All aboard the atheist bus?

Adaptation has been observed, which is "evolution" in the common parlance - but not Evolution - which is short for the Theory of Evolution. Natural selection is the fact observed here - which supports the Theory of Evolution.

 

So, you're suggesting I'm wrong because as you understand the term, I'm using "evolution" incorrectly?

 

It would seem from the article you link to that the smaller-beaked finches were already there and ate the smaller seeds anyway. They came to predominate because the larger-beaked birds had the competition for food.

So there was a change in the composition of the population. Interestingly, the researcher says that this change actually minimizes further evolution! It is similar to the peppered moth 'adaptation' addressed earlier.

I don't think anyone disputes that natural selection takes place, for me the question is whether this results in new species, or a new genus.

 

Species? No.

Genus? Maybe.

But the appearance of new species is only one manifestation of evolution.

 

I am saying that the popular and technical terms arent necessarily the same and that the technical terms have very specific meanings in the philosophy and method of science.

 

This is exactly where you have made your mistake - evolution is a fact, and there is also a theory of evolution which explains its mechanism. Laymen like you shorten "the theory of evolution" to "evolution", thus confusing both themselves and others. I don't know why "evolution" should be short for the theory, as the same is not true for gravity.

Evolution = genetic change + natural selection leading to phenotypic change

This has been obseved many times in our lifetimes - New England mussels, MRSA, etc, etc.

 

I'm not discounting it, I am saying that it seems very, very unlikely indeed because there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea. About as unlikely as Father Christmas being real, for instance.

It might have made sense to believe in gods in ancient times, as the way that the world around us works was not well-understood, and natural phenomena were misinterpreted as godly intervention. They used to believe that the sun went round the earth, too, which was fair enough.

But no-one truly believes in the Greek or Roman gods any more - contemporary accounts of their activities are now referred to as "myths". ISTM that we have one more mythical god to go.

 

Evolution is a theory of a process of many inter-related parts bub. The facts are the constituent parts. Evolution is a conceptual unified framework. I realise you are mentally inflexible but I hope it will eventually sink in. Plus you have misunderstood what I have said regarding an issue of differing contexts, incidentally proving my point which you dont appear to have realised

 

In that respect, you're correct.

But the meaning you cling to seems to be a minority view on what "evolution" means. I can only find one example that shares your definition:

http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-evolution-faq.htm

Oh and funny old thing, the website is actually owned by: http://www.allaboutgod.com/

So the only document I can find, which refuses to acknowledge the fact of evolution has a creationist / intelligent design spin.

Most examples I can find (granted, by googling, but you get a good spread of hits) have "evolution" as a process of biological change, (fact) with a number of mechanisms affecting that change (fact, theories and conjecture).


Strikes me you're using semantics to make a point..........

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/evo_02

I am getting tired of correcting you, Mr biobllox, so this is positively the final time. Evolution has been proved beyond any doubt as fact. DNA sequencing shows all living things on earth are relatives of one another.

You cannot grasp the simplest of concepts and are usually factually wrong. Any more noise generated by you in this thread will be ignored.

It's small wonder that you have to, er, do what it is that you do on social networking sites.

 

Seeker - I don't believe in God. I believe evolution is scientifically supported by the facts - however it is not itself a fact. Theories aren't. That does not undermine it. Theories are based on facts. I am certainly not lending any support or credence to the creationist viewpoint, far from it. Evolution is a theory just as relativity is - creationists use the theory not fact argument to try to divide Darwinism from the rest of science so that it can be weakened.

Bubbalicious - Evolution has not been proved beyond any doubt - that is faith buboe - it is just very very strongly supported by the facts. There is still a finite probability that evolution is incorrect - and a higher probability, possibly a probable one, that the theory of evolution will undergo huge transformations over time. The theory itself may "evolve" until it little resembles the original - something which has already occurred in many instances. There are still gaps in the theory, things which have not currently been completely explained and the issue of the generation of the whole process is not really satisfactorily addressed at all at this time so evolution is still a (great and well supported) theory in ongoing development. If you study the great treatises on the philosophy of science you may start to gain an inkling of how mistaken you are and just how much of our scientific understanding is predicted on the way humans conceptualise the world. The mental gymnastics required however may cause your putty like brain to ooze out of your ears.

