Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The phrase "Evolution is a fact"
God of Pokiphlanon
Junior Member (Idle past 5324 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 08-26-2009


Message 121 of 217 (521273)
08-26-2009 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by boysherpa
10-31-2008 1:05 PM


Not true
One thing that must be made clear: Evolution is NOT a fact. Ti is simply a incredibly well supported theory. Evolution is over a hundred years old and has only been reinforced since Charles Darwin first proposed it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by boysherpa, posted 10-31-2008 1:05 PM boysherpa has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2009 5:37 PM God of Pokiphlanon has replied
 Message 123 by Perdition, posted 08-26-2009 5:37 PM God of Pokiphlanon has not replied
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 08-26-2009 7:42 PM God of Pokiphlanon has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 122 of 217 (521276)
08-26-2009 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by God of Pokiphlanon
08-26-2009 5:30 PM


Re: Not true
Will you give me some examples of things that you think are facts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by God of Pokiphlanon, posted 08-26-2009 5:30 PM God of Pokiphlanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by God of Pokiphlanon, posted 08-30-2009 11:16 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 123 of 217 (521277)
08-26-2009 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by God of Pokiphlanon
08-26-2009 5:30 PM


Re: Not true
There are two ways the word evolution is used. When speaking about The Theory of Evolution, which has a mechanism for evolution to work, namely mutation and natural selection, then you're correct.
However, the theory was created to explain the facts we see, namely that species change and adapt...they evolve. It is this second sense in which the phrase "evolution is a fact" is used. Evolution is observed, we know it happens. We also have a theory that tries to explain how it works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by God of Pokiphlanon, posted 08-26-2009 5:30 PM God of Pokiphlanon has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 124 of 217 (521287)
08-26-2009 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by God of Pokiphlanon
08-26-2009 5:30 PM


Degrees of Confidence
Welcome to the fray, God of Pokiphlanon.
Evolution is NOT a fact.
As has been pointed out, there is some confusion about which evolution one is talking about when the word is used alone:
1) the process that is ongoing in all known species living today: the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. This process is measured and documented and this forms the basis for ...
2) the theory of evolution, that the process of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from prehistory, from archeology, from paleontology and the fossil record, and from the genetic record. The investigation of the validity of this theory is ...
3) the science of evolution, the study of mechanisms by which populations change and react to opportunities provided by ecology and mutations.
We know that (1) is a fact, (2) is a theory that can be tentatively regarded as true until contradicted by evidence, and (3) is the process of testing the theory, which testing includes intentional attempts to invalidate the theory, but so far has failed to do so.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a valid theory that provides an adequate explanation of all the evidence currently known. That may not count as fact, but it is much closer to fact than falsehood at this time. We can be justified to have a high degree of confidence that the ToE is mostly correct in the overall picture, with some details that may need to be ironed out as time passes.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
Edited by RAZD, : ps added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by God of Pokiphlanon, posted 08-26-2009 5:30 PM God of Pokiphlanon has not replied

  
God of Pokiphlanon
Junior Member (Idle past 5324 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 08-26-2009


Message 125 of 217 (521893)
08-30-2009 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Dr Adequate
08-26-2009 5:37 PM


Re: Not true
When I looked at your avatar at 11:13 on the 30th of August, I saw ('Saw' meaning that my brain interpreted the signals from my eye as looking like) the image HERE: http://www.evcforum.net/Images/Avatars/5163.jpg. I am not lying. That is a fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2009 5:37 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Huntard, posted 08-30-2009 12:10 PM God of Pokiphlanon has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 126 of 217 (521904)
08-30-2009 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by God of Pokiphlanon
08-30-2009 11:16 AM


Re: Not true
And when we look at population, we see the allele frequency of those populations change over time. This is called evolution. I am not lying. That is FACT.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by God of Pokiphlanon, posted 08-30-2009 11:16 AM God of Pokiphlanon has not replied

  
PetersDenial
Junior Member (Idle past 5314 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 127 of 217 (523373)
09-09-2009 7:52 PM


I think that facts only true exist by definition or logic.
1 + 1 = 2 is a fact because we have defined it.
You can never truly prove that gravity exists. Sure, if you let a apple fall, it'll hit the ground. Maybe just once in a billion years it doesn't. How many times do you repeat an experiment before you accept the result.
In the strictest sense, you can only ever disprove a theory. If you could, given the evidence for evolution, we wouldn't have this discussion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Modulous, posted 09-09-2009 8:02 PM PetersDenial has replied
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2009 4:19 AM PetersDenial has not replied
 Message 133 by obvious Child, posted 09-13-2009 1:14 AM PetersDenial has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 128 of 217 (523375)
09-09-2009 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by PetersDenial
09-09-2009 7:52 PM


