evolution theory.

[DAKSTER]

here is better way to explain evolution truth or fiction. If you put all the ingredients for a banana cake into a bowl that is without cracking the eggs or mixing it and you leave for a 100 years will it evolve into a banana cake.

If there is an earthquake immediately followed by a fire at some time during the next 100 years, yes, it could. You would hope it would happen sooner rather than later, 100 year old eggs aren't all they are cracked ( ) up to be...
Unfortunately we don't have data for the next 100 years so we can't make a valid proposal either way.

We do have data on the last few million years though, so we can propose an evolution theory based on the available data. Unless someone disproves it, its the closest thing to truth we have.

 

[monkeys437]

here is better way to explain evolution truth or fiction. If you put all the ingredients for a banana cake into a bowl that is without cracking the eggs or mixing it and you leave for a 100 years will it evolve into a banana cake.

You don't have a good understanding of Darwinian natural selection and how genetic information is passed down through generations.

Evolution occurs during biological reproduction because living reproductive cells pass on genetic data to their offspring.

A cake is a chemical reaction and its ingredients such as bananas which have been picked, unfertilized eggs, refined sugar and flour etc do not have the ability to reproduce. And even if they did, turning into a cake would not be a great survival mechanism.

If you wanted a better example of observable evolution look at species which have been domesticated for centuries such as dogs, birds, and livestock. There are domestic species which have NEVER existed in the wild which have come about due to domestication and selective breading of wild species by humans. (evolutions happens much faster in domestication than in the wild due to survival and breeding characteristics being turned on their head)

If a domestic sheep is release into the wild its wool will keep growing until the animal literally dies. We've created through evolution species of domestic sheep after 1000's of years of selective breeding these creatures for their wool.

 

[Tsunamix]

Actuallly monkey I'm exactly right.

Evolution is a theory as it has not been conclusively proven. there are still fragments of evidence that don't fit the expected pattern. that's why it's still a theory.

The corollory to this is that fragments of evidence may have been inaccuratley recorded, and the theory may be correct - or the fragments are correctly recorded and the theory is wrong.

The simple act of observing a quanta (fragment of quantifiable or qualifiable piece of data) CHANGES the quanta. Hence everyone talking in terms of 'observables'. The whole schrodingers cat thought experiment highlighted this.

Creation as observed in the bible, is unsubstantiated by scientific observation. In fact definitive observational methods didn't exist until roman science started logical observation.

Hypothesis are untested. Theorys are partially or inconclusively tested and proven to be at least partially accurate. proven formulae are conclusivley tested and accepted as repeatable.

Dictionary definitions. To make it real easy I've put the important concepts in red.

A hypothesis (from Ancient Greek ὑπόθεσις, from Greek ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose,"[1] plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are "thought to work".[The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings.

Consult the great god wikipedia for more definitions as such.

Oh and theory of relativity is still a theory - not conclusively proven. So is theory or gravity. Mosttly because we havent tested it in all situations yet (behaviours around anomolaies, macroscopic and microscopic Think quarks and gluons level microscopic, black holes, time dilation, dark matter etc) - all unproven stillo.

Actually very little is conclusively proven, because of particle interaction on the macroscopic and microscopic levels. We haven't even found the smallest particles that exist yet.

 

[Tsunamix]

Notes on scientific quanta for people.

The definition of 1 degree celsius is 1/100'th of the interval between the freezing and boiling points of pure water and sea level. Change any of thos parameters and you move away from the definition of celsius.

Celsius in scientific terms is a misnomer because the observable variations caused by air pressure, lack of purity of water etc. Consequently the scientific community no longer uses celsius, it uses kelvin.

O degrees kelvin is the temperature at which there is no thermal movement of paticles. otherwise known as absolute zero.

The other end of the kelvin scale is the triple point of water - the point at which water can be found in all 3 states - gas, liquid and solid (0.1 degrees celsius).

Divide the range between absolute zero and the triple point of water by 273.16 and you get the kelvin unit, which is also the absolute definition of celsius.

Spot the physics geek / guru / fanboi / natural genius

 

[monkeys437]

Actuallly monkey I'm exactly right.

Evolution is a theory as it has not been conclusively proven. there are still fragments of evidence that don't fit the expected pattern. that's why it's still a theory.

The corollory to this is that fragments of evidence may have been inaccuratley recorded, and the theory may be correct - or the fragments are correctly recorded and the theory is wrong.

The simple act of observing a quanta (fragment of quantifiable or qualifiable piece of data) CHANGES the quanta. Hence everyone talking in terms of 'observables'. The whole schrodingers cat thought experiment highlighted this.

Creation as observed in the bible, is unsubstantiated by scientific observation. In fact definitive observational methods didn't exist until roman science started logical observation.

Hypothesis are untested. Theorys are partially or inconclusively tested and proven to be at least partially accurate. proven formulae are conclusivley tested and accepted as repeatable.

Dictionary definitions. To make it real easy I've put the important concepts in red.

A hypothesis (from Ancient Greek ὑπόθεσις, from Greek ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose,"[1] plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are "thought to work".[The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings.

Consult the great god wikipedia for more definitions as such.

Oh and theory of relativity is still a theory - not conclusively proven. So is theory or gravity. Mosttly because we havent tested it in all situations yet (behaviours around anomolaies, macroscopic and microscopic Think quarks and gluons level microscopic, black holes, time dilation, dark matter etc) - all unproven stillo.

Actually very little is conclusively proven, because of particle interaction on the macroscopic and microscopic levels. We haven't even found the smallest particles that exist yet.

I can kind of seen your perspective, but the evolutionary process and origin of species are among the most conclusive of all scientific knowledge. We have not observed and explained the phenomena of Gravity in all situations but If I throw a golf ball in the air I can explain what it will do, how it would do it, and why that's all happening with a degree of certainty that only a fool would dispute me. Then we could stand back and observe the behavior of said golf ball and confirm our detailed knowledge of "the theory of gravity"

We humans have the same degree of certainty in tracing our origins back to now extinct species and explaining why and how we came to be in our present form as my golf ball example. I'm happy to call this fact in light of overwhelming supporting evidence and not a shred of contradicting evidence.

As far as the bible creation story having supporting evidence you're correct it doesn't, but there is strong Scientific evidence contradicting the Genesis account. But this is seen by many (even the catholic church now) as being symbolic rather than literal nowdays

 

[Torborg]

Actuallly monkey I'm exactly right.

Evolution is a theory as it has not been conclusively proven. there are still fragments of evidence that don't fit the expected pattern.

Examples?

[10 characters]

 

[DAKSTER]

No need to quote examples, he is right.

There are many unexplained problems with evolutionary theory. None of these disprove evolution though. The so called 'missing link' is the string they need to pull the whole package together up to a point, to make more sense of the whole bundle of evidence. There are a lot of missing links too, not just one.

Remove a small piece of evidence from a crime scene and you can make many other parts of the scene appear inconclusive,irrelevant or even totally impossible. If we are missing some of the evidence, we can never be sure of which other bits of data are even relevant.

It still remains though that evolution has the strongest body of evidence in support of it as a theory, and none at all which disprove it as a theory. There are just pieces missing, and probably always will be.

 

[MikeCuzzy]

Lets make something clear, theories can never be "proven" and they do not become laws.

A law describes what happens under certain conditions. Example, Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation.

A theory explains, or attempts to explain, why or how something happens.

Evolution is a scientific theory about HOW life came to be. There are elements in Evolution which have been validated using law, remembering law is simply observed events, such as the Universal Law of Radioactive Decay.

Theory in common usage implies an unproven or speculative idea. In science, a theory is the most reliable and most rigorously tested of the scientific knowledge.

If you reject (this has nothing to do with belief), the theory of Evolution, based on other evidence suggest a new idea - you have created a new hypothesis. A scientific theory is something that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. We have to be very careful here about what terminology is used as there is a misunderstanding here about what a theory in Science involves.

With that in mind, if you do not accept evolution and all the experimentation and observation involved. If you do not believe in radioactive decay, transitional fossils or continued macro and micro evolution - you clearly have not studied enough science.

 

[Torborg]

No need to quote examples, he is right.

There are many unexplained problems with evolutionary theory. None of these disprove evolution though. The so called 'missing link' is the string they need to pull the whole package together up to a point, to make more sense of the whole bundle of evidence. There are a lot of missing links too, not just one.

Remove a small piece of evidence from a crime scene and you can make many other parts of the scene appear inconclusive,irrelevant or even totally impossible. If we are missing some of the evidence, we can never be sure of which other bits of data are even relevant.

It still remains though that evolution has the strongest body of evidence in support of it as a theory, and none at all which disprove it as a theory. There are just pieces missing, and probably always will be.

I disagree. The term 'missing link' is a lie peddled by fundamentalist creationists. The claim is "there are still fragments of evidence that don't fit the expected pattern."

A missing link is irrelevant to that claim. Again, what evidence can you present that doesn't fit with evolutionary theory?

 

[Torborg]

Lets make something clear, theories can never be "proven" and they do not become laws.

A law describes what happens under certain conditions. Example, Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation.

A theory explains, or attempts to explain, why or how something happens.

Evolution is a scientific theory about HOW life came to be. There are elements in Evolution which have been validated using law, remembering law is simply observed events, such as the Universal Law of Radioactive Decay.

Theory in common usage implies an unproven or speculative idea. In science, a theory is the most reliable and most rigorously tested of the scientific knowledge.

If you reject (this has nothing to do with belief), the theory of Evolution, based on other evidence suggest a new idea - you have created a new hypothesis. A scientific theory is something that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. We have to be very careful here about what terminology is used as there is a misunderstanding here about what a theory in Science involves.

With that in mind, if you do not accept evolution and all the experimentation and observation involved. If you do not believe in radioactive decay, transitional fossils or continued macro and micro evolution - you clearly have not studied enough science.

Yes! Somebody gets it.

It amazes me how many scientific novices think they know more about evolution than people who devote their lives to studying it. If I claimed to know more about bricklaying than an experienced brickie, I'd be laughed out of here. The same rule applies. How hard is that to understand?