*DAMN R6 Forum

This question is made up, so I'll be judging it myself instead of using what my old prof did.  I'll give a possible 2 points on how logical the argument is (right or not, but structured correctly and supporting the found conclusion) and a possible 2 points for clearity (the facts should be evident and should be not too dificult to follow), and 1 point for the correct answer (and a bonus 10 points and admission of worthyness if you prove my answer wrong).  So, out of a possible 5 points I give you the question:

Is Evolution a Theory or Fact?


You do not have to be as brief as possible on this one, but be clear (don't wander around with statements that don't support your argument).  

This question was brought up by Rob's thinking over a previous question.

evolution is a theory.

there are no real true "facts" to prove this idea.

It is just when people see a creature with another animals characteristics, they think it is the same thing but evolved. Who knows, it could be a new type of animal.

i could go on about this, but i am a little tired, maybe more explaination about what the hell i just said tomorrow.

Quickly, if possable. can you define Evolution for us? is this in  a biological manner? or are we staying broad?

 Evolution is a fact.

There are facts to prove and support this idea/fact.

Oso, its extremely silly to think that each change in an animal is a new type. All that must be proved is that there has been evolution in the past with one kind of animal, one thing leads to another.   Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species Thats the dictionary definition of "Evolution". It means that through evolution, new species are created. This makes Oso's argument semi-acurate. Each change, is evolution. After a large ammount of evolution, it becomes a new species. Each new species that is formed, comes from evolution, ( This excludes species that are newely discovered. This is refering to ones that are newely created. )

Because new species are formed, then the theory/fact of evolution is indeed a fact.

Evolution is defined as change of a species over time into a new form.  During human scientific history, such changes have been noted in many species, even if as simple as an adaptation to new climate.  Therefore evolution is a fact.

P.S.  There is no need to use human evolution to prove that evolution is factual.

evolution isn't a fact.
simply because many bible thumpers still believe that god made the world in 7 days. and if its not written in the good book its not true </sarcasm>
jeb
ps. athieism 4 evar!
pss. don't drink and post
psss. i'm sorry i'm really drunk

Relying on my interruption, as the answer might vary from interruption.

Take from the dictionary and define the key words, and judge thoses to be a set of rules.

I will just say, evolution is "anything that changes within time"(just to many meanings, so I will stick to this one).

I will determine, a theory is "A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena"

Fact is "an actual occurrence of a thing done"

Now I will play with thoughs 3 meanings and figure out if these ocurr.  These are my rules or true statments.

I do belive it can be up for interruption as there are different meanings in the english language.

I ask.  Is there anything that changes within time?  yes. based or other theories/laws(wish I were more knowledgeable in theories and laws).  All around us there are things changing within time, I might add unagrueably.  Simlpy, ourselfs thinking to produce answers is a change, not only physically, but mentaly as well.  Heat varys, is a change.  This texts is a change, because it was not here before.  The list can go on with examples.  But, I will use how bucc used his logic, right untill questioned wrong.  Therefore, things change.

Atleast some Things do change.
Change happens in time.
Evolution is anything that changes within time.
A fact is an actual occurrence of a thing done.
Therefore, evolution ocurrs.
Therefore, evolution is a fact.


Atleast some Things do change.
Change happens in time.
There are multiple changes.
Evolution is anything that changes within time.
A theory is a scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena
Therefore, evolution ocurrs more than once
Therefore, evolution is a theory

The question does imply only to pick one or the other.  trick question? don't think it was meant to be.

Two answer is where I rest I'm done trying to solving this.  I'm open for change, or shall I say able to evolve.

Question me, I can brush it up

I believe that evolution is a theory. As in math and science there are somethings that are taken to be true and do not need to be proven. Such as the planets revolve around the sun, or one of the many postulates that occur in math. Then there are those that have to be proven, and people are still trying to prove that evolution occured over time. Until almost all of science no longer needs to prove it and it is accepted as the truth then it will be a theory. And right now it is still a theory.

