NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading through www.projectrho.com because I felt like I needed to geek out some more. I always dismiss those damn fission NTRs in favor of the more exotic handwavium ones, and then I regret it afterwards. Regret it like the morning after some cheap drunken sex with a cheap drunken slut.

Anyway, I came across this interesting bit:

"It's Just A Theory"

This generally takes the form of "Well, Einstein's relativity is just a theory, not a fact/scientific law." However, such a statement only demonstrates that the speaker is either severely scientifically illiterate or an evil demagog trying to pull a fast one.

The colloquial meaning of the term "theory" is the opposite of "fact", it is a guess, or hunch (what a scientist would call a "hypothesis"). But in Science, the meaning of the term "theory" is totally different. Theory and fact can be the same.

So Einstein's relativity theory is "just a theory" in the same way that Newton's theory of gravity is "just a theory." Since Newton's gravity is just a theory, I suppose you wouldn't mind standing under this 40 ton steel girder while I cut the cable?

Ken Harding says:

A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.

A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well- described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.

A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.

The common misconception is that if a budding young scientific theory gets quote "proven" unquote, it graduates and becomes a scientific law. As you see above, theories and laws are two different things. Even worse, it is impossible to prove (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Myth_Science.html#Proof) a scientific theory.

And this got me thinking to things like evolution and global warming. Both of which are things referred to as theories and as such, in the political discourse, there is almost always at least one person who'll say something like:

* "It's just a theory"
* "I'm waiting for it to be proven"

And this directly addresses those standard responses.

Of course, there's also at least one person who'll say:

* "It's all a fear-mongering conspiracy by liberals, the media, and the global ruling elite to increase taxation."

(And that guy will really, really mean it, too.)

Anyway, the real question is - are these things really political issues? That is, not the ramifications (i.e, teaching evolution in public schools, or environmental regulations), but the nature of the theories and whether they are "right" or not? It's kind of scary to me how in this very polarized (if superficially so) political climate, things that are a matter of science turn into a belligerent process of filibuster and 'debate.' In the US anyway.

It kind of makes me ashamed to be an American where we still feel the need to "debate" whether fossils are the devil's handiwork and whether fossil fuels are good for the atmosphere, while other countries, most notably in Europe, are focusing on what to DO instead.

Science as a whole should make God as a theory. I'm sure it will make people think twice before saying "its just a theory"


Oh by the way. Gravity is a myth. You see, sin weighed down the earth. That's why there is little gravity on the moon, as there has been no sin there yet*. Everyone knows that!


*an actual theory I have read from a creationist.

Science as a whole should make God as a theory. I'm sure it will make people think twice before saying "its just a theory"


Oh by the way. Gravity is a myth. You see, sin weighed down the earth. That's why there is little gravity on the moon, as there has been no sin there yet*. Everyone knows that!


*an actual theory I have read from a creationist.

No you are wrong!

Everybody knows it's 2 angels that are holding you down!

When you die; they let go and you float to heaven.

No you are wrong!

Everybody knows it's 2 angels that are holding you down!

When you die; they let go and you float to heaven.

Depressive people have a platoon of angels grounding them, that's why they're so down all the time.

... apologies to all the depressives out there.

No you are wrong!

Everybody knows it's 2 angels that are holding you down!

When you die; they let go and you float to heaven.

Pft, Clearly your theory is wrong, because you are a godless heathen, and you eat monkey poo. So by default, my theory wins! Mwahaha

Reality dictates policy.
If one can define reality, one can shape policy.
Some people find it easier to present an alternate theory of reality that supports a specific ideology as opposed to attacking the opposing ideology.
If the basis of this theory of reality is faith, science is rendered moot, as faith is unquestionable.
[/cynicism]

Depressive people have a platoon of angels grounding them, that's why they're so down all the time.

... apologies to all the depressives out there.

Depressive? or depressed? because that's two different things, and if you're apologizing to people who depress others, then you're amongst the scum of the earth.

:)

Depressive? or depressed? because that's two different things, and if you're apologizing to people who depress others, then you're amongst the scum of the earth.

:)

... ooh yeah,... I think I made a little error with a big deviation there.

Well, scum of the earth it is, since the scum of the universe is just another conspiracy for yet another tax hike.

*fights the urge*


...

*twitches*

*spasms*

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Z82lm5oGQ

:D

*fights the urge*
...

*twitches*

*spasms*

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Z82lm5oGQ

:D
You should always give in to those urges when the results are as funny!

You should always give in to those urges when the results are as funny!

That's exactly the kind of thinking that made me the man I am today. :)

Trying to reason with creationists is like doing Meth. In the end you're stupider than when you started.

*fights the urge*


...

*twitches*

*spasms*

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Z82lm5oGQ

:D

Responds to twitch with ointment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGzrzGbG3M8

I was reading through www.projectrho.com because I felt like I needed to geek out some more. I always dismiss those damn fission NTRs in favor of the more exotic handwavium ones, and then I regret it afterwards. Regret it like the morning after some cheap drunken sex with a cheap drunken slut.

Anyway, I came across this interesting bit:



And this got me thinking to things like evolution and global warming. Both of which are things referred to as theories and as such, in the political discourse, there is almost always at least one person who'll say something like:

* "It's just a theory"
* "I'm waiting for it to be proven"

And this directly addresses those standard responses.

Of course, there's also at least one person who'll say:

* "It's all a fear-mongering conspiracy by liberals, the media, and the global ruling elite to increase taxation."

(And that guy will really, really mean it, too.)

Anyway, the real question is - are these things really political issues? That is, not the ramifications (i.e, teaching evolution in public schools, or environmental regulations), but the nature of the theories and whether they are "right" or not? It's kind of scary to me how in this very polarized (if superficially so) political climate, things that are a matter of science turn into a belligerent process of filibuster and 'debate.' In the US anyway.

It kind of makes me ashamed to be an American where we still feel the need to "debate" whether fossils are the devil's handiwork and whether fossil fuels are good for the atmosphere, while other countries, most notably in Europe, are focusing on what to DO instead.
M'kay ... consider who's fighting most, and what the first steps would be to alter their output of harmful emissions.

...and there you go.

You can't prove anything. (Except that you, personally, can't prove anything)

Anyone who says "but evolution is just a theory!!1!" should be slapped until they see the error of their ways.

Responds to twitch with ointment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGzrzGbG3M8

Thank you. :)

You can't prove anything. (Except that you, personally, can't prove anything)

True.

Except for evolution. Evolution is a FACT, its just the "how" of evolution that still has different theories.

You can't prove anything. (Except that you, personally, can't prove anything)

That's not proven! Just implied! :)

True.

Except for evolution. Evolution is a FACT, its just the "how" of evolution that still has different theories.

And of course, we still have to work out abiogenesis, which most of those who refuse to accept evolution can't understand has nothing to do with evolution.

True.

Except for evolution. Evolution is a FACT, its just the "how" of evolution that still has different theories.

No, evolution is not "a fact". Evolution is "a theory". Except theory is as good as it gets.

No, evolution is not "a fact". Evolution is "a theory". Except theory is as good as it gets.

Incorrect. Evolution is not theory - it's observed fact. Biological change over time due to generational changes in genetic structure is evolution - and this has been directly observed.

Darwinian Natural Selection is a theory. Punctuated Equilibrium, ditto. But Evolution is not.

It kind of makes me ashamed to be an American where we still feel the need to "debate" whether fossils are the devil's handiwork and whether fossil fuels are good for the atmosphere, while other countries, most notably in Europe, are focusing on what to DO instead.

I'm not really sure if your post is about evolution or environmentalism. I do think that you should know some facts before you start gushing over European 'conservation' any more...

http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/why-doesnt-europe-just-cut-its-greenhouse-emissions

in fact, most European countries are still increasing their greenhouse emissions. They’re even considering buying Russian “Get Out of Jail Free” cards


and this;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/energycarbon2.pdf

Centrally-planned economies tend to use the most energy per unit of GNP,

You can't prove anything. (Except that you, personally, can't prove anything)

This is the taut-ist post i've seen in quite a while. It would round off many a thread here. :)

Thank you. :)

No problem. That's the kind of cure that needs to be spread around the inflamed area a bit.
Just stayin' health-conscious and all. :)

I'm not really sure if your post is about evolution or environmentalism. I do think that you should know some facts before you start gushing over European 'conservation' any more...

http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/why-doesnt-europe-just-cut-its-greenhouse-emissions


I stopped giving that article serious consideration when I came across

They keep saying that converting our energy systems to non-fossil and non-nuclear will create jobs, and Heaven knows Europe needs more jobs for young Muslim welfare clients. So just do it!

Alluding of course to how Muslim immigrants are, much like Hispanic immigrants in the US, supposed to be lazy welfare leaches. Or perhaps a 5th column invasion force.

Then certainly here...

Why is Al Gore hassling Americans? Europe’s greenhouse emissions are rising faster than ours.

Went into the absurd. Just because X *might* be worse than Y doesn't excuse or dismiss how bad Y is.

And of course this bit..

We Americans still aren’t quite convinced that CO2 is so desperately threatening. There’s no evidence that humans caused even the modest warming we’ve had. The warming from 1850 to 1940 looks just like the moderate-but-sudden warmings of the natural 1,500-year climate cycle.

Just kinda went and proved my whole point. As well as making me slap my hand to my forehead. ;)


and this;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/energycarbon2.pdf

That 12 year old government propaganda serves little but to reinforce the fallacy that hey, if "centrally planned economies" are worse for the environment, "free market" economies (which I'm supposed, laughably, to assume include the US) are OK! Na-uh.

No at this point pointing at someone else in an effort to lay blame and dismiss responsibility and justify by tu quoque fallacy is not going to work. And you won't find me "gushing" about Europe. I just recognize that, for example, the US hasn't signed the Kyoto Accords because apparently "Americans aren't convinced" about science (http://www.ipcc.ch/) yet. And as with those Americans who "aren't convinced" about say, evolution, they make me ashamed with their astounding ignorance.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that made me the man I am today. :)

Tell me something: You left a wake of professors sans eyebrows on your careening course through college, didn't you?

Incorrect. Evolution is not theory - it's observed fact. Biological change over time due to generational changes in genetic structure is evolution - and this has been directly observed.

Darwinian Natural Selection is a theory. Punctuated Equilibrium, ditto. But Evolution is not.

Except that it doesn't have to be one or the other. It is, in point of fact, both. There has been observed adaptation and speciation in laboratory experiments. This is the fact of evolution. There is a framework of science that explains the results of the experiment. This is the theory of evolution.

Scientific theory =/= random conjecture

Tell me something: You left a wake of professors sans eyebrows on your careening course through college, didn't you?

Most of them grew back. *nod*

Science as a whole should make God as a theory. I'm sure it will make people think twice before saying "its just a theory"


I believe in God but still. I'd like to here there scientific theories then. "Well,um, you know ,yaknow, God came to Earth and he's shown himself and he's just proven. I'm not arguing with you. God is God. I don't need to prove anything. Devil athiest scienctists!"

The common misconception is that if a budding young scientific theory gets quote "proven" unquote, it graduates and becomes a scientific law. As you see above, theories and laws are two different things. Even worse, it is impossible to prove a scientific theory.
What makes it scientific is that it can be disproved.

Creationism, unfortunately, can never be shown wrong. (You see fossils, I see a test of God). Evolution, relativity, and even gravity can be shown to be wrong, which is what makes them scientific, and why they should be taught.

Science as a whole should make God as a theory. I'm sure it will make people think twice before saying "its just a theory"



You have a pretty good idea there.

BTW - you had a thread about purpose a little while back ... what about becoming a fireman?

You can't prove anything. (Except that you, personally, can't prove anything)

Agreed.

But you CAN prove Raptor Jesus. He's real I tell you!

Incorrect. Evolution is not theory - it's observed fact. Biological change over time due to generational changes in genetic structure is evolution - and this has been directly observed.

Darwinian Natural Selection is a theory. Punctuated Equilibrium, ditto. But Evolution is not.

You have observed macro-evolution????? How old are you?

your mind is sending signals to every were in your body and so you fell everything in your body also it tells you what you are seeing.fthermore is that in just saying that i'v just sayed that these is a illusion and also being fact at the same time. so it is like these you are at a tabel with your friend you say to your friend here is some tea your friend say but were and your baoth wriet.And yes i know that i'm a nihilist.:D

You have observed macro-evolution????? How old are you?

http://www.sfatheists.com/activism/images/DarwinDay2005-15-Cake.jpg

You have observed macro-evolution????? How old are you?

Personally, no. Aside from the fact that there is no difference between the micro and macro forms (it's a false dichotomy devised by creationists who were suddenly confronted by the fact that evolution can be seen in a test-tube by anyone with the eyes to see and a microscope), alterations in large life-forms have been observed over the past century. Insects have changed colour; Wallabies in Hawaii have had an observed thinning in fur and size increase from the donor group; capybaras introduced to New Guinea have grown smaller. True Speciation hasn't been observed, but that would require probably more generations than we have currently studied the natural kingdom (or even most creatures in the lab).

Except for evolution. Evolution is a FACT, its just the "how" of evolution that still has different theories.

Unless, of course, you're just a brain in a jar being fed sensory input to make you THINK evolution is fact!

You can never actually prove genesis of life was from Evolution or Creation...

Evolution implies randomness, which cannot be scientifically repeated in an experiment. Leaving the concept of Life coming through some random occurance being unable to be verified scientifically.

Creation requires an external actor creating Life, the Universe and Everything... thus being unprovable as that cannot be scientifically repeatable

You believe in Evolution or Creation because you want to... one of them is true but the begining of life is really outside science...

Even if we were able to artificially create life, which concept would it support?
That life needs to be designed, created and put together by an external actor or that it could spontaneously arise through a random direction?

As far as I can see both require faith in some measure or other, whether it is in science, in a god or lack of a god

You can never actually prove genesis of life was from Evolution or Creation...

Evolution implies randomness, which cannot be scientifically repeated in an experiment. Leaving the concept of Life coming through some random occurance being unable to be verified scientifically.

Creation requires an external actor creating Life, the Universe and Everything... thus being unprovable as that cannot be scientifically repeatable

You believe in Evolution or Creation because you want to... one of them is true but the begining of life is really outside science...

