Let us test Darwin, teacher says

[Ecclesiastes]

Instead of wasting my time with lines out of a bad movie, why dont you actually contribute by throwing down some proof. Gravity, is aduh, a no brainer, an obvious one. Evolution is something more delicate and meaningfull, it is not be wasted on simply beleiving becuase point a coincidentally meets with point b and the peices seem to fit. Gravity, bah, I'll take my cahnces and leave it for granted, evolution?not so much.

 

[Perfection]

That wouldnt exactly work........so its either or, not both, and for now Im sticking with theory. And thats great that we have pages on these fossils but one, we still dont have any transitional fossils

Umm, yes we do.

How were the fossils listed in the article's link not transitional fossils?

and two, the whole"bird wing was once girl grabber" thing cant be proven, so thats not proof either.

A careful look at the evidence demonstrates the massive explanitory power of evolutionary theory about this phenomena. It explains why wings have very similar bone structures to legs.

As for humans, again, proof that weve ever changed at all.

So all those erectus fossils just don't exist right?

 

[Adamb0mb]

Instead of wasting my time with lines out of a bad movie, why dont you actually contribute by throwing down some proof. Gravity, is aduh, a no brainer, an obvious one. Evolution is something more delicate and meaningfull, it is not be wasted on simply beleiving becuase point a coincidentally meets with point b and the peices seem to fit. Gravity, bah, I'll take my cahnces and leave it for granted, evolution?not so much.

So you believe science when its evidence is easily apparent and readily available (gravity), but dislike the more complicated theories.

What do you think about relativity (time passes at different rates in different frames of reference)?

 

[Leifmk]

Instead of wasting my time with lines out of a bad movie, why dont you actually contribute by throwing down some proof.

It's been done. And done. And done. And done and done and done.

You obviously have not made any significant effort to educate yourself on this subject. To those of us who have, it makes you very very tiresome.

 

[Antilogic]

Here's some more great "just a theory" moves: how about atomic theory? It's just a theory--no way that could be all, right? Well, the simple fact you have posted on these forums is testament to at least something is right with the whole electron moving thing.

There is plenty of proof--as I said before, take a college biology class with a good lab. I did experiments that showed the destruction and change of various E. Coli populations with various environmental factors, thus validating the concept of natural selection, the driving force of evolution. Therefore, natural selection is fact according to Ecclesiastes's #3 definition for fact. And, speciation (fruit flies in North America over the last 200 years), a predicted and observed result of evolution, fits the #2 and #3 definitions perfectly. These all fit the first to a lesser extent, but the second and third are far better.

You were talking about proof humans change over successive generations? Do you read National Geographic--a few years ago, I remember reading an article in that magazine about a proto-human they found in the Caribbean. Also, they had an enlightening article called Was Darwin Wrong?, which I thought was a very good look at evolution as a whole. The fact is, it's not just Darwin--there are dozens of scientists all over this world in the 20th century especially that tried to question him and perform experiments, and no one has conclusively proved the theory inaccurate. Try reading about them...

The Theory of Evolution as a whole, which should more accurately be called the Modern Theory of Evolution or the Modified Theory of Evolution because it involves arguments not available to Darwin in his time (stuff like genetics), is theory definition number #1. I don't know why #2 is there--that's not theory. The only reason #2, #6, and #7 exist under "theory" is common usage. Those definitions more accurately fit "hypothesis" in a scientific dictionary.

 

[warpus]

fact /fækt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.
—Idioms6. after the fact, Law. after the commission of a crime: an accessory after the fact.
7. before the fact, Law. prior to the commission of a crime: an accessory before the fact.
8. in fact, actually; really; indeed: In fact, it was a wonder that anyone survived.

the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

That wouldnt exactly work........so its either or, not both, and for now Im sticking with theory. And thats great that we have pages on these fossils but one, we still dont have any transitional fossils and two, the whole"bird wing was once girl grabber" thing cant be proven, so thats not proof either. As for humans, again, proof that weve ever changed at all.

You appear to be a master of the dictionary, yet you looked up the wrong terms

TOE is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory.

As for "transitional" fossils: (from wiki)

According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight.

