Evolution: Theory or Fact?

[Larv]

Given Buffy’s directive, I’ll try to move our discussion about evolution from the Evolution Poll tread to a new thread here in the Biology forum.

 

The discussion picks up here:

 

Please explain. Do you mean that you do not believe in natural selection but do believe in evolution? They're pretty much mutually inclusive.

I believe this; Darwin noticed how things happened around him and named them certain events, such as natural selection. Natural selection is 'only the fittest survive' right? When two animals compete for mates the stronger one wins, and because the stronger genes are passed along the ones that weren't up to par do not continue in the gene pool. I believe that happens, simply because it makes sense and it happens every day in plain sight.

 

I do not believe in evolution in the darwinian sense. I do not believe we all started as a volatile mixture of elements and somehow were forced by energy into simple amino acids, carbohydrates, proteins etc. To put it bluntly, I believe in God, and I believe in Science.

 

I in a sense believe in Ocaam's Razor. Whatever seems the simplest was probably what happened, with all of the infinite number of things that could have been, but we got them perfect in our universe, I believe God is the simplest answer, and he placed everything on earth for us to investigate and all of the sciences that say there aren't a God are just ways to test faith. Will they be enough to disprove God, or will people decide to put them aside and believe in God first of all and sceince secondly.

 

SORRY, I got onto a little tirade on religion.

God and Occam’s razor are not friendly toward one another. In fact, they are bitter enemies.

 

—Larv

[ughaibu]

The statement, "God and Occam’s razor are not friendly toward one another. In fact, they are bitter enemies", is inaccurate, here is Ockham on his razor, “for nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”

[Larv]

The statement, "God and Occam’s razor are not friendly toward one another. In fact, they are bitter enemies", is inaccurate, here is Ockham on his razor, “for nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”

ughaibu, I would use my Occam's razor to shave off that "authority of Sacred Scripture" part. Would you mind referencing that quote? Maybe at the time he allegedly said it poor William had his thumbs pressed in screw.

 

—Larv

[ughaibu]

William of Ockham (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[Larv]

William of Ockham (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Thank you. Of course this is relative to life between the years 1287-1343. During that time, God was still alive and kicking ***.

 

—Larv

[ughaibu]

Larv: Sure. Fatstep in any case misrepresents Ockham with "whatever seems the simplest was probably what happened", simplicity isn't the point, evidence is.

[Zythryn]

...sciences that say there aren't a God are just ways to test faith

 

Fatstep, I am unaware of any science that says this, could you elaborate?

I have heard people say this, and I have heard people who are scientists say this. I have also heard people who are accountants say this. However, I am unaware of any science that says 'there is no God'.

[Boerseun]

Fatstep, I am unaware of any science that says this, could you elaborate?

I have heard people say this, and I have heard people who are scientists say this. I have also heard people who are accountants say this. However, I am unaware of any science that says 'there is no God'.

The best that sience says about the matter is:

 

"There are no possible experiments to test for the existence/non-existence of an omnipotent and omniscient entity called 'God'. We tried to get a couple of guys to run around naked on a hill in a thunderstorm and blaspheme holding nine-irons high up in the air, but so far we have had no volunteers."

 

In other words, the concept of 'God' cannot be tested and falsified through science; hence science has absolutely nothing to say about the matter, except that religion, and more specifically, the concept of a 'God', is beyond science.

[Tormod]

This is another theology topic and has absolutely nothing to do with biology. Moving it to Theology.

[phoenixbyrd]

To answer the thread title.

 

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Life evolves, but how it evolves is the theory, not the does it evolve or has it evolved. How man, it's the how.

[Lancaster]

My response to fatstep's "tirade," I'd like to see it answered.

 

Following your logic, there also exists a universe containing a monster made out of spaghetti that created all life and sits on a throne made of clouds surrounded by humanoids that have your hypography username tattooed on their chests in pink ink, and you should worship him because of this.

 

See what I mean?

[imaplanck.]

"Evolution: Theory or Fact?"

 

 

If anything can be fact: Evolution is pretty well indisputable as such.

 

 

Of course, people will always attempt to argue the inarguable(especially when there's candy), and "theory" being a loose term(to say the least) in science adds fuel to the fire.

[Larv]

 

If anything can be fact: Evolution is pretty well indisputable as such. Of course, people will always attempt to argue the inarguable(especially when there's candy), and "theory" being a loose term(to say the least) in science adds fuel to the fire.

 

Yes, it's the "candy" that's the problem. If evolution is still just a theory then so is gravitation. I came across this site, which addresses the misconceptions about evolution and the mechanisms of evolution.

 

—Larv