Even if we were able to artificially create life, which concept would it support?
That life needs to be designed, created and put together by an external actor or that it could spontaneously arise through a random direction?

As far as I can see both require faith in some measure or other, whether it is in science, in a god or lack of a god


Science has a hard time proving anything and so has religion.

The scientific method simply implies taking the simplest explanation that can explain all observed phenomena. This theory should be falsifiable; it should be discarded when new observations do not fit the theory.

Religion does not make falsifiable statements, nor does it allow for falsification. Both can live besides each other in different domains.

Unless, of course, you're just a brain in a jar being fed sensory input to make you THINK evolution is fact!

Yes, of course. Why didn't I think of that? *Slaps forehead* :rolleyes:

way do we need to ague wene.i just lad it out for you.think on the sempalist of way's if it is random then you can not tested it if is the concept of god the it is the same so baoth are valid.and invalid. just like you can say you svrel ways like you/u/yu. now let us go out wider yes we know that these universe but what if there is more then one .and there are meany.now spred that wider and at some point you have order out of randomness.

way do we need to ague wene.i just lad it out for you.think on the sempalist of way's if it is random then you can not tested it if is the concept of god the it is the same so baoth are valid.and invalid. just like you can say you svrel ways like you/u/yu. now let us go out wider yes we know that these universe but what if there is more then one .and there are meany.now spred that wider and at some point you have order out of randomness.

:confused:

way do we need to ague wene.i just lad it out for you.think on the sempalist of way's if it is random then you can not tested it if is the concept of god the it is the same so baoth are valid.and invalid. just like you can say you svrel ways like you/u/yu. now let us go out wider yes we know that these universe but what if there is more then one .and there are meany.now spred that wider and at some point you have order out of randomness.

http://www.destgulch.com/movies/luke/luke18.wav

:)

You can never actually prove genesis of life was from Evolution or Creation...

Evolution implies randomness, which cannot be scientifically repeated in an experiment. Leaving the concept of Life coming through some random occurance being unable to be verified scientifically.

Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, it is just the development of it.

way do we need to ague wene.i just lad it out for you.think on the sempalist of way's if it is random then you can not tested it if is the concept of god the it is the same so baoth are valid.and invalid. just like you can say you svrel ways like you/u/yu. now let us go out wider yes we know that these universe but what if there is more then one .and there are meany.now spred that wider and at some point you have order out of randomness.

Though I do not understand, I guess it is really serious stuff that is simply above the mental capacity of an average reader like me. I got extremely worried by the words “there are meany” :eek:

There are meany; fear the meany!

What must we do to shield us from the meany, oh great prophet? :(

"Since Newton's gravity is just a theory, I suppose you wouldn't mind standing under this 40 ton steel girder while I cut the cable?"

That doesn't work cos people know that doing that would be a bad idea. It's the reason why that is questionable.

"Evolution implies randomness, which cannot be scientifically repeated in an experiment. "

Evolution implies having an environment which has an effect on the species in question. The fact that some animals of the same species look quite different is not in question. What is is whether these differences can cause new species to evolve from these or if they were all magically created at the same time by some imaginary friend.

I'd just like to let you all know that Australia is statisticaly the English speaking country where the highest proportion of the population recognise Darwinian evolution as the truth.

What is is whether these differences can cause new species to evolve from these or if they were all magically created at the same time by some imaginary friend.

I assume you mean the invisible giant in the sky who grants wishes.

I'd just like to let you all know that Australia is statisticaly the English speaking country where the highest proportion of the population recognise Darwinian evolution as the truth.



I assume you mean the invisible giant in the sky who grants wishes.

That probably has something to do with figuring out the logistics of how Noah got the dingoes and kangaroos from Mount Sinai to Australia. Once you realize how absurd a notion that is, a literal interpretation, and with it Young Earth Creationism, more or less breaks down.

I'm glad you agree with me Deus Malum. I was just waiting for some confused creationist to rip into my joke about god being an invisible giant, telling me how I was fundamentaly wrong I was.

That probably has something to do with figuring out the logistics of how Noah got the dingoes and kangaroos from Mount Sinai to Australia. Once you realize how absurd a notion that is, a literal interpretation, and with it Young Earth Creationism, more or less breaks down.

It has been written that…

God first created a single continent better known as Israel. Then God waited till Easter, when God with a single word of might tore the great continent of Israel into pieces, so that humanity might search for the lost pieces. And thus the lord put upon one of these continents the single mammal to have ever laid eggs, that the great deeds of Easter for ever be reminded in the search of the mammalian egg. And God said to man: take this bunny to the end of the world and search for the mammalian egg. And when thou hast found this egg, the bunny will procreate as a monument to the great tearing of Israel, for your future lies in the land where the mammalian egg and the bunny meet.

*nod*

* waits for Bruarong to show up*

It has been written that…

God first created a single continent better known as Israel. Then God waited till Easter, when God with a single word of might tore the great continent of Israel into pieces, so that humanity might search for the lost pieces. And thus the lord put upon one of these continents the single mammal to have ever laid eggs, that the great deeds of Easter for ever be reminded in the search of the mammalian egg. And God said to man: take this bunny to the end of the world and search for the mammalian egg. And when thou hast found this egg, the bunny will procreate as a monument to the great tearing of Israel, for your future lies in the land where the mammalian egg and the bunny meet.

*nod*

I REALLY wish that wasn't too long to sig. I'll figure out some way to sig it anyway.

* waits for Bruarong to show up*

I think we scared him away with science the last time he showed up. Probably because 99% of us have realized that he definitely isn't a molecular biologist. Or at least, a molecular biologist who got his degree from a university that doesn't have the words "Trinity" "Bible" "Fellowship" or "Grace" in its title, and isn't run by an overweight, balding televangelist.

I'm glad you agree with me Deus Malum. I was just waiting for some confused creationist to rip into my joke about god being an invisible giant, telling me how I was fundamentaly wrong I was.

You are actualy soooo fundementaly wrong that I can't even begin to describe how wrong you are. Lets just say on the scale of wrongness, you are not even on the scale. Which is to say you were on it for the smallest amount of time, and then whoosh, right off the other side.

Ohh heh and I'm no creationist, I just wanted to tell you how wrong you are!

all these concepts empty. and i'm on a planet of fool's.o joy and and well bloody hell.now i need some sake. watashi wa sake yorobaseru desu anyway any one know that truth in any from is subjet to change at any point. so way get upset over it at all.in the end life is pnoitless and move on and god is for those that are affaed of the fact there going to be daed oneday.and evolution is just as valid as any other thing. and we can not know anything truely becouse well are minds are telling us everything so that brings me to is these what i thing it is os is it not. not what did that philosopher nizcha say o ya god is dead lol.but is god god?or is it some thing in are haed? joy!

all these concepts empty. and i'm on a planet of fool's.o joy and and well bloody hell.now i need some sake. watashi wa sake yorobaseru desu anyway any one know that truth in any from is subjet to change at any point. so way get upset over it at all.in the end life is pnoitless and move on and god is for those that are affaed of the fact there going to be daed oneday.and evolution is just as valid as any other thing. and we can not know anything truely becouse well are minds are telling us everything so that brings me to is these what i thing it is os is it not. not what did that philosopher nizcha say o ya god is dead lol.but is god god?or is it some thing in are haed? joy!

Except maths, where the truth never changes, and 2 + 2 will always = 4.

all these concepts empty. and i'm on a planet of fool's.o joy and and well bloody hell.now i need some sake. watashi wa sake yorobaseru desu anyway any one know that truth in any from is subjet to change at any point. so way get upset over it at all.in the end life is pnoitless and move on and god is for those that are affaed of the fact there going to be daed oneday.and evolution is just as valid as any other thing. and we can not know anything truely becouse well are minds are telling us everything so that brings me to is these what i thing it is os is it not. not what did that philosopher nizcha say o ya god is dead lol.but is god god?or is it some thing in are haed? joy!

And which planet is that? It clearly ain't the same one I'm on, or I'd stand the slightest chance of comprehending your post.

all these concepts empty. and i'm on a planet of fool's.o joy and and well bloody hell.now i need some sake. watashi wa sake yorobaseru desu anyway any one know that truth in any from is subjet to change at any point. so way get upset over it at all.in the end life is pnoitless and move on and god is for those that are affaed of the fact there going to be daed oneday.and evolution is just as valid as any other thing. and we can not know anything truely becouse well are minds are telling us everything so that brings me to is these what i thing it is os is it not. not what did that philosopher nizcha say o ya god is dead lol.but is god god?or is it some thing in are haed? joy!

Great prophet, tell us more about why life is pnoitless and why we are affead of the fact there going to be daed

And which planet is that? It clearly ain't the same one I'm on, or I'd stand the slightest chance of comprehending your post.

Kaze1985 seems to be from Japan so allow leeway in English.

Kaze1985 seems to be from Japan so allow leeway in English.

That still doesn't make his post make any sense.

I REALLY wish that wasn't too long to sig. I'll figure out some way to sig it anyway.

Do this:

*follow quote link to read*

well i tryed to explan it. apes lol ok well that is all im saying. not to wast my time. non of you get it and that is the semplest way i can explan it.:sniper:

well i tryed to explan it. apes lol ok well that is all im saying. not to wast my time. non of you get it and that is the semplest way i can explan it.:sniper:

Okay, I'll give it a go.
You're saying that all debate is pointless as there is no such thing as absolute truth.
If that's so, why are you posting on a forum in the first place? Isn't it pointless?

nice point.but that was only part of what is was saying funny.:rolleyes:

well i tryed to explan it. apes lol ok well that is all im saying. not to wast my time. non of you get it and that is the semplest way i can explan it.:sniper:

:p

It is extremely hard to understand you... I reckon most people will not even read the post and simply give up half way.

First, I would suggest that you use a spelling checker.. Do you have access to word? If you have to choose between words try to look for synonyms.
Second, a hard stop (.) should be followed by a space ( ), which makes for more easy reading.
Third, use (s) instead of'('s) for plural and try to start a sentence with a capital letter.

;)

Edit: People will not mind if you make mistakes, but your posts need to be comprehensible at the very least.

That still doesn't make his post make any sense.

It made perfect sense to me.

What is God, is God not just an idea in our heads.

way do we need to ague wene.i just lad it out for you.think on the sempalist of way's if it is random then you can not tested it if is the concept of god the it is the same so baoth are valid.and invalid. just like you can say you svrel ways like you/u/yu. now let us go out wider yes we know that these universe but what if there is more then one .and there are meany.now spred that wider and at some point you have order out of randomness.
Translation:

Why do we need to argue when I just laid it out for you? Think simply if it is random then you cannot test it. If it is the concept of God it is the same way so both are valid and incalid. Just like you can spell the word "you" in several different ways, such as you/u/yu. Now let us expand the argument...we know of this universe but what if there is more than one universe? What if there are many? Now allow that argument to encompass even further reaches and you have order out of randomness.

...

That still makes little sense.

Thanks for that. And also will try and do that from now on but. On the other hand it just a point of view.

I REALLY wish that wasn't too long to sig. I'll figure out some way to sig it anyway.

You can all find it in the Bible of course. I am not sure whether it is sig.-worthy, but I am glad you liked it. :)

It made perfect sense to me.

What is God, is God not just an idea in our heads.

That's the last sentence. There's also stuff in there about God being an invention of fear of the unknown, evolution being just another concept, all debate being pointless because we're gonna die anyway, and we can't truly 'know' anything...

Far from a coherent argument.

That's the last sentence. There's also stuff in there about God being an invention of fear of the unknown, evolution being just another concept, all debate being pointless because we're gonna die anyway, and we can't truly 'know' anything...

Far from a coherent argument.

Meh how many coherent arguments have you ever seem in these types of places? That is as opposed to arguments.

Meh how many coherent arguments have you ever seem in these types of places? That is as opposed to arguments.

Touche. :p

I meant that it wasn't just the Engrish that made it unclear.
But, as you say, meh.

Meh how many coherent arguments have you ever seem in these types of places? That is as opposed to arguments.

depends.

Compared to some of the old Yahoo! message boards....I would say quite often.I miss those :(

What bothers me with religion is the general refusal to even remotely accept any ideas outside of the realm of thier beliefs. I asked a friend (a very fundamental Christian) how she could dispute the mountains of evidence in favour of evolution and a world millions of years old. I explained carbon dating and random gene mutations and such, hoping for her to at least see my point. Her answer? 'The scientists got it wrong'.

I was not brought up as an athiest or a Christian, but I chose Athiesm over religion as it had a heck of a lot of proof for evolution, a 4 billion-year-old world and other such 'heathen' ideas, where as the only proof religion, specifically Christianity, had to offer was an old book, and the claims of Christians.

I am sorry to inform you supposed intellectuals thats there is no real substantial evidence supporting your argument in favor of macroevolution. However, to your credit there are forces of Microevolution at work within the world, God created.

Since no one can directly observe any supposed macroevolution, the only place evidence can be sought is within unearthed fossil records. Show me a single complete fossil record, of any single species on this or any other planet. Only, then will I be satisfied, as yet, to my knowledge, no one has found what suggests evolution. What has been found is the complete replacement of a species with another, not evolution. People are so angry with the LORD of hosts that they would rather believe the lie Darwin told himself, to justify his rejection of the LORD after the death of his wife.

Please refrain from repeating tired and unsubstantiated rhetoric when replying to my post.

I am sorry to inform you supposed intellectuals thats there is no real substantial evidence supporting your argument in favor of macroevolution. However, to your credit there are forces of Microevolution at work within the world, God created.

Since no one can directly observe any supposed macroevolution, the only place evidence can be sought is within unearthed fossil records. Show me a single complete fossil record, of any single species on this or any other planet. Only, then will I be satisfied, as yet, to my knowledge, no one has found what suggests evolution. What has been found is the complete replacement of a species with another, not evolution. People are so angry with the LORD of hosts that they would rather believe the lie Darwin told himself, to justify his rejection of the LORD after the death of his wife.

Please refrain from repeating tired and unsubstantiated rhetoric when replying to my post.


Can I reply with mockery? I like mockery. :)

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/einstein_tongue.jpg

I am sorry to inform you supposed intellectuals thats there is no real substantial evidence supporting your argument in favor of macroevolution. However, to your credit there are forces of Microevolution at work within the world, God created.