Proof that we've changed? Well, we haven't changed much at all.. We, as in me or you or your mom.

But our species as a whole, over generations? Hell yeah we've changed. If you don't admit that we have evidence for that, then you're either willfully ignorant, are just fooling around, or.. well. I'd rather not say the 3rd option here.

 

[Bill3000]

*yawn.* Ecclesiastes, if you want to be convinced, (assuming you're willing to be rational) go to the 500 million evolution threads already. I'd recommend Perfection's KO threads. The reason why people are so blunt and tired of doing it over and over, is because it has been done on these forums over and over. There is no need to say the same things again and again if it's been done already. The fact that you have come to the debate later on doesn't warrent people to repeat themselves. Your skepticism is unfounded and nonexistent to those who are knowledgable in science.

 

[Antilogic]

Your skepticism is unfounded and nonexistent to those who are knowledgable in science.

That is what I wanted to hear.

 

[beingofone]

Evolution is a credible theory, only so long as it retains the predictable power of observation and experimentation. It is a law and therefore a fact of microbiology. Mutation exists at the smallest levels of life.

It is not a law and therefore not a fact of macrobiology. Macroevolution remains a theory because it lacks the predictive power that is necessary to rise above being a 'theory'. It has some evidence but is scant at best.

I am not arguing one way or the other, it remains an opinion as it cannot be tested. I tend to think macroevolution is possible in bounded species adaptation. It is not conclusive the genes change first or is a reaction to the change in the environment.

In other words, humans could be in a state of sliding to the lower end of the scale after an initial dominance at the top of the food chain. Perhaps we have arrived at the peak because of our ability to change the environment rather than adapt to it. We can now make it warm when it is cold, drive instead of walk, and swim under water with lungs.

Since we can now change our environment it may become impossible to prove, at least with humans. We must have a record that is longer than civilization itself (unless something pops up) for the total theory to evolve into a biological law.

We do know abiogenesis is more than likely a red herring and carries with it blind belief in unfounded faith. It is therefore, philosophy/religion as it cannot be subjected to scientific methodology.

That does not mean we should not continue to test for the 'how' life had its beginning, it just means it lacks enough indicators for being cohesive enough to apply the definition 'theory' to this speculation of materialism.


Intelligent design also has much evidence and is therefore a cohesive scientific theory. It does have properties of the power of prediction. Most of the evidence for ID is found in cosmology however; with the exception of consciousness.

Consciousness is the monkey wrench in the theory of materialism. It defies all known laws and theories of biological spacial 'concreteness' of how it should be and function.

It is etherial and has no spacial dimension. It is the single defining tool to measure and define everything in the totality.

 

[warpus]

Intelligent design also has much evidence and is therefore a cohesive scientific theory. It does have properties of the power of prediction. Most of the evidence for ID is found in cosmology however; with the exception of consciousness.

If it's a scientific theory then it must be falsifiable. Please name tests we could run to falsify ID.

Consciousness is the monkey wrench in the theory of materialism. It defies all known laws and theories of biological spacial 'concreteness' of how it should be and function.

What laws does it violate?

 

[beingofone]

If it's a scientific theory then it must be falsifiable. Please name tests we could run to falsify ID.

Plan to do something tomorrow and carry out your plan.

There; proof of intelligent shaping of reality with design/pattern, will/intent.

What laws does it violate?

It cannot be measured.

 

[Mise]

Plan to do something tomorrow and carry out your plan.

There; proof of intelligent shaping of reality with design/pattern, will/intent.

I hope you're joking...

It cannot be measured.

That's not strictly true. We don't know how to measure it, but that doesn't mean it can't be measured or detected. There's no fundamental reason why it can't be measured.

 

[warpus]

Plan to do something tomorrow and carry out your plan.

There; proof of intelligent shaping of reality with design/pattern, will/intent.

And that shows that the Universe/Earth/Life on Earth were designed by an intelligent agent how?

Just because I can plan to fart tomorrow doesn't mean God exists.

That is the most ridiculous plan to test for the existence of a creator I've ever heard.

I don't think you know what 'predictive power of a theory' and 'falsifiability' actually mean.

It cannot be measured.

How do you know?

 

[beingofone]

Mise:

beingofone :
Plan to do something tomorrow and carry out your plan.

There; proof of intelligent shaping of reality with design/pattern, will/intent.

Mise:
I hope you're joking...

Did you laugh?

It is a tautology - that is what falsifying a proposition means. Show it IS NOT a tautology. It is possible to have a contrary case - make an argument.

BO1:
It cannot be measured.

Mise:
That's not strictly true. We don't know how to measure it, but that doesn't mean it can't be measured or detected. There's no fundamental reason why it can't be measured.

Fine - then allow me to falsify your hypothesis, shall we?

Where do you draw the demarkation for allowing the measurement to be made?


warpus:

And that shows that the Universe/Earth/Life on Earth were designed by an intelligent agent how?

It doesn`t - it demonstrates that intelligence and design are properties of the universe.

You asked for tests we could run to falsify ID - I gave you one.

Falsification must demonstrate the self evident by being made subject to it not being true under the hypothesis.

Make an argument.

Just because I can plan to fart tomorrow doesn't mean God exists.

That is the most ridiculous plan to test for the existence of a creator I've ever heard.

On second thought - maybe you are right. Intellect may not be a fundamental property of the universe.

I don't think you know what 'predictive power of a theory' and 'falsifiability' actually mean.

Could you explain these elusive terms for me?

beingofone
It cannot be measured.

Warpus:
How do you know?

Demonstrate how it could possibly be measured.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Intelligent Design appears to have different meanings for different people here.

I suggest everyone first agree what they're trying to dis/prove or falsify before they keep firing arguments back and forth that the other party will see as irrelevant.

 

[El_Machinae]

Did someone really ask for a half-fly/half-giraffe fossil, and won't believe in evolution until he sees one?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Did someone really ask for a half-fly/half-giraffe fossil, and won't believe in evolution until he sees one?

Partly. Full post:

Im not completely ruling out evolution but damnit, it is just a theory, theres no solid proof, and if there is, then I want someone to show or tell me it becuase many of you seem to think its written in stone. Persoanlly, I havnt heard or seen any fossils of half-fly half-giraffes yet(obvious exageration) so I cant be so sure that it even comes close to existing. Further, I woulde like someone to explain how dna changes during reproduction to actually create these new species. As far as I know, a mama and a papa cant give there kid anything they dont have.....as far as I know.

To the last bit:
Do blue/brown eyes and dominant/recessive genes ring a bell? Brown-eyed parents can have blue-eyed kids, but not vice versa, except in case of a mutation.
(This is obligatory Science class material in Norway at the 15-year level and repeated a few years later for those taking biology.)

Also, evolution by mutation and natural selection with common descent implies that one will not find a half-fly, half-giraffe fossil, as these two groups of animals (or rather, their forefathers) branched long before becoming the recognizable groups they are today.

In the words of TLC, "that's like saying you won't believe in gravity until you see a stone fall upwards".

 

[warpus]

It doesn`t - it demonstrates that intelligence and design are properties of the universe.

It demostrates that there are intelligent agents in the Universe, nothing more.

You asked for tests we could run to falsify ID - I gave you one.

Make an argument.

You just provided a way for us to test the hypothesis: "Warpus is able to intelligently design things"

Now how about providing a way for us to test the hypothesis: "An intelligent agent designed the Universe" ?

Could you explain these elusive terms for me?

You have a theory. This theory is: "An intelligent agent designed the Universe" and possibly: "An intelligent agent designed life on this planet"

Now, if these were scientific theories, there should be ways for us to test predictions that these theories make to see if they are true. So, what are these predictions and how do we test them?

 

[Antilogic]

More correctly, you have a hypothesis. After you run several experiments and find you cannot falsify it (i. e. prove it wrong), several other scientists start double-checking your work and doing their own experiments based on the parameters you gave. If that all checks out and other explanations are ruled out, leaving your hypothesis as the correct case, then it becomes a theory.

You can't just "write" a theory--before something becomes a theory, it must have evidence behind it. And new theories or new versions must take into account and explain all the previous data. Theories have the weight of evidence behind them.

 

[Mise]

Did you laugh?

Not really.