Yes. Evolution.

[johnson1010]

No he doesn't. Nor does he apparently understand the words he is using.

Evolution is a theory, in the same way that mathematics is a theory, or music is a theory. Its a field of study.

The theory of gravity has never been proven, nor has the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, nor has atomic theory been proven, even though we used it to utterly destroy whole swaths of land.

There are no serious scientists that i am aware of who reject evolution in favor of creationism.

Scientific theories are not meant to be proven. They are the highest level of confidence any account of reality has. Facts are just data points which are explained by laws which are bound together in a cohesive field of study in a theory.

Interbane is right, of course, and you are unsurprisingly wrong... again.

If you understood the theory of evolution you wouldn't be stamping your feet demanding it explain abiogenesis. Evolution explains evolution. It does not explain atoms or harmony or linguistics or origami.

your inability to understand this is not a compelling argument against it. It only indicates that once again you have no idea what you are talking about.

Evolution explains the evident lineage of lifeforms all the way back to single celled organisms, accounts for vestigial organs and body structures, and has been actually observed taking place. It has been cross confirmed by genetic study, embrionic study, and the fossil record. It is obvious in the physical forms of our nearest relatives as well in our common chemistry, whereas not one bit of dis confirming evidence has ever come to light.

And then there is your knee-jerk objections based on the fact that your favorite fairy tale disagrees because it was written by savages who had no idea about evolution.

[stahrwe]

In law, opposing counsel often develop competing theories based on the same evidence. A judge or jury then decides which theory is more convincing but rarely does all the evidence neatly fit either theory. I wonder, what evidence is there which, in your opinion, does not neatly fit the theory of evolution?

I'm speaking of scientific laws, not legal. I'm also not aware of evidence which doesn't neatly fit into the theory of evolution. I'm not saying there isn't any, as new findings will certainly be integrated. I'm merely saying none came to mind. Do you have some such evidence in mind?

BookTalk rules require sources to be cited. In the rule it initially cites published soureces but, 'using material that is not your own,' indicates that when you quote another post you need to cite whose post it is.

Rule 9: Cite your sources Always cite your sources when quoting, posting excerpts or book reviews, or using material that is not your own.

As for no evidence which does not fit the theory, that is not a good thing that means that the theory is flawed in some way. No theory is so perfect that no examples of contradictions exist. If that is the case, there is something wrong with the theory or yoru assessment.

[Interbane]

No theory is so perfect that no examples of contradictions exist. If that is the case, there is something wrong with the theory or yoru assessment.

If there were evidence that contradicted the theory, that would mean the theory has been falsified. I can say with confidence that no such contradictory evidence has been found.

You say that no theory is so perfect that no examples of contradictions exist. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean "difficulties" or "issues" rather than "contradictions". In that case, are you saying every theory must have a portion that doesn't exactly accord to reality, otherwise it is false? Again, terrible logic Stahrwe.

Premise: Every valid theory to date has had issues.
Conclusion: Every theory must have issues to be valid.

The conclusion doesn't follow. Even though every valid theory to date has had issues(I'm not saying they all have), that doesn't mean every valid theory will have issues. If we (somehow) stumble across a theory that matches perfectly with the way the world works, we can expect no issues.

[stahrwe]

No theory is so perfect that no examples of contradictions exist. If that is the case, there is something wrong with the theory or yoru assessment.

If there were evidence that contradicted the theory, that would mean the theory has been falsified. I can say with confidence that no such contradictory evidence has been found.

You say that no theory is so perfect that no examples of contradictions exist. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean "difficulties" or "issues" rather than "contradictions". In that case, are you saying every theory must have a portion that doesn't exactly accord to reality, otherwise it is false? Again, terrible logic Stahrwe.

Premise: Every valid theory to date has had issues.
Conclusion: Every theory must have issues to be valid.

The conclusion doesn't follow.

It seems to me that you are the one who is using flawed logic. The theory of evolution is not perfect because it is not complete. Since it is not complete it cannot account for all evidence. That does not necessarily mean that TOE is ultimately wrong, only that it is like every other theory, incomplete. I don't say every valid theory to date, I say every theory has issues. There is no such thing as a theory which explains everything perfectly. Even pure mathematics, which should be perfect contains contractiions as shown by Russell and Whitehead so put you logic stick down because logic is flawed too as Goedel showed.

[DWill]

It seems to me that you are the one who is using flawed logic. The theory of evolution is not perfect because it is not complete. Since it is not complete it cannot account for all evidence. That does not necessarily mean that TOE is ultimately wrong, only that it is like every other theory, incomplete. I don't say every valid theory to date, I say every theory has issues. There is no such thing as a theory which explains everything perfectly. Even pure mathematics, which should be perfect contains contractiions as shown by Russell and Whitehead so put you logic stick down because logic is flawed too as Goedel showed.

Do I see a glimmer of progress here, admitting that evolution might not be wrong? Not much, but something. Your attitude, though, is clearly that of someone who is literally unable to see evidence because of the psychological need to defend a belief that would be blown to bits by that contradicting evidence. "No theory is perfect" is a statement that scientists probably wouldn't care to dispute. They'd only be interested in finding a theory that's backed by such a large volume of facts that it provides reliable explanations for diverse phenomena. You prefer--in this one special case, but surely not in the rest of your life--to avoid facts and evidence altogether by relying on a book that God wrote. It would be more candid of you to just give us your bottom line and drop the obfuscation.

[geo]

Evolution explains the evident lineage of lifeforms all the way back to single celled organisms, accounts for vestigial organs and body structures, and has been actually observed taking place. It has been cross confirmed by genetic study, embrionic study, and the fossil record. It is obvious in the physical forms of our nearest relatives as well in our common chemistry, whereas not one bit of dis confirming evidence has ever come to light.

This is it in a nutshell. Well said.

[Interbane]

It seems to me that you are the one who is using flawed logic. The theory of evolution is not perfect because it is not complete. Since it is not complete it cannot account for all evidence. That does not necessarily mean that TOE is ultimately wrong, only that it is like every other theory, incomplete. I don't say every valid theory to date, I say every theory has issues. There is no such thing as a theory which explains everything perfectly. Even pure mathematics, which should be perfect contains contractiions as shown by Russell and Whitehead so put you logic stick down because logic is flawed too as Goedel showed.

I don't disagree with what you're saying here. I would rather avoid absolutes such as "perfect", since nothing is really discussed. Such absolutes are only an ideal. They are not achievable. So to say that evolution is not 'perfect' because it doesn't explain electrodynamism is fine with me.

As for mentioning Goedel. Do you mention his work with logic as an excuse as to why you don't commit fallacies? You say that he has shown logic to be flawed, so it is possible that the flaw also extends to the areas of debate here on Booktalk, your arguments in particular?

[johnson1010]

I have put up plenty of argument for evolution on this site lately.

Where is there one bit of evidence against it?

Remember. Not understanding a thing is not evidence against it. So, "Birds don't turn into cattle" is not a valid argument against evolution. Nor is "Evolution doesn't explain the big bang" or "Evolution can't account for nuclear fission".

[geo]

No reasonable person has a problem with evolution. Let's start a new thread: Yes, Gravity or Yes, Heliocentrism.

By engaging the Troll in dialogue you only validate his worldview. You elevate his nonsensical ideas into the realm of discourse. This is exactly what the Troll wants. It doesn't matter that his ideas are easily knocked down. It only matters that he has an audience for them.

Try the 'Foe' function.

[lady of shallot]

Today for the first time I accessed my own evolutionary history. This was done by a DNA sample from me which was submitted to National Geographic's genome project, in early December. Since the results take about 8 weeks, this is the first time I checked the results which are only available on line.

I must confess it makes me feel like crying. To see and understand that there is a direct link in my own DNA back 180,000 years to mitochondrial Eve. Everybody alive today on the planet is descended from her. Each marker in my DNA sequencing represents a generation. Once my maternal ancestors (women can only trace their maternal lineage) left Africa they migrated to what is now Europe. I have to print these documents out and study them some. Anyway there are only 4 mutations in my DNA.