Since no one can directly observe any supposed macroevolution, the only place evidence can be sought is within unearthed fossil records. Show me a single complete fossil record, of any single species on this or any other planet. Only, then will I be satisfied, as yet, to my knowledge, no one has found what suggests evolution. What has been found is the complete replacement of a species with another, not evolution. People are so angry with the LORD of hosts that they would rather believe the lie Darwin told himself, to justify his rejection of the LORD after the death of his wife.

Please refrain from repeating tired and unsubstantiated rhetoric when replying to my post.
...

There is no such thing as "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution." Evolution is evolution.Your little changes become big changes. Try applying logic to the situation rather than stating one thing and presuming it proves your argument.

I am sorry to inform you supposed intellectuals thats there is no real substantial evidence supporting your argument in favor of macroevolution. However, to your credit there are forces of Microevolution at work within the world, God created.

Since no one can directly observe any supposed macroevolution, the only place evidence can be sought is within unearthed fossil records. Show me a single complete fossil record, of any single species on this or any other planet. Only, then will I be satisfied, as yet, to my knowledge, no one has found what suggests evolution. What has been found is the complete replacement of a species with another, not evolution. People are so angry with the LORD of hosts that they would rather believe the lie Darwin told himself, to justify his rejection of the LORD after the death of his wife.

Please refrain from repeating tired and unsubstantiated rhetoric when replying to my post.

Though I sometimes get tired, my rhetoric seldom does; you may find it tiring, though. My rhetoric is substantiated, for there are good reasons for relying on the scientific method. My main point is that the theory of evolution cannot be proven. It can however be falsified, which has not yet occurred.

Though I sometimes get tired, my rhetoric seldom does; you may find it tiring, though. My rhetoric is substantiated, for there are good reasons for relying on the scientific method. My main point is that the theory of evolution cannot be proven. It can however be falsified, which has not yet occurred.

That's not something unusual. It's the fact of the matter for EVERY scientific theory EVER developed under the scientific method.

What bothers me with religion is the general refusal to even remotely accept any ideas outside of the realm of thier beliefs. I asked a friend (a very fundamental Christian) how she could dispute the mountains of evidence in favour of evolution and a world millions of years old. I explained carbon dating and random gene mutations and such, hoping for her to at least see my point. Her answer? 'The scientists got it wrong'.

I was not brought up as an athiest or a Christian, but I chose Athiesm over religion as it had a heck of a lot of proof for evolution, a 4 billion-year-old world and other such 'heathen' ideas, where as the only proof religion, specifically Christianity, had to offer was an old book, and the claims of Christians.

Lots are like that yes, but not all. Although I can't really extend that to Christianity, they do seem to be a strange lot*duck*

That's not something unusual. It's the fact of the matter for EVERY scientific theory EVER developed under the scientific method.

Yeah but people will first need to understand the scientific method before they can attack dominant theories. You need a common ground to have a discussion; otherwise you’ll get a discussion along the lines of:

A lion is a mammal! No a chicken is a bird! No way, a lion is a mammal!

very tiring indeed :)

You have observed macro-evolution????? How old are you?

Older than about a month, presumably. Speciation takes that long, or even less, among Drosophila.

I am sorry to inform you supposed intellectuals thats there is no real substantial evidence supporting your argument in favor of macroevolution. However, to your credit there are forces of Microevolution at work within the world, God created.

Since no one can directly observe any supposed macroevolution, the only place evidence can be sought is within unearthed fossil records. Show me a single complete fossil record, of any single species on this or any other planet. Only, then will I be satisfied, as yet, to my knowledge, no one has found what suggests evolution. What has been found is the complete replacement of a species with another, not evolution. People are so angry with the LORD of hosts that they would rather believe the lie Darwin told himself, to justify his rejection of the LORD after the death of his wife.

Please refrain from repeating tired and unsubstantiated rhetoric when replying to my post.

Your entire post is tired and unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Your entire post is tired and unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Heh indeed, that is why I didn't even bother replying to it!

I am sorry to inform you supposed intellectuals thats there is no real substantial evidence supporting your argument in favor of macroevolution. However, to your credit there are forces of Microevolution at work within the world, God created.

Since no one can directly observe any supposed macroevolution, the only place evidence can be sought is within unearthed fossil records. Show me a single complete fossil record, of any single species on this or any other planet. Only, then will I be satisfied, as yet, to my knowledge, no one has found what suggests evolution. What has been found is the complete replacement of a species with another, not evolution. People are so angry with the LORD of hosts that they would rather believe the lie Darwin told himself, to justify his rejection of the LORD after the death of his wife.

Please refrain from repeating tired and unsubstantiated rhetoric when replying to my post.

False Dichotomy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Dichotomy) You present an incorrect distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, and suggest that because of a flawed definition of one, we may only observe the other. I suggest you learn about what you're actually discussing before you go off spouting mindless rhetoric.

I'm re-quoting the original article for the convenience of the reader. I'm not editing it in any way, only splitting it into sections that I'll refer to individually.

"It's Just A Theory"

This generally takes the form of "Well, Einstein's relativity is just a theory, not a fact/scientific law." However, such a statement only demonstrates that the speaker is either severely scientifically illiterate or an evil demagog trying to pull a fast one.


3rd possibility: They understand science better than the writer of this essay. Please continue.


The colloquial meaning of the term "theory" is the opposite of "fact", it is a guess, or hunch (what a scientist would call a "hypothesis"). But in Science, the meaning of the term "theory" is totally different. Theory and fact can be the same.

So Einstein's relativity theory is "just a theory" in the same way that Newton's theory of gravity is "just a theory." Since Newton's gravity is just a theory, I suppose you wouldn't mind standing under this 40 ton steel girder while I cut the cable?


First of all, while nothing discounts the possibility that a theory CAN be a factual truth, there's no guarantee that it is. The above paragraph seems to suggest there is. Note, he says they CAN be the same. (Sometimes they're not.)

Second, The Law of Gravitation is a law, not a theory. It's therefore irrelevant to this discussion, despite a cute image of a 40 ton steel girder crushing someone who disagrees.


Ken Harding says:

A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.

A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well- described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.


So what Law is being related to the Theory of Evolution or the theory of man-made Global Warming as observable fact that the theory is supposed to try and explain? None? Then perhaps these paragraphs are irrelevant.


A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.


There is also no reason why a theory MUST be an actual fact as well.


The common misconception is that if a budding young scientific theory gets quote "proven" unquote, it graduates and becomes a scientific law. As you see above, theories and laws are two different things. Even worse, it is impossible to prove a scientific theory.


That last sentence is exactly the point. When people debate Evolution vs. Creationism or MMGW(Man-made Global Warming), the standard of proof being imposed upon the Creationist or the person disagreeing with man as the cause of Global Warming is much higher than that observed by the Evolutionist or the MMGW proponent. If you can't prove yours, you are a hypocrite to expect a higher level of proof for ours.

-not that a theory without any evidence is acceptable... just be careful when you're blasting someone for questioning your theory.

To close: This article talks a lot and says nothing. The conclusion seems to be "A theory CAN be fact but it can't be proven." Well my friends, that statement is not in dispute, and exactly why it's perfectly acceptable to say "it's just a theory."

False Dichotomy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Dichotomy) You present an incorrect distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, and suggest that because of a flawed definition of one, we may only observe the other. I suggest you learn about what you're actually discussing before you go off spouting mindless rhetoric.

The dichotomy is not false.


Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution; which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies, in a population, over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into the evolution process.

I am sorry to inform you supposed intellectuals thats there is no real substantial evidence supporting your argument in favor of macroevolution. However, to your credit there are forces of Microevolution at work within the world, God created.

Speciesisation has been observed on numerous occasions, but the Creationists will invariably just whine and claim that "it's not Macro-evolution!!!" without ever defining the boundary between micro and macro. Why don't you tell us the precise limits of micro-evolution? Creationists have had 150 years to find the 'limit', why won't they tell anyone what it is so it can be tested?

Since no one can directly observe any supposed macroevolution,

Again, speciesisation has been observed. Define Macro-evolution (and don't try to wriggle out of it by saying "evolution between kinds" or I'll just ask you to define a "kind").

the only place evidence can be sought is within unearthed fossil records.

Rubbish. Comparative Anatomy and Genetics are also great sources of evidence, to name only two fields. Even if every single fossil vanished overnight, we'd still have enough genetic evidence to demonstrate our descent from apes beyond all reasonable doubt.

Show me a single complete fossil record, of any single species on this or any other planet. Only, then will I be satisfied,

Done.

http://pharyngula.org/images/hominid_skull_seq.jpg

The skull on the top left is a chimpanzee, the skull on the bottom right is a homosapien. If you don't accept the rest of them as transitional then I expect you to tell me which of them are 'true ape' and which are 'true man'. The funny thing is, all the Creationists who try to do this end up giving different answers; apparently the distinction between species isn't so clear cut as the Creationists would have us think...

as yet, to my knowledge, no one has found what suggests evolution.

That's a problem with your knowledge, not with science.

The skull on the top left is a chimpanzee, the skull on the bottom right is a homosapien. If you don't accept the rest of them as transitional then I expect you to tell me which of them are 'true ape' and which are 'true man'. The funny thing is, all the Creationists who try to do this end up giving different answers; apparently the distinction between species isn't so clear cut as the Creationists would have us think...



Hold it...

If the skull at the top left is a chimpanzee, and the bottom right is a human, what, exactly, are you proving here? Evolutionary theory doesn't state that humans evolved directly from chimpanzees. Even if Evolution were 100% accurate, your picture wouldn't prove it because all you're doing is laying out a set of skulls from one species to another without relating them by evolution.

Hold it...

If the skull at the top left is a chimpanzee, and the bottom right is a human, what, exactly, are you proving here? Evolutionary theory doesn't state that humans evolved directly from chimpanzees. Even if Evolution were 100% accurate, your picture wouldn't prove it because all you're doing is laying out a set of skulls from one species to another without relating them by evolution.

He's laying down the skulls of the creatures that evolved into humans and Chimps respectively. Somewhere in there is presumably our common ancestor. Precise placement of many of these remains is very iffy.

That last sentence is exactly the point. When people debate Evolution vs. Creationism or MMGW(Man-made Global Warming), the standard of proof being imposed upon the Creationist or the person disagreeing with man as the cause of Global Warming is much higher than that observed by the Evolutionist or the MMGW proponent. If you can't prove yours, you are a hypocrite to expect a higher level of proof for ours.

1. Science does not deal in 'proof', that is the domain of Mathematics.

2. Challenges to the accepted theories of the day are always held to a higher standard of evidence because not only do they have to show that they explain all of the evidence which the current theory explains, they have to explain evidence which the current theory can't. This is the whole point: to unseat an accepted theory you need a better theory. This is the hurdle which Evolution and Geological Uniformitarianism had to pass when they were first proposed and they did just fine.

3. Creationism is a joke, it simply isn't science. Scientific organisations don't oblige their members to sign a 'Statement of Faith' saying "The Bible is all literally true, any evidence to the contrary should be ignored". Scientific organisations don't repeatedly publish "evidence" lifted from articles which were written as April Fools jokes. Scientific organisations do actual SCIENCE, they don't sit around compiling quote-mines of real scientists.

Maybe when the Creationists propose a model which doesn't involve Last Thursdayism, the Earth being heated until it's red hot without killing all life, or giant sloths outrunning velociraptors then they'll be taken more seriously.

Hold it...

If the skull at the top left is a chimpanzee, and the bottom right is a human, what, exactly, are you proving here? Evolutionary theory doesn't state that humans evolved directly from chimpanzees. Even if Evolution were 100% accurate, your picture wouldn't prove it because all you're doing is laying out a set of skulls from one species to another without relating them by evolution.

The chimpanzee skull is just there for comparison.

EDIT:
Creationists like to claim that there are no transitional fossils, and expecially no transitional hominid fossils; they invariably try to classify every transitional as either human or ape which is why the chimpanzee was included for comparison.

Done.

http://pharyngula.org/images/hominid_skull_seq.jpg

The skull on the top left is a chimpanzee, the skull on the bottom right is a homosapien. If you don't accept the rest of them as transitional then I expect you to tell me which of them are 'true ape' and which are 'true man'. The funny thing is, all the Creationists who try to do this end up giving different answers; apparently the distinction between species isn't so clear cut as the Creationists would have us think...

This is not valid evidence as Fossils are the Devil's work in order to deceive us and drive us further away from God.

You must provide valid evidence only. Such evidence should take the form of holy infallible books written with the assistance of Divine Guidance.

*waits patiently*

http://pharyngula.org/images/hominid_skull_seq.jpg

For reference, here are the labels to the skulls:
A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

This is not valid evidence as Fossils are the Devil's work in order to deceive us and drive us further away from God.

You must provide valid evidence only. Such evidence should take the form of holy infallible books written with the assistance of Divine Guidance.

*waits patiently*

Does "The Tao of Pooh" count? *hopeful look*

Does "The Tao of Pooh" count? *hopeful look*

Give me three tacos and I'll say 'Yes'. :)

http://pharyngula.org/images/hominid_skull_seq.jpg

For reference, here are the labels to the skulls:
A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Thanks.

Give me three tacos and I'll say 'Yes'. :)

Hard or soft?

This is not valid evidence as Fossils are the Devil's work in order to deceive us and drive us further away from God.

You must provide valid evidence only. Such evidence should take the form of holy infallible books written with the assistance of Divine Guidance.

*waits patiently*

Sorry, no can do. :(

I can, however, offer you a fossilised hominid being eaten by an allosaurus. :)

http://www.nmsr.org/c1.gif

Hard or soft?

Surprise me. :)

1. Science does not deal in 'proof', that is the domain of Mathematics.


That being the case, why do people continue to insist that religious folk "prove" God exists? To "prove" Creationism? To "prove" that man isn't causing Global Warming?

My point here is to illustrate a disparity in the standards set for each side.


2. Challenges to the accepted theories of the day are always held to a higher standard of evidence because not only do they have to show that they explain all of the evidence which the current theory explains, they have to explain evidence which the current theory can't. This is the whole point: to unseat an accepted theory you need a better theory. This is the hurdle which Evolution and Geological Uniformitarianism had to pass when they were first proposed and they did just fine.


