Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Right, it is not testable.
Click to expand...
False. The most obvious example is SN 1987A. There are others.

Your knowledge of the relevant science appears to be full of gaps. Remember what I said about YEC sites lying by omission? Those omissions cause gaps in the knowledge of people who believe those YEC sites.

rossum
 
I can force myself to “see” it, but it’s like looking at the world on a moonless night.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Evolution is as evident from a scientific standpoint as gravity. Just look at children - they carry some of the traits of both parents. Now, is their survivability different from their parents? Obviously yes (for better or worse). That is by definition EVOLUTION. The THEORY of Evolution describes, in more detailed terms, how this basic concept can explain the entire diversity of life. This theory then makes additional predictions, NONE of which have ever been refuted, and nearly all (I can’t think of any that have not) been proven (certainly none have been disproven).
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Now you know that your claim was wrong.
Click to expand...
Maybe when explaining it to laymen he felt that would be more fitting, but it is not what scientists properly use.

You would be hard pressed to find a scientist who used the term “Junk DNA” in his research findings. I know, because I have looked over quite a few.
 
Let’s move on.

Do we agree? (that this proof for evolution has failed?) yes or no
 
Aloysium said:
It’s a pity that you do not think the truth, pretty awesome data way beyond any bones, as it is revealed in Genesis does not refute the Theory. The evidence is not truly evidence, but is rather a meaning imposed by a theory on the remnants on things long gone.
Click to expand...
The evidence does not support a young earth Creationist interpretation. That’s plain ignorance if you take that perception. But moreover, if we apply the principles of Dei Verbum onto Scriptural interpretation, it becomes clear that Genesis is a mixture of stories told by campfire to expel spiritual truths and reality. It is our own modern minds that insist “Okay it has to be literally true. All of it.” It is myth, but not fiction. Pure fiction serves an entirely different purpose.

There is no reason to reject science.
 
buffalo said:
Let’s move on.

Do we agree? (that this proof for evolution has failed?) yes or no
Click to expand...
I was really looking forward to you proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution was false, since you seem so convinced.

I am still awaiting you taking us through your reasoning on the matter, without allusions to atheists and the devil of course.

Must you give up so easily?
 
I have just started. I said I would go through these one by one since you didn’t care for a list.

You still have not/will not answer a simple yes or no.
 
buffalo said:
Do we agree? (that this proof for evolution has failed?) yes or no
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a “proof” for evolution or for any other scientific theory. Mathematical theorems (note the different spelling) have proofs. Scientific theories have evidence. There is a massive amount of evidence for evolution, which is why science currently accepts it.

Your question here is wrongly put.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
It is most interesting that anyone against Darwinism is lying. Perhaps it is the other way around. After all, an evolutionary formed brain is not a reliable truth detector and not honest.
Click to expand...
And this is the same rossum that says there is no absolute truth .
 
LeafByNiggle said:
There are a lot of scientific claims that 99.9999% of the people believed that turned out to be wrong. Newtonian mechanics is a most recent example. No one in Newton’s day believed what we now know from Einstein’s Relativity. That’s the nature of science.
Click to expand...
Right. Despite the error in Newtonian mechanics, it was the scientifically rational theory at the time. Good scientific work offers the best rational explanations for our observations, and whether it is right or wrong does not change that. Some people hold that all life on earth was created 5778 years ago. But that is in contradiction to overwhelming evidence and thus not a rational thing to believe.

Miracles stand in opposition to general experience, but not in opposition to evidence. The evidence is that Jesus was alive, then dead, then alive. The evidence is that life existed longer than 5778 years ago. Could Adam and Eve have been made in an instant by God - sure. Were they? No idea. I’m not convinced Genesis is intended to be a literal recounting of events.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
For the folks - is your claim that evolution is not provable?
Click to expand...
Evolution can cause a lot of emotion, so I will use gravity to explain the ideas.

