I really cannot believe that I have been motivated to write a post after this subject has been considered more times than Kirk Cameron has made a fool of himself. The statement “Evolution is just a Theory” has resonated in the halls of scientific ignorance for years,I couldn’t even google who was first to make the statement.Thanks to Brandon’s diligence, we have witnessed everyone from State Senators to school board members spouting this worn out canard in an effort to substantiate their position. Now we have this article in the Huff Post entitled “GOP law makers upset that state exams (A C Ts) test students on made up theory”. including this gem. “The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science — Darwin made it up,” state Sen. Ben Waide (R) said. “My objection is they should ensure whatever scientific material is being put forth as a standard should at least stand up to scientific method. Under the most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, the theory of evolution has never stood up to scientific scrutiny.”
Now, I could direct those who make these kind of statements to Wikipedia and suggest they read very  carefully,but we all know that would be asking too much. So what I would like all of us to try and do is come up with a short, but poignant phrase that would point out the true meaning. I will start off with “Evolution Theory and Fact” lets see what the rest of us can do?
Theories are the most powerful ideas in science, supported by rigorous evidence from many different sources. They drive how research is done and how science is applied to everything from designing modern aircraft based on the theories of fluid dynamics to setting up a cellular network using electromagnetic theory to curing cancer using biotechnology based on cell theory and the theory of evolution.
I enjoyed reading this from the article. “While the debate has been rehashed countless times, Vincent Cassone, chairman of the University of Kentucky biology department and a member of the committee that helped developed ACT’s testing curriculum, told the Herald-Leader that the Republicans’ rejection of evolution was incomprehensible.
“The theory of evolution is the fundamental backbone of all biological research,†he said. “There is more evidence for evolution than there is for the theory of gravity, than the idea that things are made up of atoms, or Einstein’s theory of relativity. It is the finest scientific theory ever devised.â€
Good job !!!!
I’m so sorry, Jonathan, but we’re simply never going to win this one. The antievolution leaders have vast, captive, eager audiences listening to their messages. The leaders shamelessly promote the “theory” fallacy despite clearly knowing it’s an outright lie. The flocks, not knowing any better, then spread the word. It’s a fire we’re simply not equipped to fight in any substantial way. Educating the kids are our only hope, and I’m not holding my breath for that one (refer to my recent post about ACT performance in science).
Evolution is a theory. Like the germ theory of disease. Teach the controversy about germs.
“Senator, the word ‘theory’ is used differently in science than in casual conversation. First, can you tell us what it means in scientific discussions?”
[wicked grin optional]
Just point them here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence_of_evolution_being_a_hoax
Hang in there.
“Not one change of species into another is on record. We cannot prove that a single species has ever changed.” Charles Darwin
I see Chris is back again and still “Lying for Jesus” I know that research comes hard for you, but try doing some once in a while instead of mindlessly regurgitating crap from your favorite creationist site. Your quote mining “”Not one change of species into another is on record…we cannot prove that a single species has been changed. Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters†is false. Charles Darwin never wrote any book by that title, a book called†The life and letters of Charles Darwin†was edited by Darwin’s son many years after his father’s death, You can track down the second half of the “quote”, but without any trace of the first half. In case you haven’t notice Chris science has progressed some –what since the 19th century. What may have been true then that there was no instance of speciation on record: it is certainly false now. To read about many instances of speciation observed since Darwin’s time, see Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Observed Speciation Events. Oh and If you are not inclined to trust anything told to you from a scientific perspective, you may find Answers in Genesis more persuasive. From Speciation Conference Brings Good News for Creationists, by Carl Wieland (AiG CEO):
Ivorygirl
It is amazing, you have the ability to turn simple comments into entire misinterpretations of the facts.
It’s quit clear, with Darwin’s knowledge of natural and artificial selection he wasn’t referring to speciation in this comment but rather to one species turning into another, He knew speculation is normal and well documented. The issue was his unprovable idea that all species evolved from a single common ancestor. And just as he said then, ‘Not one change of species into another is on record’, the same can be said today.
I, for one, find Chris’ comments fascinating and very funny. Some time ago he described his reasons for the truth of creationism. That was one of the most fascinating feats of human intelligence I have ever seen.
On the subject of today, I happened to be browsing through some YouTube videos yesterday and ran into a video from Richard Dawkins on a diatom in Yellowstone lake. He describes and shows the evidence for that diatom’s evolution from another very common species of diatom. But then, since diatoms are so small maybe they don’t count. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUozZo8nOpY
Chris, despite having been reminded frequently, you are still spending way too much time with your head buried up the ass of creationist web sites. Let me spell it out s l o w l y for you. One of the strongest evidences for common descent comes from the study of gene sequences. Species that share a common ancestor inherited that ancestor’s DNA sequence, as well as mutations unique to that ancestor. More closely related species have a greater fraction of identical sequence and shared substitutions compared to more distantly related species and that is exactly what we find. Problem is Stevie boy you are under the mistaken assumption that ID /Creationism is the default position and evolutionary theory must answer every single one of your dumb ass questions. The problem with that, of course, is that ID/Creationism is utterly and completely useless. There is not a single product, process, or prediction made by Intelligent Design/Creationism (as promoted by you and your ilk). While there are tens of thousands of products, processes, and predictions made and supported by evolutionary theory. ID/Creationism is not the default, Evolution is the default. It’s up to you to support your side, but you can’t and everyone knows it. So you act dumb, play the semantic game, play the religion card and try to create logical fallacies in order to deflect attention from the simple truth that ID/Creationism is, like you, totally without merit.
