Poll: Darwinian Evolution

[wetwrks]

Ok, so i have read a lot of this thread (no, not all of it tho) and am prepared to derail it even more so. I will probably amuse some of you, and the remaining will probably be totally appalled and angry.

If you hold to evolution then (per Darwin) you also must hold to the theory of Survival of the Fittest. It is the primary mechanism for weeding out the genes that need to be removed from the gene pool.

With that in mind how many of you root for the school shooters? Remember that they are removing those who weren't smart enough, tough enough, fast enough, etc...to survive their environment. They wern't the fittest of their species and NEEDED to be removed for the evolution of the species. The school shooters are the mechanism by which the poor genes were removed from the gene pool.

[Hilltop Customs]

Ok, so i have read a lot of this thread (no, not all of it tho) and am prepared to derail it even more so. I will probably amuse some of you, and the remaining will probably be totally appalled and angry.

If you hold to evolution then (per Darwin) you also must hold to the theory of Survival of the Fittest. It is the primary mechanism for weeding out the genes that need to be removed from the gene pool.

With that in mind how many of you root for the school shooters? Remember that they are removing those who weren't smart enough, tough enough, fast enough, etc...to survive their environment. They wern't the fittest of their species and NEEDED to be removed for the evolution of the species. The school shooters are the mechanism by which the poor genes were removed from the gene pool.

The genes of the students who got shot or died did not have anything to do with the situation. Their lack of learned behavior, specifically evasion, MIGHT have had something to do with it, but that is ONLY if they had a chance to react before being shot at.

Now if a few of the students had the natural lock up/freeze reaction to loud/startling noises which can be witnessed in some goats(discovery channel's "dirty jobs" had the "fainting goats") then you might be able to get away with attributing their harm to that genetic trait. This isnt saying any of the students had this genetic characteristic(idk of any humans who fall on their face anytime you clap around them), I'm just giving an example of a trait which would greatly increase the chance of harm in that situation.

Also, just because you believe in survival of the fittest does not mean you want to see things die just to use the situation to apply theory.

Stop being so arrogant, you are not as smart as you think you are.

was that really necessary???

[wetwrks]

Also, just because you believe in survival of the fittest does not mean you want to see things die just to use the situation to apply theory.

The point of this thread isn't "do you believe evolution to be theory", it is "do you believe evolution is FACT"

View Poll Results: On the matter of Darwinian evolution do you...agree? IE Is it FACT?

If you believe evolution is fact (and thus survival of the fittest as also fact) then you also typically hold to the concept that evolution is for the betterment of the species. Thus survival of the fittest is for the betterment of the species. You *may* hold to evolution and survival of the fittest as theory but others don't. I have sat thru plenty of science classes that taught it as if it were truth and ANY who disagreed or proposed another theory of the origin of man were ridiculed.

The genes of the students who got shot or died did not have anything to do with the situation.

It most certainly does. I am aware of an individual who has a genetic propensity for his weight. IE he is fat (as is his family). He was shot. The bullet didn't reach any of his vital organs because of the added weight. In fact, the added weight kept the bullet from even entering the skin. His genes protected him from that threat.

Genetics works both ways. it can cause the individual to freeze at the threat or allow the individual to outrun the threat. It could allow an individual to out think their threat or be unable to deal with the stress of the situation. It could give the individual skin so thin that just minutes in the sun would give them cancer (thus decreasing their chances to pass off their genes). It could give them the ability to lift great weight thus freeing them from a crushing car.

just because you believe in survival of the fittest does not mean you want to see things die just to use the situation to apply theory.

Theory, no...if they believe it as fact then yes. Most individuals who truely believe something try to push it's truth on others. Just look to some of the militant religions of the world. The Koran teaches that infadels (unbelievers) are to be given the choice of convert or die. There were those who were imprisoned for not holding to the "truth" that the world was flat. And again for those who pushed that the earth wasn't the center of the universe.

I have sat in the science class and been berated and scorned for pointing out that evolution is a Theory and not fact as was being pushed by the teacher. In not just one class either. This has happened several times and I am aware of others who have endured the same treatment.

[BobTheCow]

I think much of that "evolution is JUST a 'theory'" argument comes from the misuse of the word "theory." In non-scientific terms, it can be no more than a guess at explaining anything, even conjecture. In scientific terms, however, it has a much stricter meaning: "In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis."

In the case of evolution, it is a theory that has been tested repeatedly and maintained by gobs of evidence gained through the scientific process. I'm perfectly willing to consider an alternate theory with some sort of evidence, but that fact is, none exists. That's enough for me right there.

[Shirow]

Actually you are agnostic. But that's a whole different story.

Well, actually, I'm not.. but thanks for correcting me.

[Hexis]

In the case of evolution, it is a theory that has been tested repeatedly and maintained by gobs of evidence gained through the scientific process. I'm perfectly willing to consider an alternate theory with some sort of evidence, but that fact is, none exists. That's enough for me right there.

I think that summarizes the issue pretty well.

Please allow me to generalize for the sake of a simple example (not targeting at anyone specific).

"Folks" on the "side" of evolution see it as "it will do till we have better, but it's pretty good" explanation for how life has developed as we know it.

"Folks" on the other "side" of the issue want a binary, black or white answer if evolution is FACT.

Scientifically minded folks struggle with that kind of black or white answer. The real answer is almost always "Well, it depends." The more you understand about an something, the more you realize there are few real valid 'yes or no' questions.

Even in a computer, we think of bits as 1 or 0. That's it, two values that when stacked up millions of times over give us all kinds of interesting goodies. The closer you look the more you realize that even that is not true. Sure a voltage level on a strand/pin in a UTP cable may measure +.784V, but what if the other leg of the pair is reading -0.012V?

In this context the definition of "fact" is variable. Is a fact a hard truth that there can be no doubt about? Then I don't see anything as a fact. Science is doubt, it's skepticism. That's a good thing. But it's not skewed skepticism towards an end goal. You can't only be skeptical about things you don't like (tho it's way easier that way).

Do I need to see evolution in a jar to think it's pretty valid? No. Is that faith? Yes, at some level. Does that mean I think faith means that other, quite frankly far-fetched alternative explanations for life as we know it, are more valid? Not at all, there is no real supporting evidence that they hold true where evolution doesn't.

[CaliMagFan]

Can we please avoid name calling, starting a flame war is not what this thread is about. I don't think I'm arrogant. I simply state what I know and intelligently suppose; then hope to learn the rest (as if there is an end to learning, lol).

I'd like to interject a proposal to the group conversation. I would like, from this point on, the term "theory" to be used correctly when connected to an aspect of science.

The difference was alluded to by BobTheCow when he stated, "In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis."

So, facts lead us to make hypotheses about something- life, laws of nature, even the age of the universe. We then gather more facts in testing those hypotheses. After several hypotheses are corroborated by empirical study, a theory can be formed.

Theories are the heavyweight explanations of the scientific world. They are the most rigorously tested of any thoughts because they are so broad and open to criticism. In the case of the Theory of Evolution, up for debate for the last 150 years.

Some other notable THEORIES:
-plate tectonics
-atomic theory (we don't seem to get in heated debates over the fact that the model of the electron field changes every 3 years.)
-Theory of Gravity
-relativity
-game theory
-big bang theory
ENOUGH!

Please use the scientific sense of the term "theory" correctly henceforth. Thank you.

[beam]

The strength of evolution is that every fact about life on earth that has ever been uncovered coincides with Darwin's theory of Evolution.

Really?

[wetwrks]

"Folks" on the other "side" of the issue want a binary, black or white answer if evolution is FACT. Scientifically minded folks struggle with that kind of black or white answer.

They shouldn't struggle with it. To move something from scientific theory to scientific fact REQUIRES the duplication of the process. One must take the given information, copy it and end up with the exact same result, over and over again. This is the scientific process for proving that something isn't JUST a theory.

there is no real supporting evidence that they hold true where evolution doesn't.

Just because you don't accept the evidence doesn't mean it isn't there. AND there are other types of evidence.

Scientific evidence CANNOT prove that yesterday ever happened. WHY? because you cannot exactly duplicate the minute details of everything that happened. It cannot prove that Kenedy was shot or that we went to the moon. There is a different type of evidence to prove historical events called legal evidence. It includes eye-witness accounts. I can give evidence that I wolk up yesterday and went about my business.

[CaliMagFan]

One must take the given information, copy it and end up with the exact same result, over and over again. This is the scientific process for proving that something isn't JUST a theory.

