What If...?

[theStudent]

Currently, I am doing what was suggested by some on these forums.
I am researching information both for, and against evolution, and trust me - I am doing so objectively.
While I am still researching, I want to put this out, to hear the different views on it.

During my research I discovered that lately, just over the last decade or so, a lot of informations has been surfacing about fake fossils.
In fact it has now become common place for fossils sold at museums to be checked for genuineness.
I find this interesting.

Why now, is this happening?
Could it be that evidence as it always does, is now surfacing?

For example
Remember the dinosaur hoax - the one that was said to be put together using different bones?
It has recently been found out that it wasn't a hoax after all.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/02/ ... ecies.html

That is quite interesting.

The fossils aren't the only things that were/are claimed to be fake.
There are the drawings, and pictures as well.
Right now, I am going through a very long document considered a case against some of Darwins picture illustrations.
But have you ever come across this one?

Pictures from the past powerfully shape current views of the world. In books, television programs, and websites, new images appear alongside others that have survived from decades ago. Among the most famous are drawings of embryos by the Darwinist Ernst Haeckel in which humans and other vertebrates begin identical, then diverge toward their adult forms. But these icons of evolution are notorious, too: soon after their publication in 1868, a colleague alleged fraud, and Haeckel’s many enemies have repeated the charge ever since. His embryos nevertheless became a textbook staple until, in 1997, a biologist accused him again, and creationist advocates of intelligent design forced his figures out. How could the most controversial pictures in the history of science have become some of the most widely seen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haec ... eks4-6.jpg
English: The pictures illustrate Ernst Haeckel's biogenetic law. In the beginning embryos of different species look remarkable similar, later different characteristics develop. The images initiated controversies and charges of fraud.

All of this lends to a possibility.
Consdering the fact that fossils can be faked, we must accept the fact that Darwin, and other scientists could have lied.

My question here, isn't whether he did lie or not, but rather, Does this not place evolutionists in the same position as the Christians they claim are believing in fables?

Consider:
Christians accept the Bible, as the word of God.
Here are just a few facts about the Bible.
With estimated total sales of over 5 billion copies, the Bible is widely considered to be the best-selling book of all time.
It has estimated annual sales of 100 million copies.
It has been a major influence on literature and history, especially in the West where the Gutenberg Bible was the first mass-printed book.
It was the first book ever printed using movable type.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

Archaeological findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, also called the Qumran Caves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

The evidence is there however, that the book we hold in our hand today (the Bible), contains information written centuries ago.

Atheist call the book fables - the reason I have yet to find out.
Maybe one of the reasons is that they have not seen God, or seen him write any book - whatever.
So they claim that Christians' belief in them and what they present is blind faith, and belief in stories.

However, is this not the case with those who accept the theory of evolution, where all they have to go by, is what scientists claim to be evidence?

By the way...
No one, to this day have seen them recreate the theories.
Any data they give you on species, is usually what already existed (at least what I have come across so far).
As regards other claims, all we have are pictures, and claimed fossils, which could have been edited.

So evolutionists are really believing what men claim - without any substantial proof of their claim.
How is this different to believing a book?

And what if Darwin, and others lied?


I'm just interested in you different opinions and thoughts, on the above.
Here is a nice short video of someone's opinion. Reasonable too.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 108 by Kenisaw]

I'm not doubting your experience as a young archaeologists.
It's good when you witness things for yourself - then you can speak from first hand experience.

However, years ago it was difficult to acquire information, which wasn't as readily available, or as easily accessible as it is today.
Have you ever tried googling the information you are telling me not to look for on the internet?

Do so, and tell me if you don't find it.
Even if you didn't find it, it still wouldn't encourage me to look for it elsewhere.
The info I have seen online, has taken up more than enough of my time, and for what purpose?

Don't worry with my old definition.
I said I will use the modern below it.

So let's see.

Organic evolution refers to the slow and gradual process by which living organisms have changed from the simplest unicellular form to the most complex multi-cellular forms that are existing today.
Organic evolution primarily involves modifications in the existing organisms and the inheritance of these modifications.

