So, who here doesn't believe in evolution?

[miller-time]

a theory is a hypothesis; a law is a proven fact, at least in the universe that we know of. So a law is the closest thing to certainty.

A hypothesis is your starting point, you come up with a possible explanation (model) and then test it. If the experiment shows that it is wrong then the hypothesis is dropped, if after enough experimentation we are confident the model has explanatory power we keep it and call it a theory. Theories are usually also more fleshed out than hypotheses because after repeated experimentation more things are discovered about the model.

[Dresta]

a theory is a hypothesis; a law is a proven fact, at least in the universe that we know of. So a law is the closest thing to certainty.

Theory: theory of relativity
Law: Law of thermodynamics, law of conservation of mass/energy.

and there is no theory of gravity. Gravity has been proven to exist.

The law of natural selection.

[miller-time]

and there is no theory of gravity. Gravity has been proven to exist.

Its existence is only a part of the theory. The theory states why gravity does what it does. We know the sky is blue but we also have created a theory to explain why it is blue.

[-p.tiddy-]

No it isn't, Humans separated from their closest ancestor and bred with each other, some also bred with neanderthals. Just like humans separated wolves from their groups used selective breeding and domesticated them.


It's a really simple/similar to each other.

eh, not really...dog breeds didn't actually "evolve"...they were forced

would have been better off saying something like "snakes evolved from lizards but there are still lizards" or something like that

[miller-time]

eh, not really...dog breeds didn't actually "evolve"...they were forced

Artificial selection, it is the same as natural selection except the selective process comes from humans rather than nature. Same process different cause. Although I guess you can argue that humans are a part of nature and therefore it is still natural selection. Either or, doesn't really matter.

[CelticBaller]

eh, not really...dog breeds didn't actually "evolve"...they were forced

would have been better off saying something like "snakes evolved from lizards but there are still lizards" or something like that

Look, I get where you coming from, but that's still evolution. It was just accelerated due to selective breeding.

[-p.tiddy-]

Artificial selection, it is the same as natural selection except the selective process comes from humans rather than nature. Same process different cause. Although I guess you can argue that humans are a part of nature and therefore it is still natural selection. Either or, doesn't really matter.

it's not the same process at all...dog breeds would have never survived in nature

evolution is based on natural flaws that happen to be best for the survival of a species...human's breeding animals is nothing like that at all

[outbreak]

I find it hard to fathom that some people believe in young earth theory and creationism and stuff like that. But it's their beliefs and their choice. I've heard jokes about how some people believe dinosaur bones are just a test from god but does anyone actually believe that? In Australia we don't really have the religious people that you have in the states, does anyone actually know people who believe this stuff or is it like a few small minority who are hard line? It's also sad for the children if they are bought up to believe in this...

I do enjoy reading and watching things about aliens fathering life and all that, even though I know it isn't true it's fun to wonder about it and I do believe that we give far too little credit to how past civilizations lived and the levels of intelligence they had. I don't believe they had crazy technology like the alien shows claim but throughout history there's been plenty of "modern" discoveries that turned out to really just be re discovering what humans had already known/done in the past.

[Is He Ill]

I find it hard to fathom that some people believe in young earth theory and creationism and stuff like that. But it's their beliefs and their choice. I've heard jokes about how some people believe dinosaur bones are just a test from god but does anyone actually believe that? In Australia we don't really have the religious people that you have in the states, does anyone actually know people who believe this stuff or is it like a few small minority who are hard line? It's also sad for the children if they are bought up to believe in this...

I do enjoy reading and watching things about aliens fathering life and all that, even though I know it isn't true it's fun to wonder about it and I do believe that we give far too little credit to how past civilizations lived and the levels of intelligence they had. I don't believe they had crazy technology like the alien shows claim but throughout history there's been plenty of "modern" discoveries that turned out to really just be re discovering what humans had already known/done in the past.

I used to think it was a very small minority, but I don't know what to think anymore. I've run into a fair amount of religious nutbags down here. They're definitely in the minority, but there are more than plenty of them to be found. They do a very good job concealing it as well, it doesn't become apparent until you get to know them well enough.

[miller-time]

it's not the same process at all...dog breeds would have never survived in nature

We are exploiting the underlying mechanisms. It is exactly the same process. We are selecting traits that we want to see that arise in a particular breed. Instead of the animal surviving in nature they are selected to survive in human society.

In nature a canine might need to be cunning and fearless so the ones that express those traits are more successful and pass on their genes. In society we might want a dog to be friendly and passive so we select those animals to pass on their genes. In one instance nature promotes one set of genes in the other humans promote a different set of genes. At the end of the day all that has happened is a specific set of genes have been passed onto successive generations.

[Inactive]

a theory is a hypothesis; a law is a proven fact, at least in the universe that we know of. So a law is the closest thing to certainty.

Theory: theory of relativity
Law: Law of thermodynamics, law of conservation of mass/energy.

and there is no theory of gravity. Gravity has been proven to exist.

Nope.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis.../lawtheory.htm

[-p.tiddy-]

We are exploiting the underlying mechanisms. It is exactly the same process. We are selecting traits that we want to see that arise in a particular breed. Instead of the animal surviving in nature they are selected to survive in human society.

In nature a canine might need to be cunning and fearless so the ones that express those traits are more successful and pass on their genes. In society we might want a dog to be friendly and passive so we select those animals to pass on their genes. In one instance nature promotes one set of genes in the other humans promote a different set of genes. At the end of the day all that has happened is a specific set of genes have been passed onto successive generations.

so any time genes change it is "evolution"?...no matter what causes it?

[Patrick Chewing]

I certainly believe we've "evolved" after we were "created".

[-p.tiddy-]

Miller

Selective breeding and natural selection (evolution) are two very different things...the only thing similar about the two is that genes have changed from one state to another.

[CelticBaller]

Natural Selection and Artificial Selection are both part of evolution. Darwin discussed both in The Origins Of Species