Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please excuse the questions, but is evolution really science? I thought it was a theory. It's neither testable nor reproducible nor observable. Thought you needed those things to validate a scientific theory.

It is testable and reproducible -- scientists have done many studies or smaller organism, such as bacteria and fruit flies, that show how mutations at the individual level over time lead to larger changes at the community level.

It is also observable, through the fossil record.

Do those bacteria and fruit fly studies show a mutation to a new species, or just a change in the community? I'm sure traits within a community change, but that's not the same thing as a species change. I'm not sure how fossils can show a change from one species to another. I'd be happy to be enlightened.

Why don't you ask God to tell you.

He already told us. The Bible says he created everything. But that you won't believe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's observed and tested every time a scientist makes a new discovery of a fossil, a species, or maps out a genome. They either prove or disprove the theory. Hypothetically, if a human fossil is discovered right to a dinosaur fossil, that is an observation related to evolution, it is a test of what we know about evolution, and it is repeatable every time we find a similar discovery in any of the various lines of evidence. In this hypothetical case, with a human and dinosaur fossil found together, it would disprove what we know about evolution. But so far it hasn't happened.

If you want to look at one recent study of "predicting evolution" or something, Google an study called "predicting evolution with generalized models of divergent selection: a case study with poeciliid fish" by R. Brian Langerhans. It's available for free on icb.oxfordjournals.org maybe that's more what you are looking for.

Funny how finding a human and a dinosaur together would disprove evolution. There are millions of different species with varying degrees of complexity all over the world. If you believe evolution is "science," do you believe this is the final state of things? If so, haven't you just contradicted yourself? And if you don't believe we're in the final state of things (which I assume you don't), why would the current millions of species not disprove evolution, but a dinosaur and a human found together disprove it. Does the fossil record have just one species around at a time? I think the fossil record shows incredible diversity no matter when you look at it. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Maybe rephrase? I was giving a simplistic example of something that would throw a hink into what we know today. The fossil record does time and geo stamp when certain species existed. If something were found that contradicted what we know of what existed when, we'd have to gather more data and rethink the hypothesis. Science does that all the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please excuse the questions, but is evolution really science? I thought it was a theory. It's neither testable nor reproducible nor observable. Thought you needed those things to validate a scientific theory.

It is testable and reproducible -- scientists have done many studies or smaller organism, such as bacteria and fruit flies, that show how mutations at the individual level over time lead to larger changes at the community level.

It is also observable, through the fossil record.

Do those bacteria and fruit fly studies show a mutation to a new species, or just a change in the community? I'm sure traits within a community change, but that's not the same thing as a species change. I'm not sure how fossils can show a change from one species to another. I'd be happy to be enlightened.

Why don't you ask God to tell you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you are looking for is impossible. Science can never disprove faith, and faith can never disprove science. Evolution is a scientific theory with all the flaws and issues that any scientific theory has. But scientists will never throw up their hands and say "oh well, my theory was disproven, I guess an unknowable and all seeing god created life." Instead they will come up with a new hypothesis. That is the scientific method. But that same scientist may go to church on Sunday and worship his "creator." That is religion. Science and religion are two separate things. Judge science by scientific standards and religion by religious standards. Don't try to compare them to each other.

Actually OP hasn't brought religion into this much. Which is why it's odd she's posting in the religion forum and won't give her views and reasons for asking these questions (not that she's required to, really, it just seems...trollish).

Actually, OP hasn't commented at all on this topic, other than OP and this post. This is the first I've been able to get back to it and I'm so overwhelmed with all the intelligent comments, now I'm not even sure what I want to know or why.

Well, I do know why - and the reason it's on the religion board - my church has started a series on Intelligent Design. The video series, over the next 12 weeks, will explain why it should be taught in school. The first segment explained and touched on:
Evolution isn't true science as it cannot be recreated - (what a prior poster, who some assumed to be OP, explained so much better than I can).
It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe a bigger being caused it.
Species don't just turn in to another species. Where are the transitional fossils?
Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo pictures
Cambrian Explosion and Darwin's Dilemma

I came home to google all these topics (that sound very convincing while I'm watching the video or listening to the speaker), but most of the "backup" that shows these as valid arguments in favor of Intelligent Design come from religious websites. I don't want to read a religious website, nor do I want to be insulted by a bunch of smarty-pants scientists dismissing creationism as something only idiots and American Taliban would believe. I was hoping there's some place that's not tainted or swayed by either side and just goes back and forth against each argument. There's a lot to digest in this thread already, so hopefully something here can get me started. Thanks to all the helpful posters!

OP,

If someone is pushing Intelligent Design at you, then the most neutral treatment of that topic was probably in the Dover School Board case. The arguments for Intelligent Design were evaluated by a federal judge appointed by a Republican president. The NOVA special I linked to earlier covers the case and both sides' arguments.

smarty-pants scientists = people who actually know stuff

Anonymous wrote:The existence of time, order, math and physical laws are undeniable proof of intelligent design.

Indeed, none of these things are explainable by evolution. But none of these are considered part of "evolution" in the normal usage of this word. Evolution has to do with the origin of species and things like that. I assumed the OP wanted intelligent design as it related to things usually explained by "evolution" in the normal meaning of the word.

Anonymous wrote:The existence of time, order, math and physical laws are undeniable proof of intelligent design.

Because...?

Anonymous wrote:The existence of time, order, math and physical laws are undeniable proof of intelligent design.

indeed none of these things are explainable by evolution. But as a completement to evolution, intelligent design is currently not needed by the data. It can be explained by evolution alone.

The existence of time, order, math and physical laws are undeniable proof of intelligent design.

Natural selection is a creation

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you are looking for is impossible. Science can never disprove faith, and faith can never disprove science. Evolution is a scientific theory with all the flaws and issues that any scientific theory has. But scientists will never throw up their hands and say "oh well, my theory was disproven, I guess an unknowable and all seeing god created life." Instead they will come up with a new hypothesis. That is the scientific method. But that same scientist may go to church on Sunday and worship his "creator." That is religion. Science and religion are two separate things. Judge science by scientific standards and religion by religious standards. Don't try to compare them to each other.

Actually OP hasn't brought religion into this much. Which is why it's odd she's posting in the religion forum and won't give her views and reasons for asking these questions (not that she's required to, really, it just seems...trollish).

Actually, OP hasn't commented at all on this topic, other than OP and this post. This is the first I've been able to get back to it and I'm so overwhelmed with all the intelligent comments, now I'm not even sure what I want to know or why.

Well, I do know why - and the reason it's on the religion board - my church has started a series on Intelligent Design. The video series, over the next 12 weeks, will explain why it should be taught in school. The first segment explained and touched on:
Evolution isn't true science as it cannot be recreated - (what a prior poster, who some assumed to be OP, explained so much better than I can).
It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe a bigger being caused it.
Species don't just turn in to another species. Where are the transitional fossils?
Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo pictures
Cambrian Explosion and Darwin's Dilemma

I came home to google all these topics (that sound very convincing while I'm watching the video or listening to the speaker), but most of the "backup" that shows these as valid arguments in favor of Intelligent Design come from religious websites. I don't want to read a religious website, nor do I want to be insulted by a bunch of smarty-pants scientists dismissing creationism as something only idiots and American Taliban would believe. I was hoping there's some place that's not tainted or swayed by either side and just goes back and forth against each argument. There's a lot to digest in this thread already, so hopefully something here can get me started. Thanks to all the helpful posters!

You will only find religious web sites arguing for intelligent design. Even the roman catholic church does not believe in it. The smarty-pants scientists and the regular nice scientists all do not believe there is any actual evidence for intelligent design, although it it not ruled out. All the data we have is explanable by evolution, right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you are looking for is impossible. Science can never disprove faith, and faith can never disprove science. Evolution is a scientific theory with all the flaws and issues that any scientific theory has. But scientists will never throw up their hands and say "oh well, my theory was disproven, I guess an unknowable and all seeing god created life." Instead they will come up with a new hypothesis. That is the scientific method. But that same scientist may go to church on Sunday and worship his "creator." That is religion. Science and religion are two separate things. Judge science by scientific standards and religion by religious standards. Don't try to compare them to each other.

Actually OP hasn't brought religion into this much. Which is why it's odd she's posting in the religion forum and won't give her views and reasons for asking these questions (not that she's required to, really, it just seems...trollish).

Actually, OP hasn't commented at all on this topic, other than OP and this post. This is the first I've been able to get back to it and I'm so overwhelmed with all the intelligent comments, now I'm not even sure what I want to know or why.

Well, I do know why - and the reason it's on the religion board - my church has started a series on Intelligent Design. The video series, over the next 12 weeks, will explain why it should be taught in school. The first segment explained and touched on:
Evolution isn't true science as it cannot be recreated - (what a prior poster, who some assumed to be OP, explained so much better than I can).
It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe a bigger being caused it.
Species don't just turn in to another species. Where are the transitional fossils?
Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo pictures
Cambrian Explosion and Darwin's Dilemma

I came home to google all these topics (that sound very convincing while I'm watching the video or listening to the speaker), but most of the "backup" that shows these as valid arguments in favor of Intelligent Design come from religious websites. I don't want to read a religious website, nor do I want to be insulted by a bunch of smarty-pants scientists dismissing creationism as something only idiots and American Taliban would believe. I was hoping there's some place that's not tainted or swayed by either side and just goes back and forth against each argument. There's a lot to digest in this thread already, so hopefully something here can get me started. Thanks to all the helpful posters!

Well, you've received many thoughtful and thorough responses from PPs defining scientific theories, method and replicability. You are asking the impossible - using facts to weigh against bunk. All the topics on intelligent design your church is sponsoring are truly laughable. They can't even be defended using the immediate PP's generous metric:

But that same scientist may go to church on Sunday and worship his "creator." That is religion. Science and religion are two separate things. Judge science by scientific standards and religion by religious standards. Don't try to compare them to each other

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you are looking for is impossible. Science can never disprove faith, and faith can never disprove science. Evolution is a scientific theory with all the flaws and issues that any scientific theory has. But scientists will never throw up their hands and say "oh well, my theory was disproven, I guess an unknowable and all seeing god created life." Instead they will come up with a new hypothesis. That is the scientific method. But that same scientist may go to church on Sunday and worship his "creator." That is religion. Science and religion are two separate things. Judge science by scientific standards and religion by religious standards. Don't try to compare them to each other.

Actually OP hasn't brought religion into this much. Which is why it's odd she's posting in the religion forum and won't give her views and reasons for asking these questions (not that she's required to, really, it just seems...trollish).

Actually, OP hasn't commented at all on this topic, other than OP and this post. This is the first I've been able to get back to it and I'm so overwhelmed with all the intelligent comments, now I'm not even sure what I want to know or why.

Well, I do know why - and the reason it's on the religion board - my church has started a series on Intelligent Design. The video series, over the next 12 weeks, will explain why it should be taught in school. The first segment explained and touched on:
Evolution isn't true science as it cannot be recreated - (what a prior poster, who some assumed to be OP, explained so much better than I can).
It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe a bigger being caused it.
Species don't just turn in to another species. Where are the transitional fossils?
Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo pictures
Cambrian Explosion and Darwin's Dilemma

I came home to google all these topics (that sound very convincing while I'm watching the video or listening to the speaker), but most of the "backup" that shows these as valid arguments in favor of Intelligent Design come from religious websites. I don't want to read a religious website, nor do I want to be insulted by a bunch of smarty-pants scientists dismissing creationism as something only idiots and American Taliban would believe. I was hoping there's some place that's not tainted or swayed by either side and just goes back and forth against each argument. There's a lot to digest in this thread already, so hopefully something here can get me started. Thanks to all the helpful posters!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, evolution is not the study of all life coming from a single-called organism. If you are truly interested in this, and not just trolling, start here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Chromosome_2_in_humans.

Then read some of the reference articles linked at the end (the one about speciation w/in drosophila is a good one). These can explain it much better than anyone on DCUM, and in truth, it's a very complex theory that not everyone understands/can grasp. If you are waiting for someone to come along and agree with you that you can't reproduce the lineage/all the steps that went into getting to a dog, well, let me be that person. But I think you are being somewhat disingenuous (or perhaps just one of those people who has trouble grasping complex theories-it does seem that way from your replies attempting to reduce evolution down to 1 single repeatable experiment) to conclude that just because we can't actually observe species changing over millions of years makes it false.

If I were to ask where the hard proof is that God created every single specie on earth, what would be your answer? Or if I asked why he's not creating a new Earth every generation or so for us to observe him repeating his past deed...how can you explain/prove that?

Thank you. I admit I'm not a biological scientist, and I doubt many on here are. So the point is that lots of different organisms occurred spontaneously, and from those different species evolved independently? I think either way, my point hasn't been addressed. I'm not saying, nor have I said, that not being able to reproduce it makes it false. I'm saying I don't see how it is "science" if you can't test it in the way you test other sciences. I'm not saying you have hard proof that God created everything either, and whether I believe that or not, we haven't addressed how evolution is "science." It's theory, in the same way the Big Bang is a theory. There are a lot of "somehow" involved, none of which you can test. My questions have nothing to do with science vs. religion. You can prove if I throw a ball in the air, it will come down, and you can explain scientifically why. You can't prove that 13 billion years ago an infinitesimal point of light that contained all the matter in the universe and exploded into what we have today, and you can't explain scientifically that's what happened. And you can't prove that all life on earth today came from however many life forms that spontaneously arose from the beginnings of the planet, and you can't explain scientifically that's what happened. Indeed, there ARE repeatable, provable, testable experiments that you can't get matter from nothing and that life won't spontaneously erupt and that when a species reproduces it gets more of that species. So I'm just don't know why so many people call evolution and the Big Bang "science." (Sorry to introduce the Big Bang; I'm not trying muddy the waters or expand this into a religious thing. They just seem very alike to me as theories).

It seems like you're looking at everything in isolation. The thing about science is that everything is related. Biology involves chemistry and physics, so any hypothesis proposed in biology must not only be consistent with the rest of the general understanding of biology, it must be consistent with chemistry and physics, as well. The "bigger" your hypothesis (i.e., the more it challenges the current understanding), the more things it has to explain.

When we use the Theory of Evolution to make predictions, those predictions must be consistent with our understandings of biology, chemistry, physics, geology and other disciplines, as well.

Going to your example of the Big Bang, you're right, no one was there to watch it happen, so we can't say with absolute certainty exactly what happened at that instant. But you have to look at things beyond that. There are two major possibilities (1) the static Universe (it's always been here and isn't changing) and (2) the expanding Universe. We've confirmed through observation that the Universe is expanding uniformly in all directions as far as we can tell. So, any hypothesis about the origin of the Universe has to account for those observations. If the Universe was static at some point, what could've caused it to suddenly start expanding? We have nothing that could explain such a major change in the nature of the Universe. On the other hand, if we rewind the tape from the current expansion, that implies that it all started from a point and has been moving outwards from that.

So, what we can do is say, "Ok, if there WERE a Big Bang, what evidence might we see now that it happened?" One of the predictions coming out of that questions was a concept called the 3-degree background. Basically, if the whole Universe start as a point explosion of energy, then we should be able to "see" heat remaining from that explosion even though the Universe has been cooling down for billions of years, and it should be the same in every direction we look because the whole Universe expanded from that single explosion. The 3-degree background was observed in 1964.

The Big Bang explanation is consistent with all of the evidence that we've observed so far, and is consistent with other scientific disciplines. We still don't know what triggered it (although there are hypotheses), and we don't know if it was a unique event or if there are other universes out there in a meta-space (there are actually experiments going to attempt to detect them).

Going back to the Theory of Evolution, it's the best, most successful model we have to explain how things happened. No scientist will claim that a theory represents a proof in the mathematical sense. It's the best explanation we have that fits all of the evidence we've collected so far. If new evidence is found that contradicts the explanation provided by the theory, then the theory must be revised to account for the new evidence.

The Theory of Evolution is consistent with the fossil record, the geological record, our understandings of DNA and genetics, chemistry and physics. If it were completely wrong, much of the science we use on an everyday basis would have to be wrong in some major way. As I noted in my post about predictions, there have been many predictions where people have said either "If we don't find [x], that will be a problem for the theory," or "If we find [y], that would be a major problem for the theory." The Theory of Evolution has withstood all of those potential falsification factors.

Of course there are no "unbiased" sites that compare creationism and evolution, because they are not comparable. Any site that tried to compare them would be biased by definition.