I believe this to be the most common.

This is interesting

There are several theories that try to explain the mechanism of organic evolution.

...but true.

Here is a surprise to me, not to mention, adding to the confusion.

Darwinism is the theory proposed by Charles Darwin. Darwinism explains evolution in terms of over-production, struggle for existence, variations, survival of the fittest and natural selection.

Fossils indicate the relationships between different groups, of organisms. They also help in constructing the story of life's journey on this planet.

How is it that Fossils, is not included in Darwinism?
Is there anyone who would like to explain this?
Although it's not that important to me, but.. more confusion.

Origin of a new species from the existing one is called as speciation.
Speciation can be multiplicative involving splitting of one species into two or more or phyletic involving replacement of one species by another.

Okay then.
That's it!
It's already a heap of confusion as it is.

So which one should I start with?
Let me start with the easiest, and as I understand, the strongest.
Fossils

A common challenge to evolution is producing fossils which show changes of one species into another.

Even though this is a fact, there is still information that suggest that there is evidence that meets that challenge.
Apparently, since 1891.

[theStudent]

I earlier posted a definition for Organic Evolution, but since as I learned scientific theories do not remain the same - they change. I have no real proof to say that this definition is true, or was true - more correctly.
However, this is the definition I had, from 1993.
Organic Evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator.

So having no proof of this I will have to use the modern definition.

I don't think the definition of evolution has changed since 1993, I would go as far as to say it hasn't changed for the past 150 years. The part about "without the supernatural intervention of a Creator" stood out, and tells me you got that version from a non scientific site, as science doesn't explicitly rule out a supernatural creator.

You're right.
I did search for it, and didn't find it.
I got it from an old book, from a collection of books I have.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 87 by arian]

Thanks
I understand what you are saying.
I'm actually learning a lot since I started this. A lot.

[theStudent]

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/ ... t-about-us

Fossils only tell part of the story. Recent studies of DNA--the information encoded in living cells--have revealed new details of our evolutionary history. DNA comparisons, for instance, indicate that chimpanzees are humans' closest living relatives. In fact, the two groups diverged from a common ancestor only five to seven million years ago. Likewise, analyses of human DNA suggest that all modern humans are descendants of people who lived in Africa between 100,000 and 150,000 years ago. Further studies promise to reveal even more details of our rich history.

file:///C:/Users/John/Downloads/debating/evolutionTheories/Transitional%20fossil%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia.mht

The idea of a "missing link" between humans and so-called "lower" animals remains lodged in the public imagination. The search for a fossil showing transitional traits between apes and humans, however, was fruitless until the young Dutch geologist Eugène Dubois found a skullcap, a molar and a femur on the banks of Solo River, Java in 1891. The find combined a low, ape-like skull roof with a brain estimated at around 1000 cc, midway between that of a chimpanzee and an adult human. The single molar was larger than any modern human tooth, but the femur was long and straight, with a knee angle showing that "Java Man" had walked upright. Given the name Pithecanthropus erectus ("erect ape-man"), it became the first in what is now a long list of human evolution fossils. At the time it was hailed by many as the "missing link," helping set the term as primarily used for human fossils, though it is sometimes used for other intermediates, like the dinosaur-bird intermediary Archaeopteryx.

"Missing link" is still a popular term, well recognized by the public and often used in the popular media. It is, however, avoided in the scientific press, as it relates to the concept of the great chain of being and to the notion of simple organisms being primitive versions of complex ones, both of which have been discarded in biology.[citation needed] In any case, the term itself is misleading, as any known transitional fossil, like Java Man, is no longer missing. While each find will give rise to new gaps in the evolutionary story on each side, the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to our knowledge of evolutionary transitions.

Ouch.
Ma Ma Mia.
Ha Ha.

Okay guys you can enjoy that honey.
But I aint buying any of it. It may indeed poison me.

