Evolution Looking into the 21st Century [Galapagos World Summit]

Universidad San Francisco de Quito via Newswise ^ | 23 June 2005 | Staff

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Thank you for that clarification.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

What exactly do you think evolution is if you don't recognize it's key features?

[b_sharp]

"As someone who is open-minded on the subject, can you tell me one aspect of the Theory of Evolution which has been scientifically verified, and can be be stated to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Allele frequencies within a population change with time.

[b_sharp]

"Will we be hosting it at Darwin Central? If so, I'd better start on getting the banquet hall prepared."

I'll bring the Alberta beef.

[b_sharp]

"Have you ever seen radioactivity? You sure it's not a conspiracy concocted by the entire scientific community to shore up Darwin???"

I've seen radioactivity. In the '60's I had a watch that had dots that shone in the dark. If I close my eyes I can still see them.

[Gumlegs]

Take it easy on Fester. He thinks astrology is a science.

[Fester Chugabrew]

By that rationale, then a geologist who thinks that earthquakes are caused by stress in the earths crust can't believe that God has anything to do with an earthquake.

Oh, they can, and some most certainly do. But they would most likely not be found at this world summit.

[b_sharp]

"Are you saying that "Descent with modification...." is the mechanism by which new species are created? Has this been verified scientifically?"

Yes.

[RightWingAtheist]

You're welcome!

[Fester Chugabrew]

He thinks astrology is a science.

Absolutely, and it has an exactitude comparable to that of evolution's inferences, extrapolations, and hopeful constructs based upon unobservable history, coupled with the presupposition that nothing intelligent could possibly be involved with the formation of intelligent beings.

[Dimensio]

As someone who is open-minded on the subject, can you tell me one aspect of the Theory of Evolution which has been scientifically verified, and can be be stated to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Nothing in science is ever stated to be true "beyond a shadow of a doubt". That isn't how science works. There is always the possibility of error, from gravity to evolution to atomics.

[Dimensio]

Oh, you want something like this?

[Gumlegs]

You have no idea of what you're posting about.

You don't understand evolution, you don't understand astrology, and you don't understand science. (That you would mistake astrology for science is telling).

Your ability to construct a simple declarative sentence is shaky at best.

But otherwise, you're doing okay.

[rkhampton]

As someone who is open-minded on the subject, can you tell me one aspect of the Theory of Evolution which has been scientifically verified, and can be be stated to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Scientific verification requires reproducibility of results. In the case of evolution, this may be possible, but we will never be able to carry out an experiment that will verify that one species evolved from another, simply because we don't have enough time. Of course, little bits and pieces can be verified, but the anti-evolution crowd has raised the bar so high that they wouldn't admit that evolution is a fact unless they saw one species morphing into another before there own eyes.

Science is concerned with answering the "how" questions, such as "how the eye works." Evolution, on the other hand, is concerned with answering "why" questions, such as "why do we have eyes in the first place?"

Even though I believe in Darwinism, although it may have to be tweaked a bit, like any theory, from a strict pedagogic point of view, I wonder if it should be called a scientific endeavor. It seems more like detective work, carried out with scientific methods.

[RadioAstronomer]

But otherwise, you're doing okay.

You have more faith in him than I do. LOL!

[wyattearp]

Wowser! I am glad as well!!!!!!

I'm not sure what my heart rate was when my inner gloves came up hot, but it had to be pretty high. I was really, really questioning my profession right about then. (I don't do that anymore).

[Fester Chugabrew]

You failed to address my points with any substance, but otherwise you're doing okay.

[Gumlegs]

You failed to make any points of any substance, so what's the point?

[PatrickHenry]

I am simply asking for one assertion that has been made by the theory of evolution that has been verified. Thats not too much to ask.

Before I attempt to respond to what I think is the substance of your question, please help me to understand what your position actually is. Are you currently of the belief that nothing about the theory of evolution that has been verified? In order to evaluate your response, I also need to ask a couple more questions: What is your current understanding of the theory of evolution? And what do you mean by "verified"?

After we clear that up, and assuming that really is your position (nothing verified), if one of us took the time and presented you with something, would it change your mind? Seriously, would it?

[narby]

coupled with the presupposition that nothing intelligent could possibly be involved with the formation of intelligent beings.

Who says that? Plenty of biologists and other scientists believe that God does things, including evolution. Why do you reject their belief in God?