The difference between "Evolution" and "Theory of Evolution"

[Heracles25]

Not me. I have however spent some time learning about evolution because of creationists spewing their BS online and being provoked into understanding how and why they are wrong.

YOUR STUPIDITY MAKES ME STRONGER CREATIONISTS

I don't hold one either, but I do have a passion for biology and would like to hopefully one day pursue a degree in cytotechnology. While my overall knowledge is limited I do enjoy reading up on mitochondrial health, gene mutations, etc.

I tend to shy away from these discussions because they tend to get ugly fast. Closemindedness on both sides also usually turns me away as well.

[Sublime82]

This thread should be stickied.

[neekz0r]

I love science and I am a Christian. I have no issues with evolution, I do(flame if you like) however don't believe we evolved from a cell to something then to an ape and then to humans.

That's because we didn't evolve from ape to human. Research a little more into evolution. Remember that it took billions of years. Estimates say that single cells evolved about 3 billion years ago. The amount of time it took for evolution to produce humans is absolutely staggering -- and hard for us to encapsulate. Here's an idea;

Human history, as we know it, began about 60,000 years ago.
Our species, as it's currently known, has been around 200,000 years.


Consider the amount of variation the human race already has, African, Caucasian, Asian, Indian, etc.

To give you an idea, here's a picture:


While not accurate down to the pixel (that takes more effort then I care to make for a single posting) it does show the magnitudes we are talking about. Each pixel is rougly 10,000 years. The upper left hand corner in red is 200,000 years, the age of our species. The rest is how long single-celled organisms have been around. All that black is how long it took for us to evolve from a single-celled organism to how we know ourselves today.

[Sublime82]

evolution is not observable that's why it needs a theory...


dumbest portion of the post. Unless the theory of evolution is a pivotal cornerstone of the theory of gravitation, I don't see how this makes any sense at all.



Evidence doesn't make the theory fact. There can be other theories that also reconcile these "evidence" with it as well.

You are retarded.

Off topic, who here holds degrees in science? Seems to be quite a few really intelligent people here and some who just seem to follow those few guys.

I'm a few credits away from a bachelor of science in biology.

[wildphucker]

I love science and I am a Christian. I have no issues with evolution, I do(flame if you like) however don't believe we evolved from a cell to something then to an ape and then to humans.

Evolution as a whole is hard to deny and I am not sure why people do try and deny it. Either way it doesn't shake my faith.

Off topic, who here holds degrees in science? Seems to be quite a few really intelligent people here and some who just seem to follow those few guys.

A few of us here do. A few have Phds in the field so when they post, y'all stfu and listen.


What about evolution from cell-reptile-mammal dont you understand? Its good to see you dont try and refute it, but sounds like you could use some clarification on an aspect on something youre not certain about. I for dont even believe Darwins work was the cementing evidence, the evidence from genetics and molecular biology are so overwhelming its just idiotic to deny it now.



All your doubts disappear when you actualy observe it in a laboratory, its quite fascinating....although evolution will wreack havoc on our ability to fight infections soon enough.

[TheCurator]

I love science and I am a Christian. I have no issues with evolution, I do(flame if you like) however don't believe we evolved from a cell to something then to an ape and then to humans.

Evolution as a whole is hard to deny and I am not sure why people do try and deny it. Either way it doesn't shake my faith.

Off topic, who here holds degrees in science? Seems to be quite a few really intelligent people here and some who just seem to follow those few guys.

I have a B.sc in biochemistry. Having a degree does not automatically mean someone has more knowledge on a particular issue, however. I know some people who I graduated with who have no idea about evolution.

[JasonDB]

A few of us here do. A few have Phds in the field so when they post, y'all stfu and listen.


What about evolution from cell-reptile-mammal dont you understand? Its good to see you dont try and refute it, but sounds like you could use some clarification on an aspect on something youre not certain about. I for dont even believe Darwins work was the cementing evidence, the evidence from genetics and molecular biology are so overwhelming its just idiotic to deny it now.



All your doubts disappear when you actualy observe it in a laboratory, its quite fascinating....although evolution will wreack havoc on our ability to fight infections soon enough.

That is exactally the point. 20 or 30 years ago the creationist might have had a philosophical/religious leg to stand on, but in 2011 stating that you do not believe in evolution (or not even knowing the difference between observable evolution and the theory of evolution... or even that a scientific theory is NOT the same thing as a philosophical theory... that theory is one of many words with two meanings in the English language) only shows profound ignorance are really is on par with stating "My religion teaches that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth".