And if an existing theory is found to be inadequate? As I've said before in other threads I don't believe in Darwinism because I've found, through independent study, that the data doesn't support the conclusion. This is quite separate from my religious convictions since I used to be one who believed that the Bible symbolically described Evolution.

It wasn't until I raised objections to the theory that I realized there's an awful lot of data manipulation going on. When I challenged a good friend and staunch Darwinist on this, he said "well it's the best we've got." I find that unacceptable. Far better to go back to the drawing board than to continue to stay with a sinking ship.


3. Creationism is a joke, it simply isn't science. Scientific organisations don't oblige their members to sign a 'Statement of Faith' saying "The Bible is all literally true, any evidence to the contrary should be ignored". Scientific organisations don't repeatedly publish "evidence" lifted from articles which were written as April Fools jokes. Scientific organisations do actual SCIENCE, they don't sit around compiling quote-mines of real scientists.


I'm not sure I followed this tirade. Where did all th at come from? Sounds like you have an axe to grind.


Maybe when the Creationists propose a model which doesn't involve Last Thursdayism, the Earth being heated until it's red hot without killing all life, or giant sloths outrunning velociraptors then they'll be taken more seriously.

buh?

Sorry, no can do. :(

I can, however, offer you a fossilised hominid being eaten by an allosaurus. :)

http://www.nmsr.org/c1.gif

Yay? :confused:

http://pharyngula.org/images/hominid_skull_seq.jpg

For reference, here are the labels to the skulls:
A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

You do realize, I hope, that Neanderthals are not held to be in the Evolutionary progression from ape forms to modern man? They're considered an offshot that became extinct.

Surprise me. :)

*hands over 3 hard fish tacos*

That last sentence is exactly the point. When people debate Evolution vs. Creationism or MMGW(Man-made Global Warming), the standard of proof being imposed upon the Creationist or the person disagreeing with man as the cause of Global Warming is much higher than that observed by the Evolutionist or the MMGW proponent. If you can't prove yours, you are a hypocrite to expect a higher level of proof for ours.

No one is expecting proof. They are expecting evidence gained by using the scientific method that better explains the data than the most accepted theory. In other words, both sides are held to the exact same "standard of proof". The difference in the Creationism/Evolution debate is that Creationists don't want to bother with the scientific method. They have their beliefs that are absolute and complete TRUTH as far as they are concerned, and only that which they believe backs up their TRUTH will be allowed into the discussion. They don't go through the scientific method, and they include things that, in fact, cannot be tested using it. As such, they cannot meet even the most standard of burdens in science - the use of the scientific method.

-not that a theory without any evidence is acceptable... just be careful when you're blasting someone for questioning your theory.

Questioning is good (as long as the questions are well-informed enough to be useful). However, the "questioning" you usually see is "Evolution says [insert something that has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory] and I don't believe that, so obviously my particular version of a story told in my holy book is 100% correct!"

To close: This article talks a lot and says nothing. The conclusion seems to be "A theory CAN be fact but it can't be proven." Well my friends, that statement is not in dispute, and exactly why it's perfectly acceptable to say "it's just a theory."

If you are using theory correctly, it isn't a problem. But most people don't. They use it to be equivalent with "random guess that came out of the blue."

That being the case, why do people continue to insist that religious folk "prove" God exists? To "prove" Creationism? To "prove" that man isn't causing Global Warming?

My point here is to illustrate a disparity in the standards set for each side.

For the same reason that so many people will tell you that theory X has been "proven". Sometimes, the term refers to "demonstrate absolutely" and sometimes it refers to "support with empirical evidence." It's that whole problem of multiple meanings and language being leaky.

If someone is going to use a deity in a theory and have it be considered scientific, they are going to have to provide empirical evidence of said deity and their "There's a deity here," explanation is going to have to fit the data better than other explanations. Unfortunately for them, the divine (especially a creator deity) is inherently supernatural, and thus outside of the realm of empirical evidence and the scientific method. It will simply have to remain in the realm of faith.

And if an existing theory is found to be inadequate?

Propose a better one - one better supported by the data at hand - and watch the old one get thrown out.

As I've said before in other threads I don't believe in Darwinism because I've found, through independent study, that the data doesn't support the conclusion.

You won't find many people who believe in "Darwinism." The theory of evolution has moved quite a ways beyond Darwin.

For the same reason that so many people will tell you that theory X has been "proven". Sometimes, the term refers to "demonstrate absolutely" and sometimes it refers to "support with empirical evidence." It's that whole problem of multiple meanings and language being leaky.

True, which is part of what I'm pointing out. It seems that whichever version is most favorable to a particular viewpoint is the one that gets used. In a discussion about something like Evolution, I think it's very rare that both sides are actually being objective enough to use the same definition.


If someone is going to use a deity in a theory and have it be considered scientific, they are going to have to provide empirical evidence of said deity and their "There's a deity here," explanation is going to have to fit the data better than other explanations. Unfortunately for them, the divine (especially a creator deity) is inherently supernatural, and thus outside of the realm of empirical evidence and the scientific method. It will simply have to remain in the realm of faith.


Problem is, not all those who reject Evolution do so for religious reasons. (Myself, for example) While it's true that many do, I find it a commonly used tactic to label anybody who disagrees with Evolution to be a religious zealot no matter their reasons.


Propose a better one - one better supported by the data at hand - and watch the old one get thrown out.


That, I have a problem with. If a theory id demonstrably false, then holding to it until a better one comes along is stupid. "I dont' know" is much better than endoctrinating people into a theory that's known to be flawed to the point of falsehood.

To clarify: I'm not talking about a less than perfect theory. I'm talking about a theory in which data has been invented, conflicting data has been ignored, and opposition silenced. If such lengths are necessary to shoehorn observations into it, there's a serious problem here.


You won't find many people who believe in "Darwinism." The theory of evolution has moved quite a ways beyond Darwin.

Some do not acknodwledge a disparity but I do see your point.

No one is expecting proof. They are expecting evidence gained by using the scientific method that better explains the data than the most accepted theory. In other words, both sides are held to the exact same "standard of proof". The difference in the Creationism/Evolution debate is that Creationists don't want to bother with the scientific method. They have their beliefs that are absolute and complete TRUTH as far as they are concerned, and only that which they believe backs up their TRUTH will be allowed into the discussion. They don't go through the scientific method, and they include things that, in fact, cannot be tested using it. As such, they cannot meet even the most standard of burdens in science - the use of the scientific method.


Yes, in a perfect world. My remarks were referencing discussion threads like those found on this site.


Questioning is good (as long as the questions are well-informed enough to be useful). However, the "questioning" you usually see is "Evolution says [insert something that has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory] and I don't believe that, so obviously my particular version of a story told in my holy book is 100% correct!"


I do see plenty of that on here, too... But I'm not defending it.


If you are using theory correctly, it isn't a problem. But most people don't. They use it to be equivalent with "random guess that came out of the blue."

Some do, but others also use it incorrectly from the other side, using it to be equivalent with "absolutely proven certain to such a degree as to no longer be up for discussion."

You see that stated almost verbatim in MMGW threads as well as Evolution ones.

Problem is, not all those who reject Evolution do so for religious reasons. (Myself, for example) While it's true that many do, I find it a commonly used tactic to label anybody who disagrees with Evolution to be a religious zealot no matter their reasons.

Well, the Creationism/evolution debate is pretty obviously a religion-based thing. You don't see other debates very often.

That, I have a problem with. If a theory id demonstrably false, then holding to it until a better one comes along is stupid. "I dont' know" is much better than endoctrinating people into a theory that's known to be flawed to the point of falsehood.

A theory that is demonstrably false will be rejected. If you can demonstrate evolutionary theory to be false, let us know. You'll probably end up with the Nobel.

To clarify: I'm not talking about a less than perfect theory. I'm talking about a theory in which data has been invented, conflicting data has been ignored, and opposition silenced. If such lengths are necessary to shoehorn observations into it, there's a serious problem here.

Yes, there is. And I haven't seen any widely accepted theory that this would apply to. When a scientist is caught fabricating data, that scientist is discredited for life. When someone tries to simply ignore conflicting data, rather than at least proposing an explanation for it, that scientist is slammed from all sides. I actually have to actively look for any data out there that might be seen as contradicting my own, and then explain their data, as well as my own. This is a part of the system.

Some do, but others also use it incorrectly from the other side, using it to be equivalent with "absolutely proven certain to such a degree as to no longer be up for discussion."

Indeed. And I tend to come down pretty hard on them as well. =)

Well, the Creationism/evolution debate is pretty obviously a religion-based thing. You don't see other debates very often.


probably more often than one might think. Like I said, Evolution defenders tend to lump those who disagree in with religious arguments whether they're based on religion or not.


A theory that is demonstrably false will be rejected. If you can demonstrate evolutionary theory to be false, let us know. You'll probably end up with the Nobel.

Yes, there is. And I haven't seen any widely accepted theory that this would apply to. When a scientist is caught fabricating data, that scientist is discredited for life. When someone tries to simply ignore conflicting data, rather than at least proposing an explanation for it, that scientist is slammed from all sides. I actually have to actively look for any data out there that might be seen as contradicting my own, and then explain their data, as well as my own. This is a part of the system.


And now we're getting to the core. I've seen data that DOES demonstrably prove it false. I've seen drawings of embryos that were fabricated. (The scientist who drew them admitted this, yet those drawings continue to appear in textbooks. How do I know? That friend I mentioned is a biology teacher.)

Was that scientist discredited? I presume he was, yet that illustration is still used to teach Evolution. This is not good. It points to a severe lack of objectivity in the community. It points to people whose livelihood is based upon this theory. It points to conflict of interest.

I do not trust the objectivity of people who are this deep in a conflict of interest. Sorry.

Also consider all the people who, for whatever reason, equate Evolution with a lack of God's existence. (You see it on here all the time... people that get as fired up about evolution as any religious zealot) It's almost as if they NEED Evolution to sustain them.

Think they'll just drop Evolution without a fight?


Indeed. And I tend to come down pretty hard on them as well. =)

I'm gonna withold comment on that one.

You do realize, I hope, that Neanderthals are not held to be in the Evolutionary progression from ape forms to modern man? They're considered an offshot that became extinct.
Yessir, but the point stands. If you put B and N next to each other, it's pretty obvious one is an ape and the other is a man. But if you put B and C together, then you can see how one became the other. Then C and D, D and E, etc.

And now we're getting to the core. I've seen data that DOES demonstrably prove it false.

Really? And what was it? Where is it?

I've seen drawings of embryos that were fabricated. (The scientist who drew them admitted this, yet those drawings continue to appear in textbooks. How do I know? That friend I mentioned is a biology teacher.)

What grade level? High school textbooks are, at absolute best, 10 years behind the current knowledge in biology (usually further behind). Even undergraduate college level textbooks are going to be behind by about 5 years. Both tend to simplify many things - and those simplified versions are generally all that a biology teacher (I'm guessing this teacher is middle/high school, or you likely would have said "professor) will know - and even their simplifications will be years out of date.

And, to be fair, while I've heard a lot about these fabricated drawings, I don't see them being used as evidence of evolutionary theory anywhere in science. I'm guessing that you're talking about Ernst Haeckel's drawings. We're talking about something from a century ago. While the drawings may still be used in entry-level biology out of convenience (textbook writers will update text, but often don't want to update figures), they aren't considered "evidence" for anything in the scientific community. I've seen actual microscopic pictures of most of the types of embryos Haeckel drew. I'd be willing to bet that such pictures are out there for just about all of the organisms he drew and/or speculated on.

Human beings are really the only organisms in which we cannot get precisely timed specimens, as anything we do get is generally going to be the product of a miscarriage. Of course, with newer and better prenatal imaging, that will be less and less of a problem.

Also consider all the people who, for whatever reason, equate Evolution with a lack of God's existence. (You see it on here all the time... people that get as fired up about evolution as any religious zealot) It's almost as if they NEED Evolution to sustain them.

Think they'll just drop Evolution without a fight?

It doesn't really matter if they do or not. Such people likely won't drop it without something else to bolster their beliefs, just as religious fundamentalists are unlikely to drop their particular version of Creationism, even when shown how it conflicts with empirical data and even with their own religious text.

Yessir, but the point stands. If you put B and N next to each other, it's pretty obvious one is an ape and the other is a man. But if you put B and C together, then you can see how one became the other. Then C and D, D and E, etc.

No, what you see is a set of organisms that have similar looking parts that can be arranged in a sequence. (Chimps, Neanderthals and modern man are NOT considered steps in the same Evolutionary sequence.) Nothing wrong with that, but that picture was presented as a complete fossil record of one species, per a challenge issued.

That means either this picture was chosen out of error, or intellectual dishonesty.

But it does illustrate *MY* point nicely.

Really? And what was it? Where is it?


I can refer you to some texts that discuss those in detail. TG me if you're interested.

What grade level? High school textbooks are, at absolute best, 10 years behind the current knowledge in biology (usually further behind). Even undergraduate college level textbooks are going to be behind by about 5 years. Both tend to simplify many things - and those simplified versions are generally all that a biology teacher (I'm guessing this teacher is middle/high school, or you likely would have said "professor) will know - and even their simplifications will be years out of date.

And, to be fair, while I've heard a lot about these fabricated drawings, I don't see them being used as evidence of evolutionary theory anywhere in science. I'm guessing that you're talking about Ernst Haeckel's drawings. We're talking about something from a century ago. While the drawings may still be used in entry-level biology out of convenience, they aren't considered "evidence" for anything in the scientific community. I've seen actual microscopic pictures of most of the types of embryos Haeckel drew. I'd be willing to bet that such pictures are out there for just about all of the organisms he drew and/or speculated on.


A century ago is a lot longer than 10 years. There's no excuse for it to be in a modern textbook. None. (Yes, he teaches high school.)

But you see, you're applying a VERY loose standard to this stuff and that's art of the problem I'm seeing. If a drawing that's KNOWN to have been falsified is given enough status as to appear in a textbook, then that tells me there's a distinct lack of supporting data, or it would be unnecessary to continue to use it as better examples would be available.

This phrase you used: "I'd be willing to bet that such pictures are out there for just about all of the organisms he drew and/or speculated on." is exactly what I'm getting at. It's an exercise in faith. It essentially says "I have faith that if I look, I'll find this."

A Creationist would be drawn and quartered for that on a thread like this. (Rightly so.) But those who support Evolution use such phrases regularly and expect everybody to nod their heads and agree.

For a long time, Haeckel's drawings WERE taken as observed empirical data. When they appear in a text book now, wouldn't you expect there to be a caption somewhere that points out that this illustration is conceptual only, acknowlegding the dubious nature of their origin? No. The pictures are presented in the text at face value.

That's unacceptable.


Human beings are really the only organisms in which we cannot get precisely timed specimens, as anything we do get is generally going to be the product of a miscarriage. Of course, with newer and better prenatal imaging, that will be less and less of a problem.


Until that happens, this is moot.


It doesn't really matter if they do or not. Such people likely won't drop it without something else to bolster their beliefs, just as religious fundamentalists are unlikely to drop their particular version of Creationism, even when shown how it conflicts with empirical data and even with their own religious text.

My point exactly.

That being the case, why do people continue to insist that religious folk "prove" God exists? To "prove" Creationism? To "prove" that man isn't causing Global Warming?

God isn't science.
Creationism isn't science.
People who demand "proof" that man isn't causing global warming are wrong as well.

My point here is to illustrate a disparity in the standards set for each side.

And if an existing theory is found to be inadequate? As I've said before in other threads I don't believe in Darwinism because I've found, through independent study, that the data doesn't support the conclusion. This is quite separate from my religious convictions since I used to be one who believed that the Bible symbolically described Evolution.

Strangely enough, the professional scientists who've dedicated their lives to studying the biological and paleontological sciences haven't noticed this data. Funny that.

It wasn't until I raised objections to the theory that I realized there's an awful lot of data manipulation going on. When I challenged a good friend and staunch Darwinist on this, he said "well it's the best we've got." I find that unacceptable. Far better to go back to the drawing board than to continue to stay with a sinking ship.

You talk an awful lot about all this data opposing evolution but you don't seem inclined to share any of it (or to address any of my objections...)

I'm not sure I followed this tirade. Where did all th at come from? Sounds like you have an axe to grind.

Allow me to go through it more slowly:

Creationism is a joke, it simply isn't science.

^^

Scientific organisations don't oblige their members to sign a 'Statement of Faith' saying "The Bible is all literally true, any evidence to the contrary should be ignored".

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Statement of Faith, clause D6 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp)

Most Creationist groups have a similar statement, although few are so blatant .

Scientific organisations don't repeatedly publish "evidence" lifted from articles which were written as April Fools jokes.

Musical Neandertals (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/aprilfool.html) is my favourite example. It demonstrates the wishful thinking and sloppy research which characterise Creationism.

Scientific organisations do actual SCIENCE, they don't sit around compiling quote-mines of real scientists.

Do I even need to source this? I believe Henry Morris's "That their words might be used against them" was the first example of this blatant dishonesty, but it's a favourite tactic of Creationists and many Creationist websites have entire pages dedicated to quote-mining.

So yes, I do have an axe to grind. I have an axe to grind against people who are trying to highjack the education system so they can lie to children and disrupt science education.

buh?

Last Thursdayism: the world was designed to look older than it really is/the fossil record was designed to fool scientists.

Red hot earth: the kind of radioactive decay rates which Creationists posit to explain away isotope dating would release so much energy that the Earth would still be uninhabitable. The geologist Joe Meert performed the calculations IIRC.

Sloths outrunning velociraptors: Answers in Genesis proposed a particuarly ridiculous idea a while ago to try to explain away the progression of the fossil record. They suggested that the slow, small animals drowned first while the faster, smarter animals ran for high ground and humans clung to driftwood. This absurd because it would require giant sloths to outrun velociraptors as they appear later in the fossil record (it would also require grass pollen to outrun velociraptors but that's another story).

You do realize, I hope, that Neanderthals are not held to be in the Evolutionary progression from ape forms to modern man? They're considered an offshot that became extinct.

Yes, they're our cousins rather than our direct ancestors. What's your point? For all we know our example of Homo Erectus might have died childless, in which case they'd be our cousin rather than our direct ancestor.

Why won't you stop quibbling and tell us which of them are human and which are apes?

Yes, they're our cousins rather than our direct ancestors. What's your point? For all we know our example of Homo Erectus might have died childless, in which case they'd be our cousin rather than our direct ancestor.

My point is pretty obvious, isn't it? if the illustration is supposed to dmeonstrate a comple fossil record for one species, per the challenge, then it doesn't fit the bill.


Why won't you stop quibbling and tell us which of them are human and which are apes?

huh?

Actually, yes; evolution IS a theory, not a fact. The same can be said for both Einstein and Newton's "laws" of physics (in fact, Newton never called them "laws," but "principles." This was mixed up in the translation).

I'm CERTAINLY no creationist (it's hard to be when you don't believe in god), but people put WAAAAAAAAAY too much faith in science. Whilst the PRINCIPLES of physics have yet to fail us (with the possible exception of physics on the quantum level, which has its own set of very odd principles still being worked out), it is no more than an ASSUMPTION to believe that they NEVER will.

If anyone wants to know more about this cool stuff, I suggest you read some David Hume (an 18th century Scottish philosopher), who was the first to identify what he termed the "problem of induction." Basically, he proposed that causality is simply a result of "custom" or "habit." Example: say that one throws potassium in water; there was originally no reason to believe that the potassium coming into contact with the water was the cause of the explosion, but after repeated experiments failed to produce a different reaction (or lack thereof), we decided that it MUST be the interaction between the two chemicals that results in an explosion.

Yet no one has ever SEEN this interaction take place; that is, we may have witnessed potassium thrown into water result in an explosion, but we didn't see how or why this happened. The best we can do is assume that a potassium molecule effects a water molecule in a certain way, and so the science of chemistry makes calculations based on said reaction.

Meanwhile, faith needs no proof. Otherwise it wouldn't be faith. There is nothing wrong or right about this, it should just not be in the realm of science.

P.S.---Interesting note: If one takes the verb "cause" literally, then smoking cigarettes DOES NOT cause cancer. If that were the case, every single person who ever lit up a cigarette would have developed cancer right there on the spot. Since this is obviously not the case, one can only claim that there is a correlation between cigarette smoking and cancer; in fact, it could theoretically be the case that cancer causes smoking!

My point is pretty obvious, isn't it? if the illustration is supposed to dmeonstrate a comple fossil record for one species, per the challenge, then it doesn't fit the bill.

It isn't necessary to establish that each particular fossil was the direct descendant of every other fossil in the chain, a cousin species is still valid in showing the kind of hominid which was around at the time and demonstrating the clear transition. I prefer the genetic evidence like Chromosome 2 and Endogenous Retro-Viruses myself but the poster did specifically ask for fossils.

huh?

Your feigned non-comprehension is rapidly becoming irritating...

But you see, you're applying a VERY loose standard to this stuff and that's art of the problem I'm seeing. If a drawing that's KNOWN to have been falsified is given enough status as to appear in a textbook, then that tells me there's a distinct lack of supporting data, or it would be unnecessary to continue to use it as better examples would be available.

It's not my standard. It's the way the textbook people do things. They like to recycle figures. Even if there is a clearer or more recent picture out there, they are often likely to use their old figure as long as it is "close enough" (not to mention the fact that it isn't always easy to get the rights to use an updated figure). This is especially true in high school or introductory courses and much less true in more advanced courses. And then, of course, the most advanced courses generally won't even have a textbook, but will instead use contemporary paper.

I can tell you that I don't recall seeing the drawings in any textbook I've used, and I can check the ones I have at home later, if you like.

This phrase you used: "I'd be willing to bet that such pictures are out there for just about all of the organisms he drew and/or speculated on." is exactly what I'm getting at. It's an exercise in faith. It essentially says "I have faith that if I look, I'll find this."

Considering that I've seen most of them out there, and I know that there are fields of study dedicated to the other types of organisms, it doesn't take a whole lot of faith. It's sort of like saying, "I'm sure someone knows the composition of DMEM (a type of medium frequently used in cell culture)." I've never needed to see an embryonic picture of a turtle, so I've never gone looking. Likewise, I've never needed to know the exact composition of DMEM, so I've never gone looking. But it would surprise me greatly if no one had such a picture or such a list, considering the fact that one cannot do embryology on such species without looking at the embryo and papers involving fish, reptiles, rodents, chicks (especially chicks in their embryonic stages), pigs, etc. are all quite common.

For a long time, Haeckel's drawings WERE taken as observed empirical data. When they appear in a text book now, wouldn't you expect there to be a caption somewhere that points out that this illustration is conceptual only, acknowlegding the dubious nature of their origin? No. The pictures are presented in the text at face value.

I have never seen them presented as such. The only time I remember seeing such drawings - and I believe that was in high school - in a textbook, it was made clear that some of the drawings were from specimens he had taken and some were speculation.

Until that happens, this is moot.

Not really. It just means that we know much, much more about prenatal development of just about every other species.

My point exactly.

So why do you care? Fundamentalists of any given type are pretty much in the minority.

I see the problem. You'r eone of those people I refered to who take ANY anti-Evolution argument and characterize it as religious zealotry.

God isn't science.
Creationism isn't science.
People who demand "proof" that man isn't causing global warming are wrong as well.

Well if RLI says it, it must be true. Is that your point with this?


Strangely enough, the professional scientists who've dedicated their lives to studying the biological and paleontological sciences haven't noticed this data. Funny that.


So scientists are infallible? They never make a mistake? They never have a conflict of interest? They never feel pressure to produce specific results? They don't have to worry about funding by people with an agenda? Is that your source of faith?


You talk an awful lot about all this data opposing evolution but you don't seem inclined to share any of it (or to address any of my objections...)


I never refused to share it. I just hadn't been asked until Dempublicents did just a little while ago, and I offered to send it TG.

What objections of yours am I ignoring? Or are you trying to hold me to a question you might have asked someone else 10 opages before I got here? (I see that tactic used a lot by people who think the whole thread revolves around their own argument.)


Statement of Faith, clause D6 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp)

Most Creationist groups have a similar statement, although few are so blatant .


So your logic is: Subgroup A makes a statement, so we apply it to cover the whole population.


Musical Neandertals (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/aprilfool.html) is my favourite example. It demonstrates the wishful thinking and sloppy research which characterise Creationism.


Another subset. You do realize that 1) Not everybody who isn't impressed by Evolution is a Creationist and 2) not all Creationists subscribe to this?


Do I even need to source this? I believe Henry Morris's "That their words might be used against them" was the first example of this blatant dishonesty, but it's a favourite tactic of Creationists and many Creationist websites have entire pages dedicated to quote-mining.


Relevance?


So yes, I do have an axe to grind. I have an axe to grind against people who are trying to highjack the education system so they can lie to children and disrupt science education.


So you want YOUR belief taught to the exclusion of all others? Even when there's genuine material reason to suspect that other theories are possible? Talk about a double standard...


Last Thursdayism: the world was designed to look older than it really is/the fossil record was designed to fool scientists.


I don't subscribe to this, yet you want me to answer for it?


Red hot earth: the kind of radioactive decay rates which Creationists posit to explain away isotope dating would release so much energy that the Earth would still be uninhabitable. The geologist Joe Meert performed the calculations IIRC.


I don't subscribe to this either.


Sloths outrunning velociraptors: Answers in Genesis proposed a particuarly ridiculous idea a while ago to try to explain away the progression of the fossil record. They suggested that the slow, small animals drowned first while the faster, smarter animals ran for high ground and humans clung to driftwood. This absurd because it would require giant sloths to outrun velociraptors as they appear later in the fossil record (it would also require grass pollen to outrun velociraptors but that's another story).

Or this.

For somebody who claims to be so true to scientific methods, you sure do like to reach for randomness.

Your feigned non-comprehension is rapidly becoming irritating...

o_O?

3rd possibility: They understand science better than the writer of this essay. Please continue.

There's one way to solve this problem. Ask a scientist. Fortunately for you, there are some in this thread, and I do believe they agree with the writer of the essay. Sorry.

So you want YOUR belief taught to the exclusion of all others? Even when there's genuine material reason to suspect that other theories are possible? Talk about a double standard...

I'm genuinely interested here. What other theories with material reason comparable to evolution?

There's one way to solve this problem. Ask a scientist. Fortunately for you, there are some in this thread, and I do believe they agree with the writer of the essay. Sorry.

I wouldn't say that the writer of the essay is exactly right. He seems to be implying that a scientific law (a term modern scientists tend to shy away from) cannot be disproven. This simply isn't true. Anything in science is open to being disproven. For quite a while, Newton's "Laws" were thought to be all that was necessary in physics. Turns out, they are just a really good approximation when you're talking about relatively large masses and relatively slow speeds.

The essay writer is correct, though, that many people misuse the term "theory" as it applies to science and it is incorrect to think that a "good" theory would be declared a law. When talking about science, if an idea has made it to the point that it is an accepted theory, it's got a great deal of evidence and experimentation behind it. It is not "proven" in the sense that one should not question it, although it generally might as well be "proven" to those who do not study the field in-depth, as they aren't going to be equipped to ask the kinds of questions that would push the theory to either change or be discarded.

I'm genuinely interested here. What other theories with material reason comparable to evolution?

I didn't mean to suggest that there were any other current theories. I'm only saying that people are generally not open to the possibility and so other scenarios aren't being considered.

It's not my standard. It's the way the textbook people do things. They like to recycle figures. Even if there is a clearer or more recent picture out there, they are often likely to use their old figure as long as it is "close enough" (not to mention the fact that it isn't always easy to get the rights to use an updated figure). This is especially true in high school or introductory courses and much less true in more advanced courses. And then, of course, the most advanced courses generally won't even have a textbook, but will instead use contemporary paper.

I can tell you that I don't recall seeing the drawings in any textbook I've used, and I can check the ones I have at home later, if you like.

I have never seen them presented as such. The only time I remember seeing such drawings - and I believe that was in high school - in a textbook, it was made clear that some of the drawings were from specimens he had taken and some were speculation.


