Yeah, but who got published first !
That probably has merit to it.
Literal minded blockheads have been here since the beginning of time. They don’t know beauty or truth and they are dangerous.
Google for “rhipidistian” and you will find the probable ancestor of amphibians, complete with fins containing carpals/tarsals, metacarpals/metatarsals, and phalanges (the hand and foot bones).
As for the mousetrap thing, Theodore Sturgeon is on record as believing in the evolution of the ball-bearing mousetrap.
Much of what else I have to say about evolution and “Scientific Creationism” is in this thread. And the idea that something recorded as history must have happened in precisely the way it’s recorded is a development of modern historiography – most ancients would, for example, think nothing of putting a speech giving forth a man’s opinions as handed down elsewhere into the mouth that man at a given place and time when he was known to have made a speech – but almost certainly not the speech recorded. (Oh, and the “ball-bearing mousetrap” – to hide the answer to that riddle here within a paragraph – is a tomcat.)
I would also add that some people need proof to validate their faith . I don’t know how that can happen, but it does…(if you want extreme examples check out the site in my sig).
Sure, I spent years thinking about it, well, not your post, but the idea of irreducible complexity in the context of Biblical creationism, which I once firmly believed.
I don’t believe in it anymore though; I find said creationism to be a sham, a false teaching perpetuated by those who wilfully warp the truth to their own end.
Can you support the factual basis of the statement “2+2=4” by means other than experiment?
If you can prove, by means other than experiment, that 2+2 is always 4, then it’s a fact.
Otherwise it’s a theory (albeit an utterly sound and convincing one, which , to all intents and purposes may be treated as fact).
I would like to add to Mangetout post by saying that Behe’s ideas really aren’t that new. His book came out in 1996 (I believe) and if you do a search you will find it has been torn to pieces.
My experiences with science left me with the impression that most of what were called laws had exceptions and most of what were named theories don’t.
When an exception was discovered, there was a new theory to replace it. Most of the existing theories are about things that there is no way to perform valid, conclusive tests. Animal husbandry reveals the results of preferential breeding but doesn’t conclusively prove that evolution occurred. ( It sure makes it seem like a good guess. )
In response to this:
It is important to bear in mind the not only this statiscal improbability of this particular and peculiar position we find ourselves in but the immense number of tries the universe has made.
Whatever you think the odds are of all things occurring in the “just so” way that they have here in our unfashionable arm of this spiral galaxy compare them to the number of stars in the universe. The number is astronomical. I believe there are more stars than grains of sand.
Most often, ( I think), things didn’t work out in just such a way as to create life like we have here on earth. Where it didn’t work out that way we are not there to wonder about it.
To be pedantic, it depends on what you mean by “actually wrote about.” Darwin had been writing about natural selection in his notebooks since 1838, when he’d read Malthus and then had the key insight. There’s even the unpublished 1844 essay setting out the theory as a rounded argument. He’d also been talking to the likes of Lyell, Hooker and Gray about his ideas for some years before 1858 - indeed Hooker was reading part of a draft for Natural Selection, the “big book” abandoned after the success of the Origin, for him when Wallace’s crucial letter arrived. He’d even told Wallace that he was working on this major, and time consuming, book on why species differ. (On the other hand, in 1846 Lyell had warned Darwin that Wallace was getting close and so he should get a move on.) Where Wallace undoubtedly was first was in being ready and willing to publish. Even then, there doesn’t ever appear to have been any doubt in the minds of either Lyell, Hooker or even Wallace that the agreement to publish side-by-side was anything other than fair and correct. And Wallace always acknowledged that the Origin itself was then the key presentation of the argument.
Well, that and that he’d the “misfortune” to force Darwin into actually writing the widely read masterpiece that he, Wallace, never wrote.
I don’t know why., but I had too.
In that case I respond that you can’t definitively prove you actually exist. You cannot definitively prove anything exists. Maybe we’re a mad God’s nightmare or we’re stuck in the Matrix or all of you are my personal delusion.
I’m sticking to 2+2=4 is a fact (at least in this universe) and that evolution is a theory. We can split hairs over what constitutes a fact in another thread…hmmm…keep your on on GD for this one.
Just curious FireWitch, what are the half-assed arguements for evolution, and what are the convincing arguements for creation?
If indeed this is really me replying, then I agree.
Whack-a-Mole:
That if you have two apples and someone gives you two others, you now have four apples in your hand, is an observed fact.
