There is a difference...

Geoff: Between the Theory of Evolution and the Phenomenon of Evolution.

If you want to disprove evolution, you will fail to disprove the Phenomenon, since it is proven as much as any other fact understood by science. If you are smart enough to come up with a better explanation of physiognomy, genetics, palaeontology, and virology - then why aren't you curing cancer?

The theory can be disproven, but you really do need to have a better alternative.

ShawnXx: My theory is that you're all stupid for arguing with a lost cause.

Geoff: I don't believe that arguing against the removal of science from science lessons is a lost cause.

ShawnXx: Arguing with the person that created that thread is. That argument will go on until he dies and his opinions won't change but I guess keep going if it will change someone else.

Dalai Mama: The process of evolution undeniably exists.... as for the Theory of evolution? well If you believe a God created the earth in 6 days, then why couldn't you believe the creative process he used started with a big bang and proceeded on with evolution. It is arrogant I think for man to assume those 6 days were on a human time clock. Perhaps during the time the bible was written people just couldn't comprehend all the science so it was explained in an easier way for them to understand. I would rest on "day" 7 too if I had continually watched my creation evolve for millions of years.

Rumi –

"Truth was a mirror in the hands of God
It fell, and broke into pieces
Everybody took a piece of it
And they looked at it and thought they had the truth."

You cannot deny science but you also cannot deny the existence of things in this world science cannot account for, therefore it seems wise to see how it can all be pieced together to create a whole.

Geoff: “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Everything else is opinion, which is why science looks for evidence.

Dalai Mama: Excellent quote

Exactly, I love science, facts are fun

ShawnXx: @Dalai Mama I love that it's perfect.

Serabi:

Evolution is an undeniable fact. Evolution is still happening, when it is fast, we call it mutation, e.g. viruses and bacteria. While single cell organisms have no 'brain' they adapt to attain a certain level of self preservation. Bacteria become antibiotic resistant because of misuse by people. Viruses can only be killed by the body's own immune system, once in the system. Sterility is an illusion in our atmosphere.

Nothing is perfect. Mutations e.g. cancer cells can have a trigger chromosome but it may or may not respond to the trigger. Live is akin to the toss of a coin.

The only predictability lies in unpredictability. Adaptation (evolution) happens on a daily basis. (Undeniably) It is difficult to comprehend that there are people who argues against it.

We panic about climate change. We do have a hand in it and are accelerating it to a certain extent. The earth is evolving as we speak. Continents move continuously, plates fold and buckle, volcanoes erupt, elves and sprites disrupt our ozone layer as the sun blasts us with solar flares.

We, as humans, may have the ability to evolve to adjust to these changes but I seriously doubt it. We may die out and another species become the dominant life forms.

Life will find a way - whether we are part of that way remains to be seen!

calybonos: Darwin was wrong, or at the very least, fundamentally on very dubious ground.

Darwinian evolution offends me not as a religious person, but as a mathematician, as it does virtually every mathematician who has ever seriously thought about it...and here's only a few reasons why.

The smallest measure of time is how long a ray of light takes, traveling at the speed of light, to cross the smallest distance on the molecular level of the universe. For argument's sake, let's just say it's a billionth of a second. The Earth is (give or take) four billion years old. If you multiply four billion by the number of millionths of a second in a single year, you get a staggeringly large figure, arguably greater than the number of grains of sand on all the beaches around the Pacific Ocean.

Now think about the complexity of a single gene. It contains so many features - thousands of bits of data - each of which had to be acquired by mutation. But even the tiniest worm on Earth could not have evolved from a one-cell organism in four billion years even if there had been a mutation in every one of those millionths of a second.

Even if we were to assume the Earth's life was transported here from an older source, the general consensus is that the universe itself is no more than twenty billion years old, there still wouldn't be enough time in twenty billion years for our little worm to evolve from a single-cell organism at the rate of one mutation per millionth of a second.

It's why evolutionists hate mathematicians more than they do creationists.
Here is another thing to think about. The minimal number of genes required to support cell function and reproduction in the simplest form of life is two hundred fifty-six. Our little worm may have a couple of thousand. It is estimated that the human genome contains anywhere from thirty thousand to a hundred fifty thousand genes.

If a worm couldn't have evolved during the entire existence of the universe, how many more hundreds of billions of more years would have been required for us to evolve?

