Evolution: Only a Theory?

a highlight from a conversation between evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, the entirety of which can be found elsewhere on KZbin.

[@drhtum]

@netofuschini: There is A LOT of evidence in support of evolution. In fact, we see it in action as micro organisms evolve in front of us. To see human evolution in action is very difficult because of the much larger timescales of our life cycle PLUS being eukaryotes we have enzyme systems which produce high fidelity copies of our DNA reducing the incidence of mutations and thus prolonging the timescales requiured for our own evolution, yet there is evidence for human evolution.

[@Metlamaniac]

But evolution has been observed in our own lifetimes.....

[@drhtum]

@GaolisVideoLog: It's easy to dismiss someone by calling them stupid without even taking the time to understand what it is that he is saying but it is much more difficult to sweat it out for years to reach the level of knowledge that Dr. Dawkins has. Those of you who are not prepared to sweat it out would rather just call him elite and dismiss him. Also, the gentleman (or anybody at his level) can back their claims with evidence. Can you? I don't think so.. *particular subject

[@juuonse]

@clawedification I'm not sure what your point is? The word "theory" has suffered an inflation in colloquial language. As in "hey, I've got a theory about X..." instead of "the theory gravitation". That is a fact. What is also true is that creationists (maybe not all but many) are trying to undermine the power of the word "theory". Perhaps we should distinguish the two by evolution (e.g) the "scientific theory of evolution instead the average joe theory".

[@drhtum]

@GaolisVideoLog: Actually, that's how you are (mis)interpreting what I said. I started by saying that the commentator does not know much about EVOLUTION. I did not say that I am elite, but I do have an education in the life-sciences (college and above) and I do recognize that the commentator's comments regarding evolution reveals that he has misunderstood what the theory of evolution really states. Nice attitude buddy: take offence when it is demonstrated that you are wrong.

[@drhtum]

@GaolisVideoLog: "Reductio ad absurdum" is, after all, a logical fallacy in any argument, and so it is too, in yours. If you are more concerned than the 'tone' of my argument, rather than the 'facts' or the 'logic' in my argument, then you are being ridiculous. Whom you are defending has explicitly called the gentleman in question, "stupid". So your response rather demonstrates your own hypocrisy rather than my (non-existent) "elitism".

[@drhtum]

@GaolisVideoLog: One more thing - you feel that someone who seems to be knowledgeable about a particular considers himself elite. Well, no one has stopped you or anybody from gathering knowledge. Dr. Dawkins or anybody who has even been to college or grad school and made the effort has worked really hard to understand the subject and has subjected their knowledge to a lot of scrutiny before reaching that position. No one got there without breaking a sweat.

[@drhtum]

@netofuschini: There aren't even trillions of genes to find trillions which could have changed. However, there are SEVERAL genes which are highly conserved PRECISELY because their modifications would be incompatible with survival of organisms and so mutations on those genes do not survive. Patterns of inheritence of Dominant and recessive genes are compatible with evolution. High incidence of Thalessaemia, Sickle cell disease in areas endemic to malaria supports evolution.

[@juuonse]

@netofuschini care to elaborate? If you are calling a Oxford professor "stupid" then I think you've got some explaining to do. Especially when everything he says is true.

[@drhtum]

@netofuschini: Besides, evolution is only incompatible with the abrahamic belief system NOT with other belief systems. You don't have to be an atheist to see that evolution is a fact.

[@drhtum]

@GaolisVideoLog; I don't know which subject you have a degree in, but for argument's sake, I'm supposing that you have a degree in economics. I have a degree in a field very closely related to biology. If you were making a comment on the dynamics of the global economic slowdown, I would not venture an assertion (much less call you stupid) on the subject because I know that my knowledge on the subject would be limited as compared to yours. One should assert where one has the knowledge to do so.

[@drhtum]

@GaolisVideoLog: You are entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine and the commentator is to his. But NO ONE is entitled to their own "FACTS". Facts are facts, and if you are going to make claims without checking the facts, you should be prepared for the criticism. Maybe your friend should have verified the pertinent facts before making claims and calling a distinguished professor in the concerned field, "stupid", explicitly.

[@drhtum]

@netofuschini: The theory of evolution does not describe molecules to man. You clearly don't understand what you are talking about. It is about speciation that is, how new species come about from already existing ones. As far as the origins of life are concerned, it is still being debated but molecules to man is a strong possibility, yet it is NOT what the theory of evolution is about.

[@drhtum]

@GaolisVideoLog: The culture that I come from finds it perfectly feasible. Yet again it seems to offend you when you are pointed out when you are wrong. Besides, I have not even used the word "stupid" to describe the commentator who has used that very word to describe Dr. Dawkins. Do I sense a stink of hypocrisy here? You don't like to be pointed out that he is wrong but you have no problems when he resorts to name calling. Nice going!!

[@RedStarBelgradefan]

evolution is a birth of new species coming from a common ancestor, we have observed it

[@marcelvendel1854]

The FOOL says in his heart, there is no God.

[@SystemUpdate310]

well, it depends on what you mean by evolution. I dont think if it has been observed how lungs, eyes or wings come into existence by sequences of mutations and selections:)

[@SystemUpdate310]

Quantum theory and theory of gravitation are based on empirical science, evolution is not an emporical science so should not be compared to those theories.