Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,270 Year: 5,527/9,624 Month: 552/323 Week: 49/143 Day: 11/11 Hour: 4/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Witnesses
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


(1)
Message 1 of 215 (650825)
02-02-2012 8:10 PM


"No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact." ~Alabama State Board of Education
Are witnesses really necessary to count evolution as a legitimate theory? I think the definition of "observation" in the scientific method is being misconstrued here. Microevolution, natural selection, artificial selection, and even macroevolution have been witnessed. The fossil record, embryological+genetic+anatomical homologies, and gradualism are all observed data as well.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by 1.61803, posted 02-03-2012 9:27 AM ookuay has not replied
 Message 4 by hooah212002, posted 02-03-2012 9:44 AM ookuay has not replied
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-03-2012 9:59 AM ookuay has not replied
 Message 7 by frako, posted 02-03-2012 1:18 PM ookuay has not replied
 Message 14 by Pressie, posted 02-08-2012 6:30 AM ookuay has not replied
 Message 22 by shadow71, posted 02-09-2012 7:54 PM ookuay has not replied
 Message 95 by onifre, posted 03-25-2012 7:50 PM ookuay has not replied

  
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


(1)
Message 8 of 215 (650936)
02-03-2012 2:45 PM


Right
I completely agree- I was looking more for creationists to back up the Alabama Board. You can read the quote in context at: http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1995/dec95/textbook.html

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by NoNukes, posted 02-03-2012 5:33 PM ookuay has replied

  
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


(1)
Message 10 of 215 (651028)
02-04-2012 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by NoNukes
02-03-2012 5:33 PM


Re: A current concern?
Interestingly, that label exists till today- Creationism in the Alabama standards? | National Center for Science Education.
You're still correct that the referenced version of the disclaimer is outdated and almost everyone already knows better- my objective is to find the few people the answer has not reached (there are always a handful) for a paper because the prompt itself references this label from late 1995. This argument should still be in use by the uninformed (searching up something like "no one there to see evolution").

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NoNukes, posted 02-03-2012 5:33 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by NoNukes, posted 02-04-2012 5:27 AM ookuay has replied

  
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


(1)
Message 12 of 215 (651145)
02-04-2012 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by NoNukes
02-04-2012 5:27 AM


Re: A current concern?
Hm, I still figure the problem of a lack of witnesses has to do with a misconception of observations and thus evolution not following the scientific method (the opposition probably believes observation is limited to direct witnessing).
I see where you're going. Plants are hermaphroditic, so as soon as reproductive isolation occurs in one (without disabling fertility) it can begin its own population. Under 5.0 a few examples are listed, beginning with Hugo de Vries: Observed Instances of Speciation
At this point I doubt I'll find anyone on this forum who still agrees with the label's statement.
Edited by ookuay, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by NoNukes, posted 02-04-2012 5:27 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2012 9:33 AM ookuay has not replied

  
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


(1)
Message 214 of 215 (669652)
08-01-2012 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Modulous
05-28-2012 1:20 PM


That's certainly a good point. We can't expect everyone to know the scientific definitions of the terms we use (the classic example being "theory"). We certainly have witnessed macroevolution as modern science defines. It's too bad that some creationists demand evidence that is impossible or extremely difficult to come by. The original point I was making in this thread was that scientists have made observations but some creationists limit the definition of "observation" to bearing eyewitness. It's certainly mind-boggling when they go on to claim that evolution is therefore not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Modulous, posted 05-28-2012 1:20 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2012 10:45 AM ookuay 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