• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evolution in action, in real time.

Really? How so? A hypothesis is essentially an educated guess. Theories are generally much stronger in that several educated guesses stemming from the root hypothesis have proven accurate or that some form of experimentation or observable phenomenon has given weight to the original hypothesis.

A scientific theory has been tested to the point that the only way to refute it is to come up with some new, previously unknown facts. In the case of the theory of evolution, it has been tested now for a century and a half, and every new fact that has been found has confirmed it. It is difficult to imagine what new facts could possibly come to light that would refute it.


Yes, it is in fact a scientific term. By all means look it up if you think otherwise.

Dang, you're right. I hate when that happens.


It just has a different meaning for biologists as opposed to creationists:


When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

I explain it as humans and chimps sharing similar biological features that would merit the similarity in basic genetic structure. :mrgreen:

Yes they share similar biological features as well. The reason is that chimps and humans share a common ancestor that existed only a short time ago on an evolutionary time scale.
 
A scientific theory has been tested to the point that the only way to refute it is to come up with some new, previously unknown facts.

That's not true at all. A scientific theory often is just an interpretation of facts. For instance, anthropogenic global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions from the use of fossil fuels is an interpretation of facts. Some other interpretation that fits the facts can just as easily gain equal weight. Granted, to determine whether one is superior to the other would require one to have superior evidence, but to posit a theory does not require new facts.

In the case of the theory of evolution, it has been tested now for a century and a half, and every new fact that has been found has confirmed it. It is difficult to imagine what new facts could possibly come to light that would refute it.

People shouldn't treat the theory of evolution like a single complete theory where one part being demonstrated automatically gives the others validity. We can empirically prove snake-like lizard things have changed the way they bring bundles of reptilian joy into the world, but that does not empirically prove me and Bobo the chimp have a common great-great-great-great to the something or other power grandfather.

I am sure if Yahweh/Vishnu/The Flying Spaghetti Monster came down to Earth and said, "bitch I did that!" that would pretty much shatter the whole theory.

Yes they share similar biological features as well. The reason is that chimps and humans share a common ancestor that existed only a short time ago on an evolutionary time scale.

Honestly, whether humans were molded by Kami-sama or developed gradually over millions of years from some other critter it stands to reason that organisms we are similar to will be similar to us. :)
 
That's not true at all. A scientific theory often is just an interpretation of facts. For instance, anthropogenic global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions from the use of fossil fuels is an interpretation of facts. Some other interpretation that fits the facts can just as easily gain equal weight. Granted, to determine whether one is superior to the other would require one to have superior evidence, but to posit a theory does not require new facts.




People shouldn't treat the theory of evolution like a single complete theory where one part being demonstrated automatically gives the others validity. We can empirically prove snake-like lizard things have changed the way they bring bundles of reptilian joy into the world, but that does not empirically prove me and Bobo the chimp have a common great-great-great-great to the something or other power grandfather.

I am sure if Yahweh/Vishnu/The Flying Spaghetti Monster came down to Earth and said, "bitch I did that!" that would pretty much shatter the whole theory.



Honestly, whether humans were molded by Kami-sama or developed gradually over millions of years from some other critter it stands to reason that organisms we are similar to will be similar to us. :)

Global warming theory states that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing, and that the increase is most likely being accelerated by human activity.

The theory is that the Earth is getting warmer. Until new facts are found to negate that theory, it is still accepted. You can't just come up with a new one. Either the Earth is in a warming trend, or it is not.

That the process is being accelerated by human activities is still an hypothesis, therefore, the disclaimer "most likely". As an hypothesis, it has to fit all of the known facts, but still remains to be tested. While most scientists think the hypothesis is correct, it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The theory of evolution, on the other hand, has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Sure, if God himself were to appear and say, " It's all a lot of hooey", then that would be a new fact that could dispute the theory of evolution.

So, there is some hope that doubters of evolution may be correct. All it would take for them to be proven right would be the indisputable word of god (or Vishnu, or Allah, or whoever is responsible for having created life on Earth.) I'm not so sure the flying spaghetti monster would qualify.:roll:
 
Hardly, but it would be possible to clearly tie species x to species y by a gradual process of adaptation. Conceivably one could move from period to period in order to see the transitions and empirically test them. Since we cannot do this and time travel is most likely impossible then anyone saying it is a fact that man descended from ape is simply wrong.
We already have transitional fossils, we have lots of them, we haven't even named them all yet. Genetic evidence has put to bed any notion that we DO NOT share a common ancestor with modern day apes. The human 2nd chromosome and ERV's in our DNA and modern ape DNA.