In the Cambrian period, at some point during a five million-year window, (which is as close as we can calculate it) a hundred new phyla appeared, thousands of species. They could have appeared steadily throughout that period, or in an instant, for all we know.. No phyla have appeared since. No new phyla have "evolved." Today, only thirty phyla remain, the rest have become extinct. Maybe thirty-one is somehow happening right now.

So how do new species arrive? Taking a strictly materialist point of view, their sudden appearance suggests some mechanism entirely different from evolution through natural selection.
To give an answer that makes any practical sense, we need to turn away from materialism and turn back to intuition from which we seem to flee most of our lives.
T.S.Eliot wrote, "What you do not know is the only thing you know.

calybonos: I should point out, that I am not suggesting that the universe and all it's counterparts were created by some kind of supreme being, or that science "got it all wrong."

I'm only saying, as far as this evolution theory goes - they haven't got it right.

But hang in there, people.... you have a pig working on it for you.

CoIin: Caly's post, although I'm unqualified to comment on the mathematics, has inspired to me to write a few words of my own.

First of all, it seems to me (and many others) that it's a matter of common sense - backed by an examination of scientific history - that Darwinian evolution (or any other version you name) will, like every other successful scientific theory, enjoy its halcyon days for a few decades or even centuries before being replaced by something new. This is the nature of science. We all know this, or should know this by now.

It's therefore quite staggering to me the passions that get aroused and the lengths some people go to defend the theory.

Yes, it's a brilliant idea - I don't deny it. But Geoff, your suggestion in your opening post, echoing sentiments I've seen repeated over and over again by other members, that somehow I must come up with a better explanation in order to confirm the theory's ephemerality is no more to the point than insisting I'd have to run a mile faster than the current world record in order to prove my hypothesis that the current record won't last forever.

I think the whole issue is often grossly oversimplified, here and elsewhere. Many members speak as if a scientific theory can be disproven at the drop of a hat by the appearance of one tiny li'l piece of damning evidence. It's just not that simple, I'm afraid. They forget that science is, to a very large extent, a social activity. Theories therefore live or die at the endorsement of the community as a whole.

They are wont to cite overwhelming consensus among scientists on the veracity of evolutionary theory. And this is true enough. But they forget that science is an exceedingly conservative business. Of all the theories that one might decide to attack in science, far and away the one that's going to have (at least potentially) the most damaging consequences to the assailant is, of course, evolution, thanks no doubt to the perceived threat from the religious front. No, you won't get burned at the stake these days for heresy, but you WILL feel the heat. A young scientist with a wife, 2 kids, a mortgage, and no tenure, might want to think long and hard before setting out on a path to debunk mainstream evolutionary theory.

Of course epistemic factors play a role too (the dominant role, we would hope), but it would be remiss to neglect the non-epistemic influences on scientific advancement.

Finally, kudos to Geoff for warning us of an important distinction between X and theories of X. There are many others we should keep firmly in mind too, e.g. evolutionary theory does not equate with natural selection theory.

Nice thread!

Geoff: @Caly I have asked before that people posting from elsewhere include references. Aside from only being polite to the original author, it does encourage intellectual honesty.

Of course, "author" is correct in this case. If you are going to post Koontz, then I'm not going to take you seriously.

However, as I have clearly stated, while the fossil record gives us useful information about what life was doing in the past, the strongest evidence for life today having evolved is examining those species that are alive today.

calybonos: You seem to be suggesting intellectual dishonesty based on assumption.
An unfortunate by-product of the evolution of positivism.

As to my above "reference" - having not seen it in context, I was not aware of it's true origin. I did end it with T.S. Eliot's name, thinking the entirety must have been his thoughts, because they resonated with my own. The fact that it was apparently, an American author makes it no less valid to me. To each, their own prejudices.

As we are all mash-up artists when it comes to forming our belief systems - picking and choosing from the thoughts, ideas, and opinions of those around us, those that ring true from our own experiences and adding a bit of our own mental DNA. It is an inescapable inevitability of the human condition. In this particular case, I just happen to be somewhat more familiar within the field of chaos theory than the average person. My own references on this assertion, or in any other personal aspect of my true identity here, however, are not up for scrutiny. The pig is neither for sale, nor for dissection. Only for exhibition.

Since I am not of the belief that quoting others is a means of proof for my own beliefs, or by association, adds respectability, I do not feel the necessity to give credit in such instances. Those who feel the need to do so, in my opinion, are more intellectually dishonest with not only others, but themselves as well. Let the words you speak (if you truly believe them) be spoken, and meant, as your own.