Here is what I have to say on that. And it's all I have to say on the "java man". LOL So funny.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Man

Java Man (Homo erectus erectus) is the popular name given to early human fossils discovered on the island of Java (Indonesia) in 1891 and 1892. Led by Eugène Dubois, the excavation team uncovered a tooth, a skullcap, and a thighbone at Trinil on the banks of the Solo River in East Java. Arguing that the fossils represented the "missing link" between apes and humans, Dubois gave the species the scientific name Anthropopithecus erectus, then later renamed it Pithecanthropus erectus.

The fossil aroused much controversy. Less than ten years after 1891, almost eighty books or articles had been published on Dubois's finds. Despite Dubois' argument, few accepted that Java Man was a transitional form between apes and humans. Some dismissed the fossils as apes and others as modern humans, whereas many scientists considered Java Man as a primitive side branch of evolution not related to modern humans at all. In the 1930s Dubois made the claim that Pithecanthropus was built like a "giant gibbon", a much misinterpreted attempt by Dubois to prove that it was the "missing link".
The gibbon's ability to stand and walk upright made Eugène Dubois believe it was closely related to humans. This is one of the reasons why he once claimed that Java Man looked like a "giant gibbon".

Eventually, similarities between Pithecanthropus erectus (Java Man) and Sinanthropus pekinensis (Peking Man) led Ernst Mayr to rename both Homo erectus in 1950, placing them directly in the human evolutionary tree. To distinguish Java Man from other Homo erectus populations, some scientists began to regard it as a subspecies, Homo erectus erectus, in the 1970s. Other fossils found in the first half of the twentieth century in Java at Sangiran and Mojokerto, all older than those found by Dubois, are also considered part of the species Homo erectus. Estimated to be between 700,000 and 1,000,000 years old, at the time of their discovery the fossils of Java Man were the oldest hominin fossils ever found. The fossils of Java Man have been housed at the Naturalis in the Netherlands since 1900.[/size][/b]

Comparisons with Peking Man[edit]
Further information: Peking Man
In 1927, Canadian Davidson Black identified two fossilized teeth he had found in Zhoukoudian near Beijing as belonging to an ancient human, and named his specimen Sinanthropus pekinensis, now better known as Peking Man. In December 1929, the first of several skullcaps was found on the same site, and it appeared similar but slightly larger than Java Man. Franz Weidenreich, who replaced Black in China after the latter's death in 1933, argued that Sinanthropus was also a transitional fossil between apes and humans, and was in fact so similar to Java's Pithecanthropus that they should both belong to the family Hominidae. Eugène Dubois categorically refused to entertain this possibility, dismissing Peking Man as a kind of Neanderthal, closer to humans than the Pithecanthropus, and insisting that Pithecanthropus belonged to its own family, the Pithecanthropoidae.


Missing link theory[edit]
Dubois first published his find in 1894. Dubois's central claim was that Pithecanthropus was a transitional form between apes and humans, a so-called "missing link". Many disagreed. Some critics claimed that the bones were those of an upright walking ape, or that they belonged to a primitive human. This judgment made sense at a time when an evolutionary view of humanity had not yet been widely accepted, and scientists tended to view hominid fossils as racial variants of modern humans rather than as ancestral forms. After Dubois let a number of scientists examine the fossils in a series of conferences held in Europe in the 1890s, they started to agree that Java Man may be a transitional form after all, but most of them thought of it as "an extinct side branch" of the human tree that had indeed descended from apes, but not evolved into humans. This interpretation eventually imposed itself and remained dominant until the 1940s.

Dubois was bitter about this and locked the fossil up in a trunk until 1923 when he showed it to Ales Hrdlicka from the Smithsonian Institution. In response to critics who refused to accept that Java Man was a "missing link", in 1932 Dubois published a paper arguing that the Trinil bones looked like those of a "giant gibbon". Dubois' use of the phrase has been widely misinterpreted as a retraction, but it was intended an argument to support his claim that Pithecanthropus was a transitional form. According to Dubois, evolution occurred by leaps, and the ancestors of humanity had doubled their brain-to-body ratio on each leap. To prove that Java Man was the "missing link" between apes and humans, he therefore had to show that its brain-to-body ratio was double that of apes and half that of humans. The problem was that Java Man's cranial capacity was 900 cubic centimeters, about two thirds of modern humans'.