Gravity is both a fact and a theory:
  • Gravity-as-fact: things fall down.
  • Gravity-as-theory: things fall down because…
Gravity-as-fact is observed, not proved. Scientists make observations and measurements. Those are the facts on which the theory is built.

Gravity-as-theory is an explanation of those observed facts. Newton’s explanation was action at a distance. That was a good explanation, but it had some problems. There were some things it got wrong about the orbit of Mercury for example. Einstein came up with a better explanation: “things fall down because they follow geodesics in the four dimensional space-time manifold.”

The facts stayed the same, but the explanation of those facts changed to a better explanation. Einstein gives the correct result for the orbit of Mercury and some other things.

Neither Newton nor Einstein was ever “proved”. And Einstein is still open to replacement by a better theory, such as Quantum Gravity.

So, to evolution. We have many facts: DNA sequences, observed similarities between living species, fossils, dates etc. These are all facts, not “proof”.

The theory of evolution is currently the best explanation we have for the observed facts. It is not proved, any more than Newton was ever proved. If a better explanation of the facts ever comes along, then that new theory will replace the current theory.

All of this is to say that “proof” is not relevant here. If you want proof look to mathematics. Science has facts/observations and explanations for those facts.

rossum
 
No one is disputing the work of Augustinian friar, Gregor Mendel.

The issue is evolution as a modern story we use to make sense of the world. There are many other stories.

As to the validity of the Theory of Evolution:

Consider how we age. We don’t get better physically once we develop. Random mutations result in metabolic syndromes, the greying and loss of hair, achy joints, high blood pressure etc. Random mutations in the genome result from a number of processes: the noise that exists in any system (if something happens 95% of the time it’s doing pretty well in most things), toxins, viruses and radiation. There is also a built in mechanism by which from the original single cell that constituted our physical being, as divisions occur, information is lost. We cannot recreate an organ from cells (blood cells, pancreatic beta cells, neurons) at the end of the process. That’s why we do bone marrow or stem cell transplants. There is a link to an article form Nature Reviews Genetics, buried somewhere in this thread, that presents and discusses evidence that demonstrates that much speciation occurs as a result of deletions from the genome. It is a gross unverified assumption that is counterintuitive to life’s experiences to believe the diversity of life came from disorganized matter, or simple one cell creatures.

As to natural selection, survival of the fittest, or the “fittingest”, which would be more appropriate given how all organisms are a part of their environment, is clearly not what we observe in nature. Animals have instinctive preferences, not all mating is gorilla-like rape or chimp-like promiscuity. Many mate for life and have rituals, calls and physical attributes that attract their partners. The role of mind is prominent in any organism, whether it is social or solitary in its disposition. The greater the complexity of the organism, the greater is the importance of the psychological in the life of the organism and on the probability of its having offspring.
 
Last edited:
So for the folks - evolution is not provable. A claim I have made several times over.

For many years it may have been the nest explanation, but no more. The modern synthesis is being replaced by the EES.

And the newest evo claim is natural selection can rewire genes in 4 days. It is irreligious to think cells can evolve purposefully. It has to be NS.
 
Catholicwife32 said:
40.png
Aloysium:
It’s a pity that you do not think the truth, pretty awesome data way beyond any bones, as it is revealed in Genesis does not refute the Theory. The evidence is not truly evidence, but is rather a meaning imposed by a theory on the remnants on things long gone.
Click to expand...
The evidence does not support a young earth Creationist interpretation. That’s plain ignorance if you take that perception. But moreover, if we apply the principles of Dei Verbum onto Scriptural interpretation, it becomes clear that Genesis is a mixture of stories told by campfire to expel spiritual truths and reality. It is our own modern minds that insist “Okay it has to be literally true. All of it.” It is myth, but not fiction. Pure fiction serves an entirely different purpose.

There is no reason to reject science.
Click to expand...
You of course are immune to the ignorance that characterizes human nature.

It sounds as though you might be dismissive of Genesis. It does reveal ontological and temporal truths.

Not everyone posting against evolution is rejecting science. Quite the contrary, it is bad science that grates on the nerves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top