• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution and "the Missing Link"

Elektrix said:
Thanks all....:) But again, this person seems very stuck in not wanting to accept that humans were even subject to evolution (which seems confusing to me). They don't want to answer me about what they do think actually happened, just keep repeating the same line that there isn't enough definitive evidence (although I don't think they actually looked at it). I'm not going to keep trying to press the point, as he'll respond to anything else the same way - "still don't believe".

-Elektrix
Click to expand...

Yep, Zeno's Paradox in action.

Give up, and find someone more open minded.
 
I am sure someone has shed light on your friend's colloquial use of the word "theory."

Formally, a scientific theory is not a "hunch" or a "guess." A theory is an explanation for observable facts that has stood the test of time and evaluation.

You need to educate your friend who uses the word incorrectly.

As for your creationist friend, at an impass I recommend this: You are free to believe in the concept of creation, however, do not confuse it with science as it is a poor hypothesis. Ultimately, it is not falsifyable.
 
To reiterate what others have said, this person is clearly using the everyday definition of the word theory, which means an idea, a guess, a conjecture, a hypothesis – something with some doubt attached. That isn’t the meaning of a scientific theory.

A scientific theory can be defined as a set of tested statements or principles that explain a group of facts or phenomena. An accepted theory will have been repeatedly tested, is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about phenomena. A theory must be falsifiable. That is, we must be able to test it in such a way that if the theory is wrong, it would fail the test. That is a scientific theory.

Furthermore, the objective of science is to come up with theories. A theory is not a step on the way to becoming a fact or a law, something with less credence that we adopt until it can be proven. There is no hierarchy, where a theory can progress to become a law or a fact. Laws and facts are not better than or worse than theories, they are just different things that do different jobs.

Here is a pretty good explanation:

This comment is born out of misuse of the word theory. People who make statements like: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact," don't really know the meanings of the words they’re using.

Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.

The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."

A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.

A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.

For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force.

So there is the theory of evolution. Then there is the FACT of evolution.
Click to expand...

This really is one of the most elementary mistakes people make when they are ignorant of science. Here are a couple of additional sources:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/Biol 3380/3380theory.html
http://www.kgs.ukans.edu/General/News/2001/science.html

Most creationists don’t realize, even if they could prove evolution wrong, that still wouldn’t mean that creationism is right. They still have to provide positive evidence for what they claim – finding holes (real or imaginary), in evolution, does not result in a theory of creation. If this person doesn’t believe in evolution to explain how humans got here, ask him what his theory is. How did we get here? And don’t accept any “theory” that can’t be falsified.
 
I don't know this person, but from previous arguments, I have seen that it may not be anything about misunderstanding the nature of theories. Some folk are just great at most science, but then balk at the idea of us being second cousins to Bonzo.

Many years ago, my mom's HS biology class got into this. This was bible belt country, and none of them wanted to say that humans and chimps were related. So she tried another tactic. "Are we mammals?" "Are we related to cows? After all, we can drink their milk, eat their meat..." Most students allowed that we are mammals, and related (distantly) to cows. She then asked them why, if they admit to being related to cows, they have a problem being related to chimps. The consensus was that their church leaders had spoken specifically about primates, not about mammals in general, and that they had been parroting their teachings rather than believing anything through true understanding.

So give cows a try. Hey, can't hurt.
 
Again, thanks all.....

I hope I have at least put a seed in his mind to investigate more, but it's up to him.

It turns out that he seems to have broader questions about a lot of things besides just the origin of humans, from his latest post:

Theres always going to be findings that indicate certain things that happen in the past. I guess I'm the type that wont believe in things are that way just because they found some evidence of it. Such as Dinosaurs, Pangea, big bang, etc. I guess such things can be a posibilty but I choose not to believe in it especailly big bang.

How do I think humans came to be...hmmm I dont have an answer. I dont know. Im not religious. I think science can only explain certain things to a certain point and then it just becomes a hypothesis. hmm if you ever find out let me know.
Click to expand...

I again basically just told him the same stuff I did before (in response to his "if you ever find out let me know" comment), but I also told him that if his attitude is that nothing can ever be proven even in the face of evidence, there isn't anything else to discuss.

Some other people have fortunately at least jumped in and also explained the idea of a scientific theory, but I think this person is just beyond being argued with.

-Elektrix
 
Scientific American has a special edition out on human evolution. I haven't had a chance to read it yet but it looks pretty good.
 
Talkorigins is definitely the place to go because its specifically about how to answer the fallacies of creationism with good scientific resources.

Its definitely one of the best places on the web, bar none.
 
aggle_rithm said:


Of course the creationists will say, "Yes, but where is the link between THIS creature and US?"