Look at that guys.
Instead of suggesting that the wait until more evidence is found to verify his theory, he got vexed. He got vexed.

What does that suggest?
Well, when someone is determined to find something to support their ideas, they are not interested in verifyable proof - like two or three witnesses. They just want their idea to be accepted as proof. LOL

Like many scientists who believed that modern humans evolved "Out of Asia", Dubois thought that gibbons were closest to humans among the great apes. To preserve the proportions predicted by his theory of brain evolution, Dubois argued that Java Man was shaped more like a gibbon than a human. Imagined "with longer arms and a greatly expanded chest and upper body", the Trinil creature became a gigantic ape of about 100 kilograms (220 lb), but "double cephalization of the anthropoid apes in general and half that of man". It was therefore halfway on the path to becoming a modern human. As Dubois concluded his 1932 paper: "I still believe, now more firmly than ever, that the Pithecanthropus of Trinil is the real 'missing link.'"

Pity...
The poor guy seems desperate. LOL

So... Wheeee[
Conclusion:
From what I have read there, you guys can decide for yourself, but in my opinion, I just see another theory - more speculation - that has not been proven.


The three main fossils of Java Man found in 1891–92: a skullcap, a molar, and a thighbone, each seen from two different angles.
Conflicts

...the skullcap was about 700,000 years old..
Though this view is still widely accepted, in the 1980s a group of Dutch paleontologists used Dubois's collection of more than 20,000 animal fossils to reassess the date of the layer in which Java Man was found. Using only fossils from Trinil, they called that new faunal assemblage the Trinil H. K. Fauna, in which H. K. stands for Haupt Knochenschicht, or "main fossil-bearing layer". This assessment dates the fossils of Java Man to between 900,000 and 1,000,000 years old.
Other fossils attest to the even earlier presence of H. erectus in Java. Sangiran 2 (named after its discovery site) may be as old as 1.66 Ma (million years). The controversial Mojokerto child, which Carl C. Swisher and Garniss Curtis once dated to 1.81 ± 0.04 Ma, has now been convincingly re-dated to a maximum age of 1.49 ± 0.13 Ma, that is, 1.49 million years with a margin of error of plus or minus 130,000 years.

Oh man.
Perhaps they will soon find the arm, and other bones.
Or the bones which show progressive evolution.

In a sextillion years. LOL

[theStudent]

Next up...
Mutations
On that topic... before I start.
Here is an interesting speculation on "java man" and other "javas".
My speculation.
What if... they were all mutants?
Just speculating...LOL.

In order for a mutation to be inherited, it must occur in the genetic material of a sex cell. It is likely that most sex cells contain gene mutations of some sort. It is now thought that the frequency of new mutations in humans is about 1 for every 10,000 genes per generation. If this number is correct, every individual would be expected to have 2-3 mutations on average. Complicating the picture is the fact that mutation rates for different genes and chromosomes apparently vary. Mutations are common occurrences even in healthy people. The majority of them probably do not confer a significant advantage or disadvantage because they are point mutations that occur in non-gene coding regions of DNA molecules. They are relatively neutral in their effect. However, some mutations are extremely serious and can result in death before birth, when an individual is still in the embryonic or early fetal stages of development.

Mutations can occur naturally as a result of occasional errors in DNA replication. They also can be caused by exposure to radiation, alcohol, lead, lithium, organic mercury, and some other chemicals. Viruses and other microorganisms may also be responsible for them. Even some commonly prescribed drugs are thought to be potential mutagens

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... tations_07

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

Researchers have performed many experiments in this area [directed mutations]. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue.

In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact random, and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance. Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... d+mutation

directed mutations
The hypothesis that mutations that are useful under particular circumstances are more likely to happen if the organism is actually in those circumstances. In other words, the idea that mutation is directed by what the organism needs. There is little evidence to support this hypothesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

In biology, a mutation is the permanent alteration of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements. Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired, errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements. Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism. Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes including: evolution, cancer, and the development of the immune system, including junctional diversity.

Mutation can result in many different types of change in sequences. Mutations in genes can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Mutations can also occur in nongenic regions. One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or marginally beneficial. Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent or correct mutations by reverting the mutated sequence back to its original state.

Mutations can involve the duplication of large sections of DNA, usually through genetic recombination. These duplications are a major source of raw material for evolving new genes, with tens to hundreds of genes duplicated in animal genomes every million years. Most genes belong to larger gene families of shared ancestry, known as homology. Novel genes are produced by several methods, commonly through the duplication and mutation of an ancestral gene, or by recombining parts of different genes to form new combinations with new functions.

Okay.
So mutations can occur in species - some beneficial, some harmful, some neutral.
So what.

Useful mutations are the ones which occur as an increase of number of chromosomes in exact number of times. This method is applied in taming plants and animals, production of larger fruits and improvement of milk and meat production. However, it is impossible to reproduce new and different species out of these. Duplicating the number of chromosomes of a corn brings forth larger-grained and bigger cobbed corns and the corn still remains a corn and the corn does not produce beans.

http://www.questionsonislam.com/article ... ew-species

Mutations cannot transform an original species

https://books.google.com/books?id=TzIap ... es&f=false

Come on guys - seriously.
What happened?
Did the environment suddenly transform after some billions of years?
So now - no more mutations... into other species - naturally?
Oh yeah. I forgot - Marvel comics.

Conclusion

More than %99 of mutations is definitely harmful. This is all that is supposed to come out of random events.

Even after decades of human-guided, selection of mutations, the result is still

little evidence to support this hypothesis

[theStudent]

So what does that say about "natural selection"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

In 1859, Charles Darwin set out his theory of evolution by natural selection as an explanation for adaptation and speciation. He defined natural selection as the "principle by which each slight variation [of a trait], if useful, is preserved." The concept was simple but powerful: individuals best adapted to their environments are more likely to survive and reproduce. As long as there is some variation between them and that variation is heritable, there will be an inevitable selection of individuals with the most advantageous variations. If the variations are inherited, then differential reproductive success will lead to a progressive evolution of particular populations of a species, and populations that evolve to be sufficiently different eventually become different species.

After the publication of On the Origin of Species, educated people generally accepted that evolution had occurred in some form. However, natural selection remained controversial as a mechanism, partly because it was perceived to be too weak to explain the range of observed characteristics of living organisms, and partly because even supporters of evolution balked at its "unguided" and non-progressive nature, a response that has been characterised as the single most significant impediment to the idea's acceptance.

However, some thinkers enthusiastically embraced natural selection; after reading Darwin, Herbert Spencer introduced the term survival of the fittest, which became a popular summary of the theory. The fifth edition of On the Origin of Species published in 1869 included Spencer's phrase as an alternative to natural selection, with credit given: "But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient." Although the phrase is still often used by non-biologists, modern biologists avoid it because it is tautological if "fittest" is read to mean "functionally superior" and is applied to individuals rather than considered as an averaged quantity over populations.

Modern evolutionary synthesis[edit]
Main article: Modern evolutionary synthesis
Natural selection relies crucially on the idea of heredity, but developed before the basic concepts of genetics. Although the Moravian monk Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, was a contemporary of Darwin's, his work would lie in obscurity until the early 20th century. Only after the 20th-century integration of Darwin's theory of evolution with a complex statistical appreciation of Gregor Mendel's "re-discovered" laws of inheritance did scientists generally come to accept natural selection.

The work of Ronald Fisher (who developed the required mathematical language and wrote The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (1930)), J. B. S. Haldane (who introduced the concept of the "cost" of natural selection), Sewall Wright (who elucidated the nature of selection and adaptation), Theodosius Dobzhansky (who established the idea that mutation, by creating genetic diversity, supplied the raw material for natural selection: see Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937)), William D. Hamilton (who conceived of kin selection), Ernst Mayr (who recognised the key importance of reproductive isolation for speciation: see Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942)) and many others together formed the modern evolutionary synthesis. This synthesis cemented natural selection as the foundation of evolutionary theory, where it remains today.

