Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #93 - kommandantvideo (10/16/2013) [-]
Isn't evolution a theory?
#312 to #93 - kommandantvideo (10/17/2013) [-]
Lol all the butthurt people
User avatar #292 to #93 - myfourthaccount (10/17/2013) [-]
Yeah, but then again, so is gravity. And gravity is as real as it can get.
User avatar #172 to #93 - hybridxproject (10/16/2013) [-]
so is gravity
User avatar #124 to #93 - wiredguy (10/16/2013) [-]
That isn't to say atheism is a theory. The same rules apply, obviously, so it's a hypothesis.
Sadly, religion and stuff is just a concept which we can't measure. No-one can rightfully say that they even have any evidence, let alone a proof.

This has nothing to do with religion. I'm just talking about evolution, and the definition of the terms theory and hypothesis.
User avatar #120 to #93 - wiredguy (10/16/2013) [-]
You don't quite know what the theory means, do you?

Religion, and the flying Spaghetti Monster. These are hypotheses.
Any idea with no strong, statistical data to back it up, and no positive peer review . This is a hypothesis.

A theory has evidence. As much evidence as we need to call it "true".
Most people think that "theory" and "hypothesis" are the same thing.
What's they're getting confused about is a theorem. You can have a mathematical theorem, like Fermat's last theorem, because it's pure maths and it does exactly what you tell it.
But in science, and in the real world, theorems are impossible, because you can't ever rightfully say that it's 100% impossible you are wrong.
So a theory, or a working model is the best we can have.

Hence, a theory is treated as being true until more precise systems of analysis are invented, or new, accepted information comes along which contradicts the current theory.
Think paradigms.

Don't make the mistake of thinking theory means hypothesis. A theory has undergone peer review and is accepted as being scientifically useful to be called true.
If that makes sense.
#359 to #120 - ciscovdez (10/17/2013) [-]
why do u say flying spaghetti monster? it jus shows that your completely against religion and immature. just say god. annnd now what I think about evolution and religion.
before I start my definition of "God" is whatever created everything the stars, galaxies, universes, dimensions, everything that has ever been anything.
but whatever created us on the other hand was or is a highly intelligent being/beings able to create such a complex machine as the human body and brain, able to repair itself and shape itself however you decide to bulid it..are our "creators" or what most religions call it "god".
I believe evolution is real but I do not believe we evolved from monkeys. I believe religion is right in some ways too but it was just interpreted wrong because back then they worded things different such as technology/magic/powers and god/aliens. We do have tailbones though which is weird.
I do not believe in the biblical heaven or hell I believe when you die the DMT in your brain releases and your spiritual body/conscious seperates from your physical body and then you could roam the galaxies and dimensions and do anything that comes to mind that to me is "heaven".. kindof like astral projecting except since you die you can never go back to your body.
: )
User avatar #385 to #359 - enderslayer (10/17/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, but your Grammar is just atrocious.
User avatar #384 to #359 - slowly (10/17/2013) [-]
And you've just made this up yourself? Based on no evidence at all, it's just an idea you think is nice.
No offense buddy, but that makes no sense.

And you can't even spell, don't belittle the guy for his choice of words.
#386 to #384 - ciscovdez (10/17/2013) [-]
I can spell but, I see no need to write out big words because it's boring and I'd rather type how I text because why the **** not? Why would I care what you furry no life fags think about my typing? I have a ******* life not like most people on this website that think there so smart lol.
But your right big bang evolution whatever haha.
User avatar #311 to #120 - kommandantvideo (10/17/2013) [-]
I never said anything about religion....
User avatar #351 to #311 - aczzoh (10/17/2013) [-]
That wasn't his point at all. You completely missed it.
#291 to #120 - John Cena (10/17/2013) [-]
I agree with you and love the way you put that into words), but I'm gonna play devil's advocate here. What kind of evidence does it take to "call it true"? What can be defined as evidence? If the definition is left vague, then I could say that God exists. Then I could prove it by saying that our very existence and intelligence are evidence.
User avatar #322 to #291 - quadrilateral (10/17/2013) [-]
Well, one of the big things is that you are able to create a test for it, and be able to reproduce the result multiple times.
User avatar #274 to #120 - lolofoeshow (10/17/2013) [-]
Kind of like the theory that the Eath was a cube and that the sun revolved around the earth....which was later disproven and seen as complete nonsense in today's context.

Yea, I get what you're saying
User avatar #264 to #120 - greenstrongworld (10/17/2013) [-]
HOWEVER! A theory can only be confirmed when experimented. Because evolution takes several millions of years, it cannot be experimented and thus cannot be confirmed. But I'm still a strong believer of evolution.
User avatar #190 to #120 - kommandantvideo (10/16/2013) [-]
Well if it was accepted as scientifically true completely, it would be a law, not a theory.
User avatar #222 to #190 - wiredguy (10/17/2013) [-]
No, laws have nothing to do with this. A law is usually a relationship between an input and an output. It's maths, as far as I'm aware.
Take Ohm's law for ohmic resistors. Where the potential difference is directly proportional to the current across a resistor multiplied by its resistance.
This isn't the actual definition, but it's the only outcome which arises, due to the definition being what it is, which is hard to word, so I'll just link you the Wikipedia page.
Patterns and facts observed through repeated experiment.

