[quote]jakshafter wrote:
JohnnyNinja wrote:
Jackshafter: learn the scientific definitions of the words fact and theory. You are currently using them incoorectly and applying faulty logic based on the incorrect usage.
Also listen to Lonnie.
Also Evolution does not make choices. Evolution is what we see in the rear view mirror.
Fact = Knowledge or information based on real occurrences or empirically verifiable
Theory = A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena
Nope, I am not using them incorrectly and my logic is not faulty. If you think it is, will you show me where and what logic principle it breaks.
BTW i am a scientist[/quote]
Well, we can do empirically verifiable tests on DNA replication error rates in vitro, and find they make powerful predictions about what is empirically found in the fossil record.
[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
Well, we can do empirically verifiable tests on DNA replication error rates in vitro, and find they make powerful predictions about what is empirically found in the fossil record. [/quote]
[quote]jakshafter wrote:
To start off i want you to know that i am not trying to justify a belief in creation so do not attack on this point. I am just saying evo is a theory.
Something cannot be both a fact and a theory. Those terms are contradictory. For example a woman cannot be both pregant and not pregant or a light both on and off. Moving on from this shortcomming in you logic, evolution is nothing like gravity which can be directly observed. They are not comparable.
[/quote]
Did you miss the part about gravity? Gravity is a fact. It happens. However, there is also a Theory about Gravity that explains how it happens. Gravity is both a fact and a Theory.
A Theory in science is a broad explanatory model that incorporates facts, predictions, observations and other data. Not to be confused with the laymans use of the word, as in “You know, I have this theory” which is more like a hypothesis than anything else. By definition, any Theory must have at its heart the fact that the phenomenon the theory is explaining must be a fact.
Evolution has been directly observed, there are 2 links to stories in this thread alone that will satisfy you if you decide to click on them.
1 - The Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution, I am willing to speak about this theory in a separate thread, but it is well beyond the scope of this discussion.
3 - The problem with transition fossils is that every time one is found, it just creates two new gaps in between it and the fossils before and after. No amount of transition fossils will satisfy a creationist because there are just new gaps being formed.
But, just to show you that we do in fact have them:
4 - Dont know enough about this so I wont add in my opinion.
[quote]
This statement defeats itself. Evolution is not testable! By your own logic it isn’t science. Does that mean it is not science? Of course not it just means your logical criteria for science is a little off. Sorry if this seems insulting this is not my goal. “Iron sharpens iron” I am trying to make you more sound in your thinking.[/quote]
Actually it is quite testable, scientists can make predictions about the kinds of fossils they will find in a given strata of the earth. For example, the Theory states that you wont find horse fossils along side of trilobite fossils. This holds up every time.
The molecular evidence for evolution (really the strongest evidence there is, the fossil record is basically obsolete in the light of this stuff) is so strong and so predictive that it almost laughable. I dont know what else to tell you if you are unaware of this line of evidence except get to reading. ( 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4 )
There are many other ways to test it (Including direct observational evidence as mentioned above.)
[quote]
Aye, truth is not up for debate it is by defination an absolute. No amount of debate can change facts. But to use your example we still do not know for certian what is in the box. We have good guesses.
But the problem is that one side of the people guessing silence any other viewpoints. It is not scientific to put forth a theory claim it to be true then decry all other views as trivial.
I apologise again if I say anything that seems insulting. Not my goal.[/quote]
If you understand that the truth is not up for debate, why do you call for extra debates on the issue. RESEARCH is what yields evidence, not debate. The box has been opened and examined with regards to evolution. It is every bit as much of a solid Theory as the planets rotating around the sun. The information is out there, do not take my word for it.
Scientists are hardly silencing any viewpoint. They merely wish to keep it out of SCIENCE class. They do not protest the church for teaching it, they do not protest colleges that offer degrees in it, they do no protest colleges that offer non-scientific degrees.
The creationists wanted in the game, they wanted it to be taught in the science classroom… It is not science and therefore deserve all of the ridicule they get for trying to play the game. Thats how science is done (look up the peer review process if you think scientists play nice with each other all day).
