John 10:10 responds to me:
quote:
quote:
I gave you proof. Your only complaint was that a human being didn't come out at the end.
Like I said, most evolutionists believe the ToE is now fact, not theory.
Non sequitur. Please try again. What does your misstatement of what evolution is have to do with the experiment that you were shown?
At any rate, you are incorrect: Most of those who work in evolutionary biology consider the theory of evolution to be a theory. It explains the fact of evolution.
You cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon. That's why it is called the theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] evolution. We established the fact of evolution first. Then we developed the theory to explain the fact of evolution.
That's why there were multiple theories for a while, the most classic examples being Lamarckian and Darwinian. We already knew that organisms evolved. The question was finding out how they evolved. Lamarckian evolution claims that traits that are acquired by an organism during its lifetime are passed on to the next generation. The classic example of this is in regard to the giraffe's long neck. As we look at the giraffe fossils, we see that their necks started short and grew longer over time. How did this happen? Lamarckian evolution and Darwinian evolution are two theories to explain this fact:
Lamarckian evolution claims that if a giraffe spends its life actively reaching up into trees for foliage, it's neck will get longer (and such a thing is true...if you actively work a bone during its growth phase, it will be bigger than if it was left alone.) This longer neck of the parent is then passed down to the offspring who repeats the process, generating an even longer neck, and eventually you find giraffes as we currently see them.
Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, says that no, adaptations acquired during the life of an individual organism are not passed on. By this logic, if my hand were to be cut off, then my children would be more likely to be born without a hand than if I had managed to keep it. This clearly isn't true, so something else is going on.
Instead, there is a variation of lengths of a giraffe's neck. The current generation gives rise to the next one and the lengths of neck are not uniform across all individuals within the new generation. No matter how much you work it, it will only grow so long and no more. There is an internal blueprint of morphology for an organism. This blueprint varies from individual to individual. Those blueprints that are more well-adapted to the environment in which they find themselves will be better able to survive to reproduce the next generation. If the better leaves are higher up in the trees, then a giraffe with a longer neck will have an easier time getting at them, which will lead to a healthier giraffe compared to the shorter-necked individuals and thus, the longer-necked giraffes will be more likely to reproduce.
But this is iterative: The longer-necked giraffes produce variations in neck length, some even longer than before. So long as the selective pressure is for longer necks, they'll keep getting longer.
So how do we choose between them? Well, I pretty much gave the answer away: Me losing my hand doesn't make my children more likely to be born without a hand. Since this observation goes against the heart of the explanation that is Lamarckian evolution, it is discarded as inaccurate.
See what happened? We start with a fact (giraffe necks get longer over time), developed theories to explain those facts, performed an experiment that tested a prediction of those theories (Lamarckian and Darwinian), found a new fact (children of parents with severed hands are not more likely to be hand-less), and then folded that new fact back into the theory (Lamarckian evolution is discarded while Darwinian evolution is consistent).
That's how science works.
quote:
Just because you have warehouses full of fossils does not mean the ToE has been proven.
Of course not. Theories are never proven.
Instead, because we have warehouses full of fossils, that necessarily means that the theory of evolution is the most accurate description we have for why those fossils are the way they are. The theory of evolution makes predictions that we can test that are then verified as being consistent with the theory.
That's how science works.
quote:
Big difference between looking at fossils and proving they evolved from one life form to the first species, and then to millions of species.
Incorrect. That's exactly what it does. It is because of the fossils that we conclude evolution. It's the only explanation that makes sense. That explanation predicts what new kinds of fossils we will find...and then we actually do find them as predicted.
This doesn't "prove" the theory of evolution, but it does make it the most accurate theory we have.
Remember: Theories are not facts. Theories never become facts. Instead, theories are based upon facts.
We started with the fact of evolution (populations of organisms change over time) and then developed a theory to explain it (the change is driven by mutation and selection.)
quote:
By your reasoning, how the first plant came into being and then mutated into millions of different plants must also be known fact?
Incorrect. The known fact is that the first plant did, indeed, mutate into millions of different plants. The fossil record shows that the plants evolved, no ifs, ands, or buts. That's the fact of evolution.
The theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] evolution, however, is what explains how. That's what theories do: They explain facts. We know that evolution happened. We've seen it happen right before our eyes and the fossil record clearly shows it. That's the fact.