Evolution is a phenomenon.
Besides, you can't test for macroevolution, because of the timescale it happens over.
#202 to #190 - John Cena (10/16/2013) [-]
You obviously don't know what a scientific law or theory is.
User avatar #127 to #120 - dafiltafish (10/16/2013) [-]
I think he was just poking a bear for a response
User avatar #192 to #127 - kommandantvideo (10/16/2013) [-]
not quite but nice try
User avatar #140 to #127 - wiredguy (10/16/2013) [-]
I still think it's nice to try and word this out properly.
Or as close as I can manage.
Not really good with words. I'm more of a numbers kind of guy.
#126 to #120 - John Cena (10/16/2013) [-]
look, i am 26 years old, when the **** did a theory become the same as true. i was taught in college that theory was a hypothesis with some scientific backing, not the same as fact. You can't change the meaning of a word to suit you.
User avatar #156 to #126 - gurubear (10/16/2013) [-]
You would be surprised if you knew how much of what we know is "only" a theory.
User avatar #143 to #126 - wiredguy (10/16/2013) [-]

n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
User avatar #139 to #126 - wiredguy (10/16/2013) [-]
That's pretty much exactly what I described, only a theory has to have enough scientific backing to be generally accepted as true or useful. Up until that point it remains a hypothesis.

Like, everything we think about particle physics is only a model for what we've observed.
Particle physicists just make **** up until their numbers work. It's total bull and we'll have to come up with a new theory sooner or later.
But it's all generally accepted to be true, because it's the best thing we have so far.

You're welcome to hold out on the hope that in a decade or two's time, evolution will become redundant and the best new theory presented is the New Testament, if you really want.
#118 to #93 - mytwocents has deleted their comment [-]
#169 to #118 - hankiepankie (10/16/2013) [-]
Religion is not a theory. What peer-reviewed scientific backing does and religion have?
User avatar #109 to #93 - dafiltafish (10/16/2013) [-]
Valence bond theory
Plate tectonics
Atomic theory
Theory of relativity
Quantum Theory
String theory

By definition, these are also theories.
#117 to #109 - godleftmefordead (10/16/2013) [-]
How does that explain anything?
User avatar #123 to #117 - dafiltafish (10/16/2013) [-]
Theory is a word that has some weight behind it. look at your comment #116 for further direction... minus the last bit about psychological change and replacing god.
#131 to #123 - godleftmefordead (10/16/2013) [-]
Im the coment #116 dude, lol. Check out the user.
Still you didn't reponded my question, the only thing that i get from there is that most part of science is interpretation, no final truths.

I agree with that.
User avatar #134 to #131 - dafiltafish (10/16/2013) [-]
If it were a final truth it would be a law, but we can use theories in conjunction with observable science and that is what matters.

look at your comment #116 for further direction
#138 to #134 - godleftmefordead (10/16/2013) [-]
Yes, i agree with that.
The progress of science has been through scientific revolutions, not as a continium gathering of information. This revolutions,( conductism vs cognositivism, newton vs einstein, etc) had apeared because the inneficacy of the dominant paradigm to explain the phenomena of his objetc of studies, and with new proof, old science gets descarted.

The truth today, is not the truth of tomorrow. Science is an autorithy, like ir or not, and should be threated like that, with distrust. Only taking his principles if usefull, but not becaus "durr durr science says is truth".

for further information read phylosophy, i suggets Kuhn on this topic.

Science is the god of the post industrial society, deal with it.

User avatar #142 to #138 - dafiltafish (10/16/2013) [-]
Dealt with it before.
User avatar #141 to #138 - dafiltafish (10/16/2013) [-]
To many, yes.
#144 to #141 - godleftmefordead (10/16/2013) [-]
Im happy we got to a common ground.

Take care sir.
User avatar #146 to #144 - dafiltafish (10/16/2013) [-]
**dafiltafish tips his hat**
Same to you.
#147 to #146 - godleftmefordead (10/16/2013) [-]
*Tips fedora*
User avatar #149 to #147 - dafiltafish (10/16/2013) [-]
God damn it...
User avatar #95 to #93 - walruskingofsweden (10/16/2013) [-]
Yes but it makes perfect ******* sense!
User avatar #97 to #95 - kommandantvideo (10/16/2013) [-]
So did Lamark's theory, until we decided that the theory of evolution "sounded" better, and "made more sense".
Not trying to bible thump here, just saying
User avatar #113 to #97 - danilawleit (10/16/2013) [-]
side note : greeks and the like thought that the 5 humors made perfect sense too. they were way off the mark
#103 to #97 - John Cena (10/16/2013) [-]
You know, while I believe that the theory holds truth, you absolutely have a point. Whether we will prove the theory or find a more accurate one to replace it remains to be seen, but it is still a fairly good point that you have made.
User avatar #98 to #97 - walruskingofsweden (10/16/2013) [-]
Explain to me your issues with evolution please.
User avatar #121 to #98 - cheezbrgr (10/16/2013) [-]
i have an issue as it provides no conclusive evidence that a sustaining(reproducing) organic creatures. even with scientist working on it today they have had no success replicating what supposedly happened by complete accident. not only would you need to make amino acids out of inorganic materials but they would have to combine perfectly to produce a creature that can eat, process energy, and most importantly reproduce. as this would be the first organism, it would have no chance for evolution. if it lacked anything it would die. So essentially we are taking a near impossible event and mow we have to assume that it happened hundreds of times until the correct sequence of amino acids occurred to make a sustainable reproducing organism.
In the early atmosphere the air consisted of mainly carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor. when these conditions were recreated at test were made there were no amino acids created, the only organic compounds that occurred were cyanide and formaldehyde. Hardly the building blocks of early life.

