Just shake it off and continue to plod along here , your skin becomes slightly thicker and you might grow some hairs on your moles along the way. No need to go run off.
If I'm the "resident nutcase", then there's no point in my answering any further arguments, or even remaining on this forum. I think that it would be best if I just left, and left everyone else to discuss other, more relevant topics. My leaving would improve this forum.
I'm sorry for running this thread into the ground.
Could my account be deleted?
It's OK mate, it's just a joke. There never seems to be a totally "straight" discussion on here, there're always jokes and good natured ribbing added into the mix (one of the reasons why this is my favourite forum).
I know I bang on about this, but if you say "just a theory", you are mistaken on the nature of what scientific theory actually is. When something is a scientific theory, it's usually rather strong.
A scientific theory is not a guess or a hunch (which is the colloquial meaning of theory). Try telling the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that relativity theory is "just a theory". Electricity is a theory, but turn on the lightswitch and the light comes on.
Theories make predictions, around which we can make observations and design experiments to try and falsify these predictions. The job of a scientist is not to blindly believe theory, but to always try to poke holes in theories. We are pretty damned certain that Einstein's right, yet we still try and falsify his theories. The same goes for evolution: scientists work hard to try and probe, push, and falsify it because that's a huge part of what science is about: not just taking as read that what is said is true.
No real scientist talks about "scientific fact" (except colloquially). Scientific fact does not exist. There is no such thing. Theory is the highest order you get.
If you want to talk about "just an X", well, "just a hypothesis" and "just a conjecture" is acceptable. But evolution is not hypothesis or conjecture, it's theory, which marks it out as something infinitely stronger than a 'guess' or 'hunch'.
This incidentally is what marks out theory from faith. Things you take on faith you just believe, and, well, take on faith. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are always being pushed, probed, and scientists are always trying to break them. No scientist working in the field of evolution simply believes the theory like you might hold a faith; they are constantly trying to find flaws in the theory.
Unfortunately, people who have faith often believe that scientists believe theories in the same way they have their faith - this fundamental misunderstanding of what scientists do unfortunately results in some very wrong conclusions on what theory is.
I know I bang on about this, but if you say "just a theory", you are mistaken on the nature of what scientific theory actually is. When something is a scientific theory, it's usually rather strong.
A scientific theory is not a guess or a hunch (which is the colloquial meaning of theory). Try telling the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that relativity theory is "just a theory". Electricity is a theory, but turn on the lightswitch and the light comes on.
Theories make predictions, around which we can make observations and design experiments to try and falsify these predictions. The job of a scientist is not to blindly believe theory, but to always try to poke holes in theories. We are pretty damned certain that Einstein's right, yet we still try and falsify his theories. The same goes for evolution: scientists work hard to try and probe, push, and falsify it because that's a huge part of what science is about: not just taking as read that what is said is true.
No real scientist talks about "scientific fact" (except colloquially). Scientific fact does not exist. There is no such thing. Theory is the highest order you get.
If you want to talk about "just an X", well, "just a hypothesis" and "just a conjecture" is acceptable. But evolution is not hypothesis or conjecture, it's theory, which marks it out as something infinitely stronger than a 'guess' or 'hunch'.
This incidentally is what marks out theory from faith. Things you take on faith you just believe, and, well, take on faith. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are always being pushed, probed, and scientists are always trying to break them. No scientist working in the field of evolution simply believes the theory like you might hold a faith; they are constantly trying to find flaws in the theory.
Unfortunately, people who have faith often believe that scientists believe theories in the same way they have their faith - this fundamental misunderstanding of what scientists do unfortunately results in some very wrong conclusions on what theory is.
There is a difference between "theory" and "scientific theory"
You describe scientific theory and there is nothing wrong with that.
"Theory" on its own can take on many connotations and different meanings to whomever is (ab)using it or even to the person who hears it.
I guess we could call it the "colloquial meaning of theory" as you so aptly put it but then again does it not cease to be colloquial as soon as it becomes an integrated part of a dictionary? ;-)
There is a difference between "theory" and "scientific theory"
You describe scientific theory and there is nothing wrong with that.
I think you miss the entire context; egwf described evolution as "only a theory", and when someone says "only a theory" from context, it's obvious they are using the word theory in the non-scientific sense. It was that I was pointing out is not correct - if you describe scientific theory as "only a theory", you've misunderstood the meaning of the word theory as it relates to science. And that is what I was correcting.