In the United States we really are seeing an example of the church once again getting in the way of actual progress and understanding of our world and universe, just as it did when people were proving that the earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa. I will go so far as to state that given the overwhelming amount of evidence for it that people can see who actually study various fields of science for themselves and take a genetics or biochem course or two, that churches clinging to the creationism concept are in fact putting the nail in their own coffee, becuase they are not teaching just a spiritual message, they are teaching and putting the weight of their religious convictions on things that can be proven as nonsense. They can get away with stating that god exists, that Jesus existed and performed miracles etc... as while I find no evidence for such things, scientists cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these things are false, so it comes down to a matter of faith. The creationism has been proven by rediculously overwhelming amounts of evidence to be completely incompatible with observable reality. That being said I think more and more people will realize that evangelical Christianity just doesn't have a strong foothold on truth or fact. It will die off in the long run because of this and the strong backing and forcefullness it has produced for the creationism concept will move that along much quicker.

I'd go so far as to state that IF the tiny microscopic chance that their god and devil do exist is true, creationism would be a lie their devil worked into the modern church with the intent concept of making the church appear to be based on lies. It leaves a very logical argument open along the lines of "Well if they clearly are wrong on this area which we know based on the evidence that they are... what are the odds they are right on the areas we have little evidence for or against?". It would pretty much destroy the Pascal's wager argument often used by Christians by effectively making their faith appear to be near the bottom of the list of one's that might viable and worth grabbing just to cover your ass just in case their is a god and an afterlife.

[angelora87]

I saw this good quote somewhere.

Believing in "micro" evolution but not "macro" evolution is like believing that plates move, but that continents have never gone anywhere.

[NBer]

If people are going to continue to use the scientific term "theory" in an intellectually dishonest way, there is nothing more to say.

[TBU720]

I read some creationist replies in this thread and literally cringed.

[Reformed90]

On the contrary, evolution occurs over thousands of years; and there are no record tape going back 1 million or even 50,000 years. So unless you know someone who is very, very old, a theory is the best we will ever have.

There have been studies that have showed evolution is a fact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli...ion_experiment

this is a very short description of the Lenski E. coli evolution experiment but you can find longer articles about it on other sites

evolution is a FACT.

[TBU720]

On the contrary, evolution occurs over thousands of years; and there are no record tape going back 1 million or even 50,000 years. So unless you know someone who is very, very old, a theory is the best we will ever have.

Do you also think that George Washington might have not been president?

[IAMRED]

Observations are not objective. A lump of observations are not objective. I can appreciate the distinction made in the OP between observations and observation statements - it's a good one - but any philosophy of science course will tell you both are theory-laden. There are no brute facts.

[TBU720]

Observations are not objective. A lump of observations are not objective. I can appreciate the distinction made in the OP between observations and observation statements - it's a good one - but any philosophy of science course will tell you both are theory-laden. There are no brute facts.

It is not a fact that you are reading text on the internet?

[basement iron]

however don't believe we evolved from a cell to something then to an ape and then to humans.

Why not? You went from a single cell to a baby in 9 months.

*ba dum tsss*

[IAMRED]

It is not a fact that you are reading text on the internet?

If by fact you mean true statement, it may or may not be. I don't claim to know. I believe it is true, but I don't know it is true.

[TBU720]

If by fact you mean true statement, it may or may not be. I don't claim to know. I believe it is true, but I don't know it is true.

Your original claim is that observations are not objective. Not that observations can never be proven to be completely true.

You can never know for certain that the objects you see are actually reality. But if you believe that the computer in front of you is real, does that mean that your belief is not objective?

I am using a computer to type words. Is this an objective observation?

[IAMRED]

Your original claim is that observations are not objective. Not that observations can never be proven to be completely true.

While correct, I don't see your point.

You can never know for certain that the objects you see are actually reality. But if you believe that the computer in front of you is real, does that mean that your belief is not objective?

I am using a computer to type words. Is this an objective observation?

Neither beliefs nor observations can be objective. It is your belief and your observation, not mine. And if I were to observe and believe as you do (allegedly), then it would be our beliefs and observations.

