Theory

[Justice]

I thought I would write something about theory, since people seem to have misconstrued its meaning. Most people here seem to not really know what the term "theory" means.In common use, many people use the term "theory" frivolously. People will say something like, "Well, I have a theory about where my keys went! Maybe my friend took them from me, since I was drunk! Oh, here they are. Yep, he probably took them." In common usage, this is okay. This said person is guessing about what might have happened to his keys. However, that is incorrect in science.In science, the aforementioned case would be called a hypothesis. A hypothesis, if you have not heard of it, is an untested, unproven conjecture about what might have happened in some form a phenomena. In the above case, the person has no scientific data on which to base his opinion. He is merely pointing out a possibility to what may have happened.Now, let's say that the same guy takes that hypothesis and applies it. Let's say that he puts blue paint on his friend's hands. Then, when his friend picks up the keys, he gets blue paint on the keys, and the guy knows that it was his friend who took them (so that this is a scientific experiment, assume that the friend is the ONLY person who could have blue paint on his hands). Finally, let's pretend that this happens many times over many trials (a few times, the keys get taken but no paint is found). This means that the friend has been proven to take the keys multiple times, because the paint has been found on the keys. A experiment that proves or supports a hypothesis makes that hypothesis into a theory (to make things more complicated, a theory must be able to be duplicated in experiments).Okay, so now we have explained hypotheses and theories. Let's say that this guy steals everyone in the world's keys. Everytime our keys come back, we find blue paint on them. It doesn't matter if you do this in Tokyo or Boise, the keys always come back with blue paint. This would be a law. An obvious example of this is gravity. You can test gravity anywhere... at home, underwater, or in space. It exists and every experiment will prove gravity.My point in giving this lesson is that people have been saying, "EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY!!!" Yeah, okay...? Saying that evolution (or any unrelated hypothesis) is just a theory is not exactly insulting. By saying that something is a theory, you are claiming that it is supported by many different experiments. What you are confusing is hypotheses versus theories. You believe that when someone says, "Well, evolution is a theory," that they are saying that evolution is an unproven thought that some guy made up. No, that is a hypothesis. Not knowing the difference makes you sound uneducated. If you do not believe in evolution, that is fine, but please know what you are talking about when you make an argument. Thank you.

 

[Roaming]

I agree, but however, I think we were all arguing whether we think it is true. Tiny organisms turning into monkeys than humans sounds odd to me, sorry. Sure theres no evolution 'law' and there probably will never willl be. Unless scientists from todays time and 10000000 years further from today will prove we evolved since then, but eithierwise, im sticking to my Christian beliefs.

 

[Memphology]

I completely agree, there is some stuff that does support evolution as well as religion. But both are realisticly based on theory and faith. You just gotta choose which you feel is correct.

 

[Justice]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RaptorFan#1 @ May 17 2007, 10:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I agree, but however, I think we were all arguing whether we think it is true. Tiny organisms turning into monkeys than humans sounds odd to me, sorry. Sure theres no evolution 'law' and there probably will never willl be. Unless scientists from todays time and 10000000 years further from today will prove we evolved since then, but eithierwise, im sticking to my Christian beliefs.</div>Well, you'd be stupid not to agree. Those are the accepted scientific definitions for those terms. Monkeys did not turn into humans. That is another misconception. Evolution is a not a law, but it doesn't need to be. You can have your opinion, but my point was to say that calling evolution a theory doesn't exactly undermine the process of science. In fact, by doing so you are supporting the idea that evolution is supported.Another thing is that saying something like, "Oh man, monkeys turning into something else sounds crazy!" is kinda silly, too. Where do you think things like this are created?

Did it survive? No. Could it have? Maybe. That is evolution.link as proof that such things are possibleWhat about girls like this? These girls control one body, but have two heads. How do you think this happens? Magic? It's evolution.See, "weird" things can happen. Babies die very frequently because they have a disorder or genetic defect. That is evolution in motion. Crazy things happen.

 

[Memphology]

Whats up with the first thing?I think Justice your refering to mutations, which is pretty much what makes organisms evolve. Theres more good mutation than bad. Those happened to be bad...goes along with the survival of the fittest thing.

 

[redneck]

Those two things aren't really evolution, they're mutations. the first one is some medical condition which does that. I remember reading the article when that picture first came out. also, things like that would never have survived in any other time period than now. it would have been killed for being a freak, or have been abandonded by its parents.the second one looks to be a set of conjoined twins, which again isn't evolutionary. it's thats the eggs didn't seperate in the early stages of conception. those two may have survived in an early society, but even if they reproduced it's not likely that they'd pass on that disorder, it's also not likely that that disorder could be passed on since it's likely not genentic.I keep saying society when I mention those people because thats what humans live in. from early primitive Humans to today we have always lived in groups with our own little quirks. strictly from a biological stand point we are social animals, and many social animals will ostercize defective offspring.

