tgwaste wrote:So there is no such thing as a "Theory of Evolution". It does not exist. Its called "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" and there is no other theory outside of that one.
While the current generally accepted theory is often termed "Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection," it isn't the only theory... nor was it the first; evolutionary theory can be brought back to the Greeks. It tends to be called that simply because it is the most comprehensive, and most accepted by scientists. Theories of evolution have existed for many many years; several theories were disproved over time, such as the spontaneous evolution theories, as knowledge or technology improved.
Actually, Darwin and another chap named Wallace independently developed similar theories of evolution by natural selection at the same time but Darwin's name remains attached to the term, mostly because Wallace added a metaphysical element to his theory which included the soul. The scientific body wasn't terribly keen on that.
There is also something called Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, which builds on Darwin and others to attempt to give a more complete answer than Darwin.
What you are talking about above is a mutation or an adaptation not evolution.
I would argue semantics on this one, or more specifically, that different groups have different definitions for terms.
The Oxford dictionary defines it in the following way: "the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth."
But for the sake of argument, (building off your comment and simplifying the above definition) would you agree with this?: Evolution can be described as a series of adaptations over time, SO THAT when the two extremes are compared together, they could be called two different species.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution says that one species can become a whole different species. This is where the disagreement is. A true scientist will say that this has not at all been proven.
I think you may have boiled down a few too many layers at once. The point isn't that a spider monkey will give birth to a fish, nor that an amoeba will become plankton through metamorphosis. Evolution may not be recognizable side by side, however if you think of it in terms of the definition I outlined above, it might be more palatable.
Perhaps not proven to a degree of 100% certainty, no. But all things point to it being correct, or near correct. There is a large enough body of evidence to suggest its likeliness, the same way that if I have enough pieces of a puzzle put together I can most likely describe the complete picture. There may be some parts of the picture that are only realized later, but I will most likely be able to tell you what the picture is.
The Higgs field was a theory for years before the predicted discovery of the Higgs boson all but confirmed it in March of this year. Of course, scientists two years ago would say it hadn't been proven... but that doesn't mean that they doubted it would be proven.
Hence why its still called Darwin's THEORY and not Darwin's FACT. There is no proof what-so-ever of a change in KINDS. Only adaptations within the species themselves (a cat knows to use the litter-box without being told is not evolution, its an adaptation).
The term theory in science is a little different than when we use it in our general speech. It isn't like "I have a theory that Billy is actually using her for her money." Generally accepted scientific theories can be taken to be next to law (I'm assuming you are implying law when you say fact), and anyway, all a Law can do is explain something in a certain condition. The "law" of gravitation doesn't always work, for instance.
Some theories will never be Law... Einstein himself said something to the effect of "No amount of experiments will be able to prove me right, but one experiment could prove me wrong." Though termed a theory... you would be hard pressed to find a large number of scientists to vehemently disagree with Einsteinian Relativity.
As for a proof in change... again, not 100%, but there is evidence of its existence. (I know I know... puzzle pieces, eh.) We see it very clearly in cetacean evolution, and the best example with the largest fossil record (I believe) is the whale. Now, I'm not sure if you would argue the kind of animal hasn't changed or not (I guess you could say it is still a whale with many adaptions). But as far as I am concerned, whales give us a nearly complete fossil record of evolution by going from a four legged hoofed animal living on land, and slowly evolving into the ocean dwelling mammal that we have today.
The series of small changes over time (hind leg recession, frontal leg morph into flippers, tail transition, lung capacity and pressure endurance, nasal drift etc.) paint a picture of a change in "kind."
The changes may not be significant at each stage to say it is a new kind or species... but comparing Pakicetus to a modern whale would certainly warrant such a distinction.
As for a cat using a litter box... I'm not sure I would classify that as adaptation, so much as instinct or reflex reaction, much like goosebumps on humans.
Personally I don't quite know where I stand yet. Evolution is not contrary to Christianity. God could had very well used evolution for his purposes. There is a lot of heated debate here because a lot of religious people think evolution disproves God. That is not at all correct.
I am however skeptical of evolution because of all the manipulation that surrounds it. Like where those two guys glued 2 butterflies to a tree and took a picture as some kind of proof that was later found out to be a lie and yet its still in public school books. For me evolution is currently Liberal Propaganda and thus I sway away from it. Of course that doesn't mean its false.
Yup. I'm sure you are aware of it, but in case some others aren't, there is an entire branch of evolutionists called Theistic evolution.
Evolution is compatible with most religions. The only branches of religions that seem to have a problem with it are the Young Earth Christian Creationists, and, ironically, Right Wing Islamists. Two groups that you wouldn't expect to see side-by-side, but there they are.
The Church of England had this to say a few years back: "Charles Darwin, 200 years from your birth [in 1809], the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still."
I'm going to take a stab in the dark from your comments and guess you are from the States. If so, I can understand your comment. The problem is linked to what we were chatting about earlier: those who take the Bible literally, and therefore push this young earth theory.
The States is an odd country as far as I am concerned... It produces some of the best minds on the planet, and yet 46% of the population believe that God created humans in our current form within the last 10,000 years or so. Overall that is pretty pitiful, and here in Japan, the American education system is a bit of a joke. That creationism/evolution is actually debated in the American school system floors the Japanese... and me too.
If you look at world views on the topic, however, that polarization doesn't exist much. Maybe try to read non-American/non-political sources?
No matter what, you are obviously an intelligent person, and I am sure that in the end, where ever you find yourself standing on the issue, it will have been made with concerted and honest thought.