They will also claim that the fragments were re-assembled wrong, that they are clearly just ordinary humans with severe acne, that carbon dating is unreliable, yada yada yada....
Click to expand...
The proper response to this, then, is "Then you believe that the Almighty has no qualms about telling lies to you?"
Carbon dating works for some things but not others? Dinosaur bones were planted by this "Benevolent" God just to confuse us (and thus keep us on the straight and norrow path defined by priests/village elders)?
I hope not!:D
RW
 
BobK said:
Well, evolution may be just a theory, but gravity is just a theory also. I suppose they don't believe in that either.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I hear this one a lot. But isn't gravity more than a "theory"? Isn't gravity a fundamental attribute of the physical universe like mass, matter, and energy?
 
I realize that you are trying to make a dent with this willfully ignorant person. What everybody has already suggested is quite a good approach to explaining human evolution.

How a person accept evolution in the case of every other organism, but not accept it in the case of human descent and claim that this not based on some religious pretext.

Elektrix, you are never going to make any progress with this person. I would want to find out why this person thinks the idea of humans and apes having a common ancestor is so distasteful.

Humans have a common ancestor with apes, fish, squid, even broccoli if you go back far enough, what is wrong with that? There are some genes that humans and bacteria have in common.

Why should humans be exempt from a process that works for all of the tens of millions of other species on earth?
 
Yeah, this person has basically just said they don't want to discuss it any more, so it's essentially dead.

It seems like they have some viewpoint which anything they can't witness or see for themselves can't be proven, and he doesn't think of any of them existed or are real.

He actually doesn't believe that dinosaurs existed, for example, or that humans had any ancestors at all, regardless of whether they are linked.

He seems to just fall back to the "it's not a fact, it's just a theory that humans and apes share a common ancestor" bit, but he also says he doesn't know what they are.

I get the impression he might also just be someone who is being a troll, just trying to be contrary, as they haven't expressed any sort of counteropinion or even an explanation of why they don't think any of these things happened (he also said he really objects to pangea and the big bang theory).

-Elektrix
 
I'd be curious to find out what he does believe about the origins of all the species. Is the earth really really old? How long have humans been around? Do dogs share a common ancestor with wolves?

If he says that we don't know because no one was around to see it happen, ask him whether the Civil War happened, and if he thinks it did, ask him how he knows since no one alive was around to see it.
 
CurtC said:
I'd be curious to find out what he does believe about the origins of all the species. Is the earth really really old? How long have humans been around? Do dogs share a common ancestor with wolves?

If he says that we don't know because no one was around to see it happen, ask him whether the Civil War happened, and if he thinks it did, ask him how he knows since no one alive was around to see it.
Click to expand...

He doesn't seem to have any beliefs of opinions about it one way or the other. In his opinion, anything, even the Civil War, can't be proven even if there is evidence for it...... it's really bizarre....:) As far as he's concerned, dinosaur bones and Civil War photographs and uniforms could be what they seem to be, or they could be something else. Since he feels it is not definite, he doesn't believe there is anything definitive about any of them.

-Elektrix
 
I guess one person's "willful ignorance" is another persons skepticism. It's funny how so-called "skeptics" are so quick to paint someone with the creationist brush if they think different than them (with regards to evolution).
 
I guess one person's "willful ignorance" is another persons skepticism. It's funny how so-called "skeptics" are so quick to paint someone with the creationist brush if they think different than them (with regards to evolution).
Click to expand...

For example?
 
Tony said:
I guess one person's "willful ignorance" is another persons skepticism. It's funny how so-called "skeptics" are so quick to paint someone with the creationist brush if they think different than them (with regards to evolution).
Click to expand...

Skepticism is being shown evidence for something and being able to inculcate that information into your weltanschauung. Willful ignorance is being shown evidence for something and still rejecting it because it conflicts with your weltanschauung. One should never to be confused with the other.

And yes, sometimes the creationist tag is attached to someone who doesn't accept evolution, sorta the way the liberal tag is attached to people who aren't big fans of President Bush.

Tu quoque?
 
Yeah, if I personally referred to this person as a creationist, it was a mistake. To clarify, this started out with a debate with someone who WAS a creationist, and then someone else jumped in to defend evolution itself, but then went on to say that he didn't believe humans and apes shared a common ancestor, etc. He made it pretty clear though that he isn't religious nor does he believe that God created man or anything else.... he just basically doesn't believe there is any definitive answer about anything he couldn't observe himself, so he also doesn't believe the dinosaurs existed, for example, because he thinks the fossil evidence, etc. could be any number of things.

-Elektrix
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom