Is evolution true?

K: it is not a fact but a theory and it is not a religion… it is science
I have already given you an argument for speciation in an earlier post and if you ’
had read that you would know…and as for your anti-science beliefs…
you know I think there is an flat earth society meeting
in your area that is begging for you to attend…go be with your people there…

Kropotkin
[/quote]
Peter, you really know nothing about science.

Nobody in 1.3 million years has observed evolution, even with tools.

Nobody.

That doesn’t mean it’s false…

You’re an absurd person peter
[/quote

K: YES, THEY HAVE OBSERVED EVOLUTION… it happens every single day…
when a child is born with different characteristic then their parents,
that is evolution… it is really not that hard to understand unless
you are as you clearly are… a religious fundamentalist who thinks the
bible is the only word possible… the earth is 6000 years old and all that…
perhaps a philosophy site is wrong for you… try a fundamentalist site…
that might be more your style…

Kropotkin[/quote]
That’s not speciation Peter, that’s adaptation …

You need to get your terms straight…

All those different birds on the Galapagos that were recorded can still mate with each other. They had ADAPTATION differences. Not speciation!!

When a child is born different than it’s parents, it can still have offspring with it’s parents or others from the same SPECIES!!

Peter, honestly, I’m talking to you like a 5 year old right now.

Peter, you really know nothing about science.

Nobody in 1.3 million years has observed evolution, even with tools.

Nobody.

That doesn’t mean it’s false…

You’re an absurd person peter
[/quote

K: YES, THEY HAVE OBSERVED EVOLUTION… it happens every single day…
when a child is born with different characteristic then their parents,
that is evolution… it is really not that hard to understand unless
you are as you clearly are… a religious fundamentalist who thinks the
bible is the only word possible… the earth is 6000 years old and all that…
perhaps a philosophy site is wrong for you… try a fundamentalist site…
that might be more your style…

Kropotkin[/quote]
That’s not speciation Peter, that’s adaptation …

You need to get your terms straight…

All those different birds on the Galapagos that were recorded can still mate with each other. They had ADAPTATION differences. Not speciation!!

When a child is born different than it’s parents, it can still have offspring with it’s parents or others from the same SPECIES!!

Peter, honestly, I’m talking to you like a 5 year old right now.
[/quote]
K:ummmmm, I am trying to explain something very easy to a fucking moron…
ok, you don’t know what speciation is and you don’t know what adaptation is
because adaptation is about environmental adaptation, adapting to the environment
a species finds itself in… when a child is born, it has different characteristic
then the parents, that is a function of evolution… that is how different traits
are inherited… traits that allow one to function in any given environment…
and traits that are successful and allows one to function in any given environment
are then passed along to the next generation…
(but this is the randomness of evolution in that we cannot predict which
traits will be passed on to the next generation and this is part of the
confusion people have with evolution… they don’t understand how randomness
plays a role in evolution, both in the inherited traits and in which traits
will be useful in a given environment) if you are different then your parents…then
you are part of evolution… you were passed traits that will allow you to adapt to
a given environment and if the human race is very unlucky, you will pass those traits
along to the next generation… that is evolution is…passing of traits and how those
traits allow you to adapt to your environment…natural selection is the second part of
the equation but you don’t even get the first part… so why waste time
trying to get you to understand something that is clearly beyond you…

Kropotkin

I suppose this was supposed to be a response to my second question:

At least the first half. It still doesn’t specify what parts of the research to keep and regard as valid. Nor does it answer the second part about taxonomy: Keep the present system; revert to 1850? Make up a new one that ignores evolution? Or what?

And it completely ignores the primary question:

You say it’s a theory and not a fact. You’ve gone to some trouble to discredit the theory.
Well, what are the facts, in your view?
Short of facts, what is a better alternative working theory that would fit with whichever bits you want to keep of the current state of scientific research ?

Just repeating “You’re all stupid, no it isn’t.” really doesn’t convince anyone that you have the tiniest glimmer of a microscopic clue what you’re talking about.

Peter is being belligerent in quite a frightening way …

I don’t discredit the theory at all.

I’m simply saying, it’s not a fact.

It’s not very controversial to say that.

I guess you must have a very low intimidation threshold. He looks mostly frustrated to me - and if my ancient faculties can be trusted, he wasn’t the first one to start calling names.
BTAIM…

Huh. Didn’t succeed, obviously. Sure made a good show of trying to.

Then why bother saying it, over and over?
And why offer such feeble counter-arguments?

He’s telling me that speciation is that offspring are slightly different. He’s telling me I don’t know what adaptation is even though I’m the first one to talk about it exactly how he talks about it I.e. Galapagos finches.

I now think you’re deluded as he is …

All I’ve been arguing is that evolution (defined by speciation) is considered a theory and not a fact.

It answers the op perfectly in terms of what is true.

He doesn’t even know that speciation is about reproductive capacity.

Now you are both absurd

Nope. That’s not at all what he said.

You define it that way. Who else does?

Where does the hoax come in?

Yes, he does. Only, he puts the horses before the cart.
At first they could interbreed; after a long isolation of two populations, they had changed so much (through mutation and selection) that they no longer could.
Ta-ra! New species.

It’s complicated in practice, and takes a long time, but the concept is simple.
Unfortunately, bacteria can’t ever interbreed. Maybe you’ve been looking at the wrong life-form.

The truth is despite many many years of researching and experimenting scientists still do not have a ‘workable’ explanation of how life could start. In fact some scientists are now suggesting life must have originated from outer space, which is called panspermia. An example of this comes from Sir Fred Hoyle, who accepted the impossibility of life arising spontaneously by chance and published a book, Evolution from Space. Then there is the much lauded, revered and very vocal advocate of evolution, Richard Dawkins. He also, when interviewed by Ben Stein, was asked to explain how life could have started. He could not explain this by reference to physical or biological causes so resorted to and conceded that a possible explanation was that the first life came here from somewhere else. Outer space.

youtu.be/AiVoS78lNqM

No one has been able to set up an experiment and make one type of organism evolve into a new type of organism (unless one deliberately removes genetic information or inserts genetic information from another organism, neither of which is true evolution).

"Or a very elaborated hoax upon mankind? "
You kidding, right?
To be this self-centered and ignorant in a philosophy forum is astonishing.
Who on earth said anything about mankind when it comes to evolution like we are something special.
Evolution is not a exercise to create humans.
It is not a hoax against the creator.
Based on the main activity in evolution, I say it is the survival instinct of the Universe.
The creation of a higher level consciousness through trial and error against the reality of an unforgiving environment.

Here on Earth, now, it is us.
For how long ? who knows.
What is next ? who cares if it is not us.
Will we fight ? no difference.

One thing is for certain - maybe two - denial of evolution is hindering our survival because this can explain many of our problems and help to find solutions.

If there is a creator, what if it does not like you?

There are several workable explanations, but no proof. Three and a half billion years later, scattered all over the globe, evidence becomes pretty hard to collect.
Not having every single datum nailed down doesn’t invalidate the preponderance of evidence for the case.
Creationists make out that science is an all-or-nothing proposition; that if they can shed some doubt about one little piece of the puzzle, the whole theory falls apart.
It doesn’t. And they haven’t. They’re mostly making a lot of noise over their own misconceptions and distortions.
(It’s as if they thought they were in court and all they had to do was convince one juror out of twelve that there is reasonable doubt. Science doesn’t work that way. It works by piling up numbers, observations, measurements, descriptions, statistics, more numbers, specimens, diagrams, experimental findings, patterns, adjustments, corrections, and some more numbers.)

It’s one suggestion been kicking around quite a while. It’s possible, I suppose.
Does that possibility affect the process of evolution in some way? If so, how?

Whether this is true depends on what you mean by “type of organism”. Beetles are unlikely ever to turn into orchids and, in the time-span available to experimenters, fruit flies won’t grow into beetles - even if they had some tangible motivation to do so.
In what way does this reflect on a 25-million-year process?

It’s not supposed to be. But the genetic information, the way it’s organized and accessed, sheds a good deal of light on the means and method of ‘true’ evolutionary processes.

There is no chef.
What caused the cake and the pie? The chef or the oven? If merely the oven, shouldn’t we see cake-pies or pie-cakes in development? Which led to which? How did one ever evolve into the other?

Can a conversation get more ridiculously ignorant?

Evolution is not “Science”. Evolution is a principle theorized as A cause of life in all of its forms. Evolution is worshiped by atheists as the First Cause of life, their “God”.

But what is the cause of evolution?

Than what you said about baking? I seriously doubt it.

:laughing:

JSS wrote:

I would like, very much, to hear you answer your own question James.

“What is the cause of evolution James?”

That’s easy…
The thing that they called “God”.

… which is why this discussion has been so ridiculous.

[quote=“James S Saint”]
There is no chef.
What caused the cake and the pie? The chef or the oven? If merely the oven, shouldn’t we see cake-pies or pie-cakes in development? Which led to which? How did one ever evolve into the other?

Can a conversation get more ridiculously ignorant?

Evolution is not “Science”. Evolution is a principle theorized as A cause of life in all of its forms. Evolution is worshiped by atheists as the First Cause of life, their “God”.

K: wrong as usual… I don’t in any way shape or form “worship” evolution…
that is what you do… I think evolution answers the question how we got
here better then any other way…it is not the “cause of life”… and
evolution doesn’t even say how life got started… that part is unknown and most
likely will stay unknown…evolution is simply a means to resolve the question
of, how did we get here… in fact, given the choices offered, evolution is by far
the most logical way we got here… using Ockham’s razor, evolution makes
the best sense of all the theories of how we got here…

Kropotkin

You wouldn’t know it one way or another. You simply love to hate those other guys.

There you go. End of argument.

To you, what doesn’t fall into that category?

“Wrong as usual”. That is not what Occam’s Razor is about. And even if it was, the "God did it" ontology is far, far, far simpler than the "for unknown reasons, it kept changing microscopically until it just became what it is in all of its variety and nuances".

we have evidence for evolution and no, zero evidence for
god… you don’t have any evidence for god, so how can you
bring in god into a conversation about science? You can’t…
as far as being the simplest explanation for evolution…
it isn’t the simplest… to accept god as an explanation is to
accept all kinds of stuff like heaven and hell and angels
and sin and guilt, the bible, the list goes on and on of things
that must follow if you accept god… I don’t accept the idea of god,
so I don’t have to worry about all that crap that goes with the belief
in god…it is not simple to believe in god… very complicated stuff
and confusing stuff… like the trinity, to give one example…

Kropotkin

Exactly wrong. You have speculation of Evolution and zero evidence for the lack of God.

The truth is that you don’t know one from the other because you haven’t the sense to define either in any meaningful way. And when pressed, you merely invent a strawman to satisfy your habit of hate.