1 + 1 = 2 is a fact because we have defined it.
Is it a fact that we have defined it?
You can never truly prove that gravity exists.
I think my problem with this is that may well end up redefining the word, 'fact'. For example - the statement "Henry VIII was King of England" is no longer a fact. It isn't defined as true, and it can't be proven true in the mathematical sense. Yet most people would use the word 'fact' to describe it.
(welcome to EvC!)
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by PetersDenial, posted 09-09-2009 7:52 PM PetersDenial has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by PetersDenial, posted 09-09-2009 8:50 PM Modulous has replied

  
PetersDenial
Junior Member (Idle past 5314 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 129 of 217 (523379)
09-09-2009 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Modulous
09-09-2009 8:02 PM


In the 1500 the country decided / accepted that Henry VIII was king of England. Their decision has made it so. Just to make sure that everyone got it, they even put a crown on hit head. Whoever wears it is king. If that is not a definition then I don't know what is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Modulous, posted 09-09-2009 8:02 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Modulous, posted 09-09-2009 9:17 PM PetersDenial has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 130 of 217 (523382)
09-09-2009 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by PetersDenial
09-09-2009 8:50 PM


In the 1500 the country decided / accepted that Henry VIII was king of England.
Is that a fact, as you define it? If so, prove it. Explain how you logically prove there was no cover up, errors, legal loopholes that mean he wasn't actually king, or any other possible but unlikely occurrences that might happen. Unless you are saying that we define a king based on who historians say is king...
And if we define gravity as being 'the phenomenon that caused masses to be attracted to one another', ie., as a historical fact, does that mean gravity is a fact, after all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by PetersDenial, posted 09-09-2009 8:50 PM PetersDenial has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by onifre, posted 09-10-2009 4:32 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 131 of 217 (523411)
09-10-2009 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by PetersDenial
09-09-2009 7:52 PM


In the strictest sense, you can only ever disprove a theory.
As Popper admitted, you can't even do that, "in the strictest sense", because one can always provide an ad hoc argument against any evidence contrary to any theory.
Perhaps we should take this one to my "The Scientific Method For Beginners" thread, where this point has already been discussed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by PetersDenial, posted 09-09-2009 7:52 PM PetersDenial has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 132 of 217 (523483)
09-10-2009 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Modulous
09-09-2009 9:17 PM


And if we define gravity as being 'the phenomenon that caused masses to be attracted to one another'...
...then you'd be wrong. Sorry Mod, couldn't help myself.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Modulous, posted 09-09-2009 9:17 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 133 of 217 (523855)
09-13-2009 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by PetersDenial
09-09-2009 7:52 PM


It is also true that we can never prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. Can you prove that you are not in reality just the figment of another's imagination, soon to disappear when that being loses interest?
No. You cannot. But we do not live our lives like that nor do the products we use everyday operate like that.
You are completely free to accept that everything in this world is unprovable and go about like that, but it's hard to be rational (or sane).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by PetersDenial, posted 09-09-2009 7:52 PM PetersDenial has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 134 of 217 (523893)
09-13-2009 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by bluescat48
11-02-2008 11:56 AM


bluescat48 writes:
It isn't except to the Religious Fundimentalists, who for some unknown reason, think that it is detrimental to their religious beliefs. It doesn't seem to bother the mainstream religious.
there is good reason why evolution is criticized among religious people. When evolution was first presented, it was explained that evolution is how all life came into existence. Evolutionary scientists claimed that all life evolved, that life originated by itself, moved up to the plant and animal stage, and then progressed through apelike beasts to man
this was in direct opposition to religions belief that God created all life.
in origin of the species, Darwin gave many examples of how certain animals 'must' have evolved and were not individually created. For instance, this
The Galapagos Archipelago...bears the unmistakable stamp of the American continent. The naturalist, looking at the inhabitants of these volcanic islands in the Pacific, distant several hundred miles from the continent, feels that he is standing on American land. Why should this be so? Why should the species which are supposed to have been created in the Galapagos Archipelago, and nowhere else, bear so plainly the stamp of affinity to those created in America?
So there is good reason why the religious people object to 'evolution' in this sense.
It seems that over the years, evolution has gone through many changes itself and now 'evolution' is more about how species change over time rather then where life came from in the first place. It could be for this reason that many are now accepting 'evolution'..its no longer about the origin of life.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by bluescat48, posted 11-02-2008 11:56 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by NosyNed, posted 09-13-2009 8:55 AM Peg has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 135 of 217 (523899)
09-13-2009 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Peg
09-13-2009 8:19 AM


It seems that over the years, evolution has gone through many changes itself and now 'evolution' is more about how species change over time rather then where life came from in the first place. It could be for this reason that many are now accepting 'evolution'..its no longer about the origin of life
It has never been about the origin of life.
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Peg, posted 09-13-2009 8:19 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Peg, posted 09-13-2009 9:15 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024