The case of the Apple maggot fly was brought up. Here here is a quote from the source cited. Note the it says "possibly". That means that it is not proven. I did not dig any deeper that is a far as I needed to go to show that it is not a proven fact. Quote from source. (Wikipedia) "Rhagoletis pomonella is significant evolutionarily in that the race of this species that feeds on apples spontaneously emerged from the hawthorn feeding race in the 1800 - 1850 CE time frame after apples were introduced into North America. The apple feeding race does not now normally feed on hawthorns and the hawthorn feeding race does not now normally feed on apples. This constitutes a possible example of an early step towards the emergence of a new species, a case of sympatric speciation.[2] The emergence of the apple race of Rhagoletis pomonella also appears to have driven formation of new races among its parasites.[3]"
Rather than just go along with everyone else, I would encourage you to use your mind and make decisions for yourself and not blindly follow others. I do, but that is not what this is about. To me this discussion is about what is fact and what is not. Theory is not a proven fact. WOW you have really jumped a long way here. I hope your not implying that is something I have said or believe. I love the fossil record. I love geology, I have a degree in geology.
In this whole discussion I have been trying to point that out. Evolution is not proven. Now if people want to talk about the fossil record or other geological things I can do that also.
It is proven to the point needed to be of consistent predictive value and form the basis for other advances. Not proven as in 'TRUE' but proven in a scientific sense. It can never be proven in your eyes, because you dismiss all evidence out of hand, just as Mr. Ham does when asked what would change his mind on 5000 year old Earth and man living with dinosaurs. We send people to jail without proving they did a thing (only beyond reasonable doubt), it is useful to incarcerate some folks and the burden of proof, while not absolute, is sufficient. We also exonerate them if evidence 'proves' they did not do it later on. That's kinda/sorta like science. Nothing is proven, but the theories (tested) are still useful. If we can have no theories, then we cannot advance. Again, we'd only have the technicians, and not the folks who advance the underlying knowledge. Not all science requires a 'I personally did this x times, with no variation, therefore it and nothing else is useful' standard. Knowledge is much more than that. Mathematics does not stop at multiplication tables. Much of it is theoretical yet very useful. Not necessarily true, though. Evidence may change our understanding.
No I have not dismissed any evidence. What evidence have I dismissed. I never said that. Read my original post. All I am saying is that in science there are theories. These are not facts. They are presented as fact. That is what I am saying If you want to have a theory go ahead. If just isn't proven fact.
In an era when we've mapped genomes, when we can account for the extra chromosome of the apes and how 1 of ours appears to take the place of two of theirs, I'd say there is a lot of evidence giving credence to evolution. You know of this evidence. You don't put forth any other theory. You've not shown the theory inconsistent with the evidence. No one is questioning anyone's faith. but science is not a world of black and white absolutes. No one is saying otherwise. That is what science is: theories. If you want to limit yourself to concepts you've personally gotten your hands dirty on, go right ahead. But please don't diminish the work of others with the 'just' qualifier. Scientific theories are useful. Everything else is 'just' religion.
Actually I think science has two distinct branches, physical and theoretical. I guess that is the difference one is based on facts and one is not. I am not diminishing others works. I am just pointing out that some is observed, repeatable and verifiable and some is not. That is all. That has been my position from the start. Now some have injected other things in what I am saying. I have not made a case for or against evolution I am just pointing out that it is an unproven theory and should no be considered fact. I happen to not believe man has evolved from a single cell, but that is a much longer discussion. I could be provoked to enter into that discussion, but that is another subject. I am not sure Wayne would like that spewn on his car forum.