Go for it, if you like. I wish I knew the title and edition of the ones my friend was using. I'll try and remember to ask him when I see him next.

But where you and I differ is that I'm not satisfied with the current standard used in such texts. This is supposed to be education and part of education is teaching about how things ARE (to the best of our knowledge.) Students will take a drawing like that at face value, and that right there is a disconnect between presentation and truth. Are the drawings similar to the actual embryos, even in cases where they were made up? Similar, yes... but not the exact same. This is a weakness. Why defend it? I'm proposing an elevation in the standard.


Considering that I've seen most of them out there, and I know that there are fields of study dedicated to the other types of organisms, it doesn't take a whole lot of faith. It's sort of like saying, "I'm sure someone knows the composition of DMEM (a type of medium frequently used in cell culture)." I've never needed to see an embryonic picture of a turtle, so I've never gone looking. Likewise, I've never needed to know the exact composition of DMEM, so I've never gone looking. But it would surprise me greatly if no one had such a picture or such a list, considering the fact that one cannot do embryology on such species without looking at the embryo and papers involving fish, reptiles, rodents, chicks (especially chicks in their embryonic stages), pigs, etc. are all quite common.


That runs contrary to the scientific method. You're making assumtions without empirical data. It was someone on this board, Bottle perhaps, who quoted the phrase "The most remarkable scientific discoveries haven't followed the word 'eureka!' as often as 'that's funny...'" or something like that. If that's true, how much weight can we really put on assumption?


Not really. It just means that we know much, much more about prenatal development of just about every other species.


But as you said, that will improve in the future. Until then, moot point.


So why do you care? Fundamentalists of any given type are pretty much in the minority.

For the same reason people on this board get their pantyhose in a knot over what Christian fundamentalists say. These are the same people who insist that Christians are a greater threat to Freedom than Islamic Jihadists. The difference is the Evolution Fundies, if you will, are dominant. When my kids go to public school do you think they're taught Evolution with enough objectivity and honesty to admit there are still a LOt of problems with the theory? No. They're taught Evolution is as much a fact as 2+2=4 or 'cat' has 3 letters.

Even scientists won't go THAT far. It's a politicized issue, and that means people who don't even give a fig about science have a vested interest in seeing their side win.

And this is why I object to it.

I am guessing that if the cretins get their way, in about twenty years there will be a whole generation of young Americans who have absolutely no understanding of science whatsoever. At this point any part of the US economy based on science and technology will be destroyed, because they will find it hard to recruit anyone who understands how any of it works because they were taught some superstitious mumbo-jumbo was a 'valid alternative viewpoint'.

I am guessing that if the cretins get their way, in about twenty years there will be a whole generation of young Americans who have absolutely no understanding of science whatsoever. At this point any part of the US economy based on science and technology will be destroyed, because they will find it hard to recruit anyone who understands how any of it works because they were taught some superstitious mumbo-jumbo was a 'valid alternative viewpoint'.

If you weren't aware of this, there's already a move away from hiring US students and recent US graduates in science and technology, and a shift to other countries. I attended a special presentation on the subject at my university earlier this year, from a fellow who had been head of a group that prepared a brief on this very subject for the POTUS. The actual brief itself was quite lengthy, but the general idea was that universities around the country need to up their game in order to remain competitive with universities abroad, especially universities in China and India.

That runs contrary to the scientific method. You're making assumtions without empirical data. It was someone on this board, Bottle perhaps, who quoted the phrase "The most remarkable scientific discoveries haven't followed the word 'eureka!' as often as 'that's funny...'" or something like that. If that's true, how much weight can we really put on assumption?



No. That is an assertion made based on PRIOR EVIDENCE.

For example, when you step into an elevator, do you expect it to take you to the floor you want without crashing and killing you? Of course. Why?

Because prior evidence shows that elevators function properly. That is not and unfounded assumption.

Also, as someone said previously in the thread, you're not looking at this properly. There is a fact of evolution. It is observable quite easily.

What remains, then, is explaining how evolution works, which is the theory of evolution.

They are two different things. Evolution the fact, that which happens, and evolution the theory, that which explains HOW evolution the fact happens.

Deus: You'd think after coming to the same conclusion back in the fifties we'd not have allowed ourselves to come to the same crossroads once again.

No. That is an assertion made based on PRIOR EVIDENCE.

For example, when you step into an elevator, do you expect it to take you to the floor you want without crashing and killing you? Of course. Why?

Because prior evidence shows that elevators function properly. That is not and unfounded assumption.

Also, as someone said previously in the thread, you're not looking at this properly. There is a fact of evolution. It is observable quite easily.

What remains, then, is explaining how evolution works, which is the theory of evolution.

They are two different things. Evolution the fact, that which happens, and evolution the theory, that which explains HOW evolution the fact happens.

Deus: You'd think after coming to the same conclusion back in the fifties we'd not have allowed ourselves to come to the same crossroads once again.

America seems to have a short memory and a shorter attention span. We let an issue crop up, we deal with it, we pat ourselves on the back for our superiority at having dealt with it, and then forget it ever happened. We've done this with just about every major problem we've ever had, and I don't see us being able to disentangle ourselves from Paris Hilton's latest foray into stupidity long enough to start learning from our mistakes.

America seems to have a short memory and a shorter attention span. We let an issue crop up, we deal with it, we pat ourselves on the back for our superiority at having dealt with it, and then forget it ever happened. We've done this with just about every major problem we've ever had, and I don't see us being able to disentangle ourselves from Paris Hilton's latest foray into stupidity long enough to start learning from our mistakes.

I doubt it's just us...most other countries tend to do the same thing.

I doubt it's just us...most other countries tend to do the same thing.

S'pose. In which case it's likely we're all fucked.

S'pose. In which case it's likely we're all fucked.

Not necessarily. We could have a situation where America has bright young minds everywhere and all other countries are in the situation we're in now!

No. That is an assertion made based on PRIOR EVIDENCE.

For example, when you step into an elevator, do you expect it to take you to the floor you want without crashing and killing you? Of course. Why?

Because prior evidence shows that elevators function properly. That is not and unfounded assumption.

We're not talking about the same thing here.

Imagine you have a set of 6 boxes on the desk in front of you. You open the first 4. Inside each was a Hershey's Kiss. Is it valid or invalid to conclude that the remaining 2 boxes contain Hershey's Kisses?

It's invalid, of course.

So it is with this set of drawings Dempublicents1 and I have been referencing. The person who drew them observed and drew some from actual specimens, then drew the rest without actual specimens on the assumption that they would be the same. (He also slightly altered a couple of the ones drawn from actual specimens in order to make them look even more similar to each other.)


Also, as someone said previously in the thread, you're not looking at this properly. There is a fact of evolution. It is observable quite easily.


Oh? Someone has observed the evolution of an ape into a human? I didn't know that. This changes everything! :p


What remains, then, is explaining how evolution works, which is the theory of evolution.

They are two different things. Evolution the fact, that which happens, and evolution the theory, that which explains HOW evolution the fact happens.


Wasn't it the article in the OP that specified a Law as something observed and the theory as the explanation behind it? You've just described evolution as thought it were an observable law. This is inaccurate.


Deus: You'd think after coming to the same conclusion back in the fifties we'd not have allowed ourselves to come to the same crossroads once again.

Don't you find it telling?

We're not talking about the same thing here.

Imagine you have a set of 6 boxes on the desk in front of you. You open the first 4. Inside each was a Hershey's Kiss. Is it valid or invalid to conclude that the remaining 2 boxes contain Hershey's Kisses?

It's invalid, of course.



Well actually, though I would not bet my life on the basis of four observed cases, it is enough of a pattern for me to start a "theory".

"People fill boxes all their boxes with Hershey's Kiss, therefore boxes will always contain Hershey's Kiss"

This "theory"can now be falsified by opening another box... If it contains Hershey's Kiss I will hold on to my theory, otherwise I will discard it.

Only on the basis that we all have openend many boxes or similar containers in our lives and know how these containers are filled (by man), we expect boxes to vary in their contents.

But imagine we have openened a thousant random boxes.. still only Hershey's Kiss... Our theory would gain strenght... and if we at this point find a box containing a puppy... we can simply discard our theory or we can say that the current theory obviously is not perfect. Still, it allows us to better adapt to our environment nonetheless. Therefore we will keep the discarded theory untill we have one that better explains the emergence of puppies from boxes.

Well actually, though I would not bet my life on the basis of four observed cases, it is enough of a pattern for me to start a "theory".

"People fill boxes all their boxes with Hershey's Kiss, therefore boxes will always contain Hershey's Kiss"

This "theory"can now be falsified by opening another box... If it contains Hershey's Kiss I will hold on to my theory, otherwise I will discard it.

Only on the basis that we all have openend many boxes or similar containers in our lives and know how these containers are filled (by man), we expect boxes to vary in their contents.

But imagine we have openened a thousant random boxes.. still only Hershey's Kiss... Our theory would gain strenght... and if we at this point find a box containing a puppy... we can simply discard our theory or we can say that the current theory obviously is not perfect. Still, it allows us to better adapt to our environment nonetheless. Therefore we will keep the discarded theory untill we have one that better explains the emergence of puppies from boxes.

Yes, if we had that many samples it would be reasonable to draw that conclusion. In the case we're discussing however, there were only 8 drawings, of which 4 were authentic. 2 were altered, 2 were made up. (If I remember the numbers correctly)

It is not observable fact? I think biologists would beg to differ.

As would medical specialists on diseases, for that matter. Why do you think you get a new flu shot every year? Because there are different strains that evolve to adapt to changing conditions.

Also, may I ask why you are continuously harping on one small little subject that is on the whole utterly insignificant--one hundred year old drawings--rather than presenting the evidence you claim to possess that casts doubt on evolution? If you truly have it, you should show it, because that will help your argument far more than mere rhetoric.

It is not observable fact? I think biologists would beg to differ.

As would medical specialists on diseases, for that matter. Why do you think you get a new flu shot every year? Because there are different strains that evolve to adapt to changing conditions.

Also, may I ask why you are continuously harping on one small little subject that is on the whole utterly insignificant--one hundred year old drawings--rather than presenting the evidence you claim to possess that casts doubt on evolution? If you truly have it, you should show it, because that will help your argument far more than mere rhetoric.

I assune that was directed my way.

When you have observed one animal species evolve through natural selection into another, I'll concede that Evolution is an observable science.

I'm not really harping on one example, it just lingers because people keep making excuses for it.

Think about this: we have a known set of tainted observations and rather than acknowledge its nature, people are excusing it and tryingto convince me it's cool to keep using it. You want to know why it's still being tossed around? Ask those folks.

And I'm not gonna hijack the thread from a discussion on the nature of theories (inclusing Global Warming and others) into an Evolution vs. not debate. if you want to do that, either TG me or let's start a new thread.

I assune that was directed my way.

When you have observed one animal species evolve through natural selection into another, I'll concede that Evolution is an observable science.

I'm not really harping on one example, it just lingers because people keep making excuses for it.

Think about this: we have a known set of tainted observations and rather than acknowledge its nature, people are excusing it and tryingto convince me it's cool to keep using it. You want to know why it's still being tossed around? Ask those folks.

And I'm not gonna hijack the thread from a discussion on the nature of theories (inclusing Global Warming and others) into an Evolution vs. not debate. if you want to do that, either TG me or let's start a new thread.

Alright, now how do you define the divide between one species and another? The ability to breed with one another? Or a percent deviation in DNA?

I assune that was directed my way.

When you have observed one animal species evolve through natural selection into another, I'll concede that Evolution is an observable science.



Why do you insist on observing an animal species? Surely viruses and the like is more than enough for you?

But hey, if you want animal species, I'm sure plenty of others here more educated than I can provide examples, which I eagerly await.

Why do you insist on observing an animal species? Surely viruses and the like is more than enough for you?

But hey, if you want animal species, I'm sure plenty of others here more educated than I can provide examples, which I eagerly await.

Why would a virus be enough? It's not even a life form.

Alright, now how do you define the divide between one species and another? The ability to breed with one another? Or a percent deviation in DNA?

Oh why don't we just set it to whatever level you require to make whatever slam-dunk point you've got chambered?

...because ultimately that's how it's done, isn't it? Adjust the terminology and the definitions to take falsehood and make it true?

Oh why don't we just set it to whatever level you require to make whatever slam-dunk point you've got chambered?

...because ultimately that's how it's done, isn't it? Adjust the terminology and the definitions to take falsehood and make it true?

I'm asking for your benchmark. Not some snide comment about my supposed need to twist the data to fit my conclusion.

I'm asking for your benchmark. Not some snide comment about my supposed need to twist the data to fit my conclusion.

A snide comment is all you'll get. Sorry. I don't fall for traps.

Because we both know what would happen. I'd give my opinion (which is all it would be anyway) on what defines the difference between species. if it's too wide, you'll criticize me as not knowing what I'm talking about. If it's too narrow, you'll easily pull out an example that, while appearing to validate your point, may not actually do so but I'd be bound to acknowledge it because, after all, I set the bar.

All of which would be nothing mroe than a thread hijack. If you want to debate Evolution vs. !Evolution, TG me or start a new thread. This thread is about whether or not theory is subject to scrutiny, not just in Evolution but also for Global Warming or whatever else, and I've been doing my level best to stick to the topic.

A snide comment is all you'll get. Sorry. I don't fall for traps.

Because we both know what would happen. I'd give my opinion (which is all it would be anyway) on what defines the difference between species. if it's too wide, you'll criticize me as not knowing what I'm talking about. If it's too narrow, you'll easily pull out an example that, while appearing to validate your point, may not actually do so but I'd be bound to acknowledge it because, after all, I set the bar.

All of which would be nothing mroe than a thread hijack. If you want to debate Evolution vs. !Evolution, TG me or start a new thread. This thread is about whether or not theory is subject to scrutiny, not just in Evolution but also for Global Warming or whatever else, and I've been doing my level best to stick to the topic.

So would it be helpful at all to point out that the concept of a species, and the classifications people use in biological research, are inherently arbitrarily imposed by man, rather than by nature?

So would it be helpful at all to point out that the concept of a species, and the classifications people use in biological research, are inherently arbitrarily imposed by man, rather than by nature?

