Evolution?

[Lindagerr]

Your definition is incomplete without clarification of mechanism

[Leebo]

The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms. Evolution, the observed phenomenon, is just the changes in gene frequencies over time.

The conversation started in another topic, which Westerner linked to, and there I talked about heredity and natural selection.

[cookderosa]

Linda's husband (and Linda for that matter) are both scientists and I work for a science research lab at one of the top universities in the country. DOING SCIENCE. I think there is confusion about what science IS, which is why people are debating trivial details that are inadvertently undermining their own arguments. Science is a verb, it's what you DO. Yes, it can be a noun, like "science class" but scientists will tell you that science is a series of questions that are asked for the purpose of generating facts that generate results so you can ask more questions. Period. To believe that you (general you) possess the ability to understand and EXPLAIN the complexity of our universe and existence is arrogant, because experts in every field will tell you they know very little. The most learned people in their field might know 100% about their specialty within their field, but NO ONE knows even 1% of their field. There are over 40,000 peer reviewed journals, how many are you reading? Who is keeping track of facts and findings? Pretending to know anything about anything shows that someone doesn't know what they don't know.
Also, science and religion fit nicely together absent the presumption of certainty. I'm sure the ant in my yard feels quite certain he's seen the whole world.

[Leebo]

You are correct, and I am not an expert. I'm just trying to answer Jack's questions and it moved into this topic.

EDIT: I will say though, that I don't think there's anything wrong with being picky about terms and defintions, and any particular individual's position or title isn't a hammer that determines their correctness.

[publius2k4]

......science and religion fit nicely together absent the presumption of certainty.

Ah, but that is the problem of it....religion purports certainty. By contrast, the scientific community thrives on uncertainty. In religion, if you say "god did it" then you have no reason to seek the truth any further. In science, the idea is to change the phrase from "we don't know" to "we know."

Strictly to the subject: The theory of evolution is completely independent from the study of the origin of life (known as abiogenesis). It's likely that we will never know exactly what caused the very first cells to form. When we study evolution, we are not studying how the first cells formed. We are studying how these cells reproduced, and what changes occurred as the reproduction took place.

I recommend a video series entitles "The fundamental falsehoods of creationism" on youtube. Here's a small sample:

[video=youtube;HmuLxPklXrc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmuLxPklXrc[/video]

[Jack1798]

, the scientific community thrives on uncertainty.

Yet you post a video that purports evolution (which, by all accounts, is still a theory) as fact?

[Leebo]

Yet you post a video that purports evolution (which, by all accounts, is still a theory) as fact?

I don't think you understand what a theory is if you are using it that way. A theory is the highest position an idea can have in science. It's a comprehensive model that ties together all known observations and facts. It does not mean "guess" or "hunch" the way people use it in conversation. I've even said this a few times in talking to you. I don't think this topic is going to be productive, so I'm going to stop posting.

[sanantone]

I don't think you understand what a theory is if you are using it that way. A theory is the highest position an idea can have in science. It's a comprehensive model that ties together all known observations and facts. It does not mean "guess" or "hunch" the way people use it in conversation. I've even said this a few times in talking to you. I don't think this topic is going to be productive, so I'm going to stop posting.

I thought a law was the highest position an idea in science can have. Theories have a lot of research to back them up, but they haven't been proven to be 100% true.

[Leebo]

Laws are a different category of idea, I guess. They aren't on the same hierarchy. When you have enough observations to say with a high degree of certainty that something will behave a certain way, it becomes a law, but no proposed mechanisms or explanations are required.

And proving something true is never the goal, in my understanding. Everything is always waiting for new data or observations to come along and demand reworking. Laws are often only found to be applicable to certain sets of circumstances and not universally true, anyway.

[cookderosa]

Ah, but that is the problem of it....religion purports certainty. By contrast, the scientific community thrives on uncertainty. In religion, if you say "god did it" then you have no reason to seek the truth any further. In science, the idea is to change the phrase from "we don't know" to "we know."

There are 41,000 denominations of just Christianity! So, to assume that *all* Christians are this way or that way doesn't respect the variance of each denomination or their interpretation of their doctrine.