Evolution

Im pretty intrested in this, Ive read about this, problem is, there are two views concerning evolution. One is that it is a theory still, not proven, the other is that it is fact. It seems that my religious people say straight out that it is theory, and i asked my atheist teacher and she said fact. so. What do you think about this, is evolution theory or fact.? And what does this mean for religions that teach God made man as a man, without the evolving.?

Evolution, as a process, is a fact. We see constant change all over. The question is like this. You have an ape. You change time and space. Then you have a human. Can this be proved.

The simple answer is no - it can't be proved. Unless you can piece together everything from different times.

But then again, we haven't been to the sun - we did try and get atoms with a space shuttle but it hit the ground and blew up when it got back to the earth - but we're still pretty certain about what it is.

Evolution is like a safe. You won't get anywhere quick opening it - or changing its state - if you all random numbers. If you're a creationist then all the future must be known (omnipresence - they can argue about free will here but they're just being reprobates) so the lock clicks into opening and in comes a new species - just like Adam and Eve - straight there.

The counter-argument could be put. Evolution is random. You keep tapping numbers into the lock until it opens. That's not it either.

If you're wise you type in digit after digit in sequence until you hear a click. Then you move on to the next sequence. This is how DNA evolves and its how most of us learn.

We know that between species (i.e. species A changes but its still species A) there is evolutionary change - adaptation. Its whether there is change between species (species A changes to species B).

Anything beyond that is my opinion. I reckon that evolution and creationsim are just different ways of looking at the same problem.

The answer to me is:

how tall is the largest midget?

its obvious when all you have is a 3ft guy and 5 x 6 foot guys that one is a midget. Bu its not so easy when you have more of a continous dataset. Think on this.

I've added this seperate for you, and others, to think over.

Because of evolutionary biologists we are able to create machines that could do the work of humans - check out neural networks.

Its because of religion many people died when they hid in a church, prayed, stayed passive and got bombed?

Its because of religion the soldiers and thinkers who commit war won?

However....

If you're smart you'll see no proper religion wants to abolish ALL people. Without a set of morals, or a brain attached to sense, what would happen if we start to disregard religous teachings?

Eat that!

Okay check his site out, this is the reason why millions of muslims dont believe in eveolution...


http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_specialpreface.php


and just look around this site.

I've read the site.

You'll find that in any age its characterised by political correctness, the moral teachings of the day and their interpretation and the studies that are going around.

True science is void of this; but scientists aren't and you'll find formal ways of doing things, things that aren't allowed to be said, etc.

The truth, for me at least, lies in both scientific studies and religious teachings.

Of course evolution is true; we observe it. Animals who *adapt* to their environment *better* than others will *survive* longer than those *worse* suited to their environment. If you argue against this then you are insane.

The argument put by this site that the *best* survive false. It is the *better* that survive. Likewise, evolutionism may claim certain species and races are more superior than others. In an animal kingdom these vices are fitness; strength, stamina, suppleness, ability to swim, etc. In the social bit, its more hard because we have such diverse cultures and weapons that will blow each other up. To that end, science comes politicized. Its that point where the site is correct, but there is truth on the grey bit between science and politics; its just very hard to establish.

Evolution, then, at its basic, natural level, where we're talking animals and bushy trees and hunting, can be observed. And we can observe beaviours in social groupings that match psychological behaviour. Its only because the groupings are so diverse that we can't really apply pyschology to evolutionism. That's a mistake.

Other than that, the site - and Islam- teaches morals, and so long as smart people are reading it; they will understand that it teaches peace and, ultimately, and this is what its really about - a code of conduct that prevents us going back to living as *beasts*.

Too many thinkers and not enough free thinkers.

It is a "Theory" However, the people who call it "Just a theory" as a method of depreciating Evolution simply don't understand what a "Theory" is. A Scientific Theory isn't a fact in an of itself, it is derived from facts, laws, and proven Hypotheses. The term Theory is used often in Science. The "Theory" of Relativity, Fluid-mosaic "Theory" of Cell membranes, Computation "theory", Circuit "theory", Chaos "theory", etc.

A Scientific law defines how nature will react in a situation, while a Theory is normally an all-encompassing explanation as to why these laws work.

Tibby, you are right - on the whole. However, I'd like to take this as a start point:

quote:

---

A Scientific law defines how nature will react in a situation, while a Theory is normally an all-encompassing explanation as to why these laws work.

---

I'm going to flex my muscles a bit here. Some are born to teach, whereas some are designed and bred to be teachers of teachers.

An expert knows of things. His knowledge is born out of a desire to know and a respect of authority. His methods are clear and precise. And he will always be good at passing exams and assesing situations and finding a good solution.

There is, something that he lacks; in actual fact something he doesn't look for. And that is intuition, or creativity.

The scientist, exactly the same as an artist, for that's what all true discoverers are; is a person who actually looks for patterns, observations and then synthesises them to create theories.

Some are simple; we can go back to Egyptian/Ancient Greek days and note the patterns of their findings; Pythagoras' rule. Later Archimedes principle. Simple 'laws' that came about from someone saying...now 'I wonder' or 'thats strange'.

Laws are never really laws; they just happen to hold up against the test of time so far. The heart of the theorist; the guy who actually 'thinks' of these things the majority of the time mostly feels of something that ends up as a blocked path, a stub in the eye, or is simply wrong. But with enough awareness, skill and determination, there will be something found; so long as you stick with a problem for sufficient time.

And that's how creativity is the heart of the theorist; and how there are no such things as 'law' but just ideas that are carved over time and that stand up to testing more so than others. If you check back at the original quote, as brilliant as it is, I would modify it to "a theory is an all-ecompassing explanation of how a thing or process is perceived to operate". The law tag comes after and even then; we must mark a difference between science that builds and science that revolutionises. That difference comes from the person that understands the difference between nature as his source; and education as his source. The best of the best, know both

nb: to bring this back to evolution; I think that change, for now, is true. For evolution is really just the positive subjective of change. Devolution and evolution are aspects of change due to process. Its how these processes operate that science carves down to essences and, in turn, its how these essences are used that determine the future.

To sum up: It's all just semantics. "Laws", "Theories", call them what you will. With the knowledge the Human race as a whole possesses right now, Evolution is clearly, inarguable true.

Hmmm. Well, I've mentioned this idea before--maybe from our extremely limited spacio-temporal perception the physical evidence would suggest the process of evolution, but from the perspective of some higher being whose space-time perception is radically different, maybe it only represents a transitional process of creation. Maybe such a being experiences time very differently, resulting in a v ery different perception of space. It's a radical idea which would take a little time to explain, but I think feasible--although most people who have a common understanding of space and time would think it's crazy. Oh, well.

Hmm...I guess I did...Strange how everything is a matter of "experience" around here.

Evolution means a gradual developmental change over a great distance of time. Creationists believe that God created everything pretty fast over a period of days and that man was created out of the dust in just one day.

I personally think God did create the universe (in the big bang) but then out of that his plan was set in motion (from the beginning) and that over what appears vast amounts of time to us (but which in a universal scale of time is merely a blink of an eye) his creation (the universe and the Earth as a miniscule part of that) was set on its course and continues to evolve through time and motion, interaction and experience. We are merely a tiny part of that evolutionary process and I see myself as a teeny tiny star dust particle sitting on a piece of space debris we call the Earth floating aimlessly through a universe that maybe just a part of a larger multiverse. I was created out of the dust – star-dust during the big bang. Evolution is just a word for existential changes in space and time.

I'm not American and couldn't give a hoot who becomes president of the country, but I saw this on the tube and I thought I would add it for debate in this matter.