It is now regarded almost IMPOSSIBLE that we are not descended apes (well technically we still are apes).


Bull****. Laws and facts are observed reality. To say a theory holds greater weight than a law is like saying we can be more confident that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming than we can be about the very existence of global warming.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. Laws are used to predict an event, not to explain. Eg. Newtons law of gravity, he could predict the behaviour of a falling object BUT he could not explain it.

Theories are a group of accepted well tested hypotheses that EXPLAIN a natural phenomona and can include multiple laws that add weight to the theory. In effect laws back weight to a scientific theory.

A fact is an hypothesis that has been tested again and again and came out correct. Eg, the hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun, this fact is added to the Theory of Gravity. Scientific theories may contain hundreds maybe thousands of facts. Facts and laws enrich a scientific theory, they do not overweigh or are better than a scientific theory.


I know the difference between a scientific theory and a guess. I took science in elementary school too. Now micro-evolution is something I would describe as a law or fact because it can be empirically proven. Speciation is still a theory. It is a logically-sound theory, but still it is not a law or fact.

I have a biological sciences honours degree from one the of top universities in the United Kingdom, i know what laws and theories are and you are mistaken. Is the Germ theory not have empirical weight? Atomic theory?

Speciation has been observed by the way in many flora and fauna.
 
Last edited:
Wrong, wrong and wrong. Laws are used to predict an event, not to explain. Eg. Newtons law of gravity, he could predict the behaviour of a falling object BUT he could not explain it.

Theories are a group of accepted well tested hypotheses that EXPLAIN a natural phenomona and can include multiple laws that add weight to the theory. In effect laws back weight to a scientific theory.

A fact is an hypothesis that has been tested again and again and came out correct. Eg, the hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun, this fact is added to the Theory of Gravity. Scientific theories may contain hundreds maybe thousands of facts. Facts and laws enrich a scientific theory, they do not overweigh or are better than a scientific theory.




I have a biological sciences honours degree from one the of top universities in the United Kingdom, i know what laws and theories are and you are mistaken. Is the Germ theory not have empirical weight? Atomic theory?

Speciation has been observed by the way in many flora and fauna.

Maybe they teach it differently in the U.K., but I don't think so. The two examples you give are not particularly good theories either. Disease can be caused by many things other than microorganisms and this we know as fact. Matter need not be composed of atoms and this we also know as fact. At the time they were conceived they were indeed purely theories, though at least with atoms it has in several areas developed into fact. Much of what was once theoretical about cells has been empirically observed to the point of being fact or law.

Some claim that theories cannot become facts or law, but that is not at all true. People have put forward theories about the existence of certain phenomena and have later demonstrated that these do exist. Theories about the existence of certain planets or landmasses before they were discovered is an example.

Gravitation is not a mere theory either since it has also been empirically observed time after time. There are theories about gravity that concern what gravity is or does and how it is caused, but gravitation itself is not a theory anymore.
 
Just out of curiosity, how do you explain the fact that human beings share 98% of our DNA with the chimpanzees?

because God made us from the same bit of clay? :lol:
 
Gravitation is not a mere theory either since it has also been empirically observed time after time. There are theories about gravity that concern what gravity is or does and how it is caused, but gravitation itself is not a theory anymore.

Yes. Yes it is. A scientific theory will never become a law.
 
When I was driving through Yellowstone Park a few years ago, I noticed a tour bus stopped near a grazing elk. The tourists (Japanese, I think) poured out of the bus with their video cameras and surrounded the critter, who became obviously nervous. I stopped and watched, thinking I might get to see some evolution in action, but it didn't happen that time. The action that day was on the other side of the park, where a bison deleted a New Jersey tourist from the gene pool.
 
Maybe they teach it differently in the U.K., but I don't think so. The two examples you give are not particularly good theories either. Disease can be caused by many things other than microorganisms and this we know as fact.

Yes, and that's not what the germ theory of disease says. It says that diseases are caused by microorganisms, not that germs are the only cause of diseases.

If you think the germ theory is wrong, try exorcism as an alternative to antibiotics.

Matter need not be composed of atoms and this we also know as fact.

What kind of matter is not composed of atoms?

At the time they were conceived they were indeed purely theories, though at least with atoms it has in several areas developed into fact. Much of what was once theoretical about cells has been empirically observed to the point of being fact or law.

and are now accepted theories.

