Evolution is a basic, biological process

Hi TalGlad to have someone new to debate withRegarding Not quite sure exactly what frustrates you re my OP. If it is my statement that which seems to be at odds with your bio teacher who I inserted the [just] as this is usually part of the statement. I’m sorry to say, but your bio teacher was wrong. A theory is an explanation of something and an explanation can’t be a thing. On the other hand, evolution, regardless of how it has occurred, is a process which is a thing. Thus the statement Evolution is a theory can’t be true. The truth is, the theory of evolution is the explanation of the process of evolution. This process was difficult to detect for people in the time of Darwin, but is easily detectable todayRegarding Since I don’t know what steps 4 to 6 mean, it’s difficult to comment, but opponents of the process of evolution often point to gaps as proof that evolution didn’t happen. Now 1 billion years is a long time, and piecing together what has happened over this time span is not easy. Tectonic forces have really messed up the fossil record, so it is almost a surprise that we have learned as much as we have. What is key is the fact that biological change has occurred, as your biology teacher acknowledged, and we have, relatively recently, learned what has caused this change — genetic mutation. Now the process is very slow — it took over 500 million years to get from single celled animals to humans.Regarding Not sure why he wouldn't elaborate, as this is essentially what happens, but as pointed out in another response, the changes are sometimes more like a drift, while in other times, they can be very dramatic as when a mass extinction occurs. As you may know, life was almost extinguished at the end of the Permian, 225 million years agoAs far as It is not our intention to run word circles around the young, impressionable minds, but to inform and enlighten by presenting the facts in a step-by-step manner so that young, impressionable minds can learn about the world around them. Our intention is also to confront psuedo science, such as creationism, whenever it appears.Soplar

First, do you agree with this statment by Loudmouth? (Biological Evolution I) From the 4-6 other replys I recieved on that thread which are similiar, I gather that most evos see things this way. (For the record, Quetzal gave a detailed answer to my questions, which I will reply to in his other thread. Thanks Quetzal!)First, Gravity is a Law (yes?). It is a Law because people have observed and tested it enough to make "theoretical" guesses as to what would happen in a given experiment with gravity and those guesses will be accurate, because we understand how gravity works.My problem is that isntances in the evolutionary process are often spoken as if they were as sure a thing as gravity./more to follow*EDIT* Ok I'm back. We had some rockets come in. Trilobite in human footprint Note in the top quote the evo says trilobites lived millions of years ago (statement of fact instead of "this is our best guess based on what we know").Now I go and read the trilobite found in the sandle. There is an obervable piece of evidence that suggests trilobites are not millions of years old.Another example would be that Animal A evolved from aquatic animal X.
It's reffered to as a hard fact instead of "this is our best guess based on what we know."This message has been edited by Tal, 01-07-2005 03:25 AM

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

That's because they are. The mechanism of random mutation and natural selection has been observed. It's a well documented fact and it can be checked and verified by anybody who is willing to spend some time and effort to understand the evidence. Look at the definitions above. When scientists mention "the theory of evolution", they have definitions 1, 3, 5 and 6c in mind for the word 'theory'. Creationists invariably only want to consider definitions 2, 4, 6a and 6b - if they are aware of the nuance at all. But it is not up to creationists to decide what scientists must mean when they say what they say.But what puzzles me most is why you have no qualms where gravity is concerned, whereas evolution poses this problem for you. After all, you portray evolutionists as having the same tentativity towards both theories. And rightly so, all scientific knowledge is tentative.But why pick on evolutionists then, and not attack 'gravitationists'? Is it perhaps because your religion tells a different story about how life came to be, but says nothing about gravity? I'll bet that if the Bible contained a chapter on gravity, in which God had stipulated that heavy objects fall faster than light objects, then the scientific theory of gravity would be subject to heavy shelling from the religious camp.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Help me out here. Why is it then not called the law of evolution?A theory becomes law when the theory is proven based on empirical data.Gravity has such evidence. Evolution does not, or it would be a law.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

quote:

---

A theory becomes law when the theory is proven based on empirical data.

