Answer me this oceans - what if it is naturally occurring?  After all it has happened before (regularly) and we weren't around to 'correct' it then.

Quote:


I don't buy it for a minute.

deepthought wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 6:35pm:


Just realised Ive threadjacked here DT- Ill continue this in a current climate change thread........thanks ta.

bump

Evolution is science, it is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. Darwinian evolution may not be the most apt model and there are many others but it is a scientific pursuit in every sense of the word. Firstly evolution means things change with the progression of time. This is a scientific statement and can be proven correct by anyone, simple. Secondly, Darwinian theory dictates a mechanism exists to pass on characteristics from parents of a species to their children. It goes on to say that there is a mechanism through which this 'hand me down' can change with the passage of time. One word: Genetics. Darwinian theory predicted genes and facilitated the discovery of DNA. Through our knowledge of genetics we have been able to demonstrate that many of Darwins original theories are good models and this is an impressive thing considering the limited scientific methods available at the time. Thus through genetics we can construct predictions and repeatable experiment to test evolutionary theory in the true sense of science. We are now witnessing drugs produced through these means and new crops emerging (positive effects of which are debatable). The original Darwinian theories have actually held up well in the face of strong scientific method, of course you must also understand the term 'survival of the fittest' literally means 'survival of that which survives'.

Suggesting that evolution should be removed from school curriculum is a dangerous idea, and you would be damaging the future of our scientific community by doing so. As a result our ability to find sustainable environmental models for the future would be hindered and we would fall behind the world standard for scientific excellence.

As with all scientific theories, evolution is merely a model of reality and a flawed one. Science is not so much about finding perfect models as it is about finding good enough models and improving on these models through time. Never the less, you cannot deny the fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory: that things change with the progression of time. If evolution is false, why are fossils discovered that do not match the species that live on earth today? Surely this indicates that something has indeed changed with time?

PS: Freediver I take it you wrote the evolution articles on this page? Firstly I ask (without being condescending here) are you a man of science? I mean do you work in the field or have you studied in a related field? (really I'm just curious).

Before I go on, would you prefer I move this to the other thread? (I was unaware of its existence sorry)

Scratch that, this is not about science vs religion. That is a different argument.

Freediver, natural selection IS evolution which IS Darwin's theory.

Quote:

Following this, if a model meets theoretical requirements, makes accurate predictions, and is not successfully disproven it is held up as scientific and put into use.

Quote:

Sure, modern chemistry was the tool used to find DNA, Darwinian evolution was supported by its discovery.

Quote:

Again, natural selection IS Darwin's theory. It existed before Darwin but was greatly extended by the man and he is considered a pillar of modern biology, his teachings are a cornerstone of the science.

Quote:

This is the way of science. A model is not a reality, it is a model. New evidence quite often causes a model to be modified and become better. This is scientific advancement and it does not invalidate Darwin's theories.

Newton's theories are now widely known to have been quite inadequate when explaining the phenomena he sought to explain. Einstein completely disproved the newtonian model, and yet in engineering we still use newtonian mechanics. Why? because it is still a perfectly useful model, and much simpler to deal with than relativistic models. The same can be said for Darwin.

Of course Darwinian theory has 'evolved', that does not mean it is not useful and incorrect. You must understand that 'incorrect' has a relative meaning in science. Science is not the absolute that many seem to think it is.

Quote:

What is this then (first sentence of your article):
Quote:

You fly in the face of scientific understanding and to suggest we should remove it from schools is not a good idea. Perhaps not dangerous in the sense that DT's muslim hatred is dangerous but it would mean we would fall behind in scientific understanding as a nation, something I do  consider dangerous.

Quote:

It absolutely is a scientific model and one that is used by biologists, anthropologists and geneticists across the globe. Go tell a biologist that and see what they say.

An example: Take a bacteria or virus, you eliminate it with medicine. The naturally resistant bacteria remain, they reproduce and pass on their resistive gene. The new colony of bacteria have evolved through natural selection, enough of this can create a new species (a concept that is probably not as black and white as you think it is). Before you go on, Natural selection IS Darwin's theory. Biologists still believe in a common origin of all species, that is essentially a common origin of all life and there have been physical studies into the possibility of this which so far support the theories. I will grant that this part at least is a stretch but a model that fits current understanding and is not disproven per se is still valid under the scientific method, and it can still be disproven. Just because it is not as perfect a model as some others we have does not make it unscientific.

Quote:

It very much is a fundamental tenet of evolution. Evolution theory existed well before Darwin as did the concept of natural selection. My description as 'change with time' is abroad sweeping one but it is essentially what Evolution means.

Quote:

You are however arguing that it is not scientific, which is an absolute untruth.

Many scientific models fail to accurately predict eventualities. Climate scientists cannot predict the future of our climate but would you then say that climate science is not scientific? In engineering I can tell you the circumstances that will cause a component to fail but I cannot predict how those circumstances will arise with absolute certainty, engineering is not unscientific because of this.

One final time, Darwins theories involve natural selection, from wikipedia:
Quote:

Note the 'natural' and 'sexual' selection parts...

You do sound like someone from a scientific background... just tell me I'm not a bigoted asshole like some round here

I believe you are dancing around the semantics, evolution as taught is simply natural selection, it really doesn't sound to me like you actually disbelieve evolution. If you want to get specific there are dozens of evolutionary theories, all of which are scientific to a degree and all of which contain 'fluff'. Many scientific theories are useless, but scientific none the less.

Quote:

Primordial ooze theory (for want of a better description) which is what I was referring to, is taught as natural science in natural science degrees at university level. I have a good friend who has been through it. My choice of the word 'believe' was poor and I was not speaking in a belief in the religious sense way. Please don't drag religion into this I hate religion vs science debates and I consider them pointless from the get go.

Quote:

Interesting point of view. I might have to rethink my interpretation of your article.

Quote:

I know this, I know this well and have argued this with many religious cranks over the years.

I'm sorry freediver I took your article to be a shallow and ignorant attack on a well founded scientific method. I get uppidy about this topic because I see so many religious cranks attacking evolution these days. Lets just say that what you call natural selection, I see as simply evolution. And I'm going to assume here that you are a man of science because you sound like it, I know you don't want to make this personal but I applaud you for it if it is true. I respect men of science!