Gravitation is not a mere theory either since it has also been empirically observed time after time. There are theories about gravity that concern what gravity is or does and how it is caused, but gravitation itself is not a theory anymore.

That gravity exists has never been in dispute, hence, the law of gravity.

But, what is gravity? Can you explain what it is without citing a scientific theory?
 
Last edited:
Yes, and that's not what the germ theory of disease says.

I suppose that could be true, but it is kind of pointless to argue about the matter. Naturally we know today they cannot be the only cause.

What kind of matter is not composed of atoms?

Neutron stars are believed to be composed of neutrons and that it is not even possible for atoms to exist in a neutron star.

and are now accepted theories.

They are more than accepted theories. We can unequivocally state a number of things about cells as fact or law that were previously only theory.

But, what is gravity? Can you explain what it is without citing a scientific theory?

Like I said, presently you can't. However, I am sure you know about experiments looking to reveal exactly what is gravity and what causes it. If we discover a graviton or some sort of physical reality that can be empirically observed as the cause of gravity it will no longer be necessary to cite a theory to explain the cause of gravity as it will have been empirically observed.
 
I suppose that could be true, but it is kind of pointless to argue about the matter. Naturally we know today they cannot be the only cause.

True. In much the same way, we know that human activities are not the only cause of climate change, just one of the causes.

Neutron stars are believed to be composed of neutrons and that it is not even possible for atoms to exist in a neutron star.

I hadn't thought of that.


They are more than accepted theories. We can unequivocally state a number of things about cells as fact or law that were previously only theory.

Good point. Such observations were not possible before modern microscopes.


Like I said, presently you can't. However, I am sure you know about experiments looking to reveal exactly what is gravity and what causes it. If we discover a graviton or some sort of physical reality that can be empirically observed as the cause of gravity it will no longer be necessary to cite a theory to explain the cause of gravity as it will have been empirically observed.

Perhaps. Evolution has been empirically observed, yet is still not only a theory, but is still being questioned.
 
That could continue indefinitely then and so on. So you are saying we should ignore the tranistional fossil C between A to E because B & D have yet to be discovered? So you are saying that when we found a fossil of ape with a chimpanzee sixed brain, yet walks upright like us we should ignore it until every single species has been discovered from shared ancestor to us? Get your head out of your ass please.

At least you admit transitional fossils exist tho, its something.

I'll ignore the hostility from a person who, I'm willing to bet, considers himself non-judgemental.

The point I'm making is that it's entirely futile to try to placate creationists by demonstrating the existence of transitional fossils. The 'missing link' argument is made from a standpoint of blind ignorance, not a willingness to learn from evidence.
 
DoL, you are making a semantic mistake. 'Theory,' as defined by a scientist, does not share definitions with 'theory,' as used in common english. If it makes it easier, think of the "Theory of Gracity" or "The Theory of Evolution" as a mathematical theorem. Calling it the Theorem of Evolution helps reduce the semantic confusion.
 
DoL, you are making a semantic mistake. 'Theory,' as defined by a scientist, does not share definitions with 'theory,' as used in common english.

I am not making a semantic mistake. I am going explicitly by the scientific definition of these terms.
 
They are more than accepted theories. We can unequivocally state a number of things about cells as fact or law that were previously only theory.

Like I said, presently you can't. However, I am sure you know about experiments looking to reveal exactly what is gravity and what causes it. If we discover a graviton or some sort of physical reality that can be empirically observed as the cause of gravity it will no longer be necessary to cite a theory to explain the cause of gravity as it will have been empirically observed.
Without further mining examples from previous posts, here are two statements that demonstrate your semantic misunderstanding of the word 'theory' as defined by science. These statements imply that, with enough empirical evidence, a scientific hypothesis can move from 'theory' to 'fact' or 'law.' That's simply untrue.

If we were to discover a graviton, that would do no more than compliment the already well detailed theory of gravity- our explanations of gravity would continue to remain a theory. Gravity has already been empirically observed, just take a glance at your feet on the ground. No, in popular nomenclature, a theory is synonymous with hypothesis. This is not true in science. A theory, in science, is a hypothesis with enough experimental support that it can serve as an explanation for observed phenomena. As far as gravity is concerned, Newtons "Laws" of motion are entirely erroneous for extreme speeds and masses, but serve perfectly well for everyday purposes.

The same is true with the scientific theory of evolution. A 'missing link' will only compliment the already well detailed theory of evolution of life on earth, which has been documented through genetics, experimental observation, taxonomic observation and many other methods of aggregating data.

