LOL MY PENIS IS HUGE
Fact or theory?
Evolution is theoretical science.
evolution basically means that species can change over time. this isn't just theoretical and can be observed in modern day. that is how Dog is one species yet there are so many variations to it. breeders can breed dogs to develop desirable traits, like being taller. this is artificial selection which is evolution.
Pretend I only said "wrong" once.
well yes evolution is a process that takes place over a very long period of time, but it is backed up by the fossil record, DNA testing, etc. isn't that evidence? if you "believe" in evolution why did you disagree with the post? and theists do not ruin everything by saying it is "magic." magic has nothing to do with religion. christianity is also backed up by a lot of evidence. i am a christian and can accept that while Ggod created the world and life, evolution is a science that explains a lot.
I disagreed with the post because not believing in evolution is not the same as not believing in biology, at all. and just because people don't use the word magic, that doesn't mean that that isn't what they're claiming it to be.
It ISNT what they are claiming it to be. and evolution is a branch of science. biology is a branch of science. so yes it is very similar. the point is people just think "evolution? oh that means we evolved from apes. that's dumb i don't believe in that," when really it is a science that involves so much more and explains a lot. you can't just decide you don't believe in it, especially when you are misinformed
evolution isnt a science like biology?
Evolution is a theory
evolution is a SCEINTIFIC theory. which is tottaly different from the deffinition of a regular theory. and because its a theory, its not studied and had research put into it like biology>?
Evolution is studied as part of many fields. You study evolution in biology. You study it in astronomy. You study it in oceanography. It can be a field of it's own, but for the most part unless you decide to go down that track, evolution is not a general science course. And there in lies the difference
So is the Theory of Gravity. So is Cell Theory.
So is the theory that the earth is flat. So is the theory the earth is the center of the universe. What's your point?
Evidence suggesting evolution can be observed, but not evolution itself, and if I didn't believe in evolution (which I do, don't worry) you couldn't say I was wrong wrong to argue that God or whatever, just made it like that, because there is no definite evidence for either arguments. Because theists ruin every logical argument by saying it's probably just magic.
Even though I believe in it, it still is a theory and not a fact
Even though it's a not a "fact," evolution being a "theory" does not take away from the evidence that supports it and does not make it any less true than, say, theory of gravity, maybe?
I know you said you believe in it, but people throw around the word "theory" like a high school student came up with a hypothesis on his 9th grade bio test, not like many established researchers have tested and supported it.
@1093660 (ender): No matter what you say about it, it's still a theory and not a fact. Yes it is a SCIENTIFIC theory, but it isn't a SCIENTIFIC fact. Just like the big bag theory is just a theory, they're both well supported theories but not facts
I'm not disputing the fact (probably wrong word to use) that it is a THEORY. But so is the theory of gravity. And the big bang theory. And cell theory, and atomic theory, and plate tectonics.
No one should go around saying "Evolution is fact," because it's not fact. But it's a different type of theory than, say, the theory that 9/11 was planned by the US government as an excuse to invade Afghanistan.
As a comment below mine stated, "Evolution is a theory. End of story." No, it's not the end of the story. Theory doesn't make it more ambiguous or more wrong.
I agree with that, evolution, gravity, big bang etc. are well thought and supported theories, yet still theories. I'm just pointing out that they're still theories and not facts like many people think.
i really hate the "its just a theory" thing. its a SCIENTIFIC theory. google. it. there IS a difference.
Other "scientific" theories have been proven wrong despite previous evidence.
you mean like gravity?
Scientific theory means that it is either true or not, it is NOT an extreme. Just because some are wrong doesn't mean they all are.
I believe in adaption, but not evolution. There is a difference.
natural selection is the driving force of evolution. i bet youre one of the people who think evoltion means turning into a different species.
Change does happen, and you could call that change evolution if you want to, but I'm pretty sure this post is referring to the theory of Evolution, which is a totally different thing. I don't know anyone who denies change, but evolution through positive mutations from goo to you is just speculations (historical science), and not something that could be observed (operational science).
