If you accept microevolution

[jamesmorlock]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

[Dimmesdale]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #301]

Most certainly evolution should not be taught as fact in public schools. As theory, OK, but not as fact.

This shows a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "theory" in the science domain. A theory in science is the result of a hypothesis having been offered, the hypothesis being subsequently tested extensively and scrutinized from all angles, and if it is supported sufficiently and not shown to be false it can graduate to a formal theory. The dart throwing can take years or decades as people test the hypothesis and try to disprove it or find fault with it, and if no one can you have a theory. That's as close to fact as it gets in formal science, so if you're OK with evolution being taught in schools as a "theory", then that is exactly what is happening.

But you appear to be using the incorrect layman's definition of "theory", which is the same as a hypothesis in the science domain. Evolution became a formal scientific theory the same way every other scientific theory transitioned from hypothesis to theory (eg. the Theory of General Relativitity) ... by first being offered as a hypothesis, then confirmed through extensive observation, experiment, analysis, etc. over a long period of time. So evolution is no longer a hypothesis (or the layman "theory") ... and should be taught in schools as proper science because that is exactly what it is.

So... does science teach that evolution absolutely happened, as an irrefutable fact, or has it not graduated to that level? In other words, is/was evolution as real as my left kidney? If not, scientists should post a disclaimer.

People are admittedly free to believe whatever they want, but scientific documentaries on the history of life on earth should, if they include evolution, provide a disclaimer/caveat. Especially if they are shown in schools.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #313]

So... does science teach that evolution absolutely happened, as an irrefutable fact, or has it not graduated to that level? In other words, is/was evolution as real as my left kidney? If not, scientists should post a disclaimer.

It has reached the status of a formal scientific theory, just as valid as relativity, kinetic theory of gases, atomic theory, germ theory of disease, and many others. Here is a more detailed description than my earlier short one for the term theory:

https://www.ck12.org/biology/scientific ... d-bio-adv/

Often details change as more information becomes available, but the basic idea of evolution by natural selection (or descent with modification as Darwin sometimes used) has been proven. Many religious people seem to think it only means that humans evolved from apes (which is a fact ... genetics work has confirmed the fossil record in this regard), or that it disagrees with the creation myth of Genesis and so is wrong for that reason. Or they make up terms like "microevolution" and "macroevolution" to allow them to accept one (micro) and attribute it to adaptation only, and discard the other (macro) because they think "dogs produce dogs" is somehow a refutation of the theory of evolution when it is perfectly consistent with it. Dogs do only produce dogs unless genetic change over time produces something we humans decide to classify as something with another name ... we don't call amphibians fish, for example).

[Dimmesdale]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #313]

So... does science teach that evolution absolutely happened, as an irrefutable fact, or has it not graduated to that level? In other words, is/was evolution as real as my left kidney? If not, scientists should post a disclaimer.

It has reached the status of a formal scientific theory, just as valid as relativity, kinetic theory of gases, atomic theory, germ theory of disease, and many others. Here is a more detailed description than my earlier short one for the term theory:

https://www.ck12.org/biology/scientific ... d-bio-adv/

Often details change as more information becomes available, but the basic idea of evolution by natural selection (or descent with modification as Darwin sometimes used) has been proven. Many religious people seem to think it only means that humans evolved from apes (which is a fact ... genetics work has confirmed the fossil record in this regard), or that it disagrees with the creation myth of Genesis and so is wrong for that reason. Or they make up terms like "microevolution" and "macroevolution" to allow them to accept one (micro) and attribute it to adaptation only, and discard the other (macro) because they think "dogs produce dogs" is somehow a refutation of the theory of evolution when it is perfectly consistent with it. Dogs do only produce dogs unless genetic change over time produces something we humans decide to classify as something with another name ... we don't call amphibians fish, for example).

I'm sorry but this doesn't seem to be answering my question. Is a scientific fact, say, the same as a "regular" fact that we all accept? Such as that I have 10 fingers. Something all of us can readily accept.

Let's not beat around the bush here. I can accept that there exists data that seems to be supportive of your conclusion. Maybe it has been "confirmed" from many angles. But does that in your view constitute a "fact" we ought all to accept? Or should we leave it aside as a "scientific fact" that may, eventually, be disproven by incoming new information? If all is tentative, then I don't personally care about your "proof."

If the latter, then we should not pretend it is a fact we should commonly accept.

A fact we should all commonly, universally accept, is that human beings should be treated with dignity. That I believe is self-evident.

A scientific fact (which can be, as you seem to admit, annulled by incoming future data) does not merit that same level of distinction. An absolute distinction.

[The Barbarian]

so what you have is evolutionists defending their religion (evolution) just as vigorously as believers defend their religious faiths.

That is what it is all about.

Barbarian observes:
That is easily falsified by the large number of Christians who accept evolution. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things.

I clearly said if you "negate" God's existence...obviously,

You quite clearly said "so what you have is evolutionists defending their religion (evolution) just as vigorously as believers defend their religious faiths."
Which is easily falsified by the fact that many Christians accept the fact of evolution. It's weird misrepresentation of science to call it a "religion."

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #315]

Is a scientific fact, say, the same as a "regular" fact that we all accept?

The word "fact" isn't used in formal science ... "theory" is where it stops. But there are obvious theories that most people do accept as "fact", such as the heliocentric model of our solar system. Flat earthers notwithstanding, I'd say science has proven beyond any doubt that the Earth orbits the sun and that this is a "fact" that most people believe. But there are people who will argue against this just as vigorously as many religious people (in particular) argue against evolution. They simply don't believe it despite the overwhelming evidence that supports it.

