Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

[motivez]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Exactly, it's a religion. And since evolution has neatly set itself up as being a theory that can operate under the ABSENCE of evidence, it to is a religion - not science.

Except that there isn't an absence of evidence like there is with a true religion. There is evidence, and it's been posted in the thread.

There are flaws like with every other scientific theory, however, most of these flaws deal with lack of clear fossil records.. but every time something new is discovered, that's one less thing to complain about.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by motivez

Except that there isn't an absence of evidence like there is with a true religion. There is evidence, and it's been posted in the thread.

There are flaws like with every other scientific theory, however, most of these flaws deal with lack of clear fossil records.. but every time something new is discovered, that's one less thing to complain about.

I don't consider 11ty billion fossils and not ONE transition between species being proven, even in the most recorded families of fossils, enough to make evolution as valid as, say, the theory of gravity.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Can you provide me with how, using the scientific method, evolution has been tested and proven, or even supported with evidence that isn't the exception to the rule?

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...vo_science.htm

Originally Posted by 3rdgradeinfo

What is Evolution?

Is Evolution Scientific?
Exploring: Evolution vs. Creationism > What is Evolution?



This question isn't as simple as it sounds, but the short answer is yes, evolution is science. Evolution meets the criteria generally accepted by scientists as defining science, and the vast majority of scientists accept evolution as science.

Let's first list the basic criteria necessary for a theory to qualify as scientific:

• Consistent (internally and externally)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
• Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
• Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
• Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
• Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Is evolution consistent?
Yes, evolution is internally consistent. While there are holes and disagreements as to how evolution occurred and there are some gaps in the evidence for evolution, the idea of common descent is still overwhelmingly supported by the evidence and the basic understanding of how changes take place in living organisms. Evolution is also externally consistent because, contrary to the claims of some, it does not contradict solid findings in any of the other physical sciences.

Is evolution parsimonious?
Yes, evolution it is completely naturalistic and does not add unnecessary concepts. Evolution as simply the genetic changes over time does not rely upon any entities or concepts which do not otherwise exist in science. Evolution as common descent also does not require us to imagine anything new or unusual to add to the universe. So far, the theory of evolution is the simplest and most reliable explanation of the current diversity of life on our planet.

Is evolution useful?
Yes, the theory evolution is very useful. It is the unifying principle of the life sciences, which includes medicine - this means that much of what is done in the medical sciences could not occur without the background premise of evolution. Evolutionary theory also suggests lots of problems for scientists to work on and it provides an overall paradigm for solving current problems within the life sciences.

Can the theory of evolution be tested?
Evolution, when addressing common descent, is largely a historical science. This means that it relates to actions that are supposed to have happened in the distant past, and this makes testing the theory complicated because, unless time travel is invented, we cannot directly test the theory.

However, this does not mean that the theory is not testable at all. As with other historical investigations, you can make predictions and retrodictions (to utilize present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event or state of affairs - e.g., to "retrodict past eclipses" as opposed to predicting future eclipses) based on the theory.

What this means is that we can state that we would expect to find certain things (say, certain types of fossils) when looking at the historical record, and if those things are found, it supports the theory. Thus, while we cannot perform the kind of direct tests like we can in physics and chemistry, the general theory of evolution is testable just as other historical theories are testable.

Can the theory of evolution be falsified?
Falsification of evolution as common descent would be complicated because of the vast amount of supporting evidence for it. The idea of common descent does not rest on one simple idea or single piece of evidence, so to falsify it would require some very significant findings rather than a single bit of anomalous data.

For instance, while finding one fossil in rocks that are much older than would be expected (say, a primate in Precambrian rock) would be improbable, it would be a stretch to say it would falsify evolution. Realistically, one anomaly against all the evidence would be a hard sell, and to be honest, while it would certainly raise issues (and creationists would have a field day), it would probably be chalked up to unknown error.

On the other hand, if a general pattern of finding fossils in rocks reliably dated to much different ages than expected was seen, that would deal a serious blow to the idea of common descent. One possible example of this might be if primate or mammal fossils started consistently turning up in Precambrian rocks - in such a situation, evolution would be in trouble.

What is important to understand here is that evolution rests upon a general and widespread pattern of evidence from a number of different fields. Because of that, a similarly general pattern of contradictory evidence would be required to falsify evolution. Isolated anomalies might at most force a modification of evolutionary theory, but they wouldn't cause it to be dismissed.

Another possible manner in which evolution might be falsified is if our understanding of physics and chemistry changed such that the laws and tests used for determining the age of the earth were found to be incorrect, and new tests showed that the earth was quite young, perhaps on the order of several thousand years. In such an event, the principle of common descent which is the basis of evolutionary theory would be dealt a fatal blow. There are also other any number of other ways in which evolution could be falsified, so there are ways in which the idea of common descent could be invalidated.

Is evolutionary theory correctable and dynamic?
Yes, evolution is dynamic and it is also correctable because it is based solely on the evidence. If the evidence changes so will the theory - as a matter of fact, subtle changes to aspects of evolutionary theory can be observed by anyone who regularly reads biology journals and pays attention to the scientific debates.

Is evolutionary theory progressive?
The idea that a scientific theory should be "progressive" means that a new scientific theory should build on the scientific theories that came before it. In other words, a new theory must explain what previous theories explained at least as well as they while providing a new understanding for additional material - something which evolution certainly does.

Another way to understand how scientific theories need to be progressive is that they can be shown to be superior to competing theories. Thus, it should be possible to compare several explanations for the same phenomena and find that one does a much better job than the others. Some creationists try to argue that evolution is a "religion" because scientists never consider any possible alternatives, but this is certainly untrue. Figure 1 graphically shows what the basic ideas about origins of life look like.

Competing Theories

Figure 1. The vertical direction is time and the horizontal is change of characteristics of life forms. (a) Common descent; (b) Transformationism. Note that species can change significantly but that they have independent starting points. No common ancestry.; (c), (d) and (e) Creationism. (d) and (e) are creationist explanations for extinctions and/or appearance of new species over time such as are shown in the fossil record. Note that while the creationist paradigms are drawn as straight lines some minor variation might be allowed (i.e. within "kinds".)

A major "competitor" for Darwinian evolution was a theory by Jean-Baptist Lamark published in his Philosophie Zoologique (1809). This theory is usually called transformationism. Transformationism proposes that species originated independently (not via common ancestry) but can and have changed significantly since their creation. Lamark's mechanism of evolution is frequently referred to as Lamarkism and has since been discredited, in large part because it is simply not supported by the data.

The general theory of evolution does quite well at meeting the criteria for scientific theories. How about the scientific method: was the idea of common descent arrived at scientifically? Yes - the idea was arrived at by examining nature. Looking at existing species, examining their characteristics and commonalities, and considering how they arose led to the idea of common descent. What's more, that idea is and has been tested repeatedly. So, the general theory was arrived at using the scientific method.

The general theory of evolution was arrived at using the scientific method and it meets the criteria for scientific theories. Yes, evolution is science and it is scientific.

[Kytro]

Transitional Forms:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd..._intermediates

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

So to blindly accept "God" as the answer to the not answered is the better way than to look at the evidence that points to something else?

Pretty much.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Can you provide me with how, using the scientific method, evolution has been tested and proven, or even supported with evidence that isn't the exception to the rule?

"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

the other thing to note is that 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of mutations are fatal to the organism. i have yet to learn of ANY mutation that benefits any organism, but it single-cellular or multi-cellular organism. for any organism to suddenly obtain a mutation (beyond genetic, but even physical) that is beneficial is almost sci-fi.

You have never seen any mutation that is not fatal?

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

You have never seen any mutation that is not fatal?

Never seen one that resulted in an advantage, that's for sure.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

You have GOT to be kidding me. Insects developing a RESISTANCE to pesticides due to having their genetic pool bottlenecked is NOT evolution. Evolution involves ADDING genetic diversity through mutations, not ELIMINATING diversity.

My God, how could anyone in their right mind equate genetic bottlenecking with evolution? By that logic what Hitler was doing to the jews was "evolution" of the human race.

Fucking ridiculous.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Pretty much.

Exactly! It takes an act of faith to accept God without any evidence. It also takes an act of faith to accept evolution at face value.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Transitional Forms:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd..._intermediates

Linky no work

[WickedLou9]

http://www.newscientisttech.com/arti...dId=life_rss20

WHEN the going gets tough, the tough evolve. A species of Darwin's finch in the Galapagos has evolved a smaller beak to avoid competing with a larger-billed recent immigrant, possibly the clearest demonstration to date of competition driving evolution of a specific trait.

Peter and Rosemary Grant, evolutionary biologists at Princeton University, have been studying Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands since the early 1970s. Until recently one small island, Daphne Major, was occupied only by a medium-sized species of ground finch, Geospiza fortis. During a drought in 1977, when the seeds they normally ate became scarce, the birds evolved larger beaks that enabled them to crack the larger, tougher seeds that remained.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Exactly! It takes an act of faith to accept God without any evidence. It also takes an act of faith to accept evolution at face value.

BY all means do not accept evolution at face value. THere is mountains of information and research you can read on the subject

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

http://www.newscientisttech.com/arti...dId=life_rss20

Evolution? Or genetic bottlenecking? I seriously doubt a bunch of short beaked birds suddenly started being produced out of nowhere, or even that they all came from a single bird that mutated (we all saw how well inbreeding worked in leapords now didn't we?).

If everyone with red hair suddenly gained a genetic advantage that helped with either survival or mating, it wouldn't be a genetic evolution. It would be a genetic bottleneck, resulting in an increased percentage of occurance in an EXISTING trait.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

You have GOT to be kidding me. Insects developing a RESISTANCE to pesticides due to having their genetic pool bottlenecked is NOT evolution. Evolution involves ADDING genetic diversity through mutations, not ELIMINATING diversity.

My God, how could anyone in their right mind equate genetic bottlenecking with evolution? By that logic what Hitler was doing to the jews was "evolution" of the human race.

Fucking ridiculous.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Evolution? Or genetic bottlenecking? I seriously doubt a bunch of short beaked birds suddenly started being produced out of nowhere, or even that they all came from a single bird that mutated (we all saw how well inbreeding worked in leapords now didn't we?).

If everyone with red hair suddenly gained a genetic advantage that helped with either survival or mating, it wouldn't be a genetic evolution. It would be a genetic bottleneck, resulting in an increased percentage of occurance in an EXISTING trait.

That is a part of evolution.

Imagine there are a bunch of lemmings. Some of these lemmings naturally have thicker hair due to a genetic anomoly from one of their ancestors. Now a nasty winter comes and only the lemmings with the thicker hair survive. That is one aspect of evolution at work. Now those Lemmings may not always have that thick hair. They can have another genetic anomoly that will make them lose it or over a long period of time the gene that makes it can be diffused out depending on how dominate the trait is.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Evolution? Or genetic bottlenecking? I seriously doubt a bunch of short beaked birds suddenly started being produced out of nowhere, or even that they all came from a single bird that mutated (we all saw how well inbreeding worked in leapords now didn't we?).

If everyone with red hair suddenly gained a genetic advantage that helped with either survival or mating, it wouldn't be a genetic evolution. It would be a genetic bottleneck, resulting in an increased percentage of occurance in an EXISTING trait.

I think you should probably due some additional reading on evolution. you are arguing something that you don't really fully understand.

[TekDragon]

If genetic bottlenecking (which is a logical and proven occurance) is handily included under the generic umbrella of "evolution", then so be it. When I took genetics we were taught bottlenecking as an entire seperate occurance.

However, if it's been included under the evolution category, fine.

Genetic bottlenecking, however, deals with traits that ALREADY EXIST in the species, while those members of the species without that trait die off due to an external occurance. That does NOT, at ALL, explain the theory of a species turning into another species through evolution through the ADDITION or CHANGE of genetic makeup within a member of the species.