Evolution is not a theory; Natural Selection is a theory to explain evolution.

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Coloradomtnman, Mar 2, 2009.

  1. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,311
    Thanks Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,495
    Evolution is not a theory; Natural Selection is a theory to explain evolution.

    Evolution is observable in nature. Evolution is an accepted scientific fact. There are no valid modern biologists who do not accept evolution as a fact.

    Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

    The Short Proof of Evolution

    Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds

    Proof for Evolution?

    Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

    In an effort explain how evolution happens, Darwin put forth several theories which all kinda work together: Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, etc.

    So, does everyone understand now? Any questions?
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,152
    What on earth does this have to do with religion or ethics?
     
  3. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,879
    Thanks Received:
    3,720
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,052
    I think he's under the three mistaken impressions that 1) only Christians/religious people oppose the idea of evolution as fact rather than theory, 2) that macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing and one proves the other, and 3) that Christians/religious people reject both for that reason.
     
  4. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,311
    Thanks Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,495
    Macroevolution and microevolution are words for fictitious ideas developed by those who oppose evolution or creationists to invalidate one of the fundamental tenets of evolution: that all organisms are decended from other, simpler organisms which implies that human beings are descended from primates. As though God created everything and then allowed for genetic mutation to work only so far.

    What that requires is both a denial of the discoveries of anthropologists during the late 19th and 20th Centuries in Africa and Europe of early hominids, and the simple logic that random mutation over the course of billions and millions of years can result in the simple strands of DNA in viruses and bacteria eventually developing into long complex chains like those in human beings.

    I don't believe that all Christians/religious people don't accept evolution. One can be
    spiritual without living in a prolonged state of suspended disbelief. One can even be spiritual without being religious. As astonishing as that might be to those dwelling in the Bible belt.

    I just can't stand it when I hear people argue that evolution is a theory not realizing that it isn't a theory and to continue to argue the point. The argument is obsolete. This is the behavior of a superstitious and primitive mentality. And it is narrow-minded.

    A healthy skepticism is to say: we don't know how life developed, but once it did, millions and billions of years of low radiation and other environmental factors have altered those first life forms into the multitudes of diverse forms of life that exist today. I think that is what most people who realize that evolution exists believe or think.
     
  5. CaféAuLait
    Offline

    CaféAuLait This Space for Rent

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    Messages:
    7,776
    Thanks Received:
    1,947
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    Ratings:
    +2,323

    Wow I understand Judson Laipply's Evolution of Dance so much better now. :tongue:

    [youtube]dMH0bHeiRNg[/youtube]
     
  6. Terry
    Offline

    Terry Shut the $%$ Up!

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,222
    Thanks Received:
    1,090
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,091
    Cafe' I love that video! Thanks for it.
     
  7. Terry
    Offline

    Terry Shut the $%$ Up!

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,222
    Thanks Received:
    1,090
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,091
    part 2

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inLBPVG8oEU]YouTube - Evolution of Dance 2[/ame]
     
  8. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,879
    Thanks Received:
    3,720
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,052
    Wrong, Sparky. There is a very, VERY big difference between the idea that a species evolves and changes inside itself, and the idea that one species evolves and changes into an entirely different and separate species. This is why there are the two specific terms, macroevolution and microevolution, to differentiate between the two. One does not prove the existence of the other, and a person does not have to believe in one to believe in the other. Just FYI, you might want to rethink the value of specificity and precision in your terminology, since nothing needs to "imply that human beings are descended from primates". Human beings ARE primates, so naturally they would be descended from primates, whatever one's evolutionary beliefs.

    No, it doesn't really deny the existence of any of these things. It simply denies that any of this constitutes proof of evolution between species, because it doesn't.

    Nice try at word-parsing in order to slip in a semi-subtle insult, but no dice. I never said you thought ALL Christians/religious people didn't accept evolution. I said you likely thought that everyone who didn't accept evolution was Christian/religous.

    As astonishing as it might be to those dwelling in the warm glow of their own self-importance, it is possible to not accept evolution as a proven, bedrock-hard fact and still be thinking, educated, and scientifically aware. It is also possible to disagree with you without it making me ignorant OR you brilliant.

    Sorry again, Sparky, but unless I've forgotten something from your initial post - which is possible - the only "evidence" you have that evolution is NOT a theory is the existence of evolution within a species, something that no one has ever denied and which does not in any way prove that one species can evolve or has evolved into a totally separate species. So until you say something which really can't be argued or refuted, I'd be obliged if you would spare us the automatic leap to "this is settled, and you shouldn't argue, and you're just primitive". PROVE that you're right, and THEN do your victory dance.

    No, a healthy skepticism is to say, "We don't know how life developed, AND we don't know how it became a multitude of diverse life forms after it did, but it's possible that it happened this way." Because frankly, you can't say, "Once it did, such and so happened", because you really don't know. You weren't there. No one was. And no one can conclusively prove it, which is why so many people who exercise ACTUAL healthy skepticism rather than the blind, fanatical faith that you call healthy skepticism, are still mulling the issue over and considering other possibilities. It's called "having an open mind", and I'm told it's quite useful in the scientific fields.
     
  9. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Once you understand that man creates God in his own image, not the other way around, then it's easy to understand global warming, Darwinism, Islam, Christianity, liberalism, and every other religion.
     
  10. hansom
    Offline

    hansom Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Messages:
    31
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2
    Can we do away with semantics and opinion, and deal with real-world examples?

    Subject:
    Soft tissue in skeletal dinosaur remains. Discuss? A simple web search produces at least 2 instances in the US.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

early hominids and religious disbelief