Yup change and adaptation are completely different from evolution. Animals and humans ADAPT and THAT is observable.
so you belive in natural selection
but not evolution
3rd P first sentence
Natural selection doesn't add new genetic information. It's necessary for evolution, but it's not proof for evolution.
changing the way you look and function doesnt change your genetic make up? pretttyyyyy sure it does.
No, it's the other way around: changing your genetic information changes the way you look and function. But the genetic information can be changed in many different ways. Genetic variety is arranging the existing information differently, while evolution needs new information. For example, a fish can have a variety of eyes, fins and gills, because the existing genetic information can be arranged differently, but it needs to get lots of new information before it can grow legs and lungs.
Evolution didnt happen over night you know, its very possible that your "evolution" is just natural selection over a long period of time.
No. Genetic diversity does not add new genetic information. Genetic diversity over a long period of time is still just genetic diversity ... no new information is added.
so youre saying it takes more genetic difference for my to grow a shell on my back than it would for me to grow a longer nose. change is change.
Natural selection and adaptation are not things you "believe" in. They're facts. It's something that can be observed. However Macro-evolution, is different from that. It's not something that has been observed or can be observed now. So you can't put it under the same classification. You can't mix a theory and a fact and say if you believe the fact then you believe the theory... you can do vice versa, but you can't do what I just said.
Everyone: Don't say "Evolution is just a theory", instead you should say "Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically". The problem with using the word theory in this case is that scientists usually use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data ...
no, OP, you're comparing apples and oranges. Evolution is a theory and a particular topic studied by biologists. It's not it's own broad field of science, it's a part of bio...
so its a part of bio, but its wrong to say its a science that can be studies like bio because they were uneducated that it was bio.... but it would have been tottaly ok if they compared it to a different part of science
I don't believe in macroevolution, but I do believe in micro.
Will everyone please Google scientific theory. It is not at all the same as what a lot of people think a theory is and then everyone could talk about this subject with the same definition of theory in mind and things would be so much clearer.
And for those of you to lazy to google it and get the complete deffinition a scientific theory is the best explanation for a question that has been tested and proven to be true by scientist all over the world.
What does that have to do with anything? It's still not a law. That's like saying, "Apples and oranges are different." When the main argument is apples and oranges are fruits. Evolution is STILL JUST A THEORY. A scientific theory, but a theory nonetheless. IT ISN'T A LAW and IT'S NOT 100%.
He's famous so his quotes have merit in an argument? Good luck with life.
Ha, good point!
@1094521 (donpatch): Guess what else was a "scientific theory"? That the earth was flat and that earth was the center of the universe. People like you argued the SAME THING for thousands of years. "Oh you're such an IDIOT, you think the world isn't FLAT? BAHAHA, oh oh and I bet you think it's also NOT the center of the universe. It's not JUST A THEORY. It's a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. C'mon, buddy face reality. The world is flat and it's the center of the universe."
To have a belief in something is one thing, but to be absolutely ignorant of any outside ideas is ridiculous.
Yeah, hey guys. You really have to ask yourself: Is science concrete enough for us to say it is 100% applicable to every situation? Sure, light goes at speed x. Light goes at speed x every single time, right? But can we prove, that in a universe far away that light will still be going at speed x? We can't be this ignorant in this sense. Science is indeed theory.
LOL. Still waiting for your kind to tell me how Matter and Energy came into being from NOTHING. Or how LIFE evolved form NOTHING. I just finished reading your post... Evolution a Science???? I just split my spleen.
Evolution is not a fact. It is just a highly probable theory which I, personally, believe in.
so you voted no way because...? its NOT a branch of science like biology or wut. -.-
like i said, it's not a scientific fact it's a theory. what are you trying to say?
its not a regular theory its a scientific one. you said you beleived in it, so the only thing i can think of why you voted no way is you dont think its studied as a science like biology
well it isn't...evolution is a topic studied in biology, not it's own science.
so it IS like biology as its studied as a part of biology
actually, it's a THEORY. a theory is yet to be proven true. So, guess who's an idiot?