I was also hoping to shed some light to the religious why theory is different to faith, since the faithful seem to always confuse scientific theory with faith, when the two couldn't be further apart.
Incidentally, something being colloquial doesn't necessarily mean it's not in the dictionary. The OED very carefully documents the colloquial, after all, it's part of the language.
I think you miss the entire context; egwf described evolution as "only a theory", and when someone says "only a theory" from context, it's obvious they are using the word theory in the non-scientific sense. It was that I was pointing out is not correct - if you describe scientific theory as "only a theory", you've misunderstood the meaning of the word theory as it relates to science. And that is what I was correcting.
I was also hoping to shed some light to the religious why theory is different to faith, since the faithful seem to always confuse scientific theory with faith, when the two couldn't be further apart.
Incidentally, something being colloquial doesn't necessarily mean it's not in the dictionary. The OED very carefully documents the colloquial, after all, it's part of the language.
Sorry, yes I guess I missed the context because I couldn't find where ewgf had said that.
Aside from that, we could technically say that evolution is "just a theory" because it's not been proven conclusively yet. There's plenty of evidence but no knife sticking out from the chest, so to speak, we only have the murder victim but no completely tangible proof of death, whether it be by a knife or the common cold(in which case we can no longer call it murder).
Evolution, as a theory, works wonderfully well on paper but will not become fact until it's been completely proven, preferably step-by-step.
The beautiful thing about that is that we will continue to seek proof and evidence and perhaps one day we will have all the different evidence in front of us. Right now I am of the opinion that evolution is "just a theory" but I do not dismiss it at all, I just need all the "inbetween" proofs and there will never be a conclusion reached unless we get the different missing links, at least when it comes to Homo Sapiens and whoever came before that git.
Evolution, as a theory, works wonderfully well on paper but will not become fact until it's been completely proven, preferably step-by-step.
You cannot prove a scientific theory is true. You can only prove that it is false.
A theory is considered valid as long as it explains all observable facts, and is capable of predicting new ones.
The theory of Evolution has not so far been disproven.
Creationism and ID are not valid scientific theories. If they ever were presented as valid scientific theories, they would be (legitimately) shot down in seconds.
If ID and Creationism were even remotely valid, then the supporters wouldn't waste time attacking Evolution. Their "theory" would stand up in its own right. The fact that they do attack Evolution shows what a bunch of hogwash they are spewing (and know it).
I know I bang on about this, but if you say "just a theory", you are mistaken on the nature of what scientific theory actually is. When something is a scientific theory, it's usually rather strong.
No, you're right. A theory to most people is just a working idea to account for a situation or a series of facts, whereas a "scientific" theory, such as the theory of gravity or of relativity, is a cohesive series of rules devised and checked as closely as possible and found to agree from the observed results, at least within acceptable limits. These theories are (ideally) tested as precisely as possible, and by (again, ideally) disinterested observers who desire only to aseertain whether or not the theory in question can be used to predict the outcome of the experiments, and are tested again and again and are updated whenever new data is possible and has been absorbed into the current state of the theory.
What I want to know about evolution, though, is why did some single cell organisms evolve into multi-cellular species who possessed movement, instincts, and even in some cases intelligence, but other single cell organisms regressed and became Commodore users? That was some faulty DNA there....
You cannot prove a scientific theory is true. You can only prove that it is false.
A theory is considered valid as long as it explains all observable facts, and is capable of predicting new ones.
The theory of Evolution has not so far been disproven.
Creationism and ID are not valid scientific theories. If they ever were presented as valid scientific theories, they would be (legitimately) shot down in seconds.
If ID and Creationism were even remotely valid, then the supporters wouldn't waste time attacking Evolution. Their "theory" would stand up in its own right. The fact that they do attack Evolution shows what a bunch of hogwash they are spewing (and know it).
Andrew
Andrew
Agreed but I still feel that it's not "complete" enough, as to my mind, there are just so many missing pieces to prove it one way rather than the other.
Agreed but I still feel that it's not "complete" enough, as to my mind, there are just so many missing pieces to prove it one way rather than the other.
Aside from that, we could technically say that evolution is "just a theory" because it's not been proven conclusively yet.
Aieeee!
Evolution, as a theory, works wonderfully well on paper but will not become fact until it's been completely proven, preferably step-by-step.
AieeeeeeEE!
Nonononononono! Nothing is ever proven conclusively in science.
There is no such thing as "scientific fact".
Even very very well established theories are always being tested, because theories always involve at least some sort of model, and the model may be incomplete. Scientists only talk "colloquially" of fact, but everything in science is up for question.