---

That's dead wrong. A theory is often a whole body of thinking - as evolution is. The theory of thermodynamics includes no less than 4 laws. How, then, would it make sense to change the theroy to thermodynamics to THE law of thermodynamics even if every part of it were "proven".(Perhaps you would also like to consider the law of faunal succession and how it relates to evolution ?)

That's why it is the LAW of Thermodynamics?Or is it the Theory of Thermodynamics, but I've been taught wrong all these years?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

You've just proven my point about creationists' use of the term 'theory'. You have an outdated perception of how science works. Yes, we have the 'laws' of gravity, and the 'laws' of thermodynamics, but those terms are historic relics of the development of science. Since those terms were coined, scientific thinking has advanced and the science community has come to realize that all scientific knowledge is tentative. Scientific findings are no longer seen as immutable laws. But as long as they explain the data, they are accepted as true. And yes, they are called theories. But you don't get to decide what we mean by 'theories'. Sigh.{I wish I'd dare to use Dan Carrol's megaphone}Evolution has masses of evidence. Don't just mindlessly repeat what countless other creationists have droned before you and what has been refuted time and again. Grab your chance at immortal fame and be the first creationist to actually look at the evidence and finally draw some sensible conclusions.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

THE law of thermodynamics ? Which is that the first, second, third or zeroth law ? I thought that it is well known enough thatthere is more than one law of thermodynamics that that point would not be questioned.
As I said the theory of thermodynamics incorporates at least four laws. Newtonian mechanics is another theory encompassing more than one law (you HAVE heard of Newton's laws of motion haven't you ?). Like thermodynamics and mechanics evolution is a body of thought that is far greater than could be encompassed in a single "law".

Sorry Pual and Para, I'm going to wait for Soplar's reply.I've had several officers (all of whom have masters degrees or higher) read the last few posts about this and they side with me on this one. You are trying to pass off a theory as if it holds the same weight as a law using semantics.Soplar...hope you read this soon.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Well if none of these officers have heard of the laws (plural) of thermodynamics or Newtons laws (plural) of motion then I can't think that their opinion should carry any weight. If they lack such basic knowledge then it is unlikely that they have seriously studied physics at even a high school level.

Hi Robin,I liked our exchange about consciousness. I think your summary in your own words was pretty much the idea of what I wrote. I'm still thinking about how to express some more ideas I have about consciousness, having to do with awareness. But I think it's better to wait for Soplar to react, and then take the discussion about consciousness elsewhere, because it's not really the topic of this thread. Do you agree?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Just on more question, Para.Is the representation in the brain of an object we are looking at the same process as a representation of an object that we are remembering?

quote:

---

Admittedly, we haven't explored all aspects of this electrochemical activity, but we are making great strides in measuring it, e.g' with Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (FMRI). Numerous tests have been reported in the literature re the use of FMRI to examine the activity in the brain when a person is thinking certain thoughts or doing certain tasks.

---

Speaking as a wife of a man who does FMRI work at the moment, I will say that while FMRI research is great and shows us pictures of the brain, behavioral work can tell us just as much.My husband finds FMRI research tedious and clunky, whereas behavior experiments are easier to make more precise and the analysis is much more straightforward. Not to mention a whole lot cheaper.They are complementary approaches, really, and both are useful, but the ooohs and ahhhhs elicited by the big toys are not reflective of their superiority as research tools.

quote:

---

I've had several officers (all of whom have masters degrees or higher) read the last few posts about this and they side with me on this one. You are trying to pass off a theory as if it holds the same weight as a law using semantics.

---

Well I wandered down to the physics department and asked a couple of profs (actual profs not the title that you yanks seem to hand out left,right and centre) - they say your officers are talking out of their arses. So I guess I win this hand of top trumps.

Although I can't be sure of course, I'd say it is probably a similar process, but very much less detailed. Look at your hand right now. You see every detail of the skin, don't you? Now close your eyes and try to remember what you just saw. Where are the details? Do you really see a picture of your hand in the same way you saw it when you really looked at it? Speaking for myself, I don't.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins