Evolution discussion from Time magazine

[Siggie]

Stop the insults and actualy debate each other. Otherwise stop posting or some bans will be in order. Keep the pictures to a minimum too. Let's not prevent the low-speed users from being able to read any threads.


There is no dispute about evolution in the scientific community.

I think a large part of the problem is that people don't realize what the "theory" means in the scientific community. When fasifiable hypotheses have been repeatedly tested and found to hold true, it is called a "law". A collection of interrelated laws and events is termed a "theory."

I think the following explains this well...

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

I thought this was rather interesting...

Only myopic fools assume disagreement with evolution, which is a theory, can come from only organized religious background. Evolution is no more and no less a leap of faith as is the belief in God or creation, as man's knowledge is finite, and only morons with arrogance to the nth degree believe that they and they alone have solved the riddle of ages, and that they alone possess the truth. Such people usually try to make themselves feel better or superior by trying to make themselves believe they have found answers, which usually stems from a need to feel secure in an insecure and unsolved world, all the while accusing the other side who believes in creation (or not), that somehow they are insecure or that they are trying to create answers where there were none. When you realize this you will see that evolutionists and creationists have more in common than you expected.

Here you are relying on the lay definition of theory to make it sound like it's just a hypothesis, conjecture, or guess...
So, Wino tries to explain we're talking about two different definitions of theory...

In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it.

He just showed you that "theory" doesn't mean the same thing in the scientific context and you totally ignore and and continue to call it conjecture.

No matter how many times the evolutionists try to get around the corner of somehow trying to pass off a "theory" as some sort of undeniable law, the fact is, it is still conjecture, otherwise it would be a scientific law. Get over yourselves folks. You can copy and paste a thousand words of justifications of why evolutionists deserve a break in the definition, the facts don't change.

Scientists did not just make up this different definition to cover up some sort of uncertainty. The terms have meant what they do for a looong time. Scientific laws make up a theory. So, your facts are wrong.

[Anonymouse]

Stop the insults and actualy debate each other. Otherwise stop posting or some bans will be in order. Keep the pictures to a minimum too. Let's not prevent the low-speed users from being able to read any threads.

There is no dispute about evolution in the scientific community.

I think a large part of the problem is that people don't realize what the "theory" means in the scientific community. When fasifiable hypotheses have been repeatedly tested and found to hold true, it is called a "law". A collection of interrelated laws and events is termed a "theory."

I think the following explains this well...

I thought this was rather interesting...

Here you are relying on the lay definition of theory to make it sound like it's just a hypothesis, conjecture, or guess...
So, Wino tries to explain we're talking about two different definitions of theory...

He just showed you that "theory" doesn't mean the same thing in the scientific context and you totally ignore and and continue to call it conjecture.

Scientists did not just make up this different definition to cover up some sort of uncertainty. The terms have meant what they do for a looong time. Scientific laws make up a theory. So, your facts are wrong.

I already understand how in the "scientific community" a "theory" isn't just a "theory". Believe you me, we have been through this before on these here boards where I've questioned evolution as being a theory, yet winoman or some other will post how a theory isn't just a theory. In essence, when I say theory, it is a belief system. Is there something that we "lesser" people missed that evolutionists, the "scientific" community, didn't miss? Did they somehow stumble on the truth that has plagued mankind for ages? Are they somehow beyond humanity in terms of the knowledge they have discovered for certain, or in terms of the arrogance and hyperbole of claiming to know everything?

The problem with that is, a "theory" wasn't redefined until the scientific community decided it should be for the purposes of evolutionary theory, because then, they can pass off this as somehow more "credible" since it's not your average "theory". It's a "special" theory. That way, when those Bible-thumping believers pointed out how evolution is simply a theory, lo and behold, it's not a theory as you traditionally know it. It's special.

My point still stands and is valid. Evolution is a belief system. Nothing about it is observable, or reproducible, nor can it be falsified. Creation is a belief system. Any claim or ideology about the origins of life is anything but knowledge, so evolutionists can stop pretending that somehow their belief system is "fact" and "undeniable". They even go so far as to assign value to beliefs, as winoman did, since he thinks to believe in evolution is better than believing in creation. If neither can provide factual, undeniable truth, then who cares what one believes? You will notice that I am not so much for the creationism's blind faith attitude, but more toward this idea that evolution is anything but faith and somehow they are better than the creationists. The creationists may be Bible-thumping blind faith creationists, but the evolutionists are certainly more self-absorbed in their self-styled importance of somehow being beyond everyone else.

Furthermore, if you maintain evolution is "observable" and as evidence you tout microevolutionary changes, i.e. within species variation, then you still have nothing. That is precisely what you and winoman, and every other scientist is relying on, to establish the claim that it is "observable".

Until this day, no human ever observed the origin of life, nor for that matter the origin of the first single celled organism, or the progression from that to a more complex one. How hard is it to understand that these are all guesses? These are all postulated after the fact. They are not tested, nor have they been observed.

That some changes have occured within a species, within bacteria, within moths or fruitlies, is somehow interpreted to mean that these grand all-encompassing changes occured in the past and not just on small scales but on large and grand scales. That is what is lacking evidence, and which by the fact itself makes it a belief system. Now, you can either sit here and tell me how I have the definition of "theory" wrong, or you can tell me, how scientists supposedly know, with certainty, that all those things that have been alleged to occur in the past, have occured. If that cannot be verified, then you have no case. Remember, I am only going about by what the scientific method depends on. Are evolutionists beyond the scientific method?

Citing fossil evidence doesn't prove anything, for fossils do not exist in the past, but only in the present. It is modern scientists, with the cloak of "scientific aura" that go about trying to create an interpretation of how this or that evolution occured in the past. There is no way to have observed any of those changes, nor any way to reproduce them. Thus, if you are a member of the scientific establishment, or for that matter a hardcore evolutionist, you are left with two choices: one, you can either verify the bold claims that have been stated by evolutionists, by reproducing the evidence and showing how those alleged changes that have been said to have occured, or two, you can play with semantics and the elasticity of language.

[Siggie]

Anon... all of that is evidence and it is peer reviewed. To say that evolution and creationism or intelligent design are the same is absurd.
You've already decided what you are going to believe and everything else is colored by that. THAT is not scientific.
You have not yet explained how Evolutionary theory is not falsifiable. If archeologists dug up something inconsistent with the theory, it would challenge the theory and none of those scientists would deny that. They are after truth, not any one particular truth. They aren't sure how life started, that's not evolution seeks to explain. So, no one's telling you not to believe that universe and Earth were created by a god.
All you're saying is that's not evidence, neither is that, that's not fact, etc. You haven't supported anything you said.
Apparently "they" do know something you don't. They know how to think critically and logically. I recommend a course in research design or methods. That might clarify things for you. Things don't need to occur in the present. The hypotheses is made before data is collected and all of that evidence you don't believe was collected AFTER that and it just all happened to be explained by the theory?

[winoman]

Siggie I think we have all the evidence we need right here - some are just not capable of the type of reasoning that it takes to understand science and what is meant by scientific knowledge, inquiry and discovery (and that no - not all the things [processes] we know/understand to be true are things that we must directly observe - we can infer such things from a body of [observed] evidence [such as fossile record, various expirements and observations of creatures and their habitats and speciazation, DNA evidence etc] that behaves in a consistent and predictable manner - etc - to think that we could only know what can be directly observed is shortchanging our process of reasoning and deduction - making us perhaps no better then the lesser evolved creatures who are unable to know/think beyond the present...) - they seemingly require many more milenia of evolution in order to free themselves from their superstision based world view - in the meantime we wish them luck finding their way out of the maze.

[Anonymouse]

Anon... all of that is evidence and it is peer reviewed. To say that evolution and creationism or intelligent design are the same is absurd.
You've already decided what you are going to believe and everything else is colored by that. THAT is not scientific.
You have not yet explained how Evolutionary theory is not falsifiable. If archeologists dug up something inconsistent with the theory, it would challenge the theory and none of those scientists would deny that. They are after truth, not any one particular truth. They aren't sure how life started, that's not evolution seeks to explain. So, no one's telling you not to believe that universe and Earth were created by a god.
All you're saying is that's not evidence, neither is that, that's not fact, etc. You have supported anything you said.
Apparently "they" do know something you don't. They know how to think critically and logically.

To live in denial is absurd. I understand uncomfortable viewpoints are not the best thing to succumb ourselves to, but if you really want to think logically and critically as you say, you should consider that.

So by claiming indirectly that I do not think logically or critically and your use of the fallacy demonstrates that you did neither. By appealing to the fallacy of belief, which means that because some people believe in this certain thing, and it is all peer reviewed, therefore, it must be true, is itself the absence of logic and criticism. So based on that fallacious logic, evolution must be true because the scientific community agrees with it, and it is peer reviewed.

Do you understand how the redefinition of words and the elasticity of language go on to prevent the theory from being falsified? Since "evolution" can mean anything, from micro evolution, to macro evolution, anything and everything are technically evolution. So then, there is nothing that cannot in effect be outside of evolution. It is this idea that you, scientists, winoman all believe and use. Recasting the theory as fact serves no other purpose other than to protect it from falsification.

The only evidence that is "observable" that you all point to it, is within species variation. You call that "evolution". Those of us who are critical of the said theory, acknowledge that there are within species variation. However, we go on to question it further. No one disputes whether microevolution occurs. The dispute arises in whether it tells us anything important about the process of creating birds, insects, animals, humans, trees in the first place. So since anything and everything are technically "evolution" because of the elasticity of language, it cannot be falsified.

No theory on origins can be devoid of philosophical and religious implications. Thus, evolution is a belief system. I'm sure you know who Karl Popper is. He established the necessity for empirical falsifiability as the criterion for distinguishing science from pseudoscience. Are evolutionists somehow beyond Karl Popper to have stumbled on a scientific theory that cannot be falsified? Karl Popper stated:

"Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any possible observation. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training."

I rest my case.

[Siggie]

source of quote?

[Anonymouse]

L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 369.

[TomServo]

Anonymouse, you get a for citing in MLA format!

[Siggie]

1967? Are you serious? Scientific methods were very different then. They didn't even start using random assignment until the 60s.

[loseyourname]

L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 369.

Given that the quote was from Popper, and Popper is not one of the authors of this article, this article is not the source of the quote. At least, not unless an interview of Popper conducted by these men somehow made it into Nature.

Anyway, it's interesting how you call Siggie on what you see as a fallacious appeal to authority, and then pull out a quote from Popper as support for your own case.