Gravity is also a theory
Your face is a theory
Gravity is just a theory. It's never been proven.
Sure, it's pretty widely accepted as a fact that gravity exists, but all it takes is one floating object to disprove the theory entirely.
Scientists aren't giving evolution, gravity, or many other things as 100% fact. They're theories. And evolution is just another theory.
A scientific theory. But that doesn't make it any more correct. Just with a slightly better foundation than it would have otherwise.
There's a lot more proof for gravity than evolution, just sayin'. Theory doesn't mean that they have equal chances of being true or not.
I know. XD It just pisses me off when people try and dispute the "evolution is a theory" argument with "gravity is a theory, too".
Exactly. Look up a bit, some flamer says that because I said some theories are proven wrong that gravity is wrong.
I said evolution is fact. The theory of evolution is different. The theory says we came from apes. The fact is that we have changed as a species.
i really hate the "its just a theory" thing. its a SCIENTIFIC theory. google. it. there IS a difference.
so guess whos an idiot
Everyone seems to hear evolution and think that its the change from one organism to another (apes to humans) when there are actually two types of evolution: microevolution and macroevolution. Macro is the idea that humans and all other life forms evolved from the same single celled organism. Microevolution is the idea that over time variation develops withing a species (breeds of dogs, Darwinian finches, etc.) Microevolution can and has been proven but macroevolution has not been proven and is nearly impossible to prove
He quit amirite quite a while back.
OKAY PEOPLE. FOR THE LAST TIME, A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A THEORY IN ANY OTHER FIELD OF KNOWLEDGE!
Anyways, the parts of the theory of evolution that are observable have been observed by naturalists and other scientists. For example, the ideas of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
Scientific theory is still theory, adding a single word before it does not make it that much more likely. Spontaneous generation was once a widely accepted theory that some may call scientific, but it's far from true.
adding a single word in front of it changes the entire deffintion.
But not the fact that it can still be false.
Because evolution is a THEORY. It happens to just be taught as a fact. I did not evolve from a fish, rock or ape.....oh waiiit a minute!!! Maybe evolution has been categorized as fact dispute to observation of those humans who absolutely share the same characteristics & mind set as rocks, fish & apes!!
Yes, obviously life evolves. Amphibians that do not have an opposite sex can still reproduce when it's necessary. That's what is wonderful about science and nature. I do not believe that man came from apes, however.
Why can't you believe in both?
Evolution goes against science stating that objects left to themselves grow more complex over time, or inanimate objects can suddenly produce life, that would take a LOT of faith to believe in evolution if on were truly intelligent.
No matter what the topic is, ignoring science, facts, and evidence in favour of some crybaby's personal feelings and beliefs is never a good thing.
Since everyone else is saying the same thing - Evolution is a theory. (cue people replying to say that it is a SCIENTIFIC theory).
Everything we believe in science, religion, life whatever is a theory which hasn't been proved wrong yet.
Evolution is a scientific theory because there is too much evidence supporting it for it to be disproven, but not enough for it to be proven.
It makes sense. It has evidence. But it hasn't been proven without a doubt. That's why it's called the THEORY of evolution. I realize scientific theories are different from "It's just a theory," but that doesn't mean they're facts. They can be modified with new evidence.
What are some examples of this evidence?
Evolution is pretty much a fact...like gravity, the earth being round...etc.
How is the fact that animals have evolved to survive a theory and not a fact? It makes you look stupid and gullible.
For what it means to "evolve" and "evolution", there are many examples of that in the animal world. I don't believe that man came from apes (and I do, in fact, believe in the bible) but animals, reptiles, etc. have changed over time. So has man, now we are taller, for example.
Essentially, saying you "don't "believe" in gravity, or physics. You don't really have a choice, as facts are facts.