Let's not beat around the bush here. I can accept that there exists data that seems to be supportive of your conclusion. Maybe it has been "confirmed" from many angles. But does that in your view constitute a "fact" we ought all to accept? Or should we leave it aside as a "scientific fact" that may, eventually, be disproven by incoming new information? If all is tentative, then I don't personally care about your "proof."

The very reason evolution has risen to the status of a formal scientific theory is because it has so much supporting evidence and has never been falsified. Orign of Species was published in 1859 ... 162 years ago ... and ever since people have thrown darts at the idea to try and disprove it or falsify it in some way. It has survived these attacks, had some modifications and variations in interpretation along the way as usual, but no other hypothesis has arisen to supplant it as far as what it describes and its core mechanism.

So it is highly unlikely some new information is going to come along after all this time to disprove it as you put it, just like the heliocentric model of our solar system. It isn't "impossible" as that implies 100.000...% certainty for a theory ... just highly unlikely given the supporting evidence accumulated for over a century now for evolution. This is how hypotheses become theories in science ... extensive confirmation over long periods of time by many different researchers and experimentalists working to confirm, or topple, the idea. Evolution has passed a very long and rigorous test in this regard, so is as close to "fact" as science gets.

Schools don't have to teach something as "fact" and make that call. They can describe the scientific method, what the word theory means in science, and the word hypothesis, and the process to confirm a hypothesis which results in a scientific theory. They don't have to take a side ... just present the information properly without bias. Same with creationism, but there you have at least this many creation myths:

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

and when you start looking for supporting evidence for any of them it usually boils down to some holy book decription and nothing more. You must believe it on faith alone, which is not within the realm of science, because there is no actual evidence for any of them. That is the huge difference. Teaching creationism as a valid option to evolution, when it is utterly devoid of any supporting evidence, seems the wrong approach. May as well teach astrology and alchemy as equal options to astronomy and chemistry.

[Tcg]

so what you have is evolutionists defending their religion (evolution) just as vigorously as believers defend their religious faiths.

That is what it is all about.

I'm not sure how this happened, but what is attributed here to Clownboat is actually from this post by We_Are_Venom:

viewtopic.php?p=1034005#p1034005

Barbarian observes:
That is easily falsified by the large number of Christians who accept evolution. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things.

I clearly said if you "negate" God's existence...obviously,

You quite clearly said "so what you have is evolutionists defending their religion (evolution) just as vigorously as believers defend their religious faiths."
Which is easily falsified by the fact that many Christians accept the fact of evolution. It's weird misrepresentation of science to call it a "religion."

[The Barbarian]

Sorry. My goof.

[Dimmesdale]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #315]

Is a scientific fact, say, the same as a "regular" fact that we all accept?

The word "fact" isn't used in formal science ... "theory" is where it stops.

OK, so it's NOT a fact. Thank you.

This is actually why I have a low view of modern science. The word "Science" (or "scientia") is supposed to connote "knowledge." That's what its root is in Latin. However, what is the use of "knowledge" that is unsure of itself? It is guesswork, not knowledge. If you had knowledge, you wouldn't have to guess.

Knowledge is certain. Knowledge is sure. To say that knowledge may be refuted in the future renders what you have now as not knowledge. It is simply a workable tool: at worst a myth, at best a theory.

Modern science to me looks like a hall of mirrors more than it does any real thing. This gives me just another disincentive to take it seriously.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #320]

OK, so it's NOT a fact. Thank you.

You completely missed the point. I said that the word "fact" isn't used as a formal scientific designation, I did NOT make any comment suggesting that evolution was not a "fact" in the layman's sense (it is a "theory" in the scientific sense). Do you not see the difference between the layman use of the words theory and fact, and the scientific meaning of the word theory? Just do a little Googling to figure it out.

To say that knowledge may be refuted in the future renders what you have now as not knowledge. It is simply a workable tool: at worst a myth, at best a theory.

Modern science to me looks like a hall of mirrors more than it does any real thing. This gives me just another disincentive to take it seriously.

Fortunately, that kind of opinion has no influence on science or its funding, so it will carry on helping us learn how the natural world works as it has done very successfully for many centuries now. There will always be a minority of flat earthers and the like who don't believe in science, but their numbers are too small to have any impact so they can generally be ignored.

[Dimmesdale]

You completely missed the point. I said that the word "fact" isn't used as a formal scientific designation, I did NOT make any comment suggesting that evolution was not a "fact" in the layman's sense (it is a "theory" in the scientific sense).

I don't think I do misunderstand. If science doesn't regard its theory as proper fact, why should a layman do so? By the descending process of authority, there is no factual basis, in other words. On the other hand, willy nilly, a layman can accept just about any "fact" if he wanted to. In any case, science hasn't proven itself: it remains at the level of theory, as you yourself seem to argue, if I understand correctly.

Do you not see the difference between the layman use of the words theory and fact, and the scientific meaning of the word theory? Just do a little Googling to figure it out.

Only to the extent that the scientific theory appears "vetted" (by whatever standard is being used) and that it has some level of evidence to back it up (which can be questioned, as in any court of law). But since you yourself admit that formally this doesn't come to the level of fact, I don't see what any layman has to say that can make it graduate to that level. What "special ingredient" are you thinking that the layman brings to the table? This actually sounds mystical to me.

Fortunately, that kind of opinion has no influence on science or its funding, so it will carry on helping us learn how the natural world works as it has done very successfully for many centuries now. There will always be a minority of flat earthers and the like who don't believe in science, but their numbers are too small to have any impact so they can generally be ignored.

Wait and see. I have a very good feeling what we call science now will be obsolete in a century or two.