth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
STOLEN GUITARS ALERT Mayones Regius Core 7 and Sugi DH496C
Replies
0
Views
221
mechanevil
M
M
STOLEN GUITAR ALERT Mayones Regius Core 7 and Sugi DH496C
Replies
3
Views
395
mechanevil
M
F
Drummer wanted for a Jazz Fusion Funk instrumental band
Replies
0
Views
333
fivetospare
F
F
Keys and horns wanted for jazz/fusion/funk band.
Replies
1
Views
230
spacey
S
F
Keys and horns wanted for jazz/fusion/funk band.
Replies
0
Views
113
fivetospare
F

Latest posts

Share this page

Back
Top