For example, until Einstein came along, Newton's laws of motion were, at least to the layman, completely proven. But further probing showed that the laws of motion, while not wrong, were incomplete - and hence we got relativity. Now relativity is very well established, but guess what - it's being pushed and probed because it may too turn out to be incomplete.
Nothing in science is proven conclusively. The only conclusive things in science is things getting disproven conclusively. Every scientific theory in the world is subject to continuous testing, prodding, probing, and attempts to show they are wrong. Evolution isn't unusual in that, indeed, evolution is entirely typical as a scientific theory. And the theory of evolution, erm... evolves too as the model is further refined as we find out more, probe the theory and refuse to accept anything as fact. In science you are never, ever done. This is the pivotal distinction between the theory of evolution and religious faith. As a simple summary, religion sees strong unquestioning faith and belief in its tenets as good. Science on the other hand sees strong unquestioning belief in a theory as bad. To a scientist, questioning what's accepted to be true is seen as good, and should be encouraged. To a religious leader, questioning what the religion says to be true is seen as bad, and should be discouraged. This discouragement sometimes involves rivers of blood, or cutting off various appendages belonging to the questioner.
And this, in a nutshell, is why religion will never find the truth; it is supremely arrogant. On the other hand, any good scientist is very happy to accept that science does not answer everything, and is happy to accept that our scientific models are imperfect.
Nonononononono! Nothing is ever proven conclusively in science.
There is no such thing as "scientific fact".
[etc]
I agree with (probably all of) the points you make. I am just a bit of a literalist when it comes to something as very important as the theory of evolution is.
I do not take it as hard of a "truth" as so many others do, and at the same time I do not disregard it, per se.
Mainly the supposed "missing link(s)" of Homo Sapiens.
What is 'supposed' about them? There is the clear similarities between our DNA and that of our nearest relatives the Chimpanzees. There is also a substantial record of hominid fossils/remains that show a progression towards modern Humans.
Here is a timeline of hominids. The page has links to articles on various hominid species. You can see a progression in skull appearance from the earliest hominid to modern day Homo Sapiens. talkorigins has lots of reading on the subject of human evolution. It also debunks supposed problems espoused by creationists. Their summarisation is that there are clear trends from the earliest hominids to modern day humans. However, the exact lineage of Homo Sapiens is up for debate.
My opinion is that whilst we don't know everything, their is plenty of evidence to suggest that we are related to other animals, and not separate from them. The striking similarities between our DNA and that of Chimpanzees is very convincing. This article goes into quite some depth regarding primate DNA. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, whereas apes have 24. The theory being that a pair of ape chromosomes fused into a single chromosome. This theory can be tested. The ends of a chromosome (telomeres) are distinctive, as is the centre (centromere). If one of the human chromosomes is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, then that fused chromosome should show evidence of the two ape centromeres, and internal telomeres.
Ape Chromosomes
T
C
T T
C
T
Human Chromosome
T
C
TT
C
T
Lo and behold! That's is exactly what was found. Experiment matching prediction, just what every good theory needs.
My opinion is that whilst we don't know everything, their is plenty of evidence to suggest that we are related to other animals, and not separate from them. The striking similarities between our DNA and that of Chimpanzees is very convincing. This article goes into quite some depth regarding primate DNA. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, whereas apes have 24. The theory being that a pair of ape chromosomes fused into a single chromosome. This theory can be tested. The ends of a chromosome (telomeres) are distinctive, as is the centre (centromere). If one of the human chromosomes is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, then that fused chromosome should show evidence of the two ape centromeres, and internal telomeres.
Ape Chromosomes
T
C
T T
C
T
Human Chromosome
T
C
TT
C
T
Lo and behold! That's is exactly what was found. Experiment matching prediction, just what every good theory needs.
I still need the missing skeletons, thank you very much. That's why I said previously that I am a bit of a literalist. For me it's not enough to have something look good on paper. In this case there should be abundant prove in all the different (superficial) geological layers of the earth. So far we've only discovered a select few different skeletons (depicting a very fragmented lineage) but perhaps with time we will stumble on the other ones that are missing and we will all be happy.
Comments
All four of them.
HAHAHA
that rings a bell
Well, if you guys don't hate me, I guess that I'll stay. Let's forget about this incident. Thanks!
Mel the Bell?
(someone tickled you downstairs, and you went ting-ting-ting-ting?)
It's OK mate, it's just a joke. There never seems to be a totally "straight" discussion on here, there're always jokes and good natured ribbing added into the mix (one of the reasons why this is my favourite forum).
hate you? who are you? :p
whilst I'm at it, who the fuck are President and Pak21, they are always lurking in the chat room.
Good question that, they never seem to say anything either?
I asked him if he was a chatbot, and he said no, which could mean that chatbots now lie, don't know if that is in the Turing Test or not.
Pak21 is Phillip 'Alice' Kendal
: oops : hope i havent outed him now
I know I bang on about this, but if you say "just a theory", you are mistaken on the nature of what scientific theory actually is. When something is a scientific theory, it's usually rather strong.
A scientific theory is not a guess or a hunch (which is the colloquial meaning of theory). Try telling the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that relativity theory is "just a theory". Electricity is a theory, but turn on the lightswitch and the light comes on.
Theories make predictions, around which we can make observations and design experiments to try and falsify these predictions. The job of a scientist is not to blindly believe theory, but to always try to poke holes in theories. We are pretty damned certain that Einstein's right, yet we still try and falsify his theories. The same goes for evolution: scientists work hard to try and probe, push, and falsify it because that's a huge part of what science is about: not just taking as read that what is said is true.
No real scientist talks about "scientific fact" (except colloquially). Scientific fact does not exist. There is no such thing. Theory is the highest order you get.
If you want to talk about "just an X", well, "just a hypothesis" and "just a conjecture" is acceptable. But evolution is not hypothesis or conjecture, it's theory, which marks it out as something infinitely stronger than a 'guess' or 'hunch'.
This incidentally is what marks out theory from faith. Things you take on faith you just believe, and, well, take on faith. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are always being pushed, probed, and scientists are always trying to break them. No scientist working in the field of evolution simply believes the theory like you might hold a faith; they are constantly trying to find flaws in the theory.
Unfortunately, people who have faith often believe that scientists believe theories in the same way they have their faith - this fundamental misunderstanding of what scientists do unfortunately results in some very wrong conclusions on what theory is.
There is a difference between "theory" and "scientific theory"
You describe scientific theory and there is nothing wrong with that.
"Theory" on its own can take on many connotations and different meanings to whomever is (ab)using it or even to the person who hears it.
Take a look here, in particular 4b and 6a & b.
I guess we could call it the "colloquial meaning of theory" as you so aptly put it but then again does it not cease to be colloquial as soon as it becomes an integrated part of a dictionary? ;-)
/D.A. mode
I think you miss the entire context; egwf described evolution as "only a theory", and when someone says "only a theory" from context, it's obvious they are using the word theory in the non-scientific sense. It was that I was pointing out is not correct - if you describe scientific theory as "only a theory", you've misunderstood the meaning of the word theory as it relates to science. And that is what I was correcting.
I was also hoping to shed some light to the religious why theory is different to faith, since the faithful seem to always confuse scientific theory with faith, when the two couldn't be further apart.
Incidentally, something being colloquial doesn't necessarily mean it's not in the dictionary. The OED very carefully documents the colloquial, after all, it's part of the language.
Sorry, yes I guess I missed the context because I couldn't find where ewgf had said that.
Aside from that, we could technically say that evolution is "just a theory" because it's not been proven conclusively yet. There's plenty of evidence but no knife sticking out from the chest, so to speak, we only have the murder victim but no completely tangible proof of death, whether it be by a knife or the common cold(in which case we can no longer call it murder).
Evolution, as a theory, works wonderfully well on paper but will not become fact until it's been completely proven, preferably step-by-step.
The beautiful thing about that is that we will continue to seek proof and evidence and perhaps one day we will have all the different evidence in front of us. Right now I am of the opinion that evolution is "just a theory" but I do not dismiss it at all, I just need all the "inbetween" proofs and there will never be a conclusion reached unless we get the different missing links, at least when it comes to Homo Sapiens and whoever came before that git.
indeed
bunch of cunts, tch
I wish. I haven't had any in a loooong while now.
You cannot prove a scientific theory is true. You can only prove that it is false.
A theory is considered valid as long as it explains all observable facts, and is capable of predicting new ones.
The theory of Evolution has not so far been disproven.
Creationism and ID are not valid scientific theories. If they ever were presented as valid scientific theories, they would be (legitimately) shot down in seconds.
If ID and Creationism were even remotely valid, then the supporters wouldn't waste time attacking Evolution. Their "theory" would stand up in its own right