I agree I just wonder why or if human evolution is still happening
Agreed. Creationists kinda put me off. Turn off number 1: denal of facts
Pro-Evolutionand everyone else is stupid VS. Pro-Evolutionbut only until something less stupid is discovered...
What's hilarious is that if this was only a little while ago, the same group that today is calling everyone else stupid for not agreeing that Evolution is a "fact", is the same group that would back then be calling Evolution stupid for comparing Humanity to Apes (and no, that sentiment doesn't even require a religious institution to be the mainstream)...
Oh and everyone already understands what you think Scientific Theory means, but if you actually did Google it then you'd realize that it's by no means an official term. Rather it's a Wikipedia-level term used to identify the cross-use of Theory and Hypothesis in common language.
It does not in turn mean that Scientific Theory is some MEGA Theory that is so strictly defined that we can call it fact.
In fact, if Scientific Theory was an official and strictly used term, then that would be even worse for your argument, because nowhere is it referred to as the "Scientific Theory of Evolution". You just decided that because it's called a theory and is in the field of Science.
The majority of people on here will agree that Evolution is the most likely scenario based on the limited information that we know, or at the very least that even if we disagree with it, we understand the concept.
But at the end of the day, unless you are the leading scientist on the subject, you are essentially believing the theory because of someone else telling you that it's true. You haven't personally seen the evolutionary links to the extent that you can definitively PROVE that it happened. You have only heard a rough explanation of the original theory, and then decided that you'll have FAITH in the really smart scientist guy.
But regardless, intellectual conversation isn't supposed to be about passionately taking sides on a subject you barely understand; that's what leads to honest men dying for corupt politicians in the exploited name of Religion.
However, I think that Mankind really earned a victory from one important post...
LOL MY **** IS HUGE
...Because whether we each think of Darwinism as a Fact, Theory, or Fiction, we're still all thinking mostly about our ****
Science once told us the earth was flat and Scientist Maragret Sanger once
told us that negros,jews were human weeds, just to name two. Science is not always fact based rather conjecture.
Evolution is a theory, so stop acting like they have loads and loads of evidence that it's real. THEY DON'T!
Evolution is a theory. End of story.
Scientific theory doesn't mean law... google. it. there IS a difference.
do you believe that the earth revolves around the sun? cause guess what, that's a scientific theory too
That's actually observable. I flew up into the sky and watched it happen. So I don't believe it, I know it.
you mean like how one could say evolution is observable?
hey people saying that "yeah we change but thats different from evolution thats survival of the fitest" firts of all second of all http://www.allaboutscience.org/...lution-faq.htm
Genetic variety can cause change without any new genetic information being added. Evolution from goo to you needs A LOT of new genetic information. The only way new genetic information can be added is through positive mutations, and that just doesn't happen ...
then how do these certain birds have longer beaks than they used to to reach into the flower for pollen? because they mutated to fit their enviorment, the ones that had long beaks survived and the short beaks didnt. they didnt start out that way, they were one species. i couldnt tell you what kind of bird it was i learned about it in e and s science a while aho
That's a bait-and-switch argument that evolutionists use; they give an example of genetic variety and say that it proves evolution, but it only proves natural selection. A bird with a medium sized beak can have the genetic information for both short and long beaks (he can have one baby with a smaller beak and one with a larger beak). Read this and you'll understand:http://creation.com/dogs-breeding-dogs
oh my god... read the first sentence of the third paragraph "Evolution has several important components: Natural Selection, Macro-evolution, and Micro-evolution. "and the first sentence of the forth "Natural selection is the machine that drives evolution"
you dont think a site called creation.com might be a little biased against evolution? i barley bothered to skim through it.
So by not bothering to look at a counter-example, your argument is automatically right. Do you not think hardcore science websites might be a tad biased against creationism?
science is law. creationism is magic. so yeah.
As NiceBoulder said, the sites you linked to are just as biased. You don't seem to know what you're talking about, so you could start by learning these four simple facts: 1. Natural Selection does not create new genetic information. 2. Genetic diversity is not evolution since no new information is added (search "Genetic diversity" on Wikipedia if you don't like the site I linked to) 3. Science is not law, science is observing, testing and analysing. 4. Creationism is not magic, it is an interpretation of the scientific observations and experiments - just like the theory of evolution.
lol@comparing creationism to science.
"natural selcection is the driving force of evolution" in other words, affter say a couple biollion years, the survival of the fittest turns into something else because time let it.
What you need to explain is how new genetic information is added, and considering that you don't even know how natural selection works, I doubt that you even know what genetic information is.
no, you dont know what it is obviously because evolution doesnt say new genetic information is added evolution is http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item13.htm
" which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. "
The links you posted explain that new information is added through mutations. But mutations are accidents in the genetic code, kinda like a typo, so it is a loss of information unless the typo changes a good thing into something better (which doesn't happen).
And no, evolution is not caused by natural selection OR mutations, it's caused by natural selection AND mutations, because natural selection is a selective and not a creative force. And the few existing examples of "positive" mutations ARE actually loss of information, unlike what your sources say:
LOL i thought red heads and black hair with green eyes were mutations but THOSE DONT HAPPEN APPARENTLY lol just like how cancer doesnt happen because your cells cant fuck up and start rapidly mulitplying nope mutation in dna doesnt happen
No, that's genetic diversity and not mutations. Are you serious or are you trolling? You seem to think that you're ridiculing me, but your "arguments" only reveal your ignorance.
lol cancer is genetic diversity? haha i guess me and everyone else who belives in evolution is ignorant cuz they dont agree with you, which is very ignorant thinking
No: red hair, black hair and green eyes are genetic diversity. I didn't respond to the part about cancer because that was just you trying to ridicule me with your own stupidity.
you should google a subject before you argue it
Ok, you're a troll. Thanks, bye.
thats what people say when they loose.
No, that's what people say when they realize that their opponent is a troll.
yeah, but if theyre not a troll............
but i guess i am sense your side has a whole 16 more people
No, you're a troll because you make false claims in a ridiculing way without backing it up with evidence. You laugh at explanations that every scientist agrees with and you clearly don't understand a thing that I say. How old are you? You're as immature as a person could be, why are you trying to argue with people when you don't know anything about the subject? Don't answer me, I already know: you're a troll.
lol yeah im saying obcesene things to get attention
That's not what a troll is, a troll is somebody who enjoys annoying people over the internet, ignoring logic and reasoning for the entertainment of seeing other people get irritated. Congratulations, you succeeded. You're really annoying me. :P
lol if im annopyng you you know you could ignore me, yeah? and i could say the same thing about you but im not 5
Yeah, I was going to ignore you when I realized that you were a troll, but before that I really wanted to explain everything to you. And I'm sorry if I was annoying to you, at least I'm not using so called "master suppression techniques" like you do. And I bet you're younger than me. :P
18 how old are you? lol why arent you ignoring me yet then! lol so called master supression techniques wth
I'm 18 too, and I'm not ignoring you because you're not trolling anymore, haha.
"everyone seems to hear evolution and think that its the change from one organism to another (apes to humans) when there are actually two types of evolution: microevolution and macroevolution. Macro is the idea that humans and all other life forms evolved from the same single celled organism. Microevolution is the idea that over time variation develops withing a species (breeds of dogs, Darwinian finches, etc.) Microevolution can and has been proven but macroevolution has not been proven and is nearly impossible to prove
I love how the same 3 biased websites have been quoted about 15 times throughout this entire argument. COME UP WITH YOUR OWN, DIPSHIT.
telling you the deffinition is not biased, and theyre the first ones that came up when i typed it in
Ok morons. Evolution is a fact. Plain and simple. Evolution means change over time. Are you the same as when you were a baby? No. Has the human race gotten taller since the twelfth century. Yes. These are examples of evolution. The theory of evolution is the theory that we came from apes. This is a theory and I believe it to be incorrect. But evolution itself is fact.
