Is Evolution True?

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
41

Or you can take the real explanation:

The cumulative effect of the orbiting electron cloud has enough cumulative force to keep the protons close together within the nucleus. There are a few more reasons, but that’s the one with the biggest effect in this case.

Here’s an analogy. You’d think on a simple level that Palestinian forces and Israeli forces would repel each other to avoid conflict. But other forces keep them there in close contact.

This isn’t a perfect analogy. An observant person will see the misfire, but I’m focusing on forces present in a system which might override individual forces that would prevail if the individual was by itself, not in the system.

For the proton/electron thing:

An individual proton will repel from another individual proton. But should they find themselves in a balanced system, an atom, with something there to hold them together, that rule doesn’t apply.

An individual person who hates being near another individual person will usually do whatever he or she can do to stay away from that person. But if they have to take the same train to work, well, there you go. But they’ll still stay as far apart in the train as possible. That happens in the atom as well.

42

things evolve…how would you explain new species? according to a christian’s point of view…i guess god created them when we were sleeping or something…there is proof that new species have formed and are still forming…what do you say of this??? the theory that we evolved from what you would call “monkeys” (when in fact we they are hominids which did resemble monkeys or apes but were in reality not what we would call modern day monekys) may or may not be true…it is so very hard to prove…but…we can not compare our genetics with what we know to be monkeys because monkeys have evolved themselves in some way…

43

I’m sorry. What? What are you specifically asking? One question made it sound like you don’t know how evolution works, and one made it sound like you do. Just lay out your questions. I’ll try my best to answer them.

44

Hey The rich guy…
I do not think that the special creation theory is impossible at all, however your convictions seem to come from pure dogma with no supporting evidence whatsoever which makes you sound not at all as intelligent as you claim. It is easy to get caught up in belief so if you want to be a person who spreads your ideas perhaps you could consider that belief closes your minded to other possibilities. You could also perhaps consider that god did create all of us but with the ability to change and become more efficient beings in the universe. Just a thought to consider. [/b]

45

First definitions; two samples:From National Geographic: the process of change in the traits of organisms or populations over time. Evolution, through the process of natural selection, can lead to the formation of new species. (italics mine)

From University of California, Berkeley, Museum of Paleontology (UCMP, Berkeley): Darwin’s definition: descent with modification. The term has been variously used and abused since Darwin to include everything from the origin of man to the origin of life.As quoted above there are ample and irrefutable evidence for micro evolution, ie the modification of the gene pool of descendents, through a process of natural selection, eg experiments with fruit flies or bacteria whose generational cycles are very short and so multiple generations can be simulated in the lab. However no bacteria have become a fruit fly yet.

Thus it is literally a leap of blind faith to extend from there to say that it is proven that this is the same process that one species evolved from another, ie macro evolution. At best it is only a hypothesis and definitely not a proven fact.

Further there are alternative hypotheses to explain for the fragmented fossils evidence we have got without resorting to macro evolution nor invoking the notion of god, which in this context reduces god to merely a god-of-the-gap, ie another word for ignorance.

One alternate hypothesis is this:- That instead of a single species, I do not know what, a virus? a bacteria? that evolved and evolved over billion and billion of years to all the species that we know and see today, why not instead of such a single specie origin we have a multiple specie origin? What’s in the fossil evidence today that disqualifies such a hypothesis from even being one?

  • (By the way the time for evolution is not infinite. It is certainly shorter the time the earth have been in existence, which is estimated to be about 4.5 billions years old.)

  • Then each specie evolve, via natural selection, ie micro evolution, to create all the variation.

  • so we can imagine something like multiple points in space, and over time this point sprouts other points around itself, some in all directions, some in specific directions. And this cloud of points grew and grew and soon all the points are intermingled and merged and you have a whole space of points, not uniformly, with clumps and clusters here and there, and you may or may not be able to detect and identify the origins of these points, which is the situation in the world today.Finally if you have two points why should there be a line joining these two points? why not two separate line passing through each point? This is the situation we have with fossils today. You find two fragments, primae facie similar in structure but at the same time different. Why should the two fossils evolved from from each other? Is mere structural similarity sufficient to conclude as proof that it is so? At best it is a hypothesis, not provable, but only falsifiable.

What we can reasonable think and confidently know is that natural selection or micro evolution is the inbuilt natural mechanism whereby each species adapt to its constantly changing environment. It does not say anything at all about the origin of the species themselves. That still remains a matter of conjecture.

46

Firstly, evolution doesn’t claim that we came from anything specific. Evolution is the thought and theory of creatures all over this planet changing in order to become superiour to another creature, stay alive, et cetera. Secondly, the common misconception of the theory of evolution is that we came from monkeys or apes. This is unregretably false.