But how did that fact happen? Did the organisms modify their own individual morphology and then pass that trait on to their offspring (Lamarckian evolution)? No, as we've seen, Lamarckain evolution doesn't work. Some other method of evolution must be taking place.
Darwinian (or, more accurately, the modern synthesis) is the more accurate description of what happens. But, we cannot say that it has been "proven" since, like Lamarckian evolution, we might come across an observation that is inconsistent with it. We won't know until we actually make that observation, so we never say that it has been "proven."
Instead, all we can say is that it has yet to be shown inconsistent. That might be because it is absolutely true, but it may be because we haven't figured out the right experiment to test it.
That's how Newtonian mechanics fell to Einsteinian. For all of the 18th and 19th centuries, all observations of kinematics were consistent with Newtonian physics which described a linear world. It was only with the advent of modern technology that our instruments finally became sensitive enough to be able to detect the discrepancy between what a linear model predicts and what we actually see.
F'rinstance, if I'm standing on a train which is moving at 100 mph and throw a fastball off the front end that were I standing on the ground would be at 100 mph, then most every observation made of the speed of the ball with respect to the ground would be 200 mph.
That's a linear universe.
But it isn't that way. There's a transformation that must be made. Because I am moving with respect to the ground when I throw the ball, it isn't a simple 100 + 100 = 200 result. The Lorentz transformations take place (if u is the speed of the train and v is the speed of the ball with respect to the train):
u = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c
2)
So if u is 100 and v is 100, we have a ball moving with respect to the ground not at 200 mph but rather at 199.999999999996 mph. Notice that the difference between the linear answer and the relativistic answer differ only in one part in less than one-hundred-millionth. You'd never notice such a discrepancy under any normal circumstance.
But change the circumstances such that you're dealing with, say, a GPS satellite. Suddenly we've got huge distance and actual light waves and that discrepancy starts becoming quite noticeable. The only way to get it to work right is to apply a relativistic kinematics.
But notice what had to be done: The age of space travel had to come upon us in order for us to be able to see it. Newtonian physics was accurate. In fact, for everyday purposes it is so accurate that we still teach it in physics classes because it is much simpler to calculate and the error term is so tiny that you can't detect it.
But Einsteinian kinematics is more accurate and that's what is considered the actual theory of motion in physics.
quote:
We will just have to disagree on what you and others believe true science is.
Well, in the sense that I certainly cannot make you give specifics, that's true. But if we are going to be intellectually honest and have integrity, that isn't good enough. Bald assertion that you haven't been shown "start-to-finish evolution" doesn't cut it. You have to explain why.
That means you need to provide details. It is time for you to get specific. The E. coli experiment is the theory of evolution from start to finish: A population of organisms descended from an ancestor and resulted in a morphology that was different from what came before. If there were no evolution, then the lawn would behave as a single unit: They all die or they all live.
Instead, the lawn does not behave as a single unit. Some bacteria in the lawn die while others live.
Mutation. Selection. Right in front of your eyes.
Why is that insufficient? What more do you need?
quote:
I believe proving the predictions of a start-to-finish evolutionary model would be true science, if they could be proven.
Nothing in science is ever proven.
Are you going to jump off the Empire State Building because gravitation theory hasn't been proven? Of course not. While the theory of gravitation may not be proven, gravity itself has. That's why we have a theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] gravitation. We start with the fact of gravity (when I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground) and then develop a theory to explain it (F = Gm
1m
2/r
2.)
And similarly with biology: We start with the fact of evolution (populations of organisms change over time) and then develop a theory to explain (they change due to mutation and selection.)
quote:
Since those who believe in the ToE cannot get around the time factor in order to prove the ToE, then the ToE cannot be called true science.
Huh? The "time factor" is part and parcel of evolution. It's why at the end of the E. coli experiment you don't get a human being. Evolution doesn't happen that fast. If you were to get a human being at the end of the E. coli experiment, then pretty much everything that we think we know about how evolution works is going to have to be thrown out the window.
The fossil record is the very "time factor" you claim doesn't exist. We don't need to have been alive 4 billion years ago. The organisms that left the fossils were alive then and they left their fossils for us to examine. Therefore, we can essentially see back in time to observe the evolution of life on this planet right in front of our eyes.
Just what is this "time factor" that you consider to be so problematic?
Be specific.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