I also do not mean to be insulting, I’m just trying to spread the best information I can as I understand it. I want this next point to be very, very clear:
I will change my mind if you will show me better evidence. I only care about the truth, and if I have the wrong information the best possible thing that could happen to me is to be shown I have been wrong, and show me the truth. Please do so if you have knowledge that I do not have.
[quote]jakshafter wrote:
JohnnyNinja wrote:
Jackshafter: learn the scientific definitions of the words fact and theory. You are currently using them incoorectly and applying faulty logic based on the incorrect usage.
Also listen to Lonnie.
Also Evolution does not make choices. Evolution is what we see in the rear view mirror.
Fact = Knowledge or information based on real occurrences or empirically verifiable
Theory = A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena
Nope, I am not using them incorrectly and my logic is not faulty. If you think it is, will you show me where and what logic principle it breaks.
BTW i am a scientist[/quote]
Given that you know the difference between the two (and that you understand the real definition of Theory) I find it very hard to believe you dont understand that the same name can be applied to both (ie: evolution, gravity, disease).
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
To start off i want you to know that i am not trying to justify a belief in creation so do not attack on this point. I am just saying evo is a theory.
Something cannot be both a fact and a theory. Those terms are contradictory. For example a woman cannot be both pregant and not pregant or a light both on and off. Moving on from this shortcomming in you logic, evolution is nothing like gravity which can be directly observed. They are not comparable.
Did you miss the part about gravity? Gravity is a fact. It happens. However, there is also a Theory about Gravity that explains how it happens. Gravity is both a fact and a Theory.
A Theory in science is a broad explanatory model that incorporates facts, predictions, observations and other data. Not to be confused with the laymans use of the word, as in “You know, I have this theory” which is more like a hypothesis than anything else. By definition, any Theory must have at its heart the fact that the phenomenon the theory is explaining must be a fact.
Evolution has been directly observed, there are 2 links to stories in this thread alone that will satisfy you if you decide to click on them.
If we are talking a purely naturalistic origins there are several.
T=0 of the big bang
Chemical evolution (more complex molecules from simple ones) not possible as it violates the 3rd law of Thermo
Lack of any transitional species not just between humans and apes
Not supported by fossil timetables. (The fossil timetable in textbooks is a composite and doesn’t exist anywhere in the world)
There are more but that will give you something to chew on.
Where do I even begin.
1 - The Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution, I am willing to speak about this theory in a separate thread, but it is well beyond the scope of this discussion.
3 - The problem with transition fossils is that every time one is found, it just creates two new gaps in between it and the fossils before and after. No amount of transition fossils will satisfy a creationist because there are just new gaps being formed.
But, just to show you that we do in fact have them:
4 - Dont know enough about this so I wont add in my opinion.
This statement defeats itself. Evolution is not testable! By your own logic it isn’t science. Does that mean it is not science? Of course not it just means your logical criteria for science is a little off. Sorry if this seems insulting this is not my goal. “Iron sharpens iron” I am trying to make you more sound in your thinking.
Actually it is quite testable, scientists can make predictions about the kinds of fossils they will find in a given strata of the earth. For example, the Theory states that you wont find horse fossils along side of trilobite fossils. This holds up every time.
The molecular evidence for evolution (really the strongest evidence there is, the fossil record is basically obsolete in the light of this stuff) is so strong and so predictive that it almost laughable. I dont know what else to tell you if you are unaware of this line of evidence except get to reading. ( 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4 )
There are many other ways to test it (Including direct observational evidence as mentioned above.)
Aye, truth is not up for debate it is by defination an absolute. No amount of debate can change facts. But to use your example we still do not know for certian what is in the box. We have good guesses.
But the problem is that one side of the people guessing silence any other viewpoints. It is not scientific to put forth a theory claim it to be true then decry all other views as trivial.
I apologise again if I say anything that seems insulting. Not my goal.
If you understand that the truth is not up for debate, why do you call for extra debates on the issue. RESEARCH is what yields evidence, not debate. The box has been opened and examined with regards to evolution. It is every bit as much of a solid Theory as the planets rotating around the sun. The information is out there, do not take my word for it.
Scientists are hardly silencing any viewpoint. They merely wish to keep it out of SCIENCE class. They do not protest the church for teaching it, they do not protest colleges that offer degrees in it, they do no protest colleges that offer non-scientific degrees.
The creationists wanted in the game, they wanted it to be taught in the science classroom… It is not science and therefore deserve all of the ridicule they get for trying to play the game. Thats how science is done (look up the peer review process if you think scientists play nice with each other all day).
I also do not mean to be insulting, I’m just trying to spread the best information I can as I understand it. I want this next point to be very, very clear:
I will change my mind if you will show me better evidence. I only care about the truth, and if I have the wrong information the best possible thing that could happen to me is to be shown I have been wrong, and show me the truth. Please do so if you have knowledge that I do not have.[/quote]
great definition what a “theory” is in science. I’ve had a hard time arguing when people say “It’s just a theory!” because I couldn’t put into words what a theory was in science compared to a regular person’s idea of a theory is.
Thanks.
The problem I find with “Evolution” as a verifiable theory or theorem(from the standpoint of a mathematician) is that it is a generalization made on the proven mechanisms of SPECIATION.
That is to say, SPECIATION is not the same thing as DARWINIAN EVOLUTION is not the same thing as EVOLUTION as a general term.
So, from what I understand, SPECIATION in protists and other “simple” species can be observed in a controlled experiment.
However, with a few exceptions, no controlled experiment can reproduce SPECIATION in more “complex” populations and/or their constituent organisms.
Further, the verifiable and observable(in a controlled experiment) of any plurality or majority of species in existence does not allow for(prove) that any other species, including Homo sapiens, did SPECIATE from pre-existing DISTINCT species.
That is to say, no number of verifiably “proven” cases of organisms that have speciated from other pre-existing DISTINCT species eliminates the possibilistic condition in which Homo sapiens or any individual self-identified as a constituent of the Homo sapiens population is not EXCLUSIVE in it’s/their origin.
However, because the MECHANISMS for SPECIATION are observable and verifiable in Homo sapiens, SPECIATION SEEMS to be a “best model”.
That is, in my opinion, the purpose of science anyway…
to present and utilize the best model/hypothesis and modify it as necessary for the purposes of application.
I should say, though, that I am biased toward the understanding of “theory” as synonymous(in application) to “theorem” through propositional(mathematical) logic and secondarily as a tool for engineering(application).
So, that’s my understanding.
Sorry if the wording is confusing. I didn’t really proof read it. Just stream of consciousness writing.
[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
JohnnyNinja wrote:
Jackshafter: learn the scientific definitions of the words fact and theory. You are currently using them incoorectly and applying faulty logic based on the incorrect usage.
Also listen to Lonnie.
Also Evolution does not make choices. Evolution is what we see in the rear view mirror.
Fact = Knowledge or information based on real occurrences or empirically verifiable
Theory = A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena
Nope, I am not using them incorrectly and my logic is not faulty. If you think it is, will you show me where and what logic principle it breaks.
BTW i am a scientist
Well, we can do empirically verifiable tests on DNA replication error rates in vitro, and find they make powerful predictions about what is empirically found in the fossil record. [/quote]
Morphology is not the same as Genetic identity.
This is another “fuzzy” issue.
I’ll try to elaborate without much pure math.
Example:
Probabilistically I can say that I am male.
Possibilistically I have no proof, because my morphological characteristics do not absolutely eliminate other possibilities.
Possibilistically… the statement “IF an observable and testable presence of the “XY” chromosome pair in the DNA extracted from a cell exists THEN the host contributer of that cell is male,” taken as an axiom, can contribute to a proof that I am male.
This is rough-shot of what I mean when I write “fuzzy”.
EDIT: Yes. I realize this isn’t a very good summarization of “fuzzy logic”. I tried.
[quote]debraD wrote:
Fuzzy logic is a computational tool that isn’t all that useful or applicable to scientific method. [/quote]
Blasphemy!
Just kidding.
Being serious…
Your statement is very subjective in my mind.
The scientific method is also just a tool…
…presumably for Truth?
Also…
My undergraduate and graduate design projects(not to mention my personal ideology) suggest otherwise.
Thanks,
Toohuman
P.S. your avatar is EXTREMELY distracting.
NTTAWWT
[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
JohnnyNinja wrote:
Jackshafter: learn the scientific definitions of the words fact and theory. You are currently using them incoorectly and applying faulty logic based on the incorrect usage.
Also listen to Lonnie.
Also Evolution does not make choices. Evolution is what we see in the rear view mirror.
Fact = Knowledge or information based on real occurrences or empirically verifiable
Theory = A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena
Nope, I am not using them incorrectly and my logic is not faulty. If you think it is, will you show me where and what logic principle it breaks.
BTW i am a scientist
Well, we can do empirically verifiable tests on DNA replication error rates in vitro, and find they make powerful predictions about what is empirically found in the fossil record. [/quote]
This is what psychology does. They look at current data and make predictions about the past. Psych is not science and is therefore in the liberal arts school. This is what is refered to as post hoc fallacy.
If 1 ocurrs then 2 ocurrs, therefore 1 causes 2. This is even weaker than causation via correlation.
For example, “I got up this morning and had a headache, therefore waking up causes headaches” I can come up with any number of reasonable explaniations why i have a headache but plausability of an explaniation does not mean it is true.
An example of causation by correlation is “Ice cream sales increase at an almost identical rate to the occurence of Rapes (LOL! look it up this is a real stastic)” Therefore eating icecream causes people to Rape others.
Lonnie, Before we start going around and around circles i am going to try and nail down what exactly we are talking about.
This is what i have observed and seen evidence of. Modifications within a species. Big cat, small cat, cats of different colors living in different places doing different things. Each specilized at what they do. I don’t have trouble accepting this.
A dog producing something that is a non dog species. Some might even lump coyotes, wolves, dogs and foxes having a common ancestor (they have diffrent # of chromozones) into this. I do have some trouble with this one because it uses post hoc, and correlationary evidence to back it up (see previous post if you need explanation). I think there are several problems with this. Using the dog example, creatures with different chromozome sets are incompatable as breeders (either not genetically possible or the resulting offspring is steril like a mule). Therefore a male and female pair would have to mutation freakshow, show up at the same time and place. Or even more extream a dog gives birth to some thing that is totally nondog. This would explain why there are a lack of definate missing links but requires a huge leap of faith i think of as being nonscientific.
Purley naturalistic evolution which would have to start at the big bang and brings into theories on top of theories that make it nonsense. A few elements and a flash of lightning make life. That life turns to humans later. I realize this is drastically over simplified and i apologize for that but i am at work writing this.
Which of these are we talking about? I will address the points you brought up in your last response after i understand your viewpoint.
[quote]conorh wrote:
I love the objections citing thermodynamics. It reminds me of a thread somewhere where the poster was arguing, and I’m paraphrasing:
The third law clearly denies the possibility of evolution. I mean, if there were a giant energy source pumping out energy to the earth, scientists would surely know about it.
Indeed, they do know about it. [/quote]
Ignorance is not an insult although it can be used as one. It is just being unlearned about a subject. I might be 180 off but i think you may not have a good grasp on what thermo is. This might be outside of this discussion depending on what level of evo we are discussing. I can address this in more detail if need be. I am a chemical engineer by education so thermo is kind of my speciality.
[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
JohnnyNinja wrote:
Jackshafter: learn the scientific definitions of the words fact and theory. You are currently using them incoorectly and applying faulty logic based on the incorrect usage.
Also listen to Lonnie.
Also Evolution does not make choices. Evolution is what we see in the rear view mirror.
Fact = Knowledge or information based on real occurrences or empirically verifiable
Theory = A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena
Nope, I am not using them incorrectly and my logic is not faulty. If you think it is, will you show me where and what logic principle it breaks.
BTW i am a scientist
Well, we can do empirically verifiable tests on DNA replication error rates in vitro, and find they make powerful predictions about what is empirically found in the fossil record. [/quote]
Also to look at what happens to dna on a 1 to 1 changing basis is a very narrow scope. The predictions are not powerful at all. In fact they are extrapolating out side out their dataset thousands of orders of magnitude. If you did this in any other field you would be laughed at.
We did this research for several years. 1 order of magnitude. This is what happened 1,000,000,000 years ago 9 orders of magnitude. This is examining a millimeter saying what happened over the last 1000 kilometers. This is not powerful a prediction.
For example since we can build a bridge over a mile with 100% confidence. Based on our data set we should be able to build a bridge to the moon if we can extrapolate 10k to a millon orders out side or our data set.
[quote]jakshafter wrote:
2. A dog producing something that is a non dog species. Some might even lump coyotes, wolves, dogs and foxes having a common ancestor (they have diffrent # of chromozones) into this. I do have some trouble with this one because it uses post hoc, and correlationary evidence to back it up (see previous post if you need explanation). I think there are several problems with this. Using the dog example, creatures with different chromozome sets are incompatable as breeders (either not genetically possible or the resulting offspring is steril like a mule). Therefore a male and female pair would have to mutation freakshow, show up at the same time and place. Or even more extream a dog gives birth to some thing that is totally nondog. This would explain why there are a lack of definate missing links but requires a huge leap of faith i think of as being nonscientific.
[/quote]
Unfortunately it appears that you do not understand the processes of genetic replication (Meitosis and Meiosis). This is where you are getting confused about chromosone numbers.
Let me link you up with a great explanation that even has some helpful pictures (way easier than me trying to explain it here in words.) This might help you (and a number of confused people) out.
[quote]jakshafter wrote:
Lonnie, Before we start going around and around circles i am going to try and nail down what exactly we are talking about.
This is what i have observed and seen evidence of. Modifications within a species. Big cat, small cat, cats of different colors living in different places doing different things. Each specilized at what they do. I don’t have trouble accepting this.
A dog producing something that is a non dog species. Some might even lump coyotes, wolves, dogs and foxes having a common ancestor (they have diffrent # of chromozones) into this. I do have some trouble with this one because it uses post hoc, and correlationary evidence to back it up (see previous post if you need explanation). I think there are several problems with this. Using the dog example, creatures with different chromozome sets are incompatable as breeders (either not genetically possible or the resulting offspring is steril like a mule). Therefore a male and female pair would have to mutation freakshow, show up at the same time and place. Or even more extream a dog gives birth to some thing that is totally nondog. This would explain why there are a lack of definate missing links but requires a huge leap of faith i think of as being nonscientific.
Purley naturalistic evolution which would have to start at the big bang and brings into theories on top of theories that make it nonsense. A few elements and a flash of lightning make life. That life turns to humans later. I realize this is drastically over simplified and i apologize for that but i am at work writing this.
Which of these are we talking about? I will address the points you brought up in your last response after i understand your viewpoint.[/quote]
I dont really see how knowing my “viewpoint” would allow you to better address my points I wrote above. I presented you with facts and resources. Those are my view points and those are the topics you should address. But just to clarify:
I am talking about pure Darwinian Natural Selection producing traits that are beneficial to a species over time and, given enough time, this will yield new species better suited to their environment.
I am not talking about a duck giving birth to a crocodile. I am not talking about the Big Bang or astronomical formation, I am not talking about how life began (totally different idea, not even a Theory yet as I understand it). These are all important ideas and they are the groundwork for how evolution has been able to take place, but for the sake of this discussion they are basically irrelevant.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Unfortunately it appears that you do not understand the processes of genetic replication (Meitosis and Meiosis). This is where you are getting confused about chromosone numbers.
Let me link you up with a great explanation that even has some helpful pictures (way easier than me trying to explain it here in words.) This might help you (and a number of confused people) out.