evolutionary science

**drf** · **10-08-07, 04:01 AM**

This forum was a little quiet so I thought I'd pose a question:

Is the theory of evolution:

A) purely the best explanation for our observations?
or
B) the reason why?

Asking because I do believe there is a difference between our understanding what is happening and our reasoning as to why it is happening.

**terry j** · **10-08-07, 04:34 AM**

Are you talking 'guided evolution'?

Personally I'm an unapologetic 'ghost in the machine' guy. To my way of thinking evolution explains many things in a physical sense, but do baulk at some of the more extreme statements of it ( no such thing as free will etc etc).

An area with (to me ) similar characteristics would be genetics, a very useful explanation of physical traits, yet a theory 'pushed too far' when it comes to explaining actual human behaviour.

Hmm, a topic potentially ripe for, how shall I say it, heated discussion???

If it is an antidote for a quiet period, you may have given a solution ha ha. Having said that, HTS is a very well run and respectful forum so I look forward to seeing where this goes.

**tweeksound** · **10-08-07, 07:37 AM**

I would say it is almost always if not exclusively true, that all laws and theories (and beliefs) are "purely the best explanation for our observations?"

In the grand scheme of things that's all that we can do. Explain what we observe.
If we are all fish trying to understand the ocean, as many very intelligent humans have concluded, then we assuredly can't speak with any certainty on "the reason why?"

Great question, and I apologize if my answer is invalid.

**Kal Rubinson** · **10-08-07, 11:05 AM**

deleted

**SteveCallas** · **10-08-07, 09:58 PM**

Evolution has been proven to an extent through small scale changes, however I think it is a poor "all encompassing" explanation for the changes in life on earth, which is exactly how most view it and recite it as fact. Balk at evolution and you get raised noses and rolled eyes, yet the serious lack of evidence for this theory astounds me.

**Chrisbee** · **10-09-07, 03:04 AM**

**Sonnie** · **10-09-07, 09:06 AM**

Geneticist, scientist, it don't matter, not anyone has ever proven evolution of any kind. They think they have proof, but it's not really proof. They would like for it to be proof, but it's not. However, it's an interesting discussion and very interesting to see people try to prove or explain it. That part is more amazing and interesting than evolution itself.

**lcaillo** · **10-09-07, 05:58 PM**

It is equally interesting to see people deny evolution.

**Sonnie** · **10-09-07, 06:15 PM**

There is proof for creation... there in no proof for evolution. There's really nothing to deny as far as evolution is concerned. How do you deny something that is already false. That is why I said it's interesting.

**terry j** · **10-09-07, 07:21 PM**

depends on what you mean by creation.

"we are here'' therefore some type of creation act has occurred. A definitional thing. So in that sense yes, there is proof for creation (we are here).

The non 'definitional thing' meaning of creation is of course a literal interpretation of the bible. Not much proof of that.

I have what I feel are limits on the applicability of evolution (and genetics as I said)but I find it hard for any person (as has been done here) to say there is NO PROOF of evolution!! I'm flabbergasted.

If you wish, debate the cause, debate the inferences we can or can't draw from it, but truly I think what is required that you go and look (any halfway decent library will provide the resources) at the body of knowledge underlying this ''''theory''''.

Is that what people pick up on?? It is officially a theory?? therefore just like any concept I can throw together in my own head the '''''theory''''' of evolution is as valid as my own fractured thinking?? Hmmm, I wonder.

"Has never proven evolution of any kind'' . First rule in arguing a point, never state something easily disproven. Evolution has been proven to a sufficient degree of scientific accuracy to now be a robust and expanding discipline.

Agree or disagree with scientists, love or loath them, admire or denigrate them, they are a group in which every theory and exposition is rigorously examined and tested and evolution , I'm sure, is most likely one of the most examined and questioned theories around.

That it is still here stronger than ever (and continually getting stronger) speaks volumes.

I'm afraid it is not quite sufficient to say 'the theory is wrong, they have no proof of any part of it, it is untried and untested'.

If you feel that way, and you feel you can make your case then go for it I say, there is MOST definitely a Nobel Prize and lasting fame in it for you!

**Sonnie** · **10-09-07, 09:52 PM**

I don't recall all the goodies, but we went through a very extensive class on evolution that lasted several months. It was quite interesting. All of the supposedly proof provided for evolution was very easily dis-proven. The proof was actually pretty ridiculous to me... I considered it rather non-sense, but interesting none the less.

This thread isn't about Creation and the Bible, but that is definitely been proven over and over again. It has never been dis-proven while evolution has been, over and over again by numerous people.

Of course I'm not one to debate since I'm not a debater as such... so I'll leave it for you guys to continue to discuss.

**Mike P.** · **10-09-07, 11:50 PM**

Evolution and creation will always have people either for it or against it. Both require faith to justify their position.

**Sonnie** · **10-10-07, 01:27 AM**

That is a very valid point.

I probably side tracked the original posters' intentions for this thread... so you guys continue on as you were. There is no problem with the discussion.

**drf** · **10-10-07, 02:52 AM**

Yes this topic is one that can easily get someones shackles up, especially when you start to suggest things that fly in the face of personal beliefs.

I personally see no conflict between the currently accepted facts of evolution and creation theology.