Genetic basis of natural selection[edit]
The idea of natural selection predates the understanding of genetics. We now have a much better idea of the biology underlying heritability, which is the basis of natural selection.

Okay
Do you ever pay attention to how these scientist speak?
So speculation based on other speculations has become a foundation for evolution.
I think every building has a foundation.
But some foundations crack, either by heat, shifting rock, and even because it's weak - not solid.

I have yet to see the solid - the evidence, in this foundation.
So far I am only seeing the weakness - speculation - mere guesswork.
As I said before.
Mr. Darwin, a finch is still a finch - adapted or not.

So hows about a little bit of proof.

Empedocles' idea that organisms arose entirely by the incidental workings of causes such as heat and cold was criticised by Aristotle in Book II of Physics. He posited natural teleology in its place. He believed that form was achieved for a purpose, citing the regularity of heredity in species as proof.

Aristotle believed that intellectual purposes, i.e., final causes, guided all natural processes. Such a teleological view gave Aristotle cause to justify his observed data as an expression of formal design.

I could shake this guy's hand.
No wonder he had many critics.

And although he was wrong in some cases, guess what?

Aristotle was the founder of formal logic, pioneered the study of zoology, and left every future scientist and philosopher in his debt through his contributions to the scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

Oh, how we need more of that today.

Logic
is generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of arguments. A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion. (In ordinary discourse, the conclusion of such an argument may be signified by words like 'therefore', 'hence', 'ergo' and so on.) The form of an argument type is a schematic way of representing what is common to all arguments of that type.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

[theStudent]

My final words on this theory of evolution is this:
My own theory

Say I started wondering where brains came from.
And I got this idea in my head, "You know. Maybe, while men slept, since they had to sleep on the soil, perhaps some form of plant or parasite, penetrate the pores in their head, and starts to grow.
Then after a few years, it reaches it's full size.
Aha! Now men can think!

So I set about testing my idea.
I start searching for some life form, that resembles the brain.
And... I found it!
Only... It's so small.
Maybe...

And another idea... And more experiments... And finally my idea is a fact.
Only...
My idea was already a fact - but now I established it.

This is my theory, on the scientific theory.

A scientific theory [an idea] is a well-substantiated explanation [already considered a fact] of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, or hypothesis;
such a usage is the opposite of a scientific theory.

If certain ideas fit, then the previous idea become more positive.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity.

As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory [an idea] may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory [idea] is then desired. [Notice this statement.] In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory [idea] can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g., Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light).

Scientific theories are usually testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g., electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

As with most, if not all, forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.

Theories and laws are also distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact. However, in science, theories are different from facts even when they are well supported. For example, evolution is both a theory and a fact..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

This is a scientific religion that agnostic, and atheistic scientists use to teach their beliefs.

They have a belief system which influences where they look, and what they look for.
If what they find, is against their beliefs, they reject it, and they make sure they find what supports their beliefs.
They establish these beliefs, regardless of who accepts them, or not.
It is a religion based on myths.

I reject their religion, and their religious beliefs.

When I made this statement,

I love science!

I now have to clarify it.
I love true, tested, and proven science.

One may say that all science is tested and proven.
To that, I say, there is good and bad in everything.
Truth and false, honestly and dishonesty.
I say, give me the claims, and let me judge for myself if the evidence supports the claim.

With this, as well as what I posted earlier, I have arrived at the same point.
Only now, it's a little broader.

Since Organic evolution, or Darwin's evolution, does not deal with the origin of life, but the pipeline from there - the common ancestor, as well as the branches, I say as I said of the others - The evidence is clear that they have proven only one thing.
That is - They have proven nothing.

Many fields of science has discovered and learned, yes.
And that I consider true, and beneficial science.

However, the scientific religious aspect, seeking to establish what I consider as anti-creation teaching is not only against logic and reason, but also against truth.

I hope this is clear.
Hup. Bed time! :sleep:

[Bust Nak]

What does that suggest?
Well, when someone is determined to find something to support their ideas, they are not interested in verifyable proof - like two or three witnesses. They just want their idea to be accepted as proof.