In the words phd Jonathan wells, "Put a sterile, balanced salt solution in a test tube. Then put in a single living cell and poke a hole in so that its contents leak into the solution. Now the test tube has all the molecules you need to create a living cell, right? You would have already accomplished far more than what the miller experiment* ever could---you've got the components you need for life. The problem is that you can't make a living cell, there's not even any point in trying."

You should know what the miller experiment is as well as the fact it has been disproved.
#244 to #121 - John Cena (10/17/2013) [-]
How does abiogenesis not working 100% have any relation to evolution? Also we can recreate the conditions and it does work; so even though what you say makes no sense it also isn't even true.
#228 to #121 - wiredguy (10/17/2013) [-]
Alright, I'll just save you the trouble.
The banana is definitely the most interesting.

Look at how unergonomic this is. Plus it's very small and full of seeds, the growth of which being a huge waste of energy which could go into creating edible flesh for human consumption.
User avatar #224 to #121 - wiredguy (10/17/2013) [-]
Oh, also.

We do have evidence for evolution, and we can see it happening.

Look at a picture of a wild banana, or a wild farm animal like a pig or a cow - then go and look at one which has been selectively bred by humans.
The wild versions are low in nutrition, reproduce and grow far slower and the animals are much less docile.

This is evolution. And it's very observable with the naked eye.
User avatar #369 to #224 - cheezbrgr (10/17/2013) [-]
natural selection and evolution are not the same thing. it is one thing to isolate traits that already exist, it is another entirely to have new traits appear. for more information read the book Darwin's Black Box. and before you say it is biased, it is a scientific challenge to the biochemical basis of evolution i has no religious connotation.
User avatar #383 to #369 - wiredguy (10/17/2013) [-]
But that's the same thing.
An animal wasn't just suddenly born with eyes one day, it's just the traits being refined and manipulated over the course of billions of years.

It would start with maybe some creatures being born with a high concentration of nerve clusters in some places. These would have better perception, and would reproduce more successfully.
Then these areas slowly become more protected from damage.
Then the protective layer develops a hole. Then motion from side to side.
So on, so forth, and after countless thousands of generations we get the absolute marvel of the universe that is vision today.

I'm no expert, and that's a pretty hashed explanation.
But that's the thing which many people don't seem to understand.
The only difference between macroevolution and microevolution, is how long the considered time period is.
User avatar #136 to #121 - wiredguy (10/16/2013) [-]
People say this, but the whole point of evolution is that it had billions of years to occur.

Besides, you misunderstand the idea of how it began first.
A recognisable form of life didn't just spring up out of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, hah. That'd be impressive.
It was probably a slow process of molecules building up and up to form something which is similar to mitochondria.
Very basic mitochondria.
These then agglutinated and so forth. Became more complex, and so on.

But once something like this forms, it's likely to stick around.
Because of the energy and entropy involved. Life makes mathematical sense, obviously, or we wouldn't be here, haha.

You're welcome to not accept it. If that's your opinion.
But it's... Wrong.
I'm not being aggressive, and you can be as offended as you like but that's just the way it is and I don't feel in any way rude or antitheistic for saying so.
Religion is fine, I wouldn't even call myself an atheist. But not accepting evolution is pretty silly.
That's like not accepting that the Earth isn't the centre of the universe, which some people also don't accept. You won't get very far in many fields of science if you choose not to believe - not based on evidence but based on something you were taught as a child - something which is today considered to be totally axiomatic like this.

I think the main thing I would say though is that neither of us have years of experience studying this stuff in particular.
Or I assume you don't, if you have then I'd love to hear your thoughts in more detail.
User avatar #99 to #98 - kommandantvideo (10/16/2013) [-]
I have none
#116 to #99 - godleftmefordead (10/16/2013) [-]
Well, it's a theory and a fact, both.
This is because change over time,and species adaptation to the enviroment. are empirical facts.
The theory part comes when we can't have empirical proof of what happened and have to use indirect reasoning to interpret what happened, based on the previous facts and other evidence like fossils, but of course we cant directly observe how the human especie appeared 5 millions years ago.
Today science, involving the teory of evolution, has displayed a maximun autorithy on the post-industrial society, replacing god. This should respond to many psychological factors.

Its good to see people who don't take science like an owner. Good for you. I hope i enlighted your question.

 Friends (0)