Evolution and Big Bang Theory on shaky ground... (Page 4) Point5andahalf: Maybe the difference of opinion here is this: Adaptation/evolution is evident within a species, and fossils are used to extend that fact to include the evolution of one species into another (which cannot be observed), and the fossil record is incomplete in that respect. The (generally accepted) evolutionary tree has to be updated as new info comes to light. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_tree My opinion is: mistakes in our understanding have been made in the past, and are being made now, no doubt. I wonder why that "tree" would necessarily have one root. Why not several separate roots and trees of life? No fossil evidence apparently. The scientists might figure it out one day. WilliamGolding: Even if more people say it, that doesn't make it any more or less true.. I think it might have been Asimov, not that it matters.  StuckInTheSixties: "Does there have to be a evolutionary theory? No." Sorry, but you answered your own question incorrectly. Since someone (Darwin) theorized the idea of evolution, such a theory obviously exists. It has to exist because it exists. Your statement is philosophical (actually nonsensical) in nature, and certainly not in the realm of Science & Technology. But what the hell ... Since you ask if " a evolutionary theory" [sic] has to exist or not, and answer it yourself with a "no," why don't you explain why it doesn't HAVE exist (when it does)?  XFixYourBrainX: At one point in time the theory never existed. Yes its in the (realm) of philosophy you said it yourself nothing wrong with that. There now you can understand easier since you said that yourself.  LiptonCambell: Whats your point, Poker? The fact that we can exist and have existed without the theory of evolution says -NOTHING- on the evidence supporting the theory. StuckInTheSixties: There was a time before (Newton's) theory of gravitation. By your "logic," that should mean that gravity doesn't exist. There was a time before (Einstein's) theory of the conversion of mass and energy. By your "logic," that should mean nuclear power plants and bombs don't exist. The list could go on almost endlessly ... XFixYourBrainX: How long is the theory of evolution going to stay a theory? And when will people get tired of it being a example of the development of life? This is my point. XFixYourBrainX: Evolution once did not exist, but now it does. The theory is useless by logic, because Geoff says evolution theory only states the origins of life. Not how life began. What is the difference, or is there no difference? StuckInTheSixties: Pokerman says: "How long is the theory of evolution going to stay a theory?" You seem to be implying that because it's a "theory," it's not fact. This shows that you, like many people, are confused with the term theory. It's just an unfortunate quirk of the English language that the word "theory" has a common, colloquial usage ... speculation; guess; hunch; etc. ... and a very specific scientific usage ... A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena. You're insisting upon using the colloquial usage. Pokerman says: "And when will people get tired of it being a example of the development of life?" It's not an "example of the development of life." It's an explanation for the diversity of life. Pokerman says: "Evolution once did not exist, but now it does." Correct. At one time, there was no life on Earth, hence, no evolution. At some point in time, life began (which is a separate issue other than evolution). At the point that life began, the process of evolution also began. Pokerman says: "The theory is useless by logic, because Geoff says evolution theory only states the origins of life. Not how life began. What is the difference, or is there no difference? I looked at all of Geoff's comments. He didn't say that. LiptonCambell: >>>What is the difference, or is there no difference? Evolution explains how life became diverse- how we have so many species and variations of life. How life originated is a different thing based on entirely different events. XFixYourBrainX: Sixties, you said this " You seem to be implying that because it's a "theory," it's not fact. This shows that you, like many people, are confused with the term theory." Imply all you want but I never said what your implying. So your arguement against what I just said, "How long is the theory of evolution going to stay a theory?" Is irrelevant to what it is that your implying I implied.  Geoff: Quite simply, no. The development of life once it has reached the stage of self-replication is governed by the rules of natural selection. Natural selection itself does not decree how that initial lifeform came about. Natural selection dictates that it would be simple life, from a single source. This is verified by evidence.
StuckInTheSixties: Pokerman, I didn't "imply" you implied. I SAID OUTRIGHT that YOU implied that because it's the Theory of Evolution is a "theory," it's not fact.  Okay. Forget that. You'll never untangle that. Let me make the same inquiry in a way you might actually understand: The Theory of Evolution is: A. a speculation/guess/hunch B. a scientific theory comprised of a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts, constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena Is it A? Or is it B? XFixYourBrainX: Sixties, you said this to me " You seem to be implying that because it's a "theory," it's not fact. This shows that you, like many people, are confused with the term theory." This shows what that you just know how to guess that I'm implying. Sixties, you said this to me Pokerman, I didn't "imply" you implied. I SAID OUTRIGHT that YOU implied that because it's the Theory of Evolution is a "theory," it's not fact. XFixYourBrainX: Evolution does not state anything about how life started. So evolution is basically a big theory on the development of how life progressed. And the theory of evolution is one of the missing pieces to an even greater mystery to the beginnings of the basic process of the development of life. LiptonCambell: >>>Should how life originated be alongside how life developed? Its believed that Earth spent over one billion years- 1/4 of all the history of life- as micro-organisms. It took a long time for life to become much more complex than that. >>> So evolution is basically a big theory on the development of how life progressed. Exactly! Evolution explains why we have ants and birds and whales, and how the 3 are distant relatives. It does not explain where that first spark of life came from- just how life became complex. >>>And the theory of evolution is one of the missing pieces to an even greater mystery to the beginnings of the basic process of the development of life. Absolutely. The two are different issues. | Science Chat Room 3 People Chatting Similar Conversations |