Is it just me or are people overthinking this?

The question is "Is evolution theory of a fact?"

Implied "you" goes in there (due to the fact he's asking us) And thus, it's our opinion.

Evolution is a theory... Because I don't believe it.

(This post is my opnion but basically I didn't wanna write a long post!)

Ben

I haven't read any of the other responses yet so I don't know if this has already been said, but here's my take on it -

Evolution is defined in a number of ways. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=evolution (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=evolution)

With any of these, we can see clearly that evolution is fact.


For example, a human grows and develops over time.  It does not happen all at once.  Thus it is a process.  If the process exists as fact (humans cannot develop except over long periods of time), then evolution, defining that process, is fact as well.


While some things may change suddenly, others do so slowly.  The developing period exists, therefore evolution exists.


This is probably the definition of which most people think.  I won't include definitions 4 and 5 as they don't really apply.  Anyway, the biological concept of evolution follows the same rules as the preceding definitions of evolution.  Animal species have been known to change over time, and our modern study of genetics demonstrates that this change is the result of gene variance throughout populations.

Furthermore, this scientific concept can be proven by disproving its opposite.  Those who disbelieve evolution advance that all species were created at once.  Indeed, if evolution were only a theory, and thus not true (for if true it is fact), then species could not evolve.  If they could not evolve, then all species in existence had to have existed originally, i.e. forever in terms of human cognizance.

However, in our own lifetimes we have seen new species emerge.  Bacteria, for example, due to their quick reproduction, frequently change.  New strains evolve into disease-resistant bacteria, etc.

While there are numerous species concepts as well, these fundamental changes, even if they do not create a new "species" immediately, demonstrate clearly evolution among living creatures.

Evolution is the act of evolving.
To evolve is to change into something more complex and/or advanced.
Such change is observable and has been proven. (Note this does not necessarily mean Darwinian evolution. For example, civilization has evolved.)
Evolution is a fact.

PS - QED beotch

Grades:

Out of a possible 5 points

Ace 4 points
If you had left out that Darwin remark, or just said it much better, it would have been a 5. Well, that and maybe an example of where it was proven.  Darwinian evolution does exist.  His theories of the evolution of specific species is what is questioned.

Loudnotes 3 points
Your logic is good, but the examples given aren't the best.  Growth and Evolution are not the same thing, so, put the way you did, the growth of a human isn't necessarily the same as the evolution.  Your arguments and examples could be more clear.

Ben 0 point
Ben, the whole point of this is to find conclusions in a logical way, not to just state an opinion.

Shade 1 point
I give the one point because, even with all the wrong statements and an assumption in there, you do use some logic.  First, everything in math and science had to be proven at one time or another (which is how logic came to be developed as a specific tool).  Second, do you know what happened when it was first published that the planets revolve around the sun?  Third, look up the word "postulates".  You also seem to be assuming that Evolution means the same as "the evolution of man".  

Rob 3 points
Rob, that was over analysis.  You simplified your definitions, then posted some logical arguments with one exception.  That exception being in your proof about a theory.  Once a theory is proven, it is no longer a theory, is it?  Pretty sound but it also wandered a bit.

Jeb 1 point
Jeb gets the single point for trying to prove the opposite wrong.  If he had rememberd his opening <sarcasim> tag (he only used the closing tag) It would have made more sense.  It also lacked anything other then sarcasim, but one point for going in the direction that nobody else did.

Bondo 3.5
I am close to a 4 here too.  The adaptation to cold example was a little weak without a specific reference.  

Typhy 3.5
This would have been a 4 if it was just presented a little more clear (leaving oso out of it next time would be a big start).  One minor factual point, Not every new species is formed.  Life had to be created at some point, no matter if you believe it was God or the Big Bang, there was a FORMATION, not just Evolution.  But your thinking is sound.

Oso 1 point
There is some logic there, but your first fact is completely wrong, since since does prove evolution in animals all the time.  It needs more support too.