 

[Mobruler]

I hereby stamp this thread with Fact. More beer.

 

[Justice]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ May 17 2007, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Those two things aren't really evolution, they're mutations. the first one is some medical condition which does that. I remember reading the article when that picture first came out. also, things like that would never have survived in any other time period than now. it would have been killed for being a freak, or have been abandonded by its parents.the second one looks to be a set of conjoined twins, which again isn't evolutionary. it's thats the eggs didn't seperate in the early stages of conception. those two may have survived in an early society, but even if they reproduced it's not likely that they'd pass on that disorder, it's also not likely that that disorder could be passed on since it's likely not genentic.I keep saying society when I mention those people because thats what humans live in. from early primitive Humans to today we have always lived in groups with our own little quirks. strictly from a biological stand point we are social animals, and many social animals will ostercize defective offspring.</div>I am sorry, but you seem to have a misunderstanding of what evolution actually is. Mutations are a major part of evolution, because they introduce new alleles into genetic material. linkI will give you the second one to some extent. It is not necessarily an example of evolution (although we do not really know what causes such defects, so it could be genetic (I don't even know why you said it was unlikely), and thusly could be caused by evolution). However, it is also not so ridiculous to think that we could go from a regular thumb to an opposable thumb when things like this happen, is it? Also, to say they survived "early" society is kinda funny. Many "normal" babies don't make it past birth, and these kids are obviously in high school. That's a pretty good long time. I don't know if they can reproduce, so yeah.Something being killed versus something surviving doesn't matter. You are probably confusing evolution with natural selection, another common mistake. Regardless, this is exactly the point of natural selection. It's not the perfect that survive, it's the pretty good that survive. There are worms that carry their eggs until they explode. Sure, they die immediately, but their offspring survive until they do the same thing. It isn't perfect, but it works.

 

[redneck]

I understand evolution is based on minor changes which usually give a certain groups within a species an advantage over another. but a huge mutation such as frogguy in the picture, isn't evolution. Evolution and natural selection are closely related. Natural selection determines which evolutionary devlopements succeed. freaky things like frogboy aren't going to survive to reproduce by means of natural selection.I'll go into this a little more tommarow, Its late and I've had a little to much to drink to form enough thought.

 

[the_pestilence]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (austingriz @ May 17 2007, 08:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I completely agree, there is some stuff that does support evolution as well as religion. But both are realisticly based on theory and faith. You just gotta choose which you feel is correct.</div>but once again, evolution is based on theory, religion is based on faith. Religion is a hypothesis.Great thread btw justice, I've posted this in several threads but it's been conveniently ignored.

 

[Justice]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ May 18 2007, 01:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I understand evolution is based on minor changes which usually give a certain groups within a species an advantage over another. but a huge mutation such as frogguy in the picture, isn't evolution.</div>Yes, it is. It does not matter whether it is a small mutation or a major one. EVERY mutation is, by definition, evolution. And you still are misunderstanding things. Evolution does not necessarily give an advantage over another group. That's what natural selection is.Evolution: the increase or decrease of alleles ("favorable" or "unfavorable") within a populationNatural selection: the decrease of unfavorable alleles and increase of favorable alleles within a population

 

[redneck]

Evolution is change, but it rarely is a change for the bad because those who develope a negitive trait usually die and thus don't reproduce to pass on their trait. like I said earlier evolution and natural selection are intertwined. but what I'm trying to say with frogguy is that its a mutation which wont be passed on, I wouldn't call it evolution because its a defect in one member of a species. it doesn't become evolutionary until multiple members of the species begin to share the same trait. if frog guy and his family got isolated for centuries, and kept interbreeding then it would become an evolutionary trait. a lot of times people forget to mention that most evolutionary traits are submissive traits, so if one parent passes it one, but the other doesn't have it than it's not likely that that trait would be passed on in the offspring.Evolution is usually for the positive for a species, because devloping something which is useless takes a lot of energy, energy which takes away from other things which would eventually lead to the species death.Natural Selection and Evolution are so intertwined because those with good genes pass their genes off with others with good genes and so on, while those with bad genes pass theirs off with others with bad genes. why do you think Celebrities get such good looking partners? because there is an inheriant biological process which makes humans want to mate with the best. this helps the human specie as a whole, it strigntens our gene pools and ensures future generations will be better. and its been that way since the dawn of life. the alpha male will always get the alpha female.

 

[Pacers fan forever]

AHHHH!!!! WTF WAS THAT PICTURE MAN? AHHH!!!

 

[iFR3SHi]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ May 17 2007, 10:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>

</div>" Hey look kids its PFF! :happy0144: "

 

[Justice]

Well, that is your own misunderstanding. Evolution is any change in the proportion of a certain allele in a population. "Frogguy" is, by definition, a product of evolution. It doesn't matter what you want to call it. It doesn't have to be multiple members of a species that have it (also, you're kind of ignoring the fact that his disease has happened to other babies before).And what you're defining as evolution is still natural selection. The problem with your definition is that you're saying that usually evolution gives you positive results... that's not necessarily true. Define "positive" for me, go ahead. Most people would not classify anemia as a positive trait, but it can be helpful in certain countries to carry that mutation. Same with something like say, being an albino. Some might say that it is a negative trait, but it just depends on the environment. The coccyx is another good example... it doesn't do anything, but it is there. It does exist even though it has no purpose. It is a product of evolution, not natural selection. "Positive" and "negative" are terms that are completely relative to the environment, which is how natural selection differs from evolution. Natural selection and evolution are only intertwined because natural selection is a way to describe how evolution affects populations. Natural selection gives us the plants and animals that we have today, but so does evolution (natural selection is more like a subset of evolution, but not exactly).

 

[primetime]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ May 17 2007, 11:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well, you'd be stupid not to agree. Those are the accepted scientific definitions for those terms. Monkeys did not turn into humans. That is another misconception. Evolution is a not a law, but it doesn't need to be. You can have your opinion, but my point was to say that calling evolution a theory doesn't exactly undermine the process of science. In fact, by doing so you are supporting the idea that evolution is supported.Another thing is that saying something like, "Oh man, monkeys turning into something else sounds crazy!" is kinda silly, too. Where do you think things like this are created?

Did it survive? No. Could it have? Maybe. That is evolution.link as proof that such things are possibleWhat about girls like this? These girls control one body, but have two heads. How do you think this happens? Magic? It's evolution.See, "weird" things can happen. Babies die very frequently because they have a disorder or genetic defect. That is evolution in motion. Crazy things happen.</div>what the F*ck is that thing? lol

 

[redneck]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Define "positive" for me, go ahead.</div>A positive trait is any trait which would help a species survive, it could be a progressive trait or a regressive trait. a negitive trait is something which a species developes which wouldn't help it; such as an anglefish developing lungs; that wouldn't help it one bit.Like I've been saying, Evolution and Natural selection go hand in hand. and yes there are some evolutionary left overs in humans, but there has been recent evidence to suggest that both the appendix and tail bone may be of some use, or were to our primitive ancestors. one suggestion is that the appendix helped us digust raw meat, which at one point was very important but with the advent of cooking it became useless. so if that is true, than evolution hasn't had enough time to change that. the tail bone may help prevent damage to the area were the colon and rectum meet, I don't know much about that but I remember reading it in a book.

 

[Justice]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ May 18 2007, 03:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>A positive trait is any trait which would help a species survive, it could be a progressive trait or a regressive trait. a negitive trait is something which a species developes which wouldn't help it; such as an anglefish developing lungs; that wouldn't help it one bit.Like I've been saying, Evolution and Natural selection go hand in hand. and yes there are some evolutionary left overs in humans, but there has been recent evidence to suggest that both the appendix and tail bone may be of some use, or were to our primitive ancestors. one suggestion is that the appendix helped us digust raw meat, which at one point was very important but with the advent of cooking it became useless. so if that is true, than evolution hasn't had enough time to change that. the tail bone may help prevent damage to the area were the colon and rectum meet, I don't know much about that but I remember reading it in a book.</div>That definition is a bit... problematic. It presents an either-or fallacy. You are basically saying that a trait is either positive or negative, which is not true. Many traits are essentially meaningless or at least do not affect survivability. Then there's the fact that a trait might be positive in one environment and negative in another. That is why dinosaurs are extinct now. Although very powerful and incredible creatures, their traits were not appropriate for the changing environment. With other animals, sometimes a predecessor might die while its descendants live because they have more fully developed traits that you have deemed "negative."They do not necessarily go hand in hand. Natural selection, as I said before, is in some ways a subset of evolution. Natural selection would not exist without evolution, but not the other way around. As I understand it, you are implying that a majority of genes that are handed down are good, which is fairly inaccurate. Regardless, evolution is an immediate change within a population. It can vary because of survivability but is not only affected by it. I don't understand the point in you arguing otherwise when it's simply untrue and my points are the accepted science behind it.

 

[Illosophee]

<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">Well, I read (almost) the entire thread. As far as this "Evolution" hypothesis goes, I believe it is realistic. People claim it is impossible for a monkey to evolve into a human... Hmm... So, does it make sense than a person split the sea, a man spoke to a bush that was engulfed in flames, and a woman gave birth to a child even though she was a virgin? Think about that.</span>

 

[the_pestilence]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Illosophee @ May 27 2007, 08:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-family:Century Gothic">Well, I read (almost) the entire thread. As far as this "Evolution" hypothesis goes, I believe it is realistic. People claim it is impossible for a monkey to evolve into a human... Hmm... So, does it make sense than a person split the sea, a man spoke to a bush that was engulfed in flames, and a woman gave birth to a child even though she was a virgin? Think about that.</span></div>evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis.