Evolution theory

[Morkulv]

[Vuldari]

And if you want me too edit the poll-options, just say something that would make better sence.

How about:

*Yes

*No

*Undecided

*"Sort Of..." (explain below)

[Morkulv]

No, too boring.

[Renorei]

How bout we just take away the poll option and just have a thread for discussing human evolution?

[hydrocarbon]

I am now officially confused...

[Lupin]

Well if you're officially confused, then you need a certificate.

[Scott Gardener]

Here's the run-down of the biology of the matter.

First, the biggest misunderstanding about the theory of evolution is that it's a theory. Most biologists consider the body of evidence favoring evolution so overwhelming that it is now generally regarded as a fact. It's still called a theory because religious fundamentalism has pressured the public into thinking of it as such, implying that it still could be wrong. They don't like what it has to say.

The second misconception is what the "theory" has to say. Evolution is about change over time. Given hundreds of thousands of years, the summation of changes from one generation to the next creates new species. Given a few hundred million years of this, you can get mammals from reptiles. Given four billion years, you can get humans from the remote decentants of bacteria. Of course it's phenomenal, but it's also usually very slow. It's hard to believe we aren't seeing evidence of evolution happening a lot faster, given how quickly--in only a few thousand years--so many breeds of dogs can be bred from the ancestor wolf.

Change does not neccessarily mean improvement. Improvement is a subjective concept. Something adapts to continue surviving. That which fails to adapt to changing times dies off. Some things don't need to change. That's why sharks and cockroaches show up in the fossil record essentially unchanged a hundred million years ago.

A crash course in history I feel can also help shed some light on the matter.

Charles Darwin was a biologist on a taxonomy expedition in the Galopagos Islands, when he came to a startling realization--that new species have sprung into existance. He was a follower of religion at the time, believing in the literal interpretation of Genesis--Noah, the flood, and so forth. He also believed the popular concept of the Earth being only some 5000 years old. He was very reluctant to admit to himself his findings, let alone publish them, afraid that he would set off a stir. None-the-less, he was a scientist, and he believed that facts and evidence were more important in finding the truth than believing what we want to believe. So, he published his findings.

Note that Darwin never made the connection that humans are primates. That came a few decades later, when other scientists followed up on his findings, in spite of their unpopularity with the religious establishment.

But, by the early twentieth century, the facts were there and well enough organized that they were making their way into education. In Europe, evolution was gaining acceptance. (Back then, it was still just a theory.) But, in America, the religious establishment opposed its being taught, leading to the famous "Scopes monkey trial," when a professor challenged a law forbiding its being taught.

As evolution gained ground in America, the religious establishment realized that to resist its teaching, they needed to put forth their own theory to compete with evolution. And thus, Creationism was born.

In science, one first observes the facts, and then constructs a theory that fits the observations. One then tests that theory, verifying it by using it to make predictions. If the predictions happen as anticipated, then the theory gains ground. If things don't happen as expected, the theory is revised or discarded.

Here in America, Creationism did not do this. It started with the theory and then searched for the facts to fit the theory. It began with a model of creation based on Genesis, and selectively hunted for facts to support it. Look long and hard enough, and you can generally make a pretty good case for just about anything. (Consider how many people here have suggested that werewolves and shape-shifters can actually exist.) Creationism, however, ignored all the evidence against it, adamantly refusing to change the theory to take into account everything that didn't fit. In short, it was not a science at all--just the religious model under a pretense of science.

Still, Creationism was for awhile included in a lot of school texts. But, it came under fire as something clearly religiously motivated. Because it specifically described the Judeo-Christian God and many components of Genesis, its teaching was clearly seen as an attempt to push religion. And thus, it fell out of favor in the U.S., under the doctrine of seperating church and state--an idea put forth by Thomas Jefferson, one of America's Founding Fathers.

But, the religious fundamentalists in the United States are still adamant about keeping us behind the rest of you in the educated world. They have recently pushed for teaching a new model, "Intelligent Design." It is a revision of Creationism that eliminates the specifics. It right now appears to be less an organized theory so much as the simple statement that the universe is too complicated to have occurred randomly, and must have been created.

The religious fundamentalists have gained influence within the Republican party today, which has dominated most elements of American government. And, they are using that influence to pressure schools to include "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to the "theory" of evolution. Again, "intelligent design" starts with the theory and then searches for facts to fit it. In this case, however, it is less a matter of fitting facts and more a matter of inductive and deductive logic.

Intelligent design states that the universe is too complicated to happen randomly. This is not a logical statement--simply an emotional one. It is not logical, because, degree of complexity notwithstanding, a set of theories have been put forward that DO explain how the universe COULD have happened without divine influence. It does not say it did--simply that it could. That this is potentially possible invalidates intelligent design. Thus, the goal of intelligent design to maintain itself is to disprove the body of science.

[outwarddoodles]

I just wanted to sate this. Itellegent design or Evolution; I'd have to say I could never answer this for my own beleifs. See here, the worlds almost too complex to be created on its own, yet its also too complex for anyone to have ever created it. I always wondered if it were a mixture of things, so I've never sat on one thing to claim it true. While of cource, I don't find this being answered as 'It's too complex so it must be...' thing, because I find etheir way its amazing something as complex as us are here!

Of cource, for the record here; Evolution is fact. The Theory we were some kind of 'freak accident' and changed slowly to what we are is only a theory. Things do go through natural selection, that is truth.

Though we can pile up evidence that our ancestors were once a long, long time ago bacteria, we can't prove it. We can prove things evolve, but not the course it has teken, that is if we are completely from evolution. Just like the movement of Earth's plates. We can pile up evidence that all of Earth's continents were once one giant land mass names Pangea, thanks to Wegener for thinking that out, though we can't prove it. We know plates move, we just don't know the path they had taken along time ago, which is why Wegener's theory is still just a theory, and may forever be so.

[Lupin]

When scientists say something is a 'theory' they use the term differently than a regular person would. A theory is a hypothesis that is consistant with emperical data. The idea that matter is made up of thinks called atoms are a theory. Germs causing disease is a theory. The fact that objects are attracted to each other by a force called gravity is a theory.

We can pile up evidence that all of Earth's continents were once one giant land mass names Pangea, thanks to Wegener for thinking that out, though we can't prove it. We know plates move, we just don't know the path they had taken along time ago, which is why Wegener's theory is still just a theory, and may forever be so.

Well they don't say that the continents were all part of a pangea because of the way they move, they do it because of the way various continetal shelves fit together. Like the shelves of Africa and South America fitting together.

[Renorei]

When scientists say something is a 'theory' they use the term differently than a regular person would. A theory is a hypothesis that is consistant with emperical data. The idea that matter is made up of thinks called atoms are a theory. Germs causing disease is a theory. The fact that objects are attracted to each other by a force called gravity is a theory.

I was just about to mention that. In the world of science, there is no fact. Theory is pretty much as high as you go, with the possible exception of some laws. I'd like to elaborate further on Lupin's comment. The process is like this:

Observation....Hypothesis.....(evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence,evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence,evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence,evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence,evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence,evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence,evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence,evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence,evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence)....and then Theory.


Most people use the word 'theory' like scientists use the word 'hypothesis'. You'll frequently hear the average laymen saying something like, "Well, I have a theory and it is this....". No, they don't have a theory. They aren't educated enough in the subject matter to even be qualified to formulate a theory, nor do they by any means have enough evidence for their hypothesis to be called a theory.

Nothing can ever be proven completely. Gravity is still considered a theory, even though it pretty much is a fact. In the world of science, theory and fact almost mean the same thing.

So anyway, saying that something is 'just a theory' is almost contradictory. It's like saying 'just a blue whale'. In the scientific world, theory is king.

Anyway sorry bout that. I used to be a biology major, and I had all of this stuff drilled repeatedly into my head.

[Darum]

i believe it, which makes spore all the more enjoyable!

for info on 'spore' click the link below.
http://www.gamespy.com/articles/595/595975p1.html