Look back several hundred years, the average size of humans was small. Woman with 16 inch waists being large, men with 14 inch shoulders, feet with size five being gargantuan. Now, look at us, 16 inch waists are small, one shoulder can be near 14 inches, size five being tiny and the norm for teenagers, if that late. This, in itself prooves that evolution is true. Maybe not to the extent that most people want it to proove, id est: modern day humans coming from a one-celled bacterium. But, it does prove that we have come from creatures that slowly, back in time, deevolved down to lower-classed species.

*1-Well there isn’t proof that they are forming and have been formed, per se, but, I know what you mean. We just happen to miss these God-made creatures the first thousand times we have looked over the world :wink: That’s what the Christians may argue.

*2-We or they? If you mean:

Stating the obvious there, aren’t we? But, I am assuming you mean this:

This, my friend, is false. Our ancestors, in theory, were not Hominoids, either, they were another family that is archaic. It used to exist, but diverged into two, seperate families, Pongidae and Hominidae…Oh, and your statement about us evolving from monkeys, is not true. :wink:

That is all I have to say, for now.

~After Death~

47

It is the wise man that believes in God…

48

It is the fool that accepts without proof.

It is the fool who trusts without experience.

It is the fool who buys without knowing what he purchased.

Caveat emptor.

It is the fool who believes everything he reads on the internet.

49

It is a fool whom believes in the unbelievable.

It is a fool whom sees the unseeable.

It is a fool whom claims his truths before knowing others’ falses.

It is a fool, a chara, that makes us, the wise, become wiser.

I, myself, love fools.

Go raibh maith agat.

~After Death~

50

OK, cha. I don’t know why you even bothered to write that. It’s rank. I can’t breathe in here. Let me open a window…

What we have here is the rarely mentioned “He Wrote A Book” Fallacy. The He Wrote A Book Fallacy is the assumption that, because someone wrote a book, what he said must be correct. This also goes for books by multipe authors, such as Prehistory And Earth Models. This is exactly the type of fallacy that fundamentalist Christians like to impress you with because they’re not interested in correct reasoning. They’re interested in using any method they possibly can to make you believe them.

You can find numerous sites on the internet refuting “scientific” arguments put forth by creationists and it’s too late for me to want to bother compiling a list for you, though talkorigins.org is worth looking at.

When evaluating claims, I suggest considering the sources of those claims. What’s the person making those claims trying to sell you? If they’re trying to sell you a whole religion, I’d be very skeptical. If they’re just trying to point up an interesting fact, I’d still be skeptical, but I’d consider it worth looking into if you have the time.

And consider this: no scientist worth the title claims to have discovered everything, and so, if some kind of observation turns up that appears to give evidence against an otherwise well-established theory, it does not automatically rule out the theory; perhaps there is something else we haven’t seen yet that explains it. Even if the evidence does end up being legitimate, the theory may only have to be modified.

And another thing; before you try to refute a scientific theory, please become familiar with the theory itself, rather than trusting to the kind of panicked hyperbole you find in Jack Jick pamphlets. Any honest and accurate account of a scientific theory by someone who knows and respects scientific standards will make as clear as possible for its target audience the nature of the theory and give references to those who support it, as well as those who seek to refute it.

As for the question about protons… What a horrible piece of ignorance. Current scientific theory holds that protons are bound in atomic nuclei to neutrons by the strong nuclear force, one of the four basic forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear). The strong nuclear force is much stronger than the electromagnetic force which causes protons to repel each other. Helium and other, heavier elements are forged in stars, where the gravity and thermal pressure are strong enough to overcome electromagnetic repulsion and force protons together, allowing them to bond with neutrons and form heavy nuclei. Read a book. And tell Jack Chick to read one too.

51

Here’s an interesting thought on evolution.

If natural law is that species develop based on their ability to fit into their environment (survival of the fittest), isn’t that the same as saying that species live where they belong. (Like a plug fits in an outlet because it belongs there.)

And, isn’t living where you belong the same as the concept of Justice. (i.e., the good citizens belong in the free world, the bad citizens belong in jail)

So, can’t evolution be used as evidence to show that the Universe is perfectly just?

52

No, because the organisms in question have no choice in the matter.

53

ANYBODY WHO BELIEVES IN EVOLUTION, IS GOING TO BURN IN HELL, BECAUSE THE EVOLUTION THEORY CAME FROM SATAN, AND CREATION AND EVOLUTION ARE NOT THE SAME, THEY ARE TOTALY OPPOSITE. :smiley:

54

ANYBODY WHO BELIEVES IN EVOLUTION, IS GOING TO BURN IN HELL, BECAUSE THE EVOLUTION THEORY CAME FROM SATAN, AND CREATION AND EVOLUTION ARE NOT THE SAME, THEY ARE TOTALY OPPOSITE. :smiley:

55

So it’s Satan that’s behind it. Here I thought Darwin and the thousands of Christians that studied and explored biology that followed were all acting with free will.

What about Mendel? He was a monk. He didn’t know about Darwin’s theory, but his research on heredity eventually backed up Darwin’s theory.

