Theory

[dmpotter]

[quote="Deacon";p="686614"]You're seriously comparing the two? Relativity is something we can observe and test and experiment with. Evolution is not.[/quote]
How many times do I have to point out that's not true?! Biologists have observed evidence of it, and have experimented with it in the lab.

So a lack of conflicting evidence/understanding equals support for a theory?

Combined with supporting evidence, yes, that's exactly how science works.

[Deacon]

[quote="dmpotter";p="686637"][quote="Deacon";p="686614"]Relativity is something we can observe and test and experiment with. Evolution is not.[/quote]
How many times do I have to point out that's not true?! Biologists have observed evidence of it, and have experimented with it in the lab.[/quote]
No, potter, we cannot observe evolution at work over eons, where dinosaurs turn into birds, etc. How many times do I have to point that out?

[Blaze]

[quote="wocket";p="686623"]Yes, actually. One of the core beliefs in science is that nothing can be 100% proven, so there can only be support for a phenomenon - not actual *proof*. And it's always being tested and/or observed just in case.[/quote]

No no! You can prove something 100%! It's possible! You just have to test it at every possible location in every possible condition forever throughout time.

Or you can more narrowly define it. If I want, I can prove that a rubber ball will bounce in a specific area of my kitchen floor, at a certian temperature and humidity, at a certian time on a certian day. I just can't say that that proves it will bounce everywhere.

[dmpotter]

[quote="Deacon";p="686649"]No, potter, we cannot observe evolution at work over eons, where dinosaurs turn into birds, etc. How many times do I have to point that out?[/quote]
Not directly, but we can most certainly (and have) view evidence of it.

As mentioned before, it you raise the burden of proof high enough, you can disbelieve anything. You're purposely making unreasonable demands of proof.

[Deacon]

I disagree.

[Arc Orion]

[quote="Deacon";p="686649"]No, potter, we cannot observe evolution at work over eons, where dinosaurs turn into birds, etc.[/quote]Sure we can. We just have to take notes for a very long time.

[wocket]

[quote="Deacon";p="686660"]I disagree.[/quote]

No shit, Sherlock, considering you're the one raising the dissenting opinion.

[Deacon]

The point was the he was asserting his opinion, that me pointing out we can't prove evolution happened the way we currently think it might've is me "purposely making unreasonable demands of proof." The first item is not true and the second is a matter of opinion. I happen to disagree with his opinion and think it unreasonable that he would say that in the first place.

[dmpotter]

Oh, please. First off, science never proves anything. This has been said multiple times by multiple people. Science is a process of discovery. It takes facts and makes conclusions based on them. Requiring direct observation of a species over millions of years is a purposely unreasonable requirement - you know it can't be done.

It also discredits the evidence left by millions of years of evolution in the fossil record and in the genomes of animals alive today. The evidence is there - it just isn't the impossible direct observation you're saying is the only acceptable proof.

[Deacon]

[quote="dmpotter";p="686715"]Oh, please. First off, science never proves anything.[/quote]
Now who's raising the burden of proof too high?

Requiring direct observation of a species over millions of years is a purposely unreasonable requirement - you know it can't be done.

Thank you for agreeing with me that as of today we know of no way it can be done.

It also discredits the evidence left by millions of years of evolution in the fossil record and in the genomes of animals alive today.

How does it discredit anything? If we find evidence that we interpret as contrary to the way we imagine evolution might've gone, then it would discredit it. Otherwise it either bolsters it or doesn't bear significant weight one way or the other.

PS Circular logic isn't very scientific, either. "There's evidence left by millions of years of evolution, so evolution must be true." You're starting out with the idea that evolution is true when you assert that evolution left the evidence. It could be evidence of something else entirely, or perhaps of just a slightly different path than we've assumed so far. You could say something more like, "Based on what I understand of the evidence uncovered thus far, I believe the current theory of evolution is the most likely source of life as we know it and of the items discovered in fossil records."

[dmpotter]

How am I raising the burden of proof? I'm telling you that direct observation isn't necessary for providing evidence that supports a theory. Otherwise we'd make no progress on understanding atoms and subatomic particles.

[quote="Deacon";p="686731"]How does it discredit anything?[/quote]
Because you're specifically ignoring evidence as "not enough" for no apparent reason.

PS Circular logic isn't very scientific, either. "There's evidence left by millions of years of evolution, so evolution must be true." You're starting out with the idea that evolution is true when you assert that evolution left the evidence.

Um, no. I'm not trying to prove evolution in that sentence. I'm referring to the existence of supporting evidence, not writing a scientific dissertation. It's a simpler way of saying "there is evidence that supports evolution that isn't based on direct observation, such as various fossils and DNA evidence."

If you want to discredit the evidence, go do the research yourself. Refer to actual papers, read actual articles. Don't simply wave it all away by saying "well, they haven't directly observed it."

[Sophira]

Communication is a lost art.

Being skeptical about a scientific theory is recommended. Supporting evidence is nice for a scientific theory, and it can convince a body to accept the theory as if it were fact (this is called "belief"). An intelligent person can do so while continuing to question it.

"Proof" is an entirely different thing, which you have already acknowledged, dmpotter. It was you who insisted it could be proven in the first place.

[Yira Heerai]

I don't think dmpotter was talking about evolution on a grand scale. The term "evolution" is used for a vast number of things aside from the theory of dinosaurs turning into birds over time, to quote Deacon. For instance, it can be said that civilization has evolved. Viruses are said to evolve in order to develop an immunity to certain medications.

So while we certainly cannot prove Evolution on a grand scale, it can be proven on a smaller scale. So, some people assume that there is a constant with this. That is why it's a theory.

So I agree a bit with wocket's original rant >>; Theory can't be proven without reasonable doubt, but that doesn't mean that subjects like Evolution and Creationism shouldn't be taught. Creationism is just another possible answer.

[jimkatai]

Here, we will use an example. How long did it take for us to naturally develop an immunity to a disease? This would take, at minimum, a couple of years, I would assume, but if someone can get me a specific example, that would be nice. Some bacteria gain immunity from things in seconds. If you were to put bacteria and observe it for years on end, the question is whether that bacteria would evolve into a COMPLETELY different species of bacteria. This doesn't happen, and presents a problem with the theory of evolution. I can understand how traits passing on from generation to generation can happen, but intra-species evolution means this. Apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have 23. This small difference in the number of chromosomes leads to the difference between the two. How did this switch take place? Where was the big jump? How does one add a chromosome to their DNA strain without ending up with genetic deformities? Honestly, answer that last question, and you have answered a big problem I have. How does an animal give birth to something that has one extra chromosome and, even if it happens to turn out to be a functional other species, not kill this thing that it has no clue what it is, and probably thinks it is diseased? Also, this creature would have to make a simultaneous jump with another female companion to reproduce. Seems like there still needs to be work done.

[Sophira]

What do you mean by "Apes"? Surely you aren't using modern apes as a basis for comparison. I hope.

How does one add a chromosome to their DNA strain without ending up with genetic deformities?

What, did you think evolution doesn't involve a series of genetic mutations?