It certainly is, and I would say, a contributing factor in the inherently unstable idea of theory. If one of the defining factors of a theory is the set of arbitrary definitions associated with entities (like species), then changing that definition could easily cause the theories related to it to either be changed drastically or discarded.

For example, if a virus is defined as a living thing, then somewhere it's got to be accounted for in Evolution. On the other hand, science has recently begun to redefine viruses as non-living entities, in which case Evolution is "off the hook" in terms of explaining their origins as life forms.

When you have observed one animal species evolve through natural selection into another, I'll concede that Evolution is an observable science.

Drosophila has been observed to speciate in the laboratory on numerous occasions.

In fact, I can get a cite on one of them right now. It took me all of three minutes, most of which was spent attempting to copy and paste the title.

Dodd, D.M.B. (1989) "Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura." Evolution 43:1308–1311.

Drosophila has been observed to speciate in the laboratory on numerous occasions.

In fact, I can get a cite on one of them right now. It took me all of three minutes, most of which was spent attempting to copy and paste the title.

Dodd, D.M.B. (1989) "Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura." Evolution 43:1308–1311.

Yeah I was waiting for the fruit flies.

So your example is: under laboratory conditions, a species of fly can be made to mutate consistently.

Does it evolve from a fruit fly into something else? Nope... still a fruit fly. Oh, it's brown instead of white.

I can do that with dogs.

Mutation and individual genetic traits do not a new species make, nor does it demonstrate evolution.

It's still "just a theory."

Yeah I was waiting for the fruit flies.

So your example is: under laboratory conditions, a species of fly can be made to mutate consistently.

Does it evolve from a fruit fly into something else? Nope... still a fruit fly. Oh, it's brown instead of white.

I can do that with dogs.

Mutation and individual genetic traits do not a new species make, nor does it demonstrate evolution.

It's still "just a theory."

You asked for speciation. I gave you speciation. The two groups of fruit flies could no longer interbreed, which means that one or both were new species. You don't like that, fine. Just let the record show that you broke your word.

Saw some lecture about specification currently happening in salamanders. Here is the paper connected with it.

Adaptive divergence vs. environmental plasticity: tracing local genetic adaptation of metamorphosis traits in salamanders.
Weitere M, Tautz D, Neumann D, Steinfartz S.

University of Cologne, Zoological Institute, Weyertal 119, D-50931 Cologne, Germany.

In order to assess the significance of local adaptation relative to environmental plasticity on the evolution of life history traits, we analysed the possible genetic basis of differences between pond- and stream-breeding fire salamanders (Salamandra salamandra) in Germany. These salamanders typically deposit their larvae in small streams, where they grow until they are sufficiently large to metamorphose. However, some populations in Western Germany use ponds as larval habitat. Because habitat quality of streams differs from that of ponds one expects life history differences in the pond animals, which may result either from a plastic response or through genetic differentiation (i.e. local adaptation). Using a phylogeographical analysis of mitochondrial D-loop sequences, we show that both stream and pond populations in Western Germany are derived from a single lineage that recolonized following the last glaciation. This finding suggests that pond breeding originated very recently. Our studies of habitat quality and metamorphic behaviour of larvae in natural ponds and streams disclosed that pond larvae experience a significantly reduced food supply and greater risk of drying than do stream larvae. Pond larvae metamorphose earlier at the cost of reduced mass. Common-environment experiments with pond and stream larvae show that metamorphic behaviour of pond larvae under limited-food conditions is determined genetically and is not simply a plastic response to the differing habitat conditions. These results show that phenotypic plasticity is less important than local adaptation in explaining differences in ecological diversification within this species and suggests the possibility of rapid evolution of genetic adaptations when new habitats are exploited.

The point in this lecture was, that the geneflow between both populations is very low and thus both populations basically don't interbreed any more, thus laying the foundation for two different species to arise.

Although I believed this to be very enlightning, I guess that those who desperatly want to doubt evolution won't get the point and will just argue it with such hollow terms as Micro-Evolution or "evolution within kinds".:(

Although I believed this to be very enlightning, I guess that those who desperatly want to doubt evolution won't get the point and will just argue it with such hollow terms as Micro-Evolution or "evolution within kinds".:(

As opposed to those who desperately want to cling to it will herald this as an iron clad example proving it.

You asked for speciation. I gave you speciation. The two groups of fruit flies could no longer interbreed, which means that one or both were new species. You don't like that, fine. Just let the record show that you broke your word.

This is what I said:

When you have observed one animal species evolve through natural selection into another, I'll concede that Evolution is an observable science.


You showed me a lab experiment. I haven't broken my word, you used a shoddy example.

In case you missed the point (true), my challenge was meant to illustrate the fact that nobody CAN observe animal species evolve through natural selection into another because of the extreme length of time it's supposed to take, according to evoutionary theory.

For that, you show me fruitflies in a lab that are forced to mutate. Then, for not showering you with kudos for an artificial and contrived experiment you accuse me of dishonesty.

Admit it, can't you? You can't observe Evolution through natural selection in-process.

Know what that makes it? "Just a theory."

As opposed to those who desperately want to cling to it will herald this as an iron clad example proving it.

No, but it is well documented and peer reviewed evidence that provides strong support to the theory.

Discard your us vs. them mentality and realize that there isn't a giant hive mind of Evolutionists out there.

As opposed to those who desperately want to cling to it will herald this as an iron clad example proving it.

Well, two genetic distinct clades of animals which don't interbreed anymore, but once obviously did is actually an example for specification.

As it is said before it can't prove any theory, but is defenitly a good hint.

No, but it is well documented and peer reviewed evidence that provides strong support to the theory.

Discard your us vs. them mentality and realize that there isn't a giant hive mind of Evolutionists out there.

I'm glad you mentioned the us vs. them mentality.

I'll concede that I've been using it if you're prepared to concede that the OP to this thread is using it as well.

...hive mind? No. Groupthink? Oh yeah.

Well, two genetic distinct clades of animals which don't interbreed anymore, but once obviously did is actually an example for specification.

As it is said before it can't prove any theory, but is defenitly a good hint.

I have no problem with that as long as it's kept in perspective by BOTH sides of the discussion.

Go for it, if you like. I wish I knew the title and edition of the ones my friend was using. I'll try and remember to ask him when I see him next.

I haven't looked through all of them yet, but even my oldest biology textbook - used by my husband in his high school biology class a decade ago - doesn't include it.

But where you and I differ is that I'm not satisfied with the current standard used in such texts.

Who said I was?

The problem is that you were listing "Blah is used in an entry-level textbook" as an attack on the whole of the profession. The truth of the matter is that those actually in the field of biology don't use those drawings.

That runs contrary to the scientific method. You're making assumtions without empirical data.

Not at all. I have empirical data - the fact that I have seen entire atlases devoted to embryonic development of several of these species and that I have never seen a paper in embryology that did not contain either pictures or measurements of embryos. I know how we determine the age of an embryo at certain stages, and all of that involves actually looking at it. It thus makes sense that there are pictures out there for any organism in which someone has studied embryonic development. Note that I did not say I assume these things exist, simply that I would be willing to bet they exist. I also pointed out that, if I needed them for some reason, I would actually go out and look for them.

Incidentally, I did do a quick pubmed search yesterday. It looks like there are numerous papers available on the embryonic development of pretty much all of the types of organisms generally pictured in Haeckel's drawings.

For the same reason people on this board get their pantyhose in a knot over what Christian fundamentalists say. These are the same people who insist that Christians are a greater threat to Freedom than Islamic Jihadists. The difference is the Evolution Fundies, if you will, are dominant. When my kids go to public school do you think they're taught Evolution with enough objectivity and honesty to admit there are still a LOt of problems with the theory? No. They're taught Evolution is as much a fact as 2+2=4 or 'cat' has 3 letters.

While beginner science textbooks aren't great, there is one thing I have seen in every introductory science textbook I have ever seen in my life - and always in the very first chapter. That is an explanation of the scientific method itself and what constitutes a theory. The fact that theories are always being questioned, altered, or even discarded is made clear in the very first chapter of any science textbook. Given that, how can you claim that anyone is being taught evolution in the way that you claim?

If the students are missing the point, that is likely at least partially the fault of the teacher, but not completely.

This is what I said:



You showed me a lab experiment. I haven't broken my word, you used a shoddy example.

In case you missed the point (true), my challenge was meant to illustrate the fact that nobody CAN observe animal species evolve through natural selection into another because of the extreme length of time it's supposed to take, according to evoutionary theory.

For that, you show me fruitflies in a lab that are forced to mutate. Then, for not showering you with kudos for an artificial and contrived experiment you accuse me of dishonesty.

Admit it, can't you? You can't observe Evolution through natural selection in-process.

Know what that makes it? "Just a theory."

You are quite wrong.

You are assuming that what has happened is all that can happen. It is entirely possible to observe evolution via natural selection. All we need do is wait long enough.

Alteration within a species is well documented. In time, speciation will be also.

So why should he admit a lie?

You showed me a lab experiment. I haven't broken my word, you used a shoddy example.

In case you missed the point (true), my challenge was meant to illustrate the fact that nobody CAN observe animal species evolve through natural selection into another because of the extreme length of time it's supposed to take, according to evoutionary theory.

For that, you show me fruitflies in a lab that are forced to mutate. Then, for not showering you with kudos for an artificial and contrived experiment you accuse me of dishonesty.

They weren't forced to mutate. You'd know this if you actually read up on it. The group was split into two groups, and the scientists let things take their natural course for a few hundred or so generations, and then put the two groups back together and observed if they could interbreed. They couldn't. Ergo, they were new species.

Edit: Oh, and nothing in evolutionary theory states that it takes an enormous amount of time for speciation to occur. It takes a large number of generations, but that does not necessarily imply a large amount of time.

* waits for Bruarong to show up*

<3

You are quite wrong.

You are assuming that what has happened is all that can happen. It is entirely possible to observe evolution via natural selection. All we need do is wait long enough.

Alteration within a species is well documented. In time, speciation will be also.

So why should he admit a lie?

They weren't forced to mutate. You'd know this if you actually read up on it. The group was split into two groups, and the scientists let things take their natural course for a few hundred or so generations, and then put the two groups back together and observed if they could interbreed. They couldn't. Ergo, they were new species.

Edit: Oh, and nothing in evolutionary theory states that it takes an enormous amount of time for speciation to occur. It takes a large number of generations, but that does not necessarily imply a large amount of time.

1)You're taking what happens in a laboratory and demanding that we treat it as a natural environment. I can go to a lab where it's possible to get a human ear to grow on a mouse's back but only a fool would suggest that this somehow mirrors nature.

You tell me they can make fruitflies split into species in a lab. So what? I mean, honestly... if this is the best you can do by way of example then you're doing a great job of proving my point for me.

So now it doesn't take a long time, huh? So now you want us to acknowledge that natural selection is a real-time observable process because of artificial experiments in a lab. You demand that I concede the point just as if someone had been able to actually observe the transition from a saber-tooth cat to a tiger over the course of millenia.

You're tring to have it both ways. The OP itself, which I presume you agree with, indicates that a Law is a scientific fact that is OBSERVED. A theory, by definition cannot be proven.

So if these lab experiments with fruitflies were so compelling, why hasn't it then been presented as a Law? Why is it still theory if, as you say, we have such a clear and perfect example?

Answer: Because it's pretty far from a perfect example. I bet you'll keep harping on it though.

I haven't looked through all of them yet, but even my oldest biology textbook - used by my husband in his high school biology class a decade ago - doesn't include it.

Okay. So his editions didn't.


Who said I was?

The problem is that you were listing "Blah is used in an entry-level textbook" as an attack on the whole of the profession. The truth of the matter is that those actually in the field of biology don't use those drawings.


If you're not satisfied then why are you making excuses for it? Shouldn't we be on the same page in demanding intellectual honesty? Just because the text might be targeted to an entry level Biology class is no reason to use shoddy material.


Not at all. I have empirical data - the fact that I have seen entire atlases devoted to embryonic development of several of these species and that I have never seen a paper in embryology that did not contain either pictures or measurements of embryos. I know how we determine the age of an embryo at certain stages, and all of that involves actually looking at it. It thus makes sense that there are pictures out there for any organism in which someone has studied embryonic development. Note that I did not say I assume these things exist, simply that I would be willing to bet they exist. I also pointed out that, if I needed them for some reason, I would actually go out and look for them.

Incidentally, I did do a quick pubmed search yesterday. It looks like there are numerous papers available on the embryonic development of pretty much all of the types of organisms generally pictured in Haeckel's drawings.


You're taking my specific example and putting it in general terms to argue it. I'd be very surprised if we DIDN'T have all that data now. The point is, as it has always been, that the original "Artist" made up some drawings and altered others to m ore closely match, and got busted for it. How do we know? Precisely because this data is available now.


While beginner science textbooks aren't great, there is one thing I have seen in every introductory science textbook I have ever seen in my life - and always in the very first chapter. That is an explanation of the scientific method itself and what constitutes a theory. The fact that theories are always being questioned, altered, or even discarded is made clear in the very first chapter of any science textbook. Given that, how can you claim that anyone is being taught evolution in the way that you claim?

If the students are missing the point, that is likely at least partially the fault of the teacher, but not completely.

I can claim it because it's so politicized. I can claim it precisely because I have children (one of which is at high school level) and so I know what they're being taught. I can claim it because I've seen their homework and I've seen their tests. I can claim it because whatever the textbook says about the scientific method, I've seen examples when it's blatantly disregarded. (Like our favorite example above.) I even remember when *I* was in Catholic School and they taught us Evolution and it was presented as locked-in fact. I can claim it because I've looked at their books.

How many kids do you have in school?

1)You're taking what happens in a laboratory and demanding that we treat it as a natural environment. I can go to a lab where it's possible to get a human ear to grow on a mouse's back but only a fool would suggest that this somehow mirrors nature.

You tell me they can make fruitflies split into species in a lab. So what? I mean, honestly... if this is the best you can do by way of example then you're doing a great job of proving my point for me.

So now it doesn't take a long time, huh? So now you want us to acknowledge that natural selection is a real-time observable process because of artificial experiments in a lab. You demand that I concede the point just as if someone had been able to actually observe the transition from a saber-tooth cat to a tiger over the course of millenia.

You're tring to have it both ways. The OP itself, which I presume you agree with, indicates that a Law is a scientific fact that is OBSERVED. A theory, by definition cannot be proven.

So if these lab experiments with fruitflies were so compelling, why hasn't it then been presented as a Law? Why is it still theory if, as you say, we have such a clear and perfect example?

Answer: Because it's pretty far from a perfect example. I bet you'll keep harping on it though.

You fail again, and you were doing so well. The concept of a scientific law no longer exists. That went out the door a LONG time ago. NOTHING today advances beyond theory, no matter how compelling it is. Newton's Theory of Gravity, Einstein's Theory of Relativity (both Special and General), the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, the Theory of Evolution, etc. etc. etc.

Edit: And given your aversion to laboratory experiments as conclusive evidence, I take it you'll never accept anything put forth by String Theory, because it's experiments are conducted 110% in the lab?

You fail again, and you were doing so well. The concept of a scientific law no longer exists. That went out the door a LONG time ago. NOTHING today advances beyond theory, no matter how compelling it is. Newton's Theory of Gravity, Einstein's Theory of Relativity (both Special and General), the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, the Theory of Evolution, etc. etc. etc.

That would seem to run contrary to the assertions made by the OP. Is that your intention?

*Are we going back to using snide remarks? I've been saving up....:p


Edit: And given your aversion to laboratory experiments as conclusive evidence, I take it you'll never accept anything put forth by String Theory, because it's experiments are conducted 110% in the lab?

...You must be joking.

That would seem to run contrary to the assertions made by the OP. Is that your intention?

*Are we going back to using snide remarks? I've been saving up....:p



...You must be joking.

I'm not concerned with the OP. I'm concerned with correcting your flawed understanding of science and the scientific method. It is impossible, within the scientific method, to definitely prove something, beyond any doubt. There is ALWAYS the opening for the next test of the theory to prove it flawed, or completely wrong. It's called Falsifiability, and it is one of the many reasons why ID and Creationism are not regarded as scientific.

Nope. String Theory is 100% founded on math and laboratory experimentation.

I'm not concerned with the OP. I'm concerned with correcting your flawed understanding of science and the scientific method. It is impossible, within the scientific method, to definitely prove something, beyond any doubt. There is ALWAYS the opening for the next test of the theory to prove it flawed, or completely wrong. It's called Falsifiability, and it is one of the many reasons why ID and Creationism are not regarded as scientific.

Ok so we agree that the theory of Evolution can be falsified. Most people won't admit that but we can agree to disagree on whether it HAS been falsified, as the point of the thread is the nature of theories in general.


Nope. String Theory is 100% founded on math and laboratory experimentation.
That's not what I mean. When I say "you must be joking" it's because I was surpised that you'd use such a controversial scientific concept to illustrate what's provable in a lab.

Ok so we agree that the theory of Evolution can be falsified. Most people won't admit that but we can agree to disagree on whether it HAS been falsified, as the point of the thread is the nature of theories in general.

Someone claiming evolution can't be falsified has a flawed understanding of science. As far as I can tell, no one debating here has been trying to suggest that it is impossible to prove Evolution wrong.

That's not what I mean. When I say "you must be joking" it's because I was surpised that you'd use such a controversial scientific concept to illustrate what's provable in a lab.

It's controversy isn't in the fact that it requires 100% lab experimentation. It's in the fact that it's more interesting assertions (i.e. the ones that aren't already covered by an existing theory, and therefore, really the important ones where String Theory is concerned) are presently untestable, because we simply don't have the ability to generate the amount of energy required to test them.

Ok so we agree that the theory of Evolution can be falsified. Most people won't admit that but we can agree to disagree on whether it HAS been falsified, as the point of the thread is the nature of theories in general.

Regardless whether the theory of evolution has been falsified, falsified theories generally stay in use until they are replaced by a better theory. Theory is like a map, it is meant to help your understanding of the world. I would gladly trade my map for a better one, but discarding a map that is for 90% correct when I have no other is folly.

Regardless whether the theory of evolution has been falsified, falsified theories generally stay in use until they are replaced by a better theory. Theory is like a map, it is meant to help your understanding of the world. I would gladly trade my map for a better one, but discarding a map that is 90% when I have no other is folly.

This is also true.

Newton's Classical Mechanics are still in use today, despite being shown to be false at certain levels (the atomic level, where QM takes over, and the cosmic level, where General Relativity takes over) because they are, for all practical purposes, still valid for day-to-day life on earth.

In other words, we know Classical Mechanics is wrong, but we continue to use it for what we know it's accurate for.

Someone claiming evolution can't be falsified has a flawed understanding of science. As far as I can tell, no one debating here has been trying to suggest that it is impossible to prove Evolution wrong.


In this thread, that's true. In threads where the topic actually is Evolution vs. !Evolution... Well you've seen it for yourself.


It's controversy isn't in the fact that it requires 100% lab experimentation. It's in the fact that it's more interesting assertions (i.e. the ones that aren't already covered by an existing theory, and therefore, really the important ones where String Theory is concerned) are presently untestable, because we simply don't have the ability to generate the amount of energy required to test them.

I didn't say it was because of lab experimentation. I just said it was controversial in general, thus making it an awkward example, at best.

Regardless whether the theory of evolution has been falsified, falsified theories generally stay in use until they are replaced by a better theory. Theory is like a map, it is meant to help your understanding of the world. I would gladly trade my map for a better one, but discarding a map that is 90% when I have no other is folly.

What if your map is only 30% accurate? 50%? What if its actual accuracy can't be known? Sure, in a vaccum you'd use it but if someone came along and said "That map isn't accurate." Would you acknowledge that fact, or would you suddenly start treating it as though it were infallible?

because that's what we see on forums like this one all the time. (I have another one I'm thinking of but I don't remember the forum link rules off the top of my head.) We see people who treat the theory of Evolution as if it were utterly and absolutely inviolably perfect. Creationists and/or peolpe like myself get a level of ridicule that I find amusing more often than not, because, as Deus said, such people don't understand science.

In this thread, that's true. In threads where the topic actually is Evolution vs. !Evolution... Well you've seen it for yourself.

True. At the same time, that's almost singularly the case of a lay person arguing for evolution. You'll certainly never hear Bottle, Dem, GnI, or any of the other posters with a science background making such a claim, or so I hope.

I didn't say it was because of lab experimentation. I just said it was controversial in general, thus making it an awkward example, at best.

I don't really think so. There are still plenty of respected physicists today who disagree with Quantum Mechanics. The controversy has largely died down, but from its development in the 30s it met with sharp criticism from respected physicists of the time, until many of its assertions and claims were substantiated by laboratory data.

Einstein himself was against the idea. A lot of people somewhat mindlessly use his phrase "God does not play dice," not understanding its origin. When he used it, he was specifically referring to Quantum Mechanics.

What if your map is only 30% accurate? 50%? What if its actual accuracy can't be known? Sure, in a vaccum you'd use it but if someone came along and said "That map isn't accurate." Would you acknowledge that fact, or would you suddenly start treating it as though it were infallible?

because that's what we see on forums like this one all the time. (I have another one I'm thinking of but I don't remember the forum link rules off the top of my head.) We see people who treat the theory of Evolution as if it were utterly and absolutely inviolably perfect. Creationists and/or peolpe like myself get a level of ridicule that I find amusing more often than not, because, as Deus said, such people don't understand science.

That is true, we do not know the accuracy... We can however assume a general level of accuracy based on earlier observations. We could be wrong of course, but the alternative for assumption is not to use airplanes because there remain things we are not certain of.

The problem with creationists is that their theories cannot be scientific, exactly because they are not falsifiable (cannot be stressed enough). Their theories are legitimate within the realm of religion and science does not enter the realm of religion.

That is true, we do not know the accuracy... We can however assume a general level of accuracy based on earlier observations. We could be wrong of course, but the alternative for assumption is not to use airplanes because there remain things we are not certain of.

The problem with creationists is that their theories cannot be scientific, exactly because they are not falsifiable (cannot be stressed enough). Their theories are legitimate within the realm of religion and science does not enter the realm of religion.

True, Creationism isn't, as far as I know, falsifiable, but typically when yuo see Creationists debating Evolutionists, you don't see an actual debate of Creationism vs. Evolution, what really happens is it's Evolution vs. !Evolution. It's not often you see Creationists actually putting forth their own views (intelligently), whether based on Scripture or on a separate set of scientific data. The very fact that they're acknowledged Creationists opens them up to ridicule. I've especially noticed this when they make a good point... their opponent falls back on the religious zealot argument.

I've especially noticed this when they make a good point... their opponent falls back on the religious zealot argument.

Must have missed that one. Enlighten me.

True, Creationism isn't, as far as I know, falsifiable, but typically when yuo see Creationists debating Evolutionists, you don't see an actual debate of Creationism vs. Evolution, what really happens is it's Evolution vs. !Evolution. It's not often you see Creationists actually putting forth their own views (intelligently), whether based on Scripture or on a separate set of scientific data. The very fact that they're acknowledged Creationists opens them up to ridicule. I've especially noticed this when they make a good point... their opponent falls back on the religious zealot argument.

There cannot be a debate between Evolution and creationism because they belong in different realms. There can be however a theological debate of creationism. As well as a scientific debate of Evolution.

Thus in a scientific debate of evolution you can try to falsify evolution or put forth a better falsifiable theory. One cannot with reason state that it is just a theory however...

Must have missed that one. Enlighten me.

Aw you'll see them scattered throughout any good Evolution debate thread. Someone of faith comes in and questions the science on its merits -not on their religious convictions- and if their argument is good sooner or later they get steamrolled as a religious freak.

Are we allowed to just post links on here? if so I've got a site that's the crown jewel example.

There cannot be a debate between Evolution and creationism because they belong in different realms. There can be however a theological debate of creationism. As well as a scientific debate of Evolution.

Thus in a scientific debate of evolution you can try to falsify evolution or put forth a better falsifiable theory. One cannot with reason state that it is just a theory however...

That's the point I'm trying to make here. Let me parse it out:

If Creationist engages in debate against Evolutionist, limiting the discussion to science ONLY, what I've seen happen too often (and you've probably seen it too) is they make some really good point and the Evolutsionist side resorts to deriding the Creatinist's religion, even if, up to that point, it wasn't part of the discussion.

That's the point I'm trying to make here. Let me parse it out:

If Creationist engages in debate against Evolutionist, limiting the discussion to science ONLY, what I've seen happen too often (and you've probably seen it too) is they make some really good point and the Evolutsionist side resorts to deriding the Creatinist's religion, even if, up to that point, it wasn't part of the discussion.

This is your argument then? Just for clarity's sake; you argue that we behave like this?

That's the point I'm trying to make here. Let me parse it out:

If Creationist engages in debate against Evolutionist, limiting the discussion to science ONLY, what I've seen happen too often (and you've probably seen it too) is they make some really good point and the Evolutsionist side resorts to deriding the Creatinist's religion, even if, up to that point, it wasn't part of the discussion.

You are saying the exact opposite to Politeia Europa. There cannot be a discussion of the science of creationism versus the science of evolution because creationism is not scientific.

You are saying the exact opposite to Politeia Europa. There cannot be a discussion of the science of creationism versus the science of evolution because creationism is not scientific.

No I do not think he/she does. As long as you leave creatonism out of a scientific debate, you can as a creationist, criticise evolution on scientific grounds, that is observations that do not fit the theory. The personal reasons for doing this should, in a perfect world, not be an issue. That said, a creationist cannot enter creationism in the debate as a replacement theory for evolution. Still, if the creationist came up with a better, scientific, ergo falsifiable, theory, it would obviously be laudable.

No I do not think he/she does. As long as you leave creatonism out of a scientific debate, you can as a creationist, criticise evolution on scientific grounds, that is observations that do not fit the theory. The personal reasons for doing this should, in a perfect world, not be an issue. That said, a creationist cannot enter creationism in the debate as a replacement theory for evolution. Still, if the creationist came up with a better, scientific, ergo falsifiable, theory, it would obviously be laudable.

Hard to tell as it is not entirely clear if Neo Brettonia means a debate between Creationists and Scientists about evolution - to me it looks like they are saying a scientific debate about the merits of creationism and evolution under equal terms.

Okay. So his editions didn't.

Nope. It would seem that your biology teacher friend is using a textbook that probably hasn't changed in quite a few editions. Not necessarily his fault - the school board usually determines these things.

If you're not satisfied then why are you making excuses for it?

I'm not. I was simply pointing out that you can't use, "ZOMG TEXTBOOKS!" as an attack on the whole of a profession. Most people in the profession have no control whatsoever over what editors choose to put into textbooks.

You're taking my specific example and putting it in general terms to argue it.

Not at all. You had a problem with me stating that I would bet that there are actual pictures out there of all of the embryos that Haeckel drew. Now, apparently, you want to go back to discussing something else.

I'd be very surprised if we DIDN'T have all that data now.

You know, you were berating me a single post ago for saying precisely this.

I can claim it because it's so politicized. I can claim it precisely because I have children (one of which is at high school level) and so I know what they're being taught. I can claim it because I've seen their homework and I've seen their tests. I can claim it because whatever the textbook says about the scientific method, I've seen examples when it's blatantly disregarded. (Like our favorite example above.) I even remember when *I* was in Catholic School and they taught us Evolution and it was presented as locked-in fact. I can claim it because I've looked at their books.

How many kids do you have in school?

None. I have something better. I have personally been in school and I know what I have been taught.

There cannot be a debate between Evolution and creationism because they belong in different realms.


Precisely! You either have to look at evolutionary theory on theological terms or a religious idea on scientific terms and neither makes sense. It's like setting up a game between a baseball team and a football team. What game do you play?

That's the point I'm trying to make here. Let me parse it out:

If Creationist engages in debate against Evolutionist, limiting the discussion to science ONLY, what I've seen happen too often (and you've probably seen it too) is they make some really good point and the Evolutsionist side resorts to deriding the Creatinist's religion, even if, up to that point, it wasn't part of the discussion.

I have never seen a Creationist keep to science. That's the problem, really.

Precisely! You either have to look at evolutionary theory on theological terms or a religious idea on scientific terms and neither makes sense. It's like setting up a game between a baseball team and a football team. What game do you play?

Kickball?