Joe, I’m pleased I may have brightened your day. I too find many of the comments here fascinating and very funny.
Your implication is Darwin did not consider the crossbreeding of plants and animals to acquire desired characteristics as speciation. This practice was well known long before Darwin. Even though Darwin uses the word species isn’t it questionable he is referring to this low classification with the knowledge of the day. http://www2.dupont.com/Biotechnology/en_US/intro/history.html
Dawkins has presented a good example of speciation in his youtube, but nothing more. The diatom began as a diatom and ended as a diatom. To me Darwin’s statement suggest far more than this.
Ivorygirl
Your ignorance is inspiring.
Chris – please go look up “tiktaalik”. Using evolutionary theory, Neil Shubin and his associates predicted that a certain type of fossil could be found in rocks of a particular age; using geology, they located the right kind of rocks, and, with a great deal of skilled work under harsh field conditions, found fossils of the type expected and filled in another piece of our planetary jigsaw puzzle.
Please go find us _any_ comparable example of _any_ creationist (of the “intelligent design” variety or any other, drawing a logical inference from creo literature, doing the follow-up research, and producing tangible results which expand our knowledge of this world we live in.
I will concede that creationists have attempted to make scientific predictions. Consider Michael Behe, who in Darwin’s Black Box said that no one would ever see the “transitional forms” Darwin speculated as the land-based ancestors of whales. A test saying that something will never be found cannot be proven in finite time, of course – but it can be disproved at any moment. Within one year of Behe’s statement, paleontologists announced Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, thus continuing creationism’s non-stop stream of abject failures when it enters any scientific arena.
Chris, if you don’t like it when I point out the painful truth of the situation, instead of trolling about how terrible it is that I don’t kiss your ass for being a bigoted, science-hating liar for Jesus, why don’t you try demonstrating and explaining to us exactly how ID/Creationism is supposed to be scientific, and how ID/Creationism is supposed to be magically superior to Evolutionary Biology and all other sciences?
Ivorygirl
Your foaming at the mouth may show your loyalty to the status quo, but other than establishing the fact you’re no lady you haven’t said much.
Chris
Thats right, I forgot your holy babble tells you that women are inferior to men and how we should remain subservient, good luck with that idea pal.
So tell us all again just how Creationism is a scientific proposition and how we can scientifically test that Yahwah was the creator? *********** sound of crickets chirping.
Chris,
I do not believe I mentioned Darwin or implied anything about him. However, you are correct, as far as I know Darwin did not consider cross-breeding to form new species. Scientists and horticulturalists in general do not either. In general, cross-breeding dies not produce new species.
However, cross-breeding has been shown to produce new species in sunflowers in the southwest. These were crosses of wild sunflowers in nature. I could probably find the papers showing that if I dig far enough.
You asked for a record of the development of a new species, Dawkins describes one in his video. The fact that it is a diatom is irrelevant. The point is that it is a new species of diatom. A species is a species no matter what branch of the tree of life it is on.
Chris, you asked to be shown the path of one species to a new species. We have shown that, admit it and give up.
Joe
If reproduction has no influence on speciation that does make sense.
But this paper does seem to question that idea in diatoms.
Virtually nothing however is known about alternative speciation mechanisms. Here we present evidence, based on population-genetic and community-level studies on freshwater and marine raphid pennate diatoms, that allopatric processes may yet play an important role in
diatom speciation.
https://biblio.ugent.be/input/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=2140694&fileOId=2153273
Correct me if I’m wrong but If I understanding this right a restricted gene pool or lack of crossbreeding could lead to speciation. Thanks
Joe Wolf,
Don’t fall for Chris’s semantics, he just cuts and pastes from creationist web sites or quote mines from anything else he reads. The bottom line, he thinks that all biological life was created in its present form by the biblical god. Perhaps some micro-evolution after Noah’s flood, but that’s it. Chris will squirm around his real intentions. In Chris’s world ID/Creationism is the default position not evolution, of course he never produces a shred of evidence to support this position.
Ivorygirl, don’t worry I do understand where Chris is coming from. However, I did not realize he was simply cutting and pasting from various sources. That makes me feel better as I thought it was coming out of his head: a very scary thought.
To the point of cutting and pasting, Chris you really should have put quotation marks around your third sentence.
Interesting paper, you reference; I would like to see the entire paper; it looks very interesting. Could you send me the full reference?
But you are really changing the subject here. This is irrelevant to the discussion of one species becoming another. I showed you one; admit it.
We can talk about mechanism another time.