The Theory of Evolution

[☭proletarian☭]

One doesn't 'believe in' evolution. One either realizes its a fact or does not; one either accepts or rejects theories regarding lesser-known aspects of how it occurs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Among those who negate the validity of Darwin and the science communities' theories on the evolution of man and our fellow critters, where is the point of contention? Is it heredity that seems unrealistic? Is it the natural selection (survival of the fittest) mechanism that seems like hogwash? Maybe the time over which it is claimed to take effect? I'm new to this board, but like the responsiveness of this community, and would appreciate some help understanding where the theory has gone wrong.

I find it a bit hard to believe that you've never heard people debate/argue about evolution and what the problems with it are, but okay. The primary problem people have with accepting evolution is the utter lack of evidence for one species changing into another, entirely different species. Despite all the time spent confidently asserting that evolution between species is fact, it remains mere conjecture, and some people simply refuse to accept something as settled fact without it actually being . . . well, settled.

 

[antagon]

im flattered by the fantastic response. i like usmb.

too much to quote, but some things stand out more than others...

Gravity is a theory..Theory is fact.. Evolution is fact!! There is no denying it.. Global warming is fact!! ...Theory in most cases is fact...... Gravity is fact!!

doh!, false, wrong, fail, what? ...TRUE! (some conditions apply =))

to clarify on the behalf of science, theory and fact arent the same. evolution is a theory, a proposal, but based on a lot of hard work observation and deliberation. so much credibility is lost when science is misunderstood on this. is there a similar humility with non-scientific explanations of the planet's diversity?

i think that people ball up theory like gravity and evolution, drop a ball and say 'see... make it float'. its not the theory of gravity that makes the ball drop. that would be majic. its just a long, long math equation that seems to explain it. its a theory because it is a proposed explanation. if youve been subjected to even beginners quantum physics, you'd learn that there is a frontier in our understanding of gravity, rather than stone-cold 'fact'. gene-selection discoveries in the last 3-4 years knock the fact out of natural selection's exclusive hold on this mechanism and propose that there are co-factors that may act to account for environment at the molecular level. darwin would be floored (but thrilled).

there isnt such a thing as 'scientific fact' <--- thats a religious-sounding laymans' conjecture about what they vaguely understand about scientific topics: gravity, evolution, global warming to reverb some listed earlier....

that said... Sunni Man and perhaps Dude, im curious as originally posted where the theory starts to 'quack out' in your view...

ps..

You do realize that man defines species, don't you? It's purely a convention of man. If we wanted to, we could label birds as different species based on beak width.

but dont species define themselves when they cant produce fertile offspring with one another? we may define breeds like chihuahua and great dane, but species are a scientific constant.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No one has ever explained to me, in a way that doesn't make me laugh, how it is that a gene can get blasted by a gamma ray and come out better for it. Isn't that like an asteroid hitting an English Tudor house and converting it into a Colonial?

 

[xsited1]

Among those who negate the validity of Darwin and the science communities' theories on the evolution of man and our fellow critters, where is the point of contention? Is it heredity that seems unrealistic? Is it the natural selection (survival of the fittest) mechanism that seems like hogwash? Maybe the time over which it is claimed to take effect? I'm new to this board, but like the responsiveness of this community, and would appreciate some help understanding where the theory has gone wrong.

I find it a bit hard to believe that you've never heard people debate/argue about evolution and what the problems with it are, but okay. The primary problem people have with accepting evolution is the utter lack of evidence for one species changing into another, entirely different species. Despite all the time spent confidently asserting that evolution between species is fact, it remains mere conjecture, and some people simply refuse to accept something as settled fact without it actually being . . . well, settled.

That was my thought as well. Anyone who knows anything about Evolution knows where the points of contention are. At first I thought the OP was just a troll post, but evidently that is not true. I do find it amusing that some Evolutionists have turned a scientific theory into a religion. That may be the biggest point of contention of all.

 

[Toronado3800]

The gene comes out different, on a much smaller more chemical level than say your hand gets blasted by the x-ray machine. I'd also venture to say it usually comes out inferior. But when it does SOMEHOW work to the advantage of the specimen that specimen is more likely to reproduce than its competitors with the normal gene.

 

[Toronado3800]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Whale_skeleton.png

This whale skeleton seems to indicate it's species evolved from something else, something with legs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe that it's still a theory taught as absolute fact.

Not too much unlike the theory of man casued globalclimatecoolerwarmering.

Gravity is a theory.. Are you going to deny that too??

Gravity is not a theory, you illiterate putz. Christ almighty, did you actually attend ANY of your fucking classes in high school? It's called "Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation" for a reason, which reason would be that, unlike macro-evolution, it can be tested and it has actual evidence backing it up.

Sir Isaac Newton: The Universal Law of Gravitation

Theory is fact..

Theory is NOT fact, you dribbling fucktard. Do you even own a dictionary? Try merriam-webster.com, and get someone to read you the words, since it doesn't have pictures.

Let me help you out. Definitions 5 and 6 are the ones that actually apply to this particular context.

Theory - : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture

Before you get sidetracked by the other contextual uses of the word which don't actually apply to this usage, let me clarify. There are facts in the universe, and theories are educated guesses either as to what they are, or as to how they relate to each other. But theory is not fact until it has been tested and proven to a reasonable certainty, at which point, it's no longer theory.

But we may not understand how it happens.. Evolution is fact!! There is no denying it..

Evolution may be fact. But there's plenty of denying it and arguing it until you can prove it, and right now, you can't.

What we don't know is the exact evolutionary path every species took to get where they are.. Hence the theory part.. Gravity is fact!! But how it exactly works is still under debate, hence the theory part..

No, what we don't know is if they took ANY evolutionary path. Hence the whole "unproven" part. And evolution isn't testable, at least until someone figures out how a person can live for a couple of millennia and observe it. And no, how gravity works isn't under debate (go read the universal law of gravitation I linked for you), although like all things in science, it is mutable should new information present itself.

Just because something is called a theory doesn't mean it isn't fact or real.. It means we may not know all the details about something.. But we know it to be true..

No, it means we THINK it might be true, but can't prove it. If we KNEW it to be true, it would be because it had been proven, and thus would no longer be theory.

Why is it you neotards don't know the definition of such a simple word..

I was just asking myself the same question about you. I'm going to guess it was smoking too much weed behind the boys' gym when you should have been in class.

Global warming is fact!!

Prove it.

But we don't know positively what % man is responsible..

Or even if he is at all.

We know we are responsible and that global warming is fact!!

Who's "we"? You and the gerbil up your anus? Look, just because you named him Einstein doesn't mean he's really a scientific genius, so perhaps you should stop listening to him and crack a book.

You people are simply in a state of denial and spinning the definition of a word to suit your needs..

I guess the definition of "spinning" now is "reading the dictionary and actually applying what it says to word usage."

Theory in most cases is fact, though the details are yet to become known for sure..

No, theory in ALL cases is currently unproven conjecture.

Intelligent design is a farce and there is nothing to back it up with..

At least as much as there is for evolution. Wanna debate it? I'll bring my proof, you bring yours, and we'll see who actually has the most.

 

[edthecynic]

No one has ever explained to me, in a way that doesn't make me laugh, how it is that a gene can get blasted by a gamma ray and come out better for it. Isn't that like an asteroid hitting an English Tudor house and converting it into a Colonial?

Except, evolution says mutation can produce BOTH advantageous and disadvantageous changes moderated by survival of the fittest.

When Creationists deliberately misrepresent evolution, that signals the Cynical mind that in spite of everything they might say to the contrary, Creationists down deep in their soul believe in evolution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

'Cept I'm not a creationist, either...In fact, I'm agnostic.

I take my skepticism seriously.

I never accused you of being one. Just noting that the implications of evolution have always made Christians uncomfortable.

That is why they are concerned with the "why".

Evolutionary theory is not concerned at all with the "why", it doesn't try to explain why it happened, just how it happened.

What implications of evolution would make us uncomfortable? Christianity has no need for evolution to be false. It is atheists who need it to be true.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The theory wasn't just "dreamed up". It was proposed by Darwin in 1859. Now, 150 years later, it remains on of the most supported concepts in science.

Evolution has also never been concerned with the "why". It has always been about the how. Theologists and moralists concern themselves with the "why".

Which explains the goofy attempts by the creationists to interject God into the theory via intelligent design.

that's why i lack patience for their arguments. they are ignorant...ignore all scientific methodology and try to equate theology with biology.

I don't mind the arguement, as long as it's genuine.

However, you rarely find that with people who want to argue against evolution. Usually there is an ulterior motive.

It says a lot to me that people constantly have to crook the facts and data to try and take down evolutionary theories.

It's always said a lot to me that people have to utterly ignore the facts and date to try and prop evolution up. And it never helps when they outright lie.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Which explains the goofy attempts by the creationists to interject God into the theory via intelligent design.

It takes far, far more "faith" to believe in the theory of evolution.

Than it takes to believe in Intelligent Design

A curious statement, since "intelligent design" utilized evolutionary theory. It's only change was saying a supernatural entity used it as a mechanism to create the species.

Sciences objection was not that God or whomever couldn't have done it, it was that it was outside the scope of the natural sciences to determine that.

Untrue. Intelligent design has quite a bit more conflict with evolution than merely the "supernatural entity" mechanism - and by the way, ID doesn't require any supernatural entity at all. It doesn't even address the supernatural. THAT actually comes more from its detractors.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Among those who negate the validity of Darwin and the science communities' theories on the evolution of man and our fellow critters, where is the point of contention? Is it heredity that seems unrealistic? Is it the natural selection (survival of the fittest) mechanism that seems like hogwash? Maybe the time over which it is claimed to take effect? I'm new to this board, but like the responsiveness of this community, and would appreciate some help understanding where the theory has gone wrong.

I find it a bit hard to believe that you've never heard people debate/argue about evolution and what the problems with it are, but okay. The primary problem people have with accepting evolution is the utter lack of evidence for one species changing into another, entirely different species. Despite all the time spent confidently asserting that evolution between species is fact, it remains mere conjecture, and some people simply refuse to accept something as settled fact without it actually being . . . well, settled.

define 'entirely different'

observed speciation - Google Search

 

[Cecilie1200]

There was a fantastic special on the Evolution trial in Dover that was presented on PBS. Go to the page listed below and click on "Watch Intelligent Design on Trial " right under the picture of court house statue".

The right assumed they had the perfect setup to push their mystical agenda including a sympathetic Republican judge appointed by George Bush. They forgot that their is still a small number of Republicans who have honor and are willing to listen to the facts.

Pay special attention to the part where Behe (yes, that Behe) admits that using the same qualifications that would make astrology and alchemy a science, then, "mystical design" would also be considered a 'science".

They cover "irreducible complexity" and "transitional fossils" as well as all the other Republican canards.

I love the fact that the judge, at the end of the trial, was amazed that this knowledge isn't taught in primary and secondary schools. It was pointed out that schools simply don't have the money to fight the religious right wing and so schools only teach the non controversial. Of course, evolution is only controversial to those whose magical beliefs are threatened. Better to keep kids stupid and submersed in "mysticism".

This special really is way worth seeing. Just for the "science" alone. Of course, watching a Republican judge call out conservatives for "lying" is also a hoot. Facts always seem to have a liberal bias.

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

That was a wonderful series. Behe really looked foolish.

Furthermore, "irreducible complexity" is not a compelling scientific arguement. It's basically a negative arguement that introduces no sceintific evidence to counter the claim.

Imagine if a Doctor told someone that their cancer was "too complicated" to attempt to treat.

Wow. What a way to totally misunderstand the point. Did you do that on purpose, or were you just lucky?

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

No one has ever explained to me, in a way that doesn't make me laugh, how it is that a gene can get blasted by a gamma ray and come out better for it. Isn't that like an asteroid hitting an English Tudor house and converting it into a Colonial?

I call Poe's Law on this one

 

[Cecilie1200]

yes I will be able to breed them into a species that can not procreate with other dogs anymore. Look up the Carrion Crow for a more natural example of one species dividing into two.

Considering that it takes a generation just to pass on genetic code and that the mechanism of evolution takes millions of years, I am always amazed at that lame argument that we haven't observed speciation.

We can look at bacteria, which pass their DNA on in a matter of hours, and readily observe speciation.

I.e. MRSA.

Speciation is defined as "The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones." The last time I checked, MRSA, while having adapted to be resistant to antibiotics, is still a bacteria. It didn't become a different species. So if you wouldn't mind, could you please tell me when was the last time we observed speciation, ie. the development of a completely new and genetically distinct species, in bacteria? And please provide documentation.

Thanks.

 

[Toronado3800]

Evolution may be fact. But there's plenty of denying it and arguing it until you can prove it, and right now, you can't.

Which part of evolutionary theory do you have a problem with? Modern changes in species, how life got here in the first place?

Do you consider the following true? "We can watch evolution occur on a modern level. We have ideas on how life formed initially."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, it's the pro evolution people that have to cook the facts and data to try and make sense of their quack theory

Sunni, are you saying its impossible to breed an isolated portion of an animal species until it becomes too genetically different from its relatives to breed successfully?

It's not impossible. The question is, what does what humans can accomplish deliberately through the application of their intelligence-directed will have to do with random, undirected change?

 

[edthecynic]

Maybe that it's still a theory taught as absolute fact.

Not too much unlike the theory of man casued globalclimatecoolerwarmering.

Gravity is a theory.. Are you going to deny that too??

Gravity is not a theory, you illiterate putz. Christ almighty, did you actually attend ANY of your fucking classes in high school? It's called "Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation" for a reason, which reason would be that, unlike macro-evolution, it can be tested and it has actual evidence backing it up.

Sir Isaac Newton: The Universal Law of Gravitation

You can always tell when CON$ know they are wrong, they resort to arrogant condescension!

If you click on the "Relativity theory" link of YOUR own link you get this gem:

Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity

The Modern Theory of Gravitation

And there is stands to the present day. Our best current theory of gravitation is the General Theory of Relativity. However, only if velocities are comparable to that of light, or gravitational fields are much larger than those encountered on the Earth, do the Relativity theory and Newton's theories differ in their predictions. Under most conditions Newton's three laws and his theory of gravitation are adequate. We shall return to this issue in our subsequent discussion of cosmology.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Evolution may be fact. But there's plenty of denying it and arguing it until you can prove it, and right now, you can't.

right... so dog breeders and farmers don't exist, we've never watched a cell divide or observed the fertilization of a human egg, MRSA doesn't exist, and the Polio vaccine was never synthesized...

sure thing, boss

evolution isn't testable,

It's observable

at least until someone figures out how a person can live for a couple of millennia and observe it.

Millenia? Dude. that's why we use flies...

And no, how gravity works isn't under debate (go read the universal law of gravitation I linked for you)

What the hell word do you live in?

Newton's theory of gravitation
Main article: Newton's law of universal gravitation

In 1687, English mathematician Sir Isaac Newton published Principia, which hypothesizes the inverse-square law of universal gravitation. In his own words, “I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must [be] reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve: and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her Orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly.”[4]

Newton's theory enjoyed its greatest success when it was used to predict the existence of Neptune based on motions of Uranus that could not be accounted by the actions of the other planets. Calculations by John Couch Adams and Urbain Le Verrier both predicted the general position of the planet, and Le Verrier's calculations are what led Johann Gottfried Galle to the discovery of Neptune.

Ironically, it was another discrepancy in a planet's orbit that helped to point out flaws in Newton's theory. By the end of the 19th century, it was known that the orbit of Mercury showed slight perturbations that could not be accounted for entirely under Newton's theory, but all searches for another perturbing body (such as a planet orbiting the Sun even closer than Mercury) had been fruitless. The issue was resolved in 1915 by Albert Einstein's new General Theory of Relativity, which accounted for the small discrepancy in Mercury's orbit.

Although Newton's theory has been superseded, most modern non-relativistic gravitational calculations are still made using Newton's theory because it is a much simpler theory to work with than General relativity, and gives sufficiently accurate results for most applications.
Gravitational torsion, weak equivalence principle and gravitational gradient
See also: Eötvös experiment

Loránd Eötvös published on surface tension between 1876 and 1886. The Torsion or Eötvös balance, designed by Hungarian Baron Loránd Eötvös, is a sensitive instrument for measuring the density of underlying rock strata. The device measures not only the direction of force of gravity, but the change in the force of gravity's extent in horizontal plane. It determines the distribution of masses in the Earth's crust. The Eötvös torsion balance, an important instrument of geodesy and geophysics throughout the whole world, studies the Earth's physical properties. It is used for mine exploration, and also in the search for minerals, such as oil, coal and ores.

Eötvös' law of capillarity (weak equivalence principle) served as a basis for Einstein's theory of relativity. (Capillarity: the property or exertion of capillary attraction of repulsion, a force that is the resultant of adhesion, cohesion, and surface tension in liquids which are in contact with solids, causing the liquid surface to rise - or be depressed...)[5][6]

The simplest way to test the weak equivalence principle is to drop two objects of different masses or compositions in a vacuum, and see if they hit the ground at the same time. These experiments demonstrate that all objects fall at the same rate with negligible friction (including air resistance). More sophisticated tests use a torsion balance of a type invented by Loránd Eötvös. Satellite experiments are planned for more accurate experiments in space.[7]
General relativity
Main article: Introduction to general relativity
General relativity
G_{\mu \nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu \nu}= {8\pi G\over c^4} T_{\mu \nu}
Einstein field equations
Introduction
Mathematical formulation
Resources
[show]Fundamental concepts
Special relativity
Equivalence principle
World line · Riemannian geometry
[show]Phenomena
Kepler problem · Lenses · Waves
Frame-dragging · Geodetic effect
Event horizon · Singularity
Black hole
[show]Equations
Linearized Gravity
Post-Newtonian formalism
Einstein field equations
Friedmann equations
ADM formalism
BSSN formalism
[show]Advanced theories
Kaluza–Klein
Quantum gravity
[show]Solutions
Schwarzschild
Reissner-Nordström · Gödel
Kerr · Kerr-Newman
Kasner · Milne · Robertson-Walker
pp-wave
[show]Scientists
Einstein · Minkowski · Eddington
Lemaître · Schwarzschild
Robertson · Kerr · Friedman
Chandrasekhar · Hawking
· others
This box: view • talk • edit

In general relativity, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature instead of a force. The starting point for general relativity is the equivalence principle, which equates free fall with inertial motion, and describes free-falling inertial objects as being accelerated relative to non-inertial observers on the ground.[8][9] In Newtonian physics, however, no such acceleration can occur unless at least one of the objects is being operated on by a force.

Einstein proposed that spacetime is curved by matter, and that free-falling objects are moving along locally straight paths in curved spacetime. These straight lines are called geodesics. Like Newton's First Law, Einstein's theory stated that if there is a force applied to an object, it would deviate from the geodesics in spacetime.[10] For example, we are no longer following the geodesics while standing because the mechanical resistance of the Earth exerts an upward force on us. Thus, we are non-inertial on the ground. This explains why moving along the geodesics in spacetime is considered inertial.

Einstein discovered the field equations of general relativity, which relate the presence of matter and the curvature of spacetime and are named after him. The Einstein field equations are a set of 10 simultaneous, non-linear, differential equations. The solutions of the field equations are the components of the metric tensor of spacetime. A metric tensor describes a geometry of spacetime. The geodesic paths for a spacetime are calculated from the metric tensor.

Notable solutions of the Einstein field equations include:

* The Schwarzschild solution, which describes spacetime surrounding a spherically symmetric non-rotating uncharged massive object. For compact enough objects, this solution generated a black hole with a central singularity. For radial distances from the center which are much greater than the Schwarzschild radius, the accelerations predicted by the Schwarzschild solution are practically identical to those predicted by Newton's theory of gravity.
* The Reissner-Nordström solution, in which the central object has an electrical charge. For charges with a geometrized length which are less than the geometrized length of the mass of the object, this solution produces black holes with two event horizons.
* The Kerr solution for rotating massive objects. This solution also produces black holes with multiple event horizons.
* The Kerr-Newman solution for charged, rotating massive objects. This solution also produces black holes with multiple event horizons.
* The cosmological Robertson-Walker solution, which predicts the expansion of the universe.

The tests of general relativity included:[11]

* General relativity accounts for the anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury.2
* The prediction that time runs slower at lower potentials has been confirmed by the Pound–Rebka experiment, the Hafele–Keating experiment, and the GPS.
* The prediction of the deflection of light was first confirmed by Arthur Stanley Eddington in 1919.[12][13] The Newtonian corpuscular theory also predicted a lesser deflection of light, but Eddington found that the results of the expedition confirmed the predictions of general relativity over those of the Newtonian theory. However this interpretation of the results was later disputed.[14] More recent tests using radio interferometric measurements of quasars passing behind the Sun have more accurately and consistently confirmed the deflection of light to the degree predicted by general relativity.[15] See also gravitational lens.
* The time delay of light passing close to a massive object was first identified by Irwin I. Shapiro in 1964 in interplanetary spacecraft signals.
* Gravitational radiation has been indirectly confirmed through studies of binary pulsars.
* Alexander Friedmann in 1922 found that Einstein equations have non-stationary solutions (even in the presence of the cosmological constant). In 1927 Georges Lemaître showed that static solutions of the Einstein equations, which are possible in the presence of the cosmological constant, are unstable, and therefore the static universe envisioned by Einstein could not exist. Later, in 1931, Einstein himself agreed with the results of Friedmann and Lemaître. Thus general relativity predicted that the Universe had to be non-static—it had to either expand or contract. The expansion of the universe discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929 confirmed this prediction.[16]

Gravity and quantum mechanics
Main articles: Graviton and Quantum gravity

Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics.[17] It is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces, such that the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons.[18][19] This reproduces general relativity in the classical limit. However, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Planck length,[20] where a more complete theory of quantum gravity (or a new approach to quantum mechanics) is required. Many believe the complete theory to be string theory,[21] or more currently M-theory, and, on the other hand, it may be a background independent theory such as loop quantum gravity or causal dynamical triangulation.

Gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alternative theory of gravity explains large structure formation -- without dark matter

Slashdot Science Story | New Theory of Gravity Decouples Space & Time

No, it means we THINK it might be true, but can't prove it. If we KNEW it to be true, it would be because it had been proven, and thus would no longer be theory.

Let me google that for you

Intelligent design is a farce and there is nothing to back it up with..

At least as much as there is for evolution.