Jesus Christ of Nazareth loves you!

[justinian]

setsunatenshi said:

justinian said:

Just because I take the line of other scientists that don't believe evolution to be exact I am spreading false information.

I am not saying evolution is true or false. I myself believe it to be true, but I would not say it is true any more than God exist.

Evolution is split between scientists who either take it as fact, theory or otherwise.

The media highlights those that find "proof" for it and ignore the ones that argue against this "proof".

The origins of modern man have many different theories and changes everyday. In some ways so do evolution.

My argument is that there is no absolute certainty. Not that it is nonsense.

I am partial to the statement below.

Evolutionary biologist Kirk J. Fitzhurgh wrote, "'Evolution' cannot be both a theory and a fact. Theories are concepts stating cause–effect relations...One might argue that it is conceivable to speak of 'evolution' as a fact by way of it being the subject of reference in explanatory hypotheses...In the strictest sense then, 'evolution' cannot be regarded as a fact even in the context of hypotheses since the causal points of reference continue to be organisms, and no amount of confirming instances for those hypotheses will transform them into facts...While evolution is not a fact, it is also not a single theory, but a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions...An emphasis on associating 'evolution' with 'fact' presents the misguided connotation that science seeks certainty."

You believe what you want, I choose to believe what I want. 

could you provide me a reliable link for that quote? i promise i'll look into the veracity of it. In the meantime please read carefuly what I wrote previously.

I get the feeling you're confusing 2 separate things 'Evolution' and 'The theory of evolution by natural selection'. There were several theories for evolution that were shown as wrong due to our increased knowledge regarding DNA for example.

one final thing before i look into your quote, you don't get to chose what you believe i think. You are compelled to believe what the evidence presents to be the reality. In this case you are unable to dismiss evolution as a fact because we can see it happening everyday (how do you think you have so many variations of dogs for example?) and in order to deny evolution you must present some different theory that explains the visible facts of evolution. Unless you present a better theory to explain them you are forced to accept the best explanation for the time being

1) Unfortunately I cannot. It was from Zoological Scripta: Fact, Theory, Test and Evolution. I am sure you can find it somewhere online . I didn't make it up. Kirk. J Fitxhurgh is curator of the LA Natural History museum and researches evolution theories, etc.

2) I disagree, I think you get to choose what you believe. If a person chooses to believe in the reality of God, aliens or ghost it is entirely up to them whether they have "found evidence" of such things or not. 

3) Do we see signs of evolution everyday?

National Academy of Sciences: “The creation of a new species from a pre-existing species generally requires thousands of years, so over a lifetime a single human usually can witness only a tiny part of the speciation process. Yet even that glimpse of evolution at work powerfully confirms our ideas about the history and mechanisms of evolution. For example, many closely related species have been identified that split from a common ancestor very recently in evolutionary terms. 

Justinian note:  I assume that the above is what you are refering (apologises if I misunderstood).

 Critics, however, point out that the issue is not whether mutation and natural selection can produce minor changes; it’s whether these mechanisms can create new tissues, organs, limbs or body plans.

Biologist Keith Stewart Thomson, of Oxford University, points out that “no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small … changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial” (emphasis in original).

Again, do not gt me wrong. I am NOT RUBBISHING EVOLUTION. I am simply with those scientists that need more evidence.

@pezus. I don't recall saying that the scientists were 50/50 in their interpretation of evolution. The history of science itself shows the majority is not always right, as during the 70s about the lack of geological activity on planets or moons in our solar system.