What the hell?  I didn't say anything about adapting to cold.  You give more points to Ace who said nothing really different than me, just wasn't as specific and then say I lose points for not having a specific example?  Your grading is biased.  You want an example?  Cactus species have evolved to have a plasticy skin to prevent evapotranspiration and thus maintain the ability to survive in a desert region.

The argument I would have posed.

Evolution is the  change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Scientists have found and traced the genetic evolution of many animals back to their common ancistors through their work with DNA.  Linking the Dog and Wolf back thousands of years to their common species.  Or when scientists experiment on animals with short lifespans to see the effects in their development would also be an example of Evolution.

Man has even been shown to evolve since his existance in his skin color and other bodily features.

Therefore: Evolution is a fact.

I didn't mention Darwinism or Creationism because neither is really on topic.  This was not about how did we get here, where did man come from.  It was about Evolution.  And Evolution, in this argument, was a biological adaptation.  I could easilly have used the Evolution of Industry or Political movements instead.  It was open ended because the question was about the word.  People's feelings is what leads many down different paths.  

Bondo, I gave an example. I said that civilization has evolved.

bondo, get over yourself.  he said you were very close to a 4.  and bitching about him using the word cold instead of climate is pretty weak, when he was looking at so many.

please don't cry and turn this into another one of your bullshit rants.  bucc said that this one was subjective, not something he had been tested on.  in other words, if you don't like it, get the fuck out.

look at rob.  he isn't agreeing with bucc, but he's not being a little bitch about it either.

I would like to say it is open to interruption.  how do we know which meaning to use, when the grader does not supply it to us?

just a quick post, more later, theres work to be done.

rob, bucc said that the other definitions were all fair game, and that was part of the point.  

woo 1 point!

hehe i forgot to look at the other meanings of evolution like Ace's.

oh well, do you have any other Logic stuff for us?

PWNAGE... 0... (its the true score, I put no effort into it... I was too busy studying for SAT's... I took them today, now I'm ready for a logic thread. LOL)

Ben

Bah. . .well I'll just get the 10 points by pointing out to you Bucc that your logic is flawed as well.

You've got the right idea, but using dogs/wolves and human skin color is a mistake.


We just finished reading an article for environmental science that discussed the numerous biological species concepts.  Unfortunately I don't have it with me right now so I can't give you precise points, but basically the idea of a "species" is a theory.  

There are numerous definitions accepted as the differentiation between two species.  And while some acknowledge that a wolf and a dog are different enough to be of different species, others argue that they should actually be considered of the same.

Humans, as well, have not evolved into a different species through changes in skin color.  Blacks, whites, browns, tans, purple, and green, we are all the same, by any species concept.

well, dammnit bucc. you had to go and grade them  so soon? i was actually going to put some hard thought into this one...how 'bout another one?
 

Evolution is a Fact. You can see it happen..... Watch bacterias who slowly grow immume of antibiotic ( That too is evolution)... Bacterias are the proof.... They have short lives and so the evolution is fast with them.... many new generations... Many new dna chains and little differences between em ( What over a longer period of time might even become a new kind of bacteria)...  
So the proof that Evolution is fact is now given.

 Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Going along these guidelines, i present the outcome of my thought processes..

Evolution is both theory and fact.
Enormous amounts of consistent evidence have accumulated to affirm the general act of evolution.
HOWEVER
 facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them, as in the case of evolution where various aspects of it are constantly being disproved
thus the general principle of evolution is indeed fact however the the -fact- that the ideas of it are constantly changing and being disproved makes the underlying intersections of evolution theory.

i totally got a zero  ;D

Damnit. His answer of yes got the same score of my answer of an opinion! I thought I went as lazy as possible... but no! he wins. I don't get it though, Evill's posted before this. How come it says one post?

Ben

That is some dumbass pretending to be Kevill...that is why it will be deleted.

 Kevill fits that profile ( Dumbass ) perfectly, I wouldn't be so sure its am imposter...

Actually, whoever it was was being rather clever.  And kevill's sn on this board is Scott_Kevill, not Scott Kevill.

He does have a point though, whoever he is.

Is evolution theory or fact?

Yes, it is.

Bucc, I take it you haven't seen my post yet. . .because I'm waiting for my 10 points. . .

I posted it. AssAssIn is just a little delete-happy lately. I thought moderators could see email addresses anyway?

I created a new account as I couldn't remember my user name. I requested it to be sent to my email address, but it sent the password and left the username blank. It wasn't until just then that I noticed although the username was blank, it had "Dear Scott_Kevill," and even in the subject line. Hey, it was late.

I wasn't trying to get full points, since I didn't explain anything, but I liked the cleverness in the brevity of it. I've been programming far too long, but that's just boolean logic to me. :)


Yes.

Actually Loud, I saw it, but after all the other BS going on around us, and not being around much yesterday, I didn't want to respond to it yet.

But, I'm back from the LAN party (it was a blast) and can get back to this.

First for Loudnotes,

You don't get the 10 points that easily.  You are challenging some of my facts, that isn't a flaw in my logic.  I can provide a couple documents about linking the dog and the wolf to a common ancistor.  As for species being a theory, I'd like to see that article (and not because of this).  Species, as far as I've learned, is a category, a definition, not a theory.  

One article I've read even talks about why the domestic dog, the wolf and the coyotee are different species (most notibly cranium size and shape, major reproductive differences, and DNA differences).

For the Human attributes I mentioned, I could argue (since this was my point in that example) that humans are evolving (the changes taking place over generations in the genetics), and that someday, we could be considered different species (if you want to discuss this, I'd be happy to, as I once read a paper on it.  Don't think within hundreds of years, think many thousands of them and think about what space travel could do to us).  Human evolution could also take a step backwards too, it is not unidirectional by any means.  But I would argue that it is still evolution.

Brain, sorry, there were already many to score.  I think I'll leave post a couple more, but no more grading.  Some people seem to get upset by my subjective scale.

Dragonic, pretty good.  You could have said it better, but still a sound argument.  I'd probably have given that 3.5 - 4 (defining what you mean by evolution would have helped, along with the qualifer that if it happens, it is a fact).

Evill, ok about Evill.  This could be the real Evill, he hasn't posted here often, and could have forgotten his password.  He used the right e-mail address, and it sounds like his sense of humor.  And yes, you could argue for both if you were specific enough in your premise, as we suspect Evill is being without saying (wouldn't score high without the proof, but I always like a smart ass).

Cookie, the facts of "evolution" are not being disproved.  The theories behind specific evolutions (where species came from) is what is constantly being questioned and disproved (or vice versa).  That's the big trap.  The study of evolution is a science, much like biology is the study of life.  There are many theories within the science, but the question that life exists isn't one of them.  Another good comparison would be between Archiology and Evolution.  Both are facts, but within them are many mysteries yet to be solved.

Evolution is a theory.

The reason for this is simple, there are NO facts. NOTHING can be absolutely proven, NOTHING. The reason for this is simple, you can't prove that anything exists, even yourself. Ah, but what about "I think therefore I am"? Okay, sounds good, but what if it's not you that's actually thinking, what if "you" are and event in a computer program. Then it's the computer thinking for you and you don't actually exist.

Another example is the computer you are sitting in front of. If you can't prove that anything exists now, then you certainly can't prove that anything will exist a moment from now. Just because the computer you are sitting at was there this moment, doesn't mean it will be there the next moment because you can't prove it's there at all. Think of the color of the sky on a cloudless day. It's blue right? Prove it. You can't because all you have to go on is your perceptions. Perceptions that can be completely wrong or falsified.

If you can't prove anything exists then you can't prove there is a relationship between cause and effect. You could say there is an extremely high probability of cause and effect but you can't rule out random chance. Just because something has happend 999 times out of 999 times doesn't mean that it will happen again the 1000th time.

