It takes some fortitude to be comfortable with uncertainty
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
Natural Selection is a theory, not a law. For a theory to be incorrect, it has to be disproven. For it to be a law, it has to be proven. Neither has been done yet. So, it’s still a theory. Not a law. Just my two cents.
Luke[/quote]
Theories and laws are entirely different things in science. A theory is an explanation of a law/fact/phenomenon. A scientific law is simply an observed phenomenon that is generalizable to the universe as a whole.
So, the theory of evolution could not ever become a ‘law’, since the theory of evolution explains common descent.
Nothing in science is every ‘proven’.
Check this link out: Scientific Hypothesis, Theories and Laws
I used to have a quote by Newton where he basically said that he had discovered the laws of gravity and that this was enough for him, that he still didn’t know the theory (or the explanation of gravity).
My link is a bit unclear, here’s a better one: Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions
"A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain ‘why’.
Example: Consider Newton’s Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn’t explain why it happened.
As you can see, there is no ‘proof’ or absolute ‘truth’ in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is ‘proof’ in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you’re asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don’t all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. "
I skipped from the first page.
One area where I think our modern society is providing good examples of evolution is in professional sports. Look back at NFL films from the 50’s and 60’s. An NFL lineman back then would get cut from a college D1 team because he wasn’t big enough to play linebacker today.
You can see similar size and strength increases in nearly all sports. Someone can argue, but we have better nutrition and better healthcare and bla bla bla. Sure thats right, but those are environmental conditions. What you are syaing is that humans are adapting to thier environmental conditions and thusly, evolving.
Genetically, there are people who are now predispositioned to be bigger, than there were even 100 years ago. And if we continue to have a large disparity in available nutrition, say over the next 100 years with first world countries vs 3rd world countries, we may even see a split in the human genome. Hell there might already be one. Is an african bushman a human? Why are they so tiny? Have they adapted to thier surroundings so well that being small, has helped them hunt and hide in that dangerous landascape?
In another 50 years are we going to see athletic 7 footers in the NBA who can shoot 3 pointers like a guard, drive the lane like a foward, and post up like the classic big men of old? What? we already have those guys?
Basically what I’m saying is you have to dismiss an awful lot of common sense observations to even begin to not see natural selection, evolution etc…
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I skipped from the first page.
One area where I think our modern society is providing good examples of evolution is in professional sports. Look back at NFL films from the 50’s and 60’s. An NFL lineman back then would get cut from a college D1 team because he wasn’t big enough to play linebacker today.
You can see similar size and strength increases in nearly all sports. Someone can argue, but we have better nutrition and better healthcare and bla bla bla. Sure thats right, but those are environmental conditions. What you are syaing is that humans are adapting to thier environmental conditions and thusly, evolving. [/quote]
What you are describing here is epigenetic regulation of a sort… there are many factors involved; improved training, improved nutrition, better drugs… this is definitely not a function of natural selection.
Speciation requires that the two separate species not be able to mate, so we are probably hundreds of generations away from this type of split.
Also consider that what has actually happened is that the opportunities for 7-foot men to be trained and to in fact be useable from a strategic perspective have increased.
[quote] Basically what I’m saying is you have to dismiss an awful lot of common sense observations to even begin to not see natural selection, evolution etc…
V[/quote]
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I skipped from the first page.
One area where I think our modern society is providing good examples of evolution is in professional sports. Look back at NFL films from the 50’s and 60’s. An NFL lineman back then would get cut from a college D1 team because he wasn’t big enough to play linebacker today.
You can see similar size and strength increases in nearly all sports. Someone can argue, but we have better nutrition and better healthcare and bla bla bla. Sure thats right, but those are environmental conditions. What you are syaing is that humans are adapting to thier environmental conditions and thusly, evolving. [/quote]
What you are describing here is epigenetic regulation of a sort… there are many factors involved; improved training, improved nutrition, better drugs… this is definitely not a function of natural selection.
Speciation requires that the two separate species not be able to mate, so we are probably hundreds of generations away from this type of split.
Also consider that what has actually happened is that the opportunities for 7-foot men to be trained and to in fact be useable from a strategic perspective have increased.
[quote] Basically what I’m saying is you have to dismiss an awful lot of common sense observations to even begin to not see natural selection, evolution etc…
V[/quote]
epigentics is really fascinating. its also somewhat disillusioning as to the enormous complexity it ads to the field of genetics.
just one other point:
its really important to not treat scientists like high priests or heretics. the public tends to do that to a great degree. My former boss was the foremost expert on calcium uptake in the heart for years, when nearly over night his theory was blown out of the sky. Science does not care about consensus, it does not care about ego’s, and it really does not care about money. Only the players care about those things, and it can often twist perception of those viewing the results.
[quote]koffea wrote:
epigentics is really fascinating. its also somewhat disillusioning as to the enormous complexity it ads to the field of genetics.
just one other point:
its really important to not treat scientists like high priests or heretics. the public tends to do that to a great degree. My former boss was the foremost expert on calcium uptake in the heart for years, when nearly over night his theory was blown out of the sky. Science does not care about consensus, it does not care about ego’s, and it really does not care about money. Only the players care about those things, and it can often twist perception of those viewing the results. [/quote]
^^Word^^