One thing’s for sure. I need to purchasea ton of marshmallows for my stay in Hell.

56

This is a long tread so if no one has mentioned last-tuesdayism yet I’ll be surprised, but if not here it is:

The world spontaniously self-created with an illusion of a past last tuesday. Any memories you think you have of anything before that is a result of such an illusion. The world is squedualed to end next tuesday- enjoy.

Umm, I have some form of point.

57

Lasttuesdayism rocks Lost Guy

58

I have a commonsense view of evolution that Darwin would not like to hear at all.
This view is - If evolution happened, then why isn’t there just one kind of species in the world? Why are there infinite species? Just this reasoning should be enough to conclude that evolution could not have happened at all. So, how’d this universe form? I’d have to say that it has to be BOTH, formation and creation because of the simple reason we see things forming and creating. And the reason mutations only bring minor changes but cannot bring evolution is because then there would not be something called the DNA anymore :laughing:

59

I’m not as well read as some of you guys, but maby i can bring some fresh heresy…
First, the reason there isn’t one specie of life is that whole adaptation to environment thing… The cheetah developed the way it did because some primitive life form crawled out of the Pacific and ended up on the part of Pangaea that would become Africa. This one of this pre-cheetah’s offspring could run really fast, the other one could climb mountains really well (it should be noted that i’m referring to creatures on the savanah). Which one servived? The one better able to run on flat grassland. This is not the same for the pre-mountain goat (which might have been the pre-cheetah’s cousin) who climed out onto the land that eventually mashed with some other land to form the himalays. I hope that was simple enough for everyone, i’m just kidding, don’t take things so seriously.

It has been brought up earlier in this thread that Science is the new religion. People like to say that alot nowadays, maby cause religion is losing and their desperatly trying to say “you’re no better” and drag science down with them. I must fight this tooth and nail. It is true that Science and Religion were both born from humans who observed the world and themselves and tryed to explain how and why. But Science is based on a rigid method of observation, experimentation and is open to rebuttle and revision. It takes years and mountains of evidence for a Hypothesis to be considered even a theory, thus Science is malleable and scientific IDEAS can change with new discoveries. Religous fundementalists however, can not. Religous BELIEFS about the world, however, are based on some prophet wandering out of the periphery and into the market with wild stories about visions and angels and booming voices, but their only evidence is their writings and interpretations of these events. There is no data for another person to review. Then these ‘prophets’ get a following of people, most likely drawn by the prophets promises of social change and paradise in the afterlife, who start taking everything their prophet says to heart before they take it to mind. Then the teachings are written in stone and cannot be changed. That is the difference between a belief and an idea if you didn’t catch on. Sadly, alot of people are still living like they’re in the stone-age.

One last thing back on the topic of evolution, i’m often asked by creationists, “if evolution is true, why can’t we find any today?” This has already been answered in this thread with references to poison resistant insects and such, but we can see human evolution in genetic drift. A misunderstanding alot of people have is that evolution got it right every time, but there were many failed, what could be called “mutant” specieces. People don’t understand how a pre-chicken all of a sudden lays a chicken egg. Take a look at the numerous people with extra or mising chromosomes. Could they actually be a new species trying to spring forth?

Before I finnally shut up i’d like to pose a possibility that i havn’t noticed, evolution happened much faster in pre-historic times because there were more place for this new species to fit into, so many species caused by genetic drift survived as the fittest bescause there was nothing to challenge them, winners by default. Today the world is teeming with different species, less room for the new kids. Also, human evolution has slowed because humans are not subject to the laws of natural selection any more. We do not compete for resources and mates as much as we used to. By which i mean a fat, lazy idiot can have kids with another fat, lazy idiot and they could both work for fat, lazy idiots and thus we have a stagnant, but more varied, genetic pool.

60

From an antropological perspective science strictly speaking is a magical tradition not a religious one. It differs from a religion in two important aspects:

  1. Magic traditions unlike religious ones, place power in human beings rather than divinities. In religions you ask for help from unseen forces, in magic you command or manipulatie unseen forces for you own purposes.

  2. Magic traditions, as the pope mentioned, are less resistant to change. Once you memorise the wisdom of the previous generation you are expected to develop some things for yourself.

Now of course science isn’t just any magical tradition it has something special that seperates it from all others - namely philosophy. Empiricism, falseification, preferance of simplicity, all these ideas so critical to science are provided by the old men in the ivory tower argueing away. Hopefull science can retian this specialness. I think it has two profound effects:

A. Number 2 from above is strenthed. The very nature of philosophy is questioning, and this bleeds over into science makeing it even more capable of change then most other magic traditions. It’s not quite the volitale valley of criticism that philosophy is, but its close.

B. In my humble opinion, it makes it much more likely to be true. Of course, this could also be cultural bias, but I don’t think so.

You know- I should probably find a way to work this into my paper.