[SlapBassist]

Not quite the same. We don't have as much evidence (atleast as much "infalliable" evidence) to show for evolution, simply on the fact of we haven't been studying it for that long - but rather look at different species, note the similarities, find different fossils, see how they fit structurally, find different bones, note the DNA similarities and structure of bone/which bone for comparison/theory. The theory comes with the tying all these little bits of data together to form them into making sense. Not at all the same as saying "I don't believe in gravity because I don't understand it"

[TBU720]

While correct, I don't see your point.

My point is that many observations can be objective

Neither beliefs nor observations can be objective. It is your belief and your observation, not mine. And if I were to observe and believe as you do (allegedly), then it would be our beliefs and observations.

Imagine a scenario: we ask the entire population "Does the Earth exist?"

What will the answer be? "I see the Earth. It is right here"

How is this observation not objective? What other reasonable response could there be?

In my opinion, you took some "nature of science class" and heard the professor say something about observations and you are now stretching it way too far and regurgitating nonsense information that you think you heard someone else say

[IAMRED]

Imagine a scenario: we ask the entire population "Does the Earth exist?"

What will the answer be? "I see the Earth. It is right here"

How is this observation not objective? What other reasonable response could there be?

That would be inductive reasoning. The mass or lump I mentioned in my first post would have expanded, but it would still only be our observations, each of which is subject to our own, respective, individual sensations or whatnot.

[JasonDB]

Not quite the same. We don't have as much evidence (atleast as much "infalliable" evidence) to show for evolution, simply on the fact of we haven't been studying it for that long - but rather look at different species, note the similarities, find different fossils, see how they fit structurally, find different bones, note the DNA similarities and structure of bone/which bone for comparison/theory. The theory comes with the tying all these little bits of data together to form them into making sense. Not at all the same as saying "I don't believe in gravity because I don't understand it"

You are young. Stay in school and by the time you finish college if you go into any field related to biology you'll have access to large amounts of evidence more convincing that what you currently seem to know about.

[angelora87]

Not quite the same. We don't have as much evidence (atleast as much "infalliable" evidence) to show for evolution, simply on the fact of we haven't been studying it for that long - but rather look at different species, note the similarities, find different fossils, see how they fit structurally, find different bones, note the DNA similarities and structure of bone/which bone for comparison/theory. The theory comes with the tying all these little bits of data together to form them into making sense. Not at all the same as saying "I don't believe in gravity because I don't understand it"

lol it's a lot more than simple DNA similarities

there's no other way DNA could be interpreted other than common descent

[TBU720]

That would be inductive reasoning. The mass or lump I mentioned in my first post would have expanded, but it would still only be our observations, each of which is subject to our own, respective, individual sensations or whatnot.

You did not answer my question.

"The Earth exists" is an observation. Is it objective or not?

If it is not objective, how come?

[IAMRED]

You did not answer my question.

"The Earth exists" is an observation. Is it objective or not?

If it is not objective, how come?

No, and I already explained why: "each... is subject to our own, respective, individual sensations or whatnot."

[MetalManuel]

Kind of tired trying to argue rationally, it's hard for an atheist to be truly intellectually honest. Where are your crocoducks?!

[TBU720]

No, and I already explained why: "each... is subject to our own, respective, individual sensations or whatnot."

So we can't even agree that the objects our eyes see are things that actually exist?

Whats your definition of objectivity? Mine would be something like "existing without personal bias"

If someone says "The Earth is touching my feet" and then I look down and see that the Earth is touching his feet, then I would say his observation was objective

[IAMRED]

So we can't even agree that the objects our eyes see are things that actually exist?

Agreement wouldn't mean it is objective. It would mean our subjective opinions match.

Whats your definition of objectivity? Mine would be something like "existing without personal bias"

Sounds fine to me.

If someone says "The Earth is touching my feet" and then I look down and see that the Earth is touching his feet, then I would say his observation was objective

His observation statement is predicated on his observation. For starters, his observation is predicated on the reliability of his senses. How can one demonstrate one's senses are reliable? This was my point: even observations are theory-laden.

[Harbinger]

Agreement wouldn't mean it is objective. It would mean our subjective opinions match.



Sounds fine to me.



His observation statement is predicated on his observation. For starters, his observation is predicated on the reliability of his senses. How can one demonstrate one's senses are reliable? This was my point: even observations are theory-laden.

This is where the stupidity and uselessness of philosophy shine through.

[angelora87]

No wonder so many dumb *******s on here spout out the same crap.