It is interesting to note however that what I meant by my first post was not so much whether evolution is the cause of life but:

Many parts of evolution cannot be explained, for example how cancer becomes prominant in certain people, as this is not exactly a pre-curser for survival of the fittest. We know this happens simply by looking at the general statistics over the last 40 years, even when applying all current knowledge of causes we know there is a definate genetic disposition to occurance. From this we can assume many different reasons as to why, but the key word here is "assume". does the theory actual pose a reasoning for this change other than the generic "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection" or is the whole theory basical a complicated way of saying "over time, external influences cause a change"?

I haven't managed to find a definate theory that defines why the changes occur enough to assume that evolution over millions of years has included whole species to decend from another.

**Chrisbee** · **10-10-07, 03:15 AM**

**drf** · **10-10-07, 04:02 AM**

Quote:

Chrisbee wrote:

I will offer you incontrovertible proof of evolution:

The vast fortunes the religion industry is throwing at the denial of evolution.

I find that sufficient proof in itself.

And on that note I shall leave this thread to go round and round in circles until it evolves into a shouting match and is closed.

An interesting statement given that the worlds two largest denominations have publicaly endorsed evolution as fact and something that should be embraced by all Christians.

I don't think the discussion will go around in circles, especially if we remember that there are many different definitions of evolution and what Sonnie says didn't happen might be a different kettle of fish to what your understanding of evolution is. I also think most of us are mature enough to respect that others will have a different opinion. Regardless of whether we know or think we know that it's right or wrong makes no difference, that should be respected just the same.

**Sonnie** · **10-10-07, 10:31 AM**

Yep... I administer a small Christian forum as well. There are matters of opinion and matters of faith. I fully understand people have varying beliefs. It's all about choices for the most part, we have a choice to believe whatever we desire to believe, except for some who believe we are compelled to believe what we believe, but that's still their choice to believe that. I think it would be next to impossible to get everyone to agree alike. However, our arguments for one thing or another might very well influence what others believe.

That's hardly incontrovertible proof Chris. Masses denying something in no way proves anything. If it did, we would have proof for everything ever theorized.

**<^..^>Smokey Joe** · **10-11-07, 04:52 PM**

There is simply no 100% certainty for anything. Only confidence that a theory is either true or false, or in many cases true until proven false later and/or false until proven true later.

If you play the quantum dice on this subject both conditions exist at the same time. When you look at any subject, it's state changes to that of isolation, a light wave when viewed upon becomes a light partical. It's actually response actually can be different depending if we the viewer is looking at(receiving) it or not.

One of our challenges we face as the human race is fear. Fear of our belief systems being challenged is tough to take. Many a war has been fought due to fear.

Returning to the quantum world idea, interesting things happen, some of those things don't fit in our heads. In the words of Einstien 'Spooky stuff at a distance'

Sometimes someone makes a jump in time and or observation, or both and writes about their experiences. We the reader must have 'Faith' or 'Confidence' (Depending on your belief system)that the disclosure is true.

Returning to our challenge, one must be open minded to any possibility as any possibility could be true. Allowing our fears control how we think is the worst possible conclusion.

An interesting book that breaks down the walls between "Faith' and 'Confidence', the book is 'Intangled Minds'. Here we must absorb in the ideas posed, have confidence in the results being true and faith that people understand the links.

**drf** · **10-12-07, 01:36 AM**

Quote:

<^..^>Smokey Joe wrote:

There is simply no 100% certainty for anything. Only confidence that a theory is either true or false, or in many cases true until proven false later and/or false until proven true later.

If you play the quantum dice on this subject both conditions exist at the same time. When you look at any subject, it's state changes to that of isolation, a light wave when viewed upon becomes a light partical. It's actually response actually can be different depending if we the viewer is looking at(receiving) it or not.

A bit like a cross between "if a tree falls in the forest" and the "barn and pole" paradox.

you don't need faith to understand scientific theories, however you do need to display an understanding of theology before you consider what your scientific knowledge might imply.

and to answer the question in your sig:
When you are not looking, the light is hiding in the forest making falling tree sound effects.

**terry j** · **10-12-07, 02:27 AM**

Quote:

<^..^>Smokey Joe wrote:

There is simply no 100% certainty for anything. Only confidence that a theory is either true or false, or in many cases true until proven false later and/or false until proven true later.

If you play the quantum dice on this subject both conditions exist at the same time.

one must be open minded to any possibility as any possibility could be true.

Can I infer you have NO concrete ideas in life?? Absolutely nothing in this world that you are certain of? You question even your own existence.

If so, I pity you. Having no certainty is a recipe for disaster, and to be honest I don't think you actually go that far. At times, it is preferable for us to take an action even if 'ultimately wrong', as the alternative is a paralysed inaction, which in my book is worse.

Quantum theory is a wonderful and exciting 'trip', but the big question of course is how and where it breaks down (if at all??) in the macro vs micro domains. So I would be wary of how far in everyday life those concepts are pushed. To push it far enough to believe that all everyday objects and states are in two contradictory but simultaneous states goes a tad far for me.

**drf** · **10-12-07, 02:51 AM**

Quote:

terry j wrote:

To push it far enough to believe that all everyday objects and states are in two contradictory but simultaneous states goes a tad far for me.

Not to contradict, however, relativity shows us that one object can maintain two contradictory states.
An example of this is the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction. This shows us how as an object nears the speed of light its length contracts. However, from the perspective of someone moving along side this same object, the object will remain the same size. Thus one object can and does remain in two different states simultaneously.

Advertisement