That this is explained by an arithmetic system that expresses this as:
either 2+2=4 or 2*2=4,
and that this could be reversed as:
4-2=2 and 4/2 = 2
and that further this 4 can then be expressed also as 3+1 or 1+3 or SQRT(16),
that is a Theory. A pretty damn hard to dispute theory.
s to Evolution, Fact/Theory:
That the fossil record shows that the ecosystems of earth including the living beings they contained have not always been the same they are today, and there is a correlation of particular ecosystems with particular time periods,is an observed fact. That modern living beings are variations on the same designs as the extinct beings, is an observed fact; that various living beings share analogous structures that suggest a common origin, is an observed fact. Thus, that there is evidence that life on earth has changed forms over time i.e. EVOLVED, is an observed fact
That this “somehow” is explained by Natural Selection acting upon mutation and adaptation causing various living things to develop at variance with common ancestors, or go extinct, according to environmental pressures, is the Theory.
Until there’s one that does the job better in every sense w/o discarding the evidence, it’s the virtually proven one. And by definition, a theory in the Natural Sciences MAY NOT appeal to the supernatural.
You know, this is sooooo silly. Read a nice big dictionary. The first definition in mine has a Theory being: “Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, epc. a system of assumptions accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyse, predict or otherwise explain the nature or behaviour of a specificed set of phenomena”. ie, a “theory” is a TESTED & accepted assumption, that has been proven correct under all tested circumstances.
Not until you get to def 3 do we come up with:“an assumption or guess…”.
Nor is the “theory” in “theory of evolution” refering to the fact of evolution itself. It refers to Darwins theory of “survival of the fittest”, where the survivors pass on their genes to their descendants. Now- it is true that this theory only works in 100% of all given tests. Maybe, just maybe, there is another theory that also works in 100% of all tests- and then a test in made where Darvin’s theory fails, and this new theory passes. If so- Darvins theory of HOW evolution happens would be proven false. Not evolution itself.
For instance- God, in person, could well be directing each act of evolution. This is a valid assumption- but one which we cannot test as different from “survival of the fittest”. Thus, since we can’t test it, we are going with Darwin. (And, we also can’t disprove it, either, note). In fact, this theory is along the lines of what most mainstream Christian religions assume- evolution happens, but it is “directed”, and especially the last little bit where us humans get intelligence & a 'soul". This “theory” explains a lot. For instance- who did Adam & Eves sons marry? Well, if we assume that there were many other “human but for a soul” creatures around, which extremely close if not identical DNA- there is your answer. They bred with “almost humans”. Note that there are a few hinky bits- such as the start of life itself- where some “directed evolution” would solve many unanswered questions.
That might sound silly, but in a very general sense agrees with what some anthroplogists think is our difference from the “missing link”- not just an opposable thumb, or a large brain, or tool making & using- but the ability to reason & wonder about theological & philosophical questions. The big “human making” step was from “How do I get my next meal” to “why are we here, and do we continue to exist after death?”.
But even IF Genesis is literally correct- all it says is that God made life, animals & such. Does not mention what mechanism He used. Maybe He did create Life- but if so, it seems He also was smart enough to create a mechansim so that His creation can adpat, change & survive. That’s why mainstream theologists have no problem with Evolution, per se. Only a few nutcases & fringies, some of whom do not seem to think He was bright enough to come up with the idea of Evolution. Odd, that.
In fact, then, even a “literal” reading of the Bible doesn’t contradict the fact of Evolution. Nor does evolution contradict the Bible. So, yes, “Rhino”, dudes can still “take the Bible literally” and accept evolution. Personally, I think the Bible isn’t much more than some pretty good stories & morals, with some “OK for it’s era” history mixed in. Just a book- a great book, sure. Not the inerrant Word of God- if there is a God.
Umm, no. Yes, there is a big difference in “2+2=4” and “The theory of evolution”. “2+2” can be PROVEN in a deductive PROOF. Thus it is, indeed a “fact” of the highest order. Evolution can be proven only inductively- that is, it passes every test, and explains all known circumstances. Both are "facts’, both are “proven”, but a deductive mathematical “proof” is a higher level, and indisputable.
This sidetrack is all my fault; sorry.
I see Whack-a-Mole has proivided another thread wherein the definition of ‘fact’ is to be debated. We really probably ought to get back to the topic in hand (just IMO).
Hmmm. Some how I think a man being made out of dust, and a woman being made out of a rib contradicts evolution.
My big problem with being a Biblical literalist is - which creation story is the real one?
There are, in fact, two entirely seperate creation stories in Genesis - and they are contradictory …
So, which am I supposed to believe in literally? 
[minor quibble]
While this is indeed an example of natural selection, it can hardly be classified as ‘leading to evolution’. Both moths, members of a single species, existed prior to industrial pollution, both existed after. There was no genetic modification as a result of external stimuli. The moths were, and still are. No change has taken place, other than the proportion of light to dark moths. More than any thing else, I would equate this an example of biological supply and demand. I would venture to say that it is precisely this type of evolutionary ‘evidence’ that may lead some to question the underlying theory. [/minor quibble]