Evolution depends on certain factors causing change to occur. If there is no relationship between cause and effect, then there can be no evolution becuase you cannot prove that what we think of as "evolution" is not completly random. To take this a step further, things may continue to appear and disappear randomly from moment to moment. Remeber, you can't prove cause and effect. So how can you say it will be there? The same goes for any step in any evolutionary process. If none of it exists then there is no evolution beyond random chance of things spontaneously existing.

So because we can't prove anything exists, or that our perceptions exist, we can't have any facts, and that means evolution must be just an idea or theory. But we really can't prove that either can we? ;D

Of course, this is all just a theory... no facts remember?  :)

Alaric, put the Matrix down and step away from the TV...


Bucc, I asked Evill on GR and he confirmed that this is not an imposter. Then again, if Evill were really answering with boolean logic, he would have said "1" (or "0" if he was using negative logic).

LOL, yeah I knew somebody was gonna reference the Matrix. I don't actually believe anything I said. I came to the thread late and I just thought I'd throw some Anti-Logic at Bucc's question to change the pace. :) However, I did successfully prove the problem with solipsism.

Well, Bucc, if I recall you graded me down because of my specific examples, not because of my logic.

***takes his 10 points***

But the article I'll be happy to share. . .it may be online somewhere.  But it's at school at the moment so I'll have it for you soon.

As I remember it, it distinguished between dogs and wolves through cranial size and reproductive isolation.  But it also questioned whether they might be considered of the same species, as their DNA is nearly identical.

Yes, I think you successfully could argue that humans would evolve.  Afterall, I did say evolution was fact myself.  But the answer you posted had holes in it, not the answer you could have posted.

Evill, you actually used two different email addresses. . .the first was scott@GameRanger.com, the second info@GameRanger.com.  It did seem like it could be the work of a careless forger.

***Imagines what this forum would be like if evill posted more often***

If I created a second account, then obviously it would be a second email address. :)

Additionally, why could the second address have been forged and not the first as well?

Yeah, sorry about that Evill...thought that was some chump impersonating you. If I remember you correctly, you were not one to give one word answers that seemed basic.

As for the two email address' we knew the first one wasn't a forgery because of the issue you responded on (Peekay et.al), and I thought the second was a fake since you already had an account established on the forums.

LOL, I don't give them up that easilly Loud.  I said prove me wrong.  You've taken a couple good swings, but I haven't actually seen anything that says that the domestic dog and grey wolf are the same species.  I have read that they are different species, in many places.  So right now you are in the fight, but you haven't earned them yet.

One other thing, I believe that domestic dogs and wolves are different species is a documented fact.  People can argue that it's not, just like I can argue that the sky isn't blue or the sun isn't yellow.  There needs to be something actually saying that they are the same species.

It's a good effort so far though.

And be careful what you wish for Loudnotes, I see Evill is here again.  Maybe the debates around here can step up a notch or two with his participation.  I don't think we've had a point of view from down-under here.

Evolution is Both a theory and a fact.
Since evolution is such a broad term, there is Darwin's Theory of Evolution, dealing with the progression of life on earth from the dinosaurs to the apes to humans (i skipped lots of steps there), and there is the Fact of Evolution, where the Bacterium colony (is thats what its called) evolves to become resistant to certain antibiotics through Natural Selection.
-??h=

cringe, you should have read more carefully.  it's not darwin's theory of evolution.  it's his theories ON evollution "the origin of the species".  

you just fell into the classic blunder.  

it wasn't evolution as a fact that was questioned.  it was his theories on what evolved from what, and the relationships between species that people still question.  

big difference.

I guess we just trusted you Evill. . .were we wrong to do so ? ;)

Bucc I'll find that article for you. . .

And I don't mind Evill posting more often. . .should I?

anyone else see the irony in the fact that evill got modded?

anyway, i need to ad something importand so i dont get modded for spam
i think that having evill here would be cool.
all i know of him is the evil tyrant sterotype, and i would like to see what he is really like

once i get my essay composed i will post a nice, fat long explaination of the question...


muhahah

 ;D ;D ;D ;DColin---Cuo