We didn't come from apes dumbass. Apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. When people say, "There's some people that just suck." They're talking about you guys who fight when you don't even know what you're talking about.
um.. I don't see where you got confused but I never said we came from apes.
Do some research before you call people morons.
Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.
It does not refer specifically to humans, and it is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Not a fact. But it doesn't need to be a fact to be accurate.
Just curious: if we didn't come from apes, where did we come from? How old is Earth?
I know that it is not specifically reffering to humans. I was just giving examples of how we have evolved. And I personally believe in intelligent design.
No, those are examples of the process of natural selection making changes to the average phenotype of the human species. It is NOT an example of one species turning into an entirely different, unrelated species by the process of mutations in the genetic code. I have a Bachelor of Science in Biology, and I do not believe in evolution. Even in the 10-15 billion years that the universe has been in existence, there is not sufficient time by probability for single-celled organisms to have evolved into all of the species we see in existence today. The odds are so astronomically improbable as to essentially be impossible. I could bore you with further explanations but unfortunately amirite limits the comment size so I can't. I do believe Biologists will eventually abandon evolution and come up with a new theory, but they will not acknowledge the obvious problems with the theory until they have a new theory to replace it.
that's my point. We didn't come from a different species. We have changed which is evolution. But the theory of evolution (which I do not believe) says that we came from apes.
a bachelor in biology eh?just like every other person on the internet with a great backup story for why they know whatever subject theyre arguing. oh and JUST SAYING, if you DO have a bachelor in BIOLOGY, you do not have one in EVOLUTION, just as you dont have one in marine biology, chemistry, mineralology, palaeontology or anything else.
Yes, I have a Bachelor of Science in Biology from the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. I took two separate upper division (3xxx level classes at the U of M) solely on the topic of evolution, as well as the 1001 class on evolution that many non-majors take. I did not specialize in evolution specifically, but I believe my education would make me far more qualified to speak on the subject than the majority of the high schoolers on this website spouting about a subject they know nothing about. Just look at the other person who responded to me and believes that natural selection is equivalent to evolution. Case in point.
-.- youre an idiot. evolution is the process to make animals a greater version of themselves, that is also what natural selection does. youre the retard who thinks evolutions turns animals into different animals. as for the rest, i dont care to hear about your fake education, and just saying if you didnt major in that then YOU ARE NOT MORE QUALIFIED, but you didnt major in biology either so it doesnt matter.
You are mistaken on both counts, but this discussion is pointless. It has deteriorated into name-calling and rude statements, and short of you giving me your phone number so I can pix message you a picture of my BS framed and hanging on my wall, there's clearly no way I'm going to convince you on either front. So I will end the discussion here and tell you to have a wonderful day. Same goes to Pennie. :)
lol like you couldnt get that from google?(: haha yeah i=focus on the name calling cuz you have no argument for anything else
i stopped those are examples of the process of natural selection making changes to the average phenotype of the human species. It is NOT an example of one species turning into an entirely different, unrelated species by the process of mutations in the genetic code. sounds like you DO belive in evolution or else you dont know what it is (btw: apes and humans share about 97% of dna or something like that, its not a completly different genetic code)
What on earth are you talking about? Natural selection is simply saying survival of the fittest - it is factually observable in everyday life. Evolution, on the other hand, is making the claim that one species can accumulate enough positive mutations in the genetic code (causing observable changes in the functioning of the organism) that natural selection is then able to act on those positive changes, selecting for them, and thereby favoring organisms with that particular mutation and eventually creating a new species. I do not believe in evolution because of the improbability of positive mutations being able to accumulate among a species. It is a statistical improbability.
goddamn link fail
THIRD P FIRST SENTENCE
what, you major in those too?
a billion years is a long time.
Actually, the theory of evolution does NOT say that we evolved from apes, or monkeys, or chimpanzees. It states that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a COMMON ANCESTOR.
I know. I was simply pointing out the absurdity that we came from another species at all.