Don't misunderstand me. I do not take offence to you, and as a matter of fact, I rather enjoy being psychoanalyzed by people. Those far more qualified than are likely to be found here have long since given up on that endeavor. And even I can't help from doing the same to others. But be under no illusions that you will ever be able to ascertain my intentions, or motives. They can, and do change.

And now, as to the matter of the fallacy of 'a fossil record'. I will, instead, acquiesce and enjoy the show.

There once was a thread about knowing
And to whom the credit was owing
The point was soon lost
No matter the cost
As long as the theory kept flowing

Aura: Not really caring where caly's argument came from, it is going on the assumption only one gene can mutate at one time, which seems to be a little weird to me. Why one gene? Why not a whole Chromosome? Mutations happen over the life of an adult as well (we call that cancer in the worse case) It's not just every generation, chance of mutation of a spices happens every time a cell divides, if this cell is part of the reproduction proses.
It's also disregarding a lot of environmental factors that can alter genetic material; toxins and disease to name a couple.
And lastly mutation isn't really linear once you get to reproduction that requires 2 separate individuals to come together. Each individual might have different mutations so the offspring could have the mutations of each.

Seeing how it would be easier for complexer multicell organisms to mutate, just because there are more chances to get the division 'wrong', A sudden jump in diversity feels correct to me. Kind of like a critical mass thing. Math is a great basis for science, but in cells, you have a lot more use for chemistry. And a chemist knows once a chain reaction is set in motion it is damned hard to stop.

calybonos: I agree with that. In fact, I imagine the chain reaction set in motion in this thread will be damned hard to stop.

But there's always the uncertainty principle to deal with.

Aura: Wait hold up 'why and how organisms mutate' while very interesting to think about, wasn't really what Darwin was about. He was going on the assumption mutations happen.
Darwin was trying to explain why some mutations, for instance tolerance for lactose past the age of 4 in humans, survive and become dominant in some groups of a species (70% in the western world) and not in other groups (10% in Asia)* While other mutations die out.
He showed that isolation and environment have a big influence on which genetic traits are passed on to new generations. It tends to be the traits that benefit the species to survive in the environment it finds itself in. This is the survival of the fittest. Given enough time two isolated groups of the same species in different environments will eventually evolve into two different species.
I fail to see how doubting the mechanism that causes the change discredits a theory that seeks to explain why not all change is equal.

edit * numbers are from memory and might not be accurate or have changed since I was last in school 15 years ago. But they are close enough for the purpose of example.

Aura: Since I have nothing better to do in the evenings anyway and I was thinking about this, and since survival of the fittest is always relative to the environment the species finds itself in, one can make the case that even in humans, who are not at all isolated, there is still a survival of the fittest effect going on. Recently I linked an article for a "nature vs nurture" blog
(article: http://tinyurl.com/lgfjcno )

But here was a bit that is interesting for this conversation:
-Other studies have found that women desire greater masculinity in their partners if they live in economies with low GDPs, “in which men’s work may involve manual labor jobs and male brawn,” while women in wealthier countries that “rely more on knowledge workers” are freer to prefer “better-looking men.”

This shows that individuals from the same species in different environments select traits in their partners that would give their offspring survival advantages in their environments. In poorer countries you would expect traits of better muscles to evolve and become more dominant, while in richer countries traits of good looks would evolve and become more dominant. (and yes, studies also show that good looks often translate to more pay)

Dalai Mama: Keep at it, I am enjoying lol. I took a course in uni called evolution and biological diversity, was one of my favorite courses, opened my eyes to a whole new paradigm!

calybonos: This must be why the rich and powerful still worry about the pool boy.

Dalai Mama: hahaha!

The13th: Obviously some missing piece of zigsaw puzzle still need to be discovered. We better find it fast because there is some sign that human race is in reverse-evolution process.

Aura: I've heard talk of reverse or de-evolving before. How does that work though?
Are we as humans are getting less fit for survival in the environment we find ourselves in?

Geoff: I think it is perhaps that we are creating an environment which is pushing humans into a less intelligent form.

Aura: Okay fair enough, but if it takes less intelligence to survive in our environment that doesn't mean evolution is reversing. It just means survival is dependent on a trait we consider less desirable.

Geoff: I wasn't saying that it was evolution in reverse, merely that from the current standpoint it would seem disadvantageous in the longer term.