[_ Old Earth _] "Only" a theory.

[BenjaminTC]

The purpose of this post is to inform the uninformed/misinformed. I'm not calling you stupid; I'm just correcting you.

There are two deffinitions of the word "theory." The typical, layman's deffinition of theory is a proposed explination of which the status is still unvarifiable. In science, this would be called a hypothesis.

The true deffinition of theory is a coherant general explination for natural phenomena. You will see in science that any explination for things like gravity, relativity, atoms, plate tectonics all are theories. This does not dimminish their accuracy.

Also, my hypothesis is that many people believe that a law of science is a step up from a theory of science. This is not true. A law of science is something completely different.

A law discribes natural phenomena; a theory explains it.
EX: The theory of gravitation: the theory that any two particles of matter attract one another with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Newton's laws of motion: (I hope you know these)

So now I hope you understand the silliness of calling evolution "only" a theory. In fact, as someone once said, calling evolution "just" a theory is like calling someone "just" a gold medal winner.

 

[rmills]

1) A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2) The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3) A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4) Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5) A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6) An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

[Bryan]

6) An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

That is evolution in a nutshell.

 

[Barbarian]

The evidence for evoluton comes from several sources:

1. Fossil record. Numerous transitionals have been found, and some were predicted before they were found, based on evolutionary theory. In some cases, we have very detailed transitions over tens of millions of years or longer.

2. Nested hierarchy of taxonomy. Existing life looks like it evolved.

3. Genetics. We see that the family histories for all organisms show that they evolved from a common ancestor. We know that this works because we can find human family relationships with it. "Common design is refuted by psuedogenes, which make no sense in the context of design.

4. Molecules. Neutral mutations in common molecules show a pattern of descent.

5. Observed macroevolution. Speciation is an observed fact.

Among others. This is why the vast majority of scientists, including those wh are Christians, find it compelling.

All truths in science are provisional. That is, new evidence will cause them to be revised as needed. This is why science is so effective.

Remember, a theory in science is a well-tested idea or set of ideas that explain physical phenomena.

 

[Bryan]

5. Observed macroevolution. Speciation is an observed fact.

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. The moth is still a moth. The fly is still a fly.

 

[cubedbee]

5. Observed macroevolution. Speciation is an observed fact.

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. The moth is still a moth. The fly is still a fly.

Very funny example. Neither moths nor flys are a single species. In fact, they are orders. The classification go, from broadest to most specific, Kingdom>Phylum>Class>Order>Family>Genus>Species. Flys are of the order Diptera and Moths are of the order Muscidae. Evolution relies on speciation to produce the complexity of life as we see it today. It does not rely at all on orderation. In fact, if an animal changed orders, this would pretty conclusively disprove current evolutionary theory. So yes, every time a fly speciates we get two new fly species, and this is what has been observed.

 

[Bryan]

5. Observed macroevolution. Speciation is an observed fact.

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. The moth is still a moth. The fly is still a fly.

Very funny example. Neither moths nor flys are a single species. In fact, they are orders. The classification go, from broadest to most specific, Kingdom>Phylum>Class>Order>Family>Genus>Species. Flys are of the order Diptera and Moths are of the order Muscidae. Evolution relies on speciation to produce the complexity of life as we see it today. It does not rely at all on orderation. In fact, if an animal changed orders, this would pretty conclusively disprove current evolutionary theory. So yes, every time a fly speciates we get two new fly species, and this is what has been observed.

Right, and that has nothing to do with macroevolution, which is animals evolving from one order into another. All it shows is that animals can adapt. Nobody is arguing against that, not even the most ardent creationist.

 

[ThinkerMan]

5. Observed macroevolution. Speciation is an observed fact.

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. The moth is still a moth. The fly is still a fly.

Very funny example. Neither moths nor flys are a single species. In fact, they are orders. The classification go, from broadest to most specific, Kingdom>Phylum>Class>Order>Family>Genus>Species. Flys are of the order Diptera and Moths are of the order Muscidae. Evolution relies on speciation to produce the complexity of life as we see it today. It does not rely at all on orderation. In fact, if an animal changed orders, this would pretty conclusively disprove current evolutionary theory. So yes, every time a fly speciates we get two new fly species, and this is what has been observed.

Right, and that has nothing to do with macroevolution, which is animals evolving from one order into another. All it shows is that animals can adapt. Nobody is arguing against that, not even the most ardent creationist.

I may be wrong, but I believe that is the first time I have heard macroevolution defined as changing orders, not species.

Species is defined (and perhaps some of my friend here will help me if I define this too narrowly) as when two organisms can sucessfully reproduce. For example, different breeds of dogs can produce offspring, but a dog and a otter, both in the same order, cannot.

Similarly, a human and a lemur belong to the same order. Though perhaps some have tried, you cannot reproduce with a lemur.

Macroevolution refers to species change, not orders. If your definition were true, then chimps and humans evolving from a common ancestor would be microevolution....I don't think your fellow creationists would be happy with that definition.

Evolution holds that over the course of time, a subset of one species may evolve substatitively enough to where the differences in genetic code are sufficient to not allow a reproducable offspring. Think of a horse and a donkey, they are close enough to produce a living offspring (mule), but far apart enough that the mule is sterile and not viable (thus the two are separate species).