Do You Believe in the Theory of Evolution?

[All Else Failed]

The question becomes did the eels grow long narrow jaws to adapt or did it just happen that the eels with the long narrow jaws were better suited to surviving in that particular lake? I think evolutionists believe it was natural selection and random, but still it's evolution as changes are happening.

Evolution isn't random. And yes, if eels adapt to their environment and get better suited jaws that is evolution.

First you will note a very important word at the very beginning of the definition: theory.

Secondly, why is it so hard to conceive that evolution *could* have happened? Is it the only thing that happened, probably not. None of us were there, so we are not completely sure, therefore some scientists follow the theory of evolution, and devote their lives to the task of showing how the evidence is in favor of evolution.

Tell them that they are working for some trumped up theory. That will go well.

But then, we should not tell other theorists that the theory they are currently exploring is false either. Science has shown us that even the most brilliant have had errors in their convictions, and we currently test their ideals to see if the theory fits the data.

For example, gravity. What is taught in the schools currently (as of 5 years or so ago) is the Newtonian notion of gravity; whereby the concept is closer to the Einsteinian ideology. However, due to the acceptable percentage of error in Newtonian gravity here on Earth, not much is dedicated to the correction of the education.

But then again, 25 or so years ago, a project was started up between Stanford University and NASA to test Einstein's theory of the space-time continuum by launching a satellite into orbit where they think they have the most probable chance to get good data. I have not checked up on the results, but they think they have detected a lag that proves Einstein's theory.

Of course, in about 75 years or so in the future, someone will publish a theory that trumps Einstein's that will be the cause of exploration for about 2 centuries after that.

Theories are just that, theories. Not laws, not ignorantly followed convincing arguments. Well, they should not be, in any case.

Science is all about gaining knowledge through systematic observations and experiments; by definition, a bunch of tests to check theories.

If I postulated that BB@TW was smart, I would determine possible questions to ask him; to get the best set of data, I would perform the experiment many times. However, I could only test that theory to the extent that I hope BB@TW did not have knowledge about the questions I would have asked him and he go and find out the exact answers before the experiment was conducted. But then, if that happened, how would I know? I was not there, I merely showed up to ask a few questions.

Therefore, in order to determine a better set of observations, I would have to set BB@TW aside, in a confined and remote location, to which has no access to information; such that BB@TW would have to rely on information previously gathered before his isolation. Thereby slightly increasing the chances of obtaining better observations to get better datasets, in order to determine a better conclusion.

But it would still be a theory. Well-based, but still a theory.

Know whats also a theory? gravity, the Earth revolving around the sun, cells etc etc. Just because its a theory doesn't discredit or make it less in any way. For something to become a theory, it has to go through rigorous testing and evaluation by independent scientists across the globe, so its not like any ridiculous idea can become a theory. If something is a long standing scientific theory, that means its been pretty much been proven.

 

[Peter Parka]

Hooray! This bloody poll finishes tomorrow!:surrender

 

[Minor Axis]

Evolution isn't random. And yes, if eels adapt to their environment and get better suited jaws that is evolution.

As I said before, there may have been some changes in how evolution is perceived, but last I heard organisms don't change to adapt to the environment, it's the ones that just happen to be best suited to survive in the environment are the ones that succeed. Just like the .001 percent of the germs that survive the vaccine. They go on to live and multiply until the next vaccine. They did not adapt to the vaccine after it was introduced. They just happened to be the tough ones who survived. Am I wrong about this?

 

[gillibean]

As I said before, there may have been some changes in how evolution is perceived, but last I heard organisms don't change to adapt to the environment, it's the ones that just happen to be best suited to survive in the environment are the ones that succeed. Just like the .001 percent of the germs that survive the vaccine. They go on to live and multiply until the next vaccine. They did not adapt to the vaccine after it was introduced. They just happened to be the tough ones who survived. Am I wrong about this?