Name one thing- measurable by science- that goes above what you're calling a "theory" and becomes a "fact".

just one.

:)

[Hexis]

Just because you don't accept the evidence doesn't mean it isn't there. AND there are other types of evidence.

Scientific evidence CANNOT prove that yesterday ever happened. WHY? because you cannot exactly duplicate the minute details of everything that happened. It cannot prove that Kenedy was shot or that we went to the moon. There is a different type of evidence to prove historical events called legal evidence. It includes eye-witness accounts. I can give evidence that I wolk up yesterday and went about my business.

I'll be the first to admit that I am not omnipotent. I do not know of all studies or science out there. I'm sure in the whole scheme of things, the sum total of my knowledge is about as close to zero as is possible. Thus I am skeptical of my own knowledge at all times.

I have yet to see any actual tested evidence that suggests an alternative model to evolution. I have seen talking points and arguments against evolution. That is not evidence, that is not a tested model. Show me a supporting model that is tested and that the test is repeatable and I'll call that evidence.

[Hilltop Customs]

The point of this thread isn't "do you believe evolution to be theory", it is "do you believe evolution is FACT"

View Poll Results: On the matter of Darwinian evolution do you...agree? IE Is it FACT?

If you believe evolution is fact (and thus survival of the fittest as also fact) then you also typically hold to the concept that evolution is for the betterment of the species. Thus survival of the fittest is for the betterment of the species. You *may* hold to evolution and survival of the fittest as theory but others don't. I have sat thru plenty of science classes that taught it as if it were truth and ANY who disagreed or proposed another theory of the origin of man were ridiculed.



It most certainly does. I am aware of an individual who has a genetic propensity for his weight. IE he is fat (as is his family). He was shot. The bullet didn't reach any of his vital organs because of the added weight. In fact, the added weight kept the bullet from even entering the skin. His genes protected him from that threat.


Genetics works both ways. it can cause the individual to freeze at the threat or allow the individual to outrun the threat. It could allow an individual to out think their threat or be unable to deal with the stress of the situation. It could give the individual skin so thin that just minutes in the sun would give them cancer (thus decreasing their chances to pass off their genes). It could give them the ability to lift great weight thus freeing them from a crushing car.



Theory, no...if they believe it as fact then yes. Most individuals who truely believe something try to push it's truth on others. Just look to some of the militant religions of the world. The Koran teaches that infadels (unbelievers) are to be given the choice of convert or die. There were those who were imprisoned for not holding to the "truth" that the world was flat. And again for those who pushed that the earth wasn't the center of the universe.

I have sat in the science class and been berated and scorned for pointing out that evolution is a Theory and not fact as was being pushed by the teacher. In not just one class either. This has happened several times and I am aware of others who have endured the same treatment.

The poll in the thread says "do you agree or disagree with Darwinian evolution". You can agree with something that isnt fact. Hell you can agree with something that is completely and utterly wrong.

People accidental slip into the the fact train of thought, but it is all theory. I've fallen onto the fact train plenty of times too. But what it comes down to is: just about everything in the physical world is not able to be proven. To have a proof, you must have a theory which is 100% applicable across every single example. Unless you have access to every single example, you cannot prove something. Proofs exists in math because you have the ability to plug in variables in and literally PROVE that the equation will work for any and every number. There is no variable which you can plug into physical world theories.

The closest we can get to a variable is to to publish theories for the world to try to disprove by concrete repeatable counter examples.


You are right though, genetics could have played a factor in the shootings, natural instinct, reaction times, overall size of the person....all could have an effect on the outcome. It is much too random to make any distinction as powerful as the students were harmed because they were at a genetic disadvantage. The shooters proximity to the student, choice in target, and physical setting has a much more profound impact than any genetic trait in such a situation.

[DevilMan]

Science > Faith

DM

[wetwrks]

Name one thing- measurable by science- that goes above what you're calling a "theory" and becomes a "fact".

just one.

:)

Sure, if you combine 2 Hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom you will get water. It can be (and has been) replicated over and over.

This is scientific fact.

[Thordic]

I'm not getting involved but just wanted to point out a fundamental flaw in your discussion.

You are comparing theory and fact. Thats comparing apples and oranges.

You want to compare theory and law.

I can state that it's a fact that developing thumbs was beneficial to our species. I can't state that theres any law that states how/when we developed them.