16-04-2003 03:09									#61
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Divvy Nor do I believe in it. It's just a THEORY, there is no such thing as "law of evolution".

You're confused about what "theory" and "law" mean in a scientific context. The scientific defintition of these words is not the same as that used in the vernacular.

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

To put it simply, a scientific theory is a statement about the mechanics of how observed phenomena work. It has nothing to do with uncertainty, which would be a "hypothesis." A "law" is simply a terse prediction, based on a factual theory, of how something will behave under certain conditions. The reason there is no "law of evolution" is simply because it is far to vastly complex to reduce into a law, and that predicting how something will evolve is impossible, as it relies on random mutation.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

quote: Some parts of the theory are backed up with scientific evidence, such as species can evolve "within" a certain boundary of their specie, but not into other species. (a dog can evolve to another type of dog but not into a cat/bird or whatever)

This is a statement of pure ignorance of what evolution actually is. It does not involve one species jumping to another, such as a cat to a bird. It involves all species being evolved from common ancestors. Think of it as a lone river, which splits into two tributaries. As these go on, they split into more tributaries, and those split, etc. While the initial two tributaries will be close together, the ones far down the line will be very far removed from one another. This is a simplistic view of speciation.

We share a common ancestor with birds, dogs and apes. We are more closely related to apes, but the relation to birds and dogs is still there. The structure of the DNA of all living things is related.

quote: There is no proof that apes could evolve into humans etc...

No, there isn't...because we didn't evolve from apes. We share a common ancestor with apes. And there is ample evidence of this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

quote: such theories are just claimed to be true cause they can't find any real scientific evidence of how us humans ended up here.

This is a patently false assertion, and insulting to the millions of biologists and scientists out there who have done the research and actually know what they are talking about. It's always amazing to me how casually religious people will imply that evolutionary biologists and chemists are all lying, stupid people with agendas.

quote: There are lots of arguments why this can impossibly be the case, some arguments against this theory are very convincing and can't be dismissed that easily.

THere are many compelling arguments within science as to how evolution may have occured, but there is no question whatsoever that it did. There is not one, I repeat one, convincing argument against evolution that does not rely on God playing tricks on humanity.