 

There is still a finite probability that the theory of gravity is incorrect - and a higher probability, possibly a probable one, that the theory of gravity will undergo huge transformations over time. The theory itself may "evolve" until it little resembles the original - something which has already occurred in many instances. There are still gaps in the theory, things which have not currently been completely explained. If you study the great treatises on the philosophy of science you may start to gain an inkling of how mistaken you are and just how much of our scientific understanding is predicted on the way humans conceptualise the world. The mental gymnastics required however may cause your putty like brain to ooze out of your ears.

However, despite any possible problems with the theory, gravity is a fact.

 

Whatever your motivation, you are using a definition of 'evolution' which is not the majority view.

However, as we are now entering into a pointless debate. I think now be a good time for me to stop.

 

I don't know how those who believe define it but this thread is as near to purgatory as I think you could get!

 

That could open a whole new can of worms, Bob!

Rather than get into a harangue over words and their meanings, the sites that 'the Devil' has pointed me to have shown that scientists tend to have a predetermined determination to exclude any explanation which is not material, even if this is irrational, and not supported by facts. (The 'singularity with no dimensions' falls into this category, based on a mathematical construct based on only one of several paradigms as a starting point.)

Seeing that there is this unwillingness to keep an open mind on the part of many scientists, (and others on this forum), it would seem to me that there will be no conclusion to this discussion.

'The Devil' relies on ridicule rather than discussion (the repeated references to pink animals, Father christmas and various species of spaghetti), while ignoring the fact that his views are not wholly supported by all in the scientific community. (As evidenced in the links he cited, and the quotes I took therefrom.)
'Singularities with no dimensions' fall into the same category as the above references - wholly unsupported by facts or evidence.

The situation is well illustrated by Michael Behe in "Darwins Black Box" in that he likens the situation to the fact of a flattened body lying on the floor of a room, and forensics scientists searching every inch of walls and floor for evidence while ignoring the elephant in the room. (The Black Box referrred to in the title is the cell, the contents of which were a mystery to Darwin. Only more recent discoveries with electron microscopes have revealed the details within it.) Behe is a biochemist and discusses biochemical challenges to Darwinism.

Darwinism itself is not wholly accepted by the scientific community anymore. Punctuated equilibrium, and other theories have been advanced to address the deficiencies of Darwin's ideas.

This quote from a site linked from one the devil cited is of interest in the philosophical debate about the existance of God:

 

Behe is a joke - he isnt qualified to make any sort of judgement and routinely makes a fool of himself His amusing but false comparisons do not constitute science I am afraid. His few technical arguments are totally specious and false and designed to mislead those who accept his statements at face value for the purpose of furthering religious creationist goals and nothing to do with the betterment of science. Not that scientists don't have their faults too - look at bub for instance. His comments on singularities - something he knows nothing about and is just regurgitating - play into the hands of creationists sadly.

Bub - "gravity" is a process which is described by the "theory of gravity" to explain certain observations taken as fact. Say an apple falling towards the earth or the moon orbiting the earth. I have two questions for you bub. What is the colour blue and where would you find a circle? Ponder that a little and perhaps enlightenment will come.

 

Not wholly supported? Has any idea ever been wholly supported by any community? If it was, it would be a bad thing, I would have thought.

Anyway why believe in only one god of creation? Wouldn't two or three be more likely? How about 25 gods? There could have been a committee.

 

Yes, that was exactly my point.

The colour blue is a man made construct for our visual perception of a particular range of EMR.

A circle is found in online discussions where you have been shown to be wrong.

 

A single moment of creation. Not a single moment of Creation.

It doesn't follow that because things are complex they must have been intelligently designed.

2 biochemists and 3 mathematicians in a pub? The odds are obviously long, that doesn't need calculating, but so are the odds of an intelligent designer.

The laws came from the pens of men whose observations led them to propose theories. The purpose they serve is to allow us to predict the outcome of events. Newton's first law, for example, is merely an explanation of how forces act on an object. It is not a law in the sense of some edict handed down by a divine legislature.

3 philisophers down the pub again? My conscience was instilled through socialisation. I'm not sure why but for the sake of playing Devil's advocate, I'll say that it's because I am better served by living within the expected norms of a moral society that living outwith them

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

* Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.

Seems a touch arrogant to suggest that the whole universe was created for a small group of people on a very small planet.Surely a small solar system would have done the trick.With the Earth at it's centre.