New Fossils Further Confirm Darwin's Theory of Evolution (1 Viewer)

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
10,707
Reaction score
10,509
Offline
A fish that lead naturalist Charles Darwin to question his theory of evolution has been found to fit perfectly into his research following examination of a series of fossils

The discovery removes a major argument used by advocates of intelligent design, which suggests that evolution alone cannot account for some of the surprising adaptations found in the natural world.

The flatfish group, which includes the flounder and sole, is often characterised by having both eyes on one side of the head.

But the Victorian scientist was troubled by the flatfish order because during the time of his studies the group's fossil record was incomplete and it was unclear how the gradual migration of one eye could have come about.

But now, a study of 50-million-year-old fossil fishes from Europe has provided a clear picture of the origins of the flatfish group - supporting Darwin's theories.

''Flatfishes and their profoundly asymmetrical skulls have been enlisted in many arguments against gradual evolutionary change, precisely because it is difficult to imagine how intermediate forms might have been adaptive.

''My work provides clear evidence of the kinds of intermediates deemed 'impossible' by earlier workers and answers this long-standing riddle in vertebrate evolution.''

Dr Friedman's study of the ancient specimens revealed how the positions of the creature's eyes gradually changed over millions of years.

The most ancient acanthomorphs had asymmetrical skulls, but retained eyes on both sides of the head.

Intermediate species then show how one eye gradually moved across the head so that both eyes eventually ended up on the same side.

This discovery points to a gradual evolution of the unusual skull anatomy of modern flatfishes, Dr Friedman contends.

The Fish eye migration is one of those things that I read about in class years ago. It's nice to see it finally cleared up and explained.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...wins-evolutionary-theory-research-claims.html
 
Last edited:
OP

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
10,707
Reaction score
10,509
Offline
I'm trying to figure out why this is still a theory.



Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[7] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
 

St. Widge

Socially Distant
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
38,226
Reaction score
22,552
Age
50
Location
4th Ward Soldier
Offline
I'm trying to figure out why this is still a theory.


Because science uses the term theory in a very technical way. All it means is that it is something that has been tested and confirmed by the best possible science at the time. They only call it a "theory" because is science there is no such thing as truth with a capital "T". All things are open to further testing. It's just that things that get the name "theory" attached to them have been tested to the point that it is highly unlikely that further testing could or would prove them to be wrong.
 

Crzycjunx76

Iron Era Origional
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
5,265
Reaction score
2,419
Age
41
Location
Seattle by way of Texas, originating in SELA.
Offline
I'm trying to figure out why this is still a theory.

The way I like to put it is even Gravity is a theory. There are no real Laws in Science. Occasionally things are referred to as laws (like Gravity) because we are so certain of them we feel they have successfully weathered all questioning. The word Theory is really tossed around WAY too much, a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested a multitude of times and still holds true. Really when most people say they have a Theory about something they should really be saying they have a Hypothesis, which means they have an educated idea that might explain a natural phenomenon. Sometimes they should just say they have an idea because a hypothesis is supposed to be an educated idea and many people come up with ideas out of dark places that are near polar opposites of their mouths. For a hypothesis to become a theory testing has to take place, and in the scientific method these tests are not designed to prove anything, more they are designed to try and disprove the idea at hand. The more (repeatable) results from tests that fail to disprove the hypothesis the more likely that it is the truth. Eventually if enough time passes without a test disproving it a hypothesis can be referred to as a Theory, this is why the word Theory is overused. A Theory is so well formed and so thoroughly tested that there is a very high probability under our current understand that it is a fact. However no matter how sure we are of a Theory we cannot declare it a Law because that would imply that we believe an idea to be undeniable and untestable regardless of any future discoveries or changes in our understanding of the universe. If something cannot be tested quantifiable way or has failed testing it has a very low probability of being the truth and something that repeatedly passes testing has a high probability of being true... there is no such thing as 0% or 100% in this method. It comes down to always searching for a better, more complete truth. To accept what you know as being absolute and not keep an open mind to other possibilities and new ideas is asinine ... even if it is only small tweaks to a "Theory" there is always something to add to our understanding of the world.

We leave gravity open as a Theory because it is always open to change ... with new types of matter and new forces acting upon it being discovered throughout the universe we never know how our understanding behind the force of Gravity will change in the future.

Similarly I would say evolution is a fairly strong Theory but I will argue that it does have a long way to go, the fundamental idea is sound but the specific details mechanism behind the changes will be tweaked and argued over probably long past my lifetime... as it should be.
 

saintnsane

Very Banned
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
272
Reaction score
51
Age
71
Offline
Evolution is pure b/s. We were created.If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
 

HoustonSaint68

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Oct 21, 2001
Messages
5,381
Reaction score
4,323
Offline
The Fish eye migration is one of those things that I read about in class years ago. It's nice to see it finally cleared up and explained.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...wins-evolutionary-theory-research-claims.html


Lord knows Bronco and I have had our differences but how can anyone say this post was unhelpful?

BTW, Bronco, still haven't found the time to revisit the health care materials. No rush necessary on my part though -- my representative is Ron Paul so it's not like a call or letter on the issue from me is going to make any difference at all...... :hihi:
 

HoustonSaint68

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Oct 21, 2001
Messages
5,381
Reaction score
4,323
Offline
Evolution is pure b/s. We were created.If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

Now this post was useful for a good laugh on a Friday afternoon......
 

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
39
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
Because science uses the term theory in a very technical way.

There is a theory of gravity, of course its real, but in scientific terms its a theory.

Yep. Single most commonly misunderstood aspect of a "Theory of Evolution". It's a theory because it can't literally be proven as fact. Evolution as a mechanism occurring now is "fact", evolution as explanation for the past can't be considered "fact" because it's impossible to recreate that entire time span and no one could have observed it.

But in Science theories, fundamentally, have to have
1) observable evidence
2) make predictions about things
and therefore
3) are testable and verifiable

The theory of evolution certainly meets that criteria. The mechanisms can be observed, they make past predictions (about the sort of fossils we should expect to find), present predictions (about genetic linkage we should be able to substantiate), and future predictions (about how species will react to environment and circumstances genetically and therefore evolutionary). All of these can occur on a verifiable level, and have.

Therefore evolution, while unprovable as fact on a specific scientific level, nonetheless best fits and explains available evidence as well as continues to make testable/verifiable predictions that scientific inquiry has born out.


And to be even more specific, Intelligent Design does not meet those criteria. It's a "theory" of negation. It makes no predictions about past, present, or future evidence we may discover and certainly nothing that is testable or observable.

Ergo, not only does Evolution currently adequately explain most available evidence we have as well as provide for scientifically testable/observable experiments to verify the mechanisms involved, there is no other competing scientific theory. Not even a bad or shaky one.


So, similiar to gravity, it's as good as fact for lay purposes. But scientifically speaking, it is referred to as a "theory".
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom