|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 07/17/2007 : 21:40:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
It seems as if any thoughts that are in disagreement are dispelled as trolling. |
Since you know that is not the case - because you have admitted that people here are "reasonably civil and do put thought behind your beliefs" - I can only assume that you wrote that sentence in order to provoke me, personally. So be it, it was your free choice. Official Warning
Jerome, this is your second warning for trolling. |
| Look back to my very first OP, you will plainly see this in action. |
I'm talking about your behaviour now.| I have been insulted and attacked on a consistent basis with little complaint. |
It's a bit late to play the victim after you said people here are "reasonably civil."| If thought is not your game; so be it. |
Another obvious provocation, since I tried to remind you, specifically, that there are ways to create thought-provoking discussions without being a complete jerk about it, as you are being now. That's the third time I've said it about you in particular. Will it sink in? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 00:29:27 [Permalink]
|
Ricky said:
Thanks.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 00:33:44 [Permalink]
|
Ricky said:
Seriously, what is the point of just saying that? Why go through the effort to even make the post?
|
Sure, I could have laid out some examples that show the fact of evolution, like chomosome 2 or endogenous retroviruses, but Meg didn't appear interested.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Meglamaniac21
New Member
2 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 05:24:41 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, again for interupting, but I wanted to thank Dave W. for the info. The only thing I'm confused about now is, the part of the easy definition for us not-so-smart people that said a theory must be falsifiable. Doesn't that mean that you can never prove for sure that the Theory of Evolution is the answer?
I realize that it must be annoying answering the questions of confused people and I read this from the begining. You guys must get tired of it. Sorry again. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 06:03:29 [Permalink]
|
No its nice to see someone ask who actually wants the answer and not just an arguement.
Falsifiablity refers to the position that if new VALID data is found which contradicts the current concept of evolution that data must be included in any new evolutionary arguements even if it destroys long held beliefs.
Where as 'God did it' can not be falsified as any valid data can be dismissed as Gods will or whatever. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 07:23:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Meglamaniac21
Sorry, again for interupting, but I wanted to thank Dave W. for the info. The only thing I'm confused about now is, the part of the easy definition for us not-so-smart people that said a theory must be falsifiable. Doesn't that mean that you can never prove for sure that the Theory of Evolution is the answer? |
Absolutely correct. The methods employed by science can never give us "the answer" for anything. Science gets us as close as humanly possible to the Truth-with-a-capital-T, but because it uses generalizations (inferences) to create laws and theories, there is always a non-zero chance that new evidence will come along and show us exceptions to what we thought were hard rules.
Einstein's General Relativity, for example: we know that it produces unworkable math if you attempt to use it to describe the inside of a black hole. But it works everywhere else quite nicely. Eventually, General Relativity will be supplanted by a theory which works both outside and inside black holes. Just like Relativity itself supplanted Newton's laws, which give very wrong answers at high speeds (although at normal Earth-bound speeds they work just fine down to many decimal places - a stock car going 200 MPH will be a few quadrillionths of a pound heavier than one at rest, which isn't taken into account in F=ma, but is in the noise when calculating fuel consumption - and so they're still taught in high school).| I realize that it must be annoying answering the questions of confused people and I read this from the begining. You guys must get tired of it. Sorry again. |
I'd be more than happy to discuss this stuff all day, every day, just so long as it's not with someone who's being deliberately obtuse and annoying. You're not. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 08:07:32 [Permalink]
|
To ad my two bits on what BigPapaSmurf and Dave said.
It may be important to note that a theory in science is not the same as the way the word theory is used commonly, which can be better described as a hypothesis. A theory holds a very lofty position in science. All parts of the theory must be able to withstand tests that provide the same result. It must have a predictive quality. For example, looking at the fossil record we can predict that no mammal is likely to be found in the Cambrian era.
For a hypothesis to become a theory the hypothesis must withstand a grueling process verification even by, or maybe especially by scientists who have had initial doubts about the hypothesis. And when all of that is done, the theory still remains subject to being falsified by the introduction of new evidence that either contradicts it or ads to what is currently known about the theory. All theories are held more or less tentatively which is exactly how science does not become dogmatic.
Since we have observed evolution happen, that part is not really in question. The theory is the explanation for how it happens. And in that area, the research continues and is sometimes contentious. But these arguments about the mechanisms of evolution do not negate the overwhelming consensus in biology that, like gravity, evolution happens.
Rather than thinking about science in terms of “proving for sure” it is probably better to think of it in terms of having a very high level of confidence that the explanation more then adequately describes the observation. Proof is for math or very narrow particulars of science that can be described absolutely by using mathematical equations.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 08:17:39 [Permalink]
|
Absolute proof is possibly only in formal logics, of which mathematics is one.
But even then, just because we can say that F=Gm1m2/d2 doesn't mean that the law of gravity is proven. In such cases, the math is just used as a precise descriptor of observations. And as our ability to measure increases with our technology, we can modify the constant, G, so that the equation results in an F with better and better accuracy. The phenomenon that the equation describes isn't itself a part of a formal logic, not derived from a formal logic's premises, and so using a mathematical statement to describe it doesn't mean it can be, or has been proven. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/18/2007 : 08:24:20 [Permalink]
|
In short, "proof" is only important in mathematices and whiskey.
Welcome to SFN, Meglamaniac21! Looking forward to your further input.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 08:32:38 [Permalink]
|
A good reference:
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.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
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 an entire group of related phenomena.
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, 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.
A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. (emphasis mine) |
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/18/2007 08:33:16 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 08:44:31 [Permalink]
|
| And from a surprising source (Fox News), a good story on how, even though proof isn't possible, scientists know what's correct and what isn't (though focused on global climate change, not evolution). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 13:17:37 [Permalink]
|
Meg said:
| Sorry, again for interupting, but I wanted to thank Dave W. for the info. The only thing I'm confused about now is, the part of the easy definition for us not-so-smart people that said a theory must be falsifiable. Doesn't that mean that you can never prove for sure that the Theory of Evolution is the answer? |
Ok, my apologies for being short with you right off the bat. Maybe you are interested, and if that is the case, please feel free to ask any question.
In science there are no absolutes. For example, if you gave the exact same object to 20 different people, and asked them to weigh that object on a very precise scale, you'd get 20 different measurements back. If those measurments were, for example, between 1.000011g and 1.000033g, would you feel comfortable in saying that the object weighed 1g? Or would you insist that the object is not, for a fact, 1g in weight? It is beyond human capability to determine the exact weight of any object, so does that mean we should act as if weight is an unproven hypothesis?
The same is true for any observation we make about the world around us.
Back to evolution:
The fusion event in human chromosome 2 is powerful evidence for common descent, which is a prediction of the theory of evolution.
Endogenous retroviral insertions are probably the single most compelling bit of evidence for common descent.
And here at TO (talk origins) there are many more examples of evidence that show the fact of evolution.
Evolution is an observable fact. Just like the fact that the sky is blue and the earth orbits the sun and the fact that gravity is responsible for how much you weigh.
We don't have a precise description of every mechanism involved in evolution (life is complex, if you hadn't noticed), but that doesn't in any way make evolution a non-fact.
Evolution is a more well evidenced fact than is gravity. For all our measurements of gravity, no one has ever been able to discover exactly what causes it aside from it being an attribute of matter. Is it a wave, a particle, a field... we don't know. Yet no one has any problem saying that "gravity exists" is a fact.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 13:20:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
| Doesn't that mean that you can never prove for sure that the Theory of Evolution is the answer? |
Yes, but in the same sense that we can not be sure gravity won't reverse itself tomorrow and become a repulsion force rather than an attractive one.
|
Right. As the source I quoted said, the standard for proof is "reasonable doubt." Nothing can ever assuage unreasonable doubt.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Evolution caught in the act!