Again, scientific hypotheses never move from 'theory' to 'law.'
 
Without further mining examples from previous posts, here are two statements that demonstrate your semantic misunderstanding of the word 'theory' as defined by science. These statements imply that, with enough empirical evidence, a scientific hypothesis can move from 'theory' to 'fact' or 'law.' That's simply untrue.

If we were to discover a graviton, that would do no more than compliment the already well detailed theory of gravity- our explanations of gravity would continue to remain a theory. Gravity has already been empirically observed, just take a glance at your feet on the ground. No, in popular nomenclature, a theory is synonymous with hypothesis. This is not true in science. A theory, in science, is a hypothesis with enough experimental support that it can serve as an explanation for observed phenomena. As far as gravity is concerned, Newtons "Laws" of motion are entirely erroneous for extreme speeds and masses, but serve perfectly well for everyday purposes.

The same is true with the scientific theory of evolution. A 'missing link' will only compliment the already well detailed theory of evolution of life on earth, which has been documented through genetics, experimental observation, taxonomic observation and many other methods of aggregating data.

Again, scientific hypotheses never move from 'theory' to 'law.'

I have spent a while on this thread explaining how this does happen. One example I gave involved theories about bodies of land or planets. Some things will never be empirically observed, which was the whole point of what I said at the beginning regarding the origin of life.
 
I have spent a while on this thread explaining how this does happen. One example I gave involved theories about bodies of land or planets. Some things will never be empirically observed, which was the whole point of what I said at the beginning regarding the origin of life.

Your examples were false.
 
Really? Why don't you explain how they were false?
I'm no expert.
I looked at your other posts and the only other mention of planets or landmasses was:
Some claim that theories cannot become facts or law, but that is not at all true. People have put forward theories about the existence of certain phenomena and have later demonstrated that these do exist. Theories about the existence of certain planets or landmasses before they were discovered is an example.
Neither of those examples were first theories and then laws in the scientific sense of the terms. A scientific theory is a well supported framework for explaining bodies of facts. A scientific law is a description of the actions of observed phenomenon that appears to always hold true under the right circumstances, and can usually be expressed as a mathematical equation. I could see the possible existence of another planet beyond the orbit of Uranus being a scientific theory in 1840, since it explained the irregularities in Uranus' orbit, but today nobody calls the existence of Neptune a law, it's just a fact.
 
I'm no expert.
I looked at your other posts and the only other mention of planets or landmasses was: Neither of those examples were first theories and then laws in the scientific sense of the terms. A scientific theory is a well supported framework for explaining bodies of facts. A scientific law is a description of the actions of observed phenomenon that appears to always hold true under the right circumstances, and can usually be expressed as a mathematical equation. I could see the possible existence of another planet beyond the orbit of Uranus being a scientific theory in 1840, since it explained the irregularities in Uranus' orbit, but today nobody calls the existence of Neptune a law, it's just a fact.

Law and fact are very similar terms in science. A law is generally just noting some factual observation that is recurrent in many places and seems to be consistent.
 
Law and fact are very similar terms in science. A law is generally just noting some factual observation that is recurrent in many places and seems to be consistent.
All scientific laws seem to be facts but not all facts are scientific laws.
 
Laws and facts are not the same thing. Laws can change. Newtons laws of motion are an example of this. They are not universally applicable and are subject to the same editing process in the face of new evidence such as the existence of sub atomic particles. Both laws and theories comprise observed facts but are not themselves absolute facts. The uncertainty implicit in the philosophy of science would forbid such characterisations.
 
Laws and facts are not the same thing. Laws can change. Newtons laws of motion are an example of this. They are not universally applicable and are subject to the same editing process in the face of new evidence such as the existence of sub atomic particles. Both laws and theories comprise observed facts but are not themselves absolute facts. The uncertainty implicit in the philosophy of science would forbid such characterisations.

Like I said laws are similar to facts. I did not say they were the same.
 
But they are not similar, anymore than we can say a theory is similar to a fact. We can not prove that Newtons laws of gravity or motion necessarily applied before he started testing them or that they apply whenever we aren't testing them (if a tree falls down and no one is around to hear it etc). There is no law of the sun rising this morning, a law of the Americas or a law of Uranus. These are facts. Explaining why these facts exist are rooted in laws and theories. Neither laws or theories are necessarily beyond all doubt, they're just beyond reasonable doubt until demonstrated otherwise.
 
Back
Top Bottom