Hi Jud: I am actually sitting back and enjoying the very well written dialog from both sides of the aisle. Wayne
As far as science goes: I don't care whether: 1) God created us this morning with memories and a fossil record 2) God created us 5000 years ago with a fossil record 3) God created us billions of years ago and the fossil record was magically altered to make it appear as it does today, or 4) There was a big bang billions of years ago and life emerged as single cells and evolved, leaving the fossil record in the process. (with or without divine direction) But I do care about what the fossil record allows us to deduce about how the world is working. Predictive value. Now as a thinking creature, I care very much which of the numbered things above is correct in terms of whether there is an afterlife and whether I will be judged worthy. However, I have no scientific way to assess it. Just a matter of faith, and we are each a product of our upbringing and life experience. Earnest people on many sides believe all others will burn in hell. It seems likely they cannot all be correct, but maybe that's where the parallel universes come in. But the great thing about science is, I need not know the absolute 'truth' of the past. I only need a model consistent with the apparent past that supports advancement of knowledge and technology.
Calling science a "religion" is insulting because science is not a matter of faith or belief. It is like calling science fraudulent. And since you insist on equating science with a religion, you making your lack of understanding all too obvious. You cannot pretend that any particular field of science is fraudulent - and think that negates what the science is telling us. Evolution is built into so many fields of science - and all fields of science are interdependent. So your insistence that evolution is not an accurate scientific theory is a futile attempt to change reality. Your opinion of science (or mine for that matter) doesn't change the science. You can't dismiss evolution, and thereby make it false.
Hmmm We seem to be arguing over the meaning of "FACT" Laws -Gravity equations-are fact-even when they have slight shortcomings Theories- aren't quite fact-in the same sense- Maybe the explanation part is the problem- Darwins explanation-better fitness means more successful progeny- really didn't attempt to explain the WHY of the better fitness(how organism actually became different) How in the world the DNA changed-and he had no idea(or not much idea) that DNA had anything to do with it Laws-FACTS-EQUATIONS- offer no explanation-just how much how hard etc
Thank you. That is almost exactly what I am saying. Maybe some others will open their minds and understand. OK so since they are not "facts in the same sense". then it takes what to believe to believe they are facts. You all answer. Hint: starts with "f"
All I am trying to do is point out the difference between two distinct area of science. One is based on observation and the other is not. You seem to be getting upset and insisting that ALL science is absolutely true. That somehow science is something to be revered and not questioned and to do so is insulting. I would just ask you to step back, open your mind and consider all possibilities. That is all.
No one in this thread and no one with half a brain has insisted that all science is absolutely true. Quite the contrary. I believe you understand the words here, so I conclude your anti-theory views are so entrenched that their meaning is skewed as you take them in. We differ on who needs to open their mind and think. Good day, sir.
Where have I said that I am anti-theory. I have not. I am just pointing out what a theory is. It is belief. It is an opinion. On the contrary I think there is nothing wrong with theories. It is just that they are just that, theories. Why am I pointing this out. Because some think that these theories are absolute truth and you cannot separate them from facts. That is all. So now you are agreeing with me. Remember what I have been saying. In science there are two branches. One is based on fact the other is not. So do we all agree on this. Or are some of you still non-believers (just a joke don't get all huffy about it).
By continuing to diminish theoretical work with the 'just' qualifier and abundant disdain, it is apparent that you dismiss all theoretical work out of hand. Theories have been proven in a scientific sense by repeated tests and observations. Observation is not limited to that which gets our own hands dirty. If we measure the temperature of the Earth over long time periods and trends emerge, those are observations. If we measure CO2 concentrations over those time periods and see positive temperature correlations, then we begin to confirm the causality posited by the climate change models. In the absence of credible competing theories, and with abundant consistent evidence, the hypothesis becomes 'accepted' as a theory, which is a very high bar to meet. Theories continue to be modified, but nonetheless are enormously valuable tools in the advancement of knowledge and technology. They are not 'just' theories, they are theories, a thing treasured by many.
My use of "just a theory" is not meant to be derogatory at all. I just use it as a distinguisher from fact. I use it because some think of it as fact when it is "just" a theory. All the time I hear evolution this and evolution that and it is treated as fact, when in fact it is "just" a theory. I did not know that you "treasure" evolution so much. I can see why saying "just" would concern you.
