I see...

[Biggin]

Again, it's in the terminology, mutation is proven, but there is no evidence that mutation within species can lead to true evolution.

I would agree if mutation was a completely random occurence, occurring at the same clip with all humans.

But its not, climate, social structure, population growths, etc.. play a factor in mutation, then its not simple random mutation anymore, its evolution

[Gotch]

I would agree if mutation was a completely random occurence, occurring at the same clip with all humans.

But its not, climate, social structure, population growths, etc.. play a factor in mutation, then its not simple random mutation anymore, its evolution

No it's not. It is adaptation through mutation, which I do not agree is evolution nor do I believe it can come close to explaining the full diversity of life.

[CoeburnCane]

What about that part?

"the general or abstract principles of a body of fact"

See that "of" up there? That changes things drastically. It doesn't say a theory is "a body of fact"...it says it's "the general or abstract principles...OF...a body of fact".

So--a theory isn't a fact in and of itself, it's the general or abstract principles thereof.

If you're trying to use that to say that general/abstract principles = facts...then you're still plain wrong.

"Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong."

If that's the case mr. igotaquotefromNAoSsoyoucan'targuewithme, WHY do scientists all around the world, every-fargin-day, continually test & look for examples of evolution? Why are there ongoing case studies still to this day regarding the theory of evolution? If it's so factual...there wouldn't be any need to test it. That sentence, hell--the whole NAoS definition, falls over top of itself once you take that into consideration.

Anything else, youngin?

[R13]

If that's the case mr. igotaquotefromNAoSsoyoucan'targuewithme, WHY do scientists all around the world, every-fargin-day, continually test & look for examples of evolution? Why are there ongoing case studies still to this day regarding the theory of evolution? If it's so factual...there wouldn't be any need to test it. That sentence, hell--the whole NAoS definition, falls over top of itself once you take that into consideration.

Anything else, youngin?

Why wouldn't they? That's what scientist do, you should know there's no such thing as "case closed" in science. Of course things are tested and experimented on, there's things discovered everyday to be tested..they have to be, there's no assuming. That's really an easy question, I've said a million times that not all in clear, not all has been uncovered, it's constantly on going as it should be. And observing evolution in present day is part of that, it will always be experimented on. It stands as where we came from right now, it's not even close to being debunked...anyone have any alternative theories(that are backed up)? Like I said, it's not close to being debunked, it's only been solidified with all of these experiments. There may be another theory in the future that explains it better, but the basic principles will hold true.

[CoeburnCane]

Why wouldn't they? That's what scientist do, you should know there's no such thing as "case closed" in science. Of course things are tested and experimented on, there's things discovered everyday to be tested..they have to be, there's no assuming. That's really an easy question, I've said a million times that not all in clear, not all has been uncovered, it's constantly on going as it should be. And observing evolution in present day is part of that, it will always be experimented on. It stands as where we came from right now, it's not even close to being debunked...anyone have any alternative theories(that are backed up)? Like I said, it's not close to being debunked, it's only been solidified with all of these experiments. There may be another theory in the future that explains it better, but the basic principles will hold true.

See, now there you go. You're starting to come towards what I was trying to tell you earlier in this thread. I'm proud of you. It is a theory that's still being experimented upon, and while it may be "accepted", it isn't fact b/c it's not 100% proven. For instance, 100 times out of 100 times that you put Hydrochloric acid on a strip of magnesium, it's going to cause an exothermic reaction. That's a fact that you can base theories off of. If I theorize that Nitric Acid will have the same effect on magnesium, test it, it won't work. So my theory's disproven. I can test it an infinite number of times, but unless I introduce something that will react with magnesium other than Nitric Acid, or replace magnesium with something else (say, copper), that will react in a volatile way. Then I test that several times in controlled circumstances, and it can eventually be proven as fact.

I know that's all simple chemistry, but the very same scientific principles apply as it pertains to large-scale theories like evolution. We have to find some things that work 100% of the time, and test it strenuously, and then present it as fact. The one variable that tends to get in the way that NO ONE has really talked about as far as really proving evolution is genetic mutations. Genetic mutations can be explained by environmental or internal chemical issues that change the way DNA gets replicated through generations. See...now there's a fact. Genes CAN mutate given a certain set of circumstances. We know the things that can cause this, there's much more solid research that's been done on the human genome and mutations thereof than that of solid research on evolution. That ultimately decides exactly how much we can trust that theory.

The only things that we can theorize right now that we can theorize that causes evolution are time and possibly environment--but we haven't even proven that yet. There are people also, such as myself, that will argue that adaptation =/= evolution because of the environmental factors that cause adaptation to occur...the theory of evolution in and of itself is much more complex and should be independent of outside factors. Otherwise, any change in a species can likely be proven to be the result of genetic mutation and/or adaptation to environment as opposed to evolution.

[Gotch]

The one variable that tends to get in the way that NO ONE has really talked about as far as really proving evolution is genetic mutations. Genetic mutations can be explained by environmental or internal chemical issues that change the way DNA gets replicated through generations. See...now there's a fact. Genes CAN mutate given a certain set of circumstances.

This really goes to my whole argument. ^This is a fact, but I argue that it does not and can not account for the full diversity of life. Especially given that a significant series of positive mutations uninterrupted by a single negative mutation will been necessary for a single case of "macro-evolution" to occur, and even in cases of studied environmental adaptation there are many more negative mutations than positive ones.

[Biggin]

The only things that we can theorize right now that we can theorize that causes evolution are time and possibly environment--but we haven't even proven that yet. There are people also, such as myself, that will argue that adaptation =/= evolution because of the environmental factors that cause adaptation to occur...the theory of evolution in and of itself is much more complex and should be independent of outside factors. Otherwise, any change in a species can likely be proven to be the result of genetic mutation and/or adaptation to environment as opposed to evolution.

But the theory is dependent on outside factors, aside from random genetic mutations, because those are the factors that cause organisms to evolve. Without those outside situations, then it would be simple random mutation.

But when we determined that outside factors can influence mutation, then we knew that certain living things have mutated because of their surroundings.
Therefore, we can hypothesize, that in the perfect circumstances, the theory of evolution is true. It has yet to be proven yet, but thats the basis of the theory.

But, when you say changes in species happen because of genetic mutations caused by surroundings and other circumstances, you are proving evolution. Not Darwin's theory of evolution, but the basic principles of evolution. Evolution is changing the genetic make-up of an organism caused by something other than strictly random mutation. Therefore, its not simple adaptation anymore, its evolution.
Adaptation can be as simple as bees forming hives or beavers building dams.
Therefore, when its complex changes in genetic make-up caused by area or other factors, its not adaptation, its evolution.

[CoeburnCane]

Well then my view of evolution is quite a bit different in terms of how I define it. I define evolution as a major genetic change that causes one species to spawn another species, so major that it cannot be considered the same as the species that it came from--though they are related.

Random/non-random genetic mutation and/or adaptation do not fully explain what I believe to be true evolution. They may be markers for signs of evolution, but they don't explain it 100%, nor prove it.

Different views, different approaches--that's just how it is.

[Biggin]

No it's not. It is adaptation through mutation, which I do not agree is evolution nor do I believe it can come close to explaining the full diversity of life.

Whether or not you agree with it, by definition, it is evolution. Its organisms having mutation caused by different factors, not random, therefore its evolution.

I did not say we can explain everything about the evolution of man.

I said that when mutation happens based on other factors besides random occurrences, its not random mutation anymore, its evolution.

How is that not true?

Random mutation is just that, random.
But if other factors can lead to mutation, then its not random genetic mutation.
Its mutation caused by situation, which is evolution.

[Gotch]

Whether or not you agree with it, by definition, it is evolution. Its organisms having mutation caused by different factors, not random, therefore its evolution.

I did not say we can explain everything about the evolution of man.

I said that when mutation happens based on other factors besides random occurrences, its not random mutation anymore, its evolution.

How is that not true?

Random mutation is just that, random.
But if other factors can lead to mutation, then its not random genetic mutation.
Its mutation caused by situation, which is evolution.

I know what you are saying and it's all in the language again. Technically you are correct and it is me using common use definition causing the misunderstanding this time. It is just this type of exchange that resulted in the terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution (which are not scientific terms) but make the exchange much easier for both parties to follow.

I am separating mutation (micro-evolution) from what most people think of when they hear the term evolution, which in this case would be macro-evolution.