You are absolutely correct. The mutations are random and it's the ones that survive that become part of evolution. Evolution isn't random but the mutations that allow it to happen are random. Dawkins explain this really well in the first few chapters of The Blind Watchmaker

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Originally Posted by All Else Failed

There's no such thing as "fact" in the scientific world . Only theories with A LOT of evidence for them.

I feel this quote will come back to haunt you. :nod:

You know.....GP, Intruder and those guys. They like to keep these kinds of things in mind.

Then again, you never know. Perhaps they won't see it.

Intruder to AEF:

LOL. I've barked up your "fact" tree often enough to just smile and nod. You may not realize it, but that's one of the many points I've been subtly putting into your head over our past year or so of argumentation.

<evil chuckle>



PS: FWIW, observable = factual. Extrapolation = theoretical.

As nobody has ever figured out a way to observe the beginning, it will remain theoretical. I choose religion because it's plausible. Spontaneous everything to me is turning a blind eye and hoping nobody really asks. :cool

(CB to AEF) Oooooops.....told you. :

I can't rep you now, but if I could it would have read "You're the best pot-stirrer I've ever met. Subtle. "



Thought you should know. :nod:

Why thank you Intruder. *bows graciously* It's how I rolls. he he . They don't call me CB the pot stirrer for nothing.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

AEF, you are extraordinarily persistent.

*Fixed*



Edit: .....And very cheeky:

Could you post more videos where they have scientifically illiterate people in them, please? I need a chuckle, I had a bad day.

 

[All Else Failed]

As I said before, there may have been some changes in how evolution is perceived, but last I heard organisms don't change to adapt to the environment, it's the ones that just happen to be best suited to survive in the environment are the ones that succeed. Just like the .001 percent of the germs that survive the vaccine. They go on to live and multiply until the next vaccine. They did not adapt to the vaccine after it was introduced. They just happened to be the tough ones who survived. Am I wrong about this?

What? Yes they do. Thats what evolution is. Each environment is different, and there are organisms that are better suited for certain environments. Ever notice that animals that live in the desert are suited for the desert? its because through millions of years of evolution, their species have adapted favorable traits that adapted and changed according to the environment. Those changes are present in the DNA and are passed down to their offspring. These changes could include different colored fur, shape of legs, eyesight and so on. If there was no change to adapt to an environment you would see OBVIOUS adaptations suited for those environments, like a polar bear's white fur.

 

[All Else Failed]

You are absolutely correct. The mutations are random and it's the ones that survive that become part of evolution. Evolution isn't random but the mutations that allow it to happen are random. Dawkins explain this really well in the first few chapters of The Blind Watchmaker

No. A thousand times no. No changes are random. They are a result of measured processes over a long period of time that are at the will of the environment. Your body changing to better suite itself for the desert , for instance, isn't random at all. Look at people who live in the desert, their body have adapted to do so. Look at Inuits. Their bodies have adapted to cold environments and so on. This is due to the careful process of evolution, and your body's nonrandom tendency to change itself to it's needs. This may take a long time, but it happens. Why do you think humans look different?


If changes were random, you'd have polar bears with pink fur. Evolution is essentially deterministic.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Hooray! This bloody poll finishes tomorrow!:surrender

Alas, but the thread wouldn't.




:24:

 

[gillibean]

*Fixed*

:24:

What? Yes they do. Thats what evolution is. Each environment is different, and there are organisms that are better suited for certain environments. Ever notice that animals that live in the desert are suited for the desert? its because through millions of years of evolution, their species have adapted favorable traits that adapted and changed according to the environment. Those changes are present in the DNA and are passed down to their offspring. These changes could include different colored fur, shape of legs, eyesight and so on. If there was no change to adapt to an environment you would see OBVIOUS adaptations suited for those environments, like a polar bear's white fur.

They do not choose to adapt. The mutations happen randomly. Evolution occurs because the ones that fit the environment better survive.

 

[gillibean]

No. A thousand times no. No changes are random. They are a result of measured processes over a long period of time that are at the will of the environment. Your body changing to better suite itself for the desert , for instance, isn't random at all. Look at people who live in the desert, their body have adapted to do so. Look at Inuits. Their bodies have adapted to cold environments and so on. This is due to the careful process of evolution, and your body's nonrandom tendency to change itself to it's needs. This may take a long time, but it happens. Why do you think humans look different?


If changes were random, you'd have polar bears with pink fur.

You are totally missing what I am saying. EVOLUTION is not random. THE MUTATIONS that allow evolution to happen are random. If you come across an animal that HAS PURPOSEFULLY chosen the mutations in it's young, let me know.

 

[All Else Failed]

You are totally missing what I am saying. EVOLUTION is not random. THE MUTATIONS that allow evolution to happen are random. If you come across an animal that HAS PURPOSEFULLY chosen the mutations in it's young, let me know.

Oh, my bad. I misread it. Thats what happens when you're tying to babysit two baby cousins and toggle five windows at the same time.

 

[gillibean]

Oh, my bad. I misread it. Thats what happens when you're tying to babysit two baby cousins and toggle five windows at the same time.

:24::24:

 

[Minor Axis]

What? Yes they do. Thats what evolution is. Each environment is different, and there are organisms that are better suited for certain environments. Ever notice that animals that live in the desert are suited for the desert? its because through millions of years of evolution, their species have adapted favorable traits that adapted and changed according to the environment. Those changes are present in the DNA and are passed down to their offspring. These changes could include different colored fur, shape of legs, eyesight and so on. If there was no change to adapt to an environment you would see OBVIOUS adaptations suited for those environments, like a polar bear's white fur.

All I'm saying is that animals don't respond to their environment directly, it's random characteristics, but characteristics best suited for the environment are the ones that prevail.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

You are totally missing what I am saying. EVOLUTION is not random. THE MUTATIONS that allow evolution to happen are random. If you come across an animal that HAS PURPOSEFULLY chosen the mutations in it's young, let me know.

Oh, my bad. I misread it. Thats what happens when you're tying to babysit two baby cousins and toggle five windows at the same time.

See? He's not all bad.

Takes a big man to say he's sorry.



Ok. Carry on. :nod:

opcorn2:

 

[IntruderLS1]

First you will note a very important word at the very beginning of the definition: theory.

Secondly, why is it so hard to conceive that evolution *could* have happened? Is it the only thing that happened, probably not. None of us were there, so we are not completely sure, .....

Not going to quote the whole thing to save space, but that was a great post. :nod:

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Not going to quote the whole thing to save space, but that was a great post. :nod:

Ditto.

 

[All Else Failed]

I still don't see why people site it being a theory as some sort of stab at it.

 

[All Else Failed]

All I'm saying is that animals don't respond to their environment directly, it's random characteristics, but characteristics best suited for the environment are the ones that prevail.

I disagree, I think animals over time will evolve directly from their environment.

But I think what you say isn't that different from what I'm saying, you just have a different way of having the characteristics get to the end point: adaption.

 

[gillibean]

Its a combination--not just random, but there are other reasons that evolution occurs aside from random mutation. Deliberate focus by an organism on survival strategy for example, will result in the organisms best at adapting, surviving.

There is the classic example of the moths that were primarily white becoming primarily black because pollution caused the white ones to stand out more, thereby being more likely eaten. That's an example of a random mutation playing a part (i.e., some moths mutating to a different color (black) that eventually resulted in them surviving.

However, now take a predator such as a lion or tiger. Characteristics that ensure the survival of the species such as strength, endurance, and intelligence are not random mutations--that is over time those characteristics are "selected" by the environment--not random at all. In other words there is a deliberate focus on the characteristics by the organisms.

I think you are missing what I'm saying. This quote is exactly what I have been trying to say. Mutations like white or black moths are random mutations. Whether they survive into future generations is not random.