It didn't matter even if Darwin had lied about evolution, so why would it matter if Dubois was so determined that his judgement was clouded? Science is not based on the words of particular scientists, but on empirical evidence. Dubois' view were challenged by others, that's science in action.

So mutations can occur in species - some beneficial, some harmful, some neutral.
So what.

So it confirms one of the prerequisites of evolution.

Come on guys - seriously.
What happened?
Did the environment suddenly transform after some billions of years?

What is so surprising that made you ask what happened? What you posted there is pretty common knowledge. What happened? We learnt more about evolution.

Did the environment suddenly transform after some billions of years?

Don't know why you came to that conclusion. Why did you think the environment would have suddenly transform after some billions of years?

So now - no more mutations... into other species - naturally?

No, mutations is still the primary means of evolution.

Do you ever pay attention to how these scientist speak?

Yes, sometimes? I don't see what's so odd about the passage you quoted. Did it somehow lead you to the conclusion that there is a lack of empirical evidence for evolution?

So speculation based on other speculations has become a foundation for evolution.

Well no, there is also empirical evidence, it's a rather big deal to gloss over that as "speculations."

Say I started wondering where brains came from.
And I got this idea in my head... My idea was already a fact - but now I established it.

And if it stood up to scrutiny, like evolution can, then you can call it scientific.

You mentioned above that "when someone is determined to find something to support their ideas, they are not interested in verifiable proof" have you considered that you might have fallen into that trap?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 116 by theStudent]

Say I started wondering where brains came from.
And I got this idea in my head, "You know. Maybe, while men slept, since they had to sleep on the soil, perhaps some form of plant or parasite, penetrate the pores in their head, and starts to grow.
Then after a few years, it reaches it's full size.
Aha! Now men can think!

Sure...just ignore the question this raises of how men were able to think beforehand, why don't you.

So I set about testing my idea.
I start searching for some life form, that resembles the brain.
And... I found it!
Only... It's so small.
Maybe...

Only of course there is the problem of this organ residing in the skulls of every human, including those who don't sleep on the floor, but rather in beds raised from the floor, in very urban environments.

And another idea... And more experiments... And finally my idea is a fact.
Only...
My idea was already a fact - but now I established it.

I really hope you're joking.

They have a belief system which influences where they look, and what they look for.
If what they find, is against their beliefs, they reject it, and they make sure they find what supports their beliefs.

Nope, they do experiments to try to establish whether or not it is true. Think about how well lauded Einstein is. Now imagine how famous you could be as a scientist if you could somehow prove something he taught to be true, as actually being wrong. The challenge is there for scientists to prove each other wrong.

They establish these beliefs, regardless of who accepts them, or not.
It is a religion based on myths.

I reject their religion, and their religious beliefs.

No matter how many times I see something like this, it always makes me laugh. The creationist trying to ridicule away the theory of evolution by saying "Oh, it's just a religion"
without realizing that this also means his own religion has these faults as well
For what rational reason do you reject what you claim to be a religion, but accept the one you have?

I now have to clarify it.

Strictly speaking, no you don't. It is not a wild claim to say, that one loves science. However, when one's behaviour is so out of par with science, then yes, you would have to establish it.

However, the scientific religious aspect, seeking to establish what I consider as anti-creation teaching is not only against logic and reason, but also against truth.

And there we have your bias, the reason why you'll say anything against evolution, including up to and including calling science a religion.
It goes against what you already believe.
This is incredibly ironic since just up above you said

If what they find, is against their beliefs, they reject it, and they make sure they find what supports their beliefs.

That is YOU, student, in a nutshell.

[Monta]

[Replying to theStudent]


"They have a belief system which influences where they look, and what they look for.
If what they find, is against their beliefs, they reject it, and they make sure they find what supports their beliefs. "

We are forgetting that it might have taken that person 40 years to come to that belief.
During these years you would have done lots of research by different modes of exploration. Still open to hear new ideas but you most likely have heard it all before; if not you'll look at it, take it on or discard it.

I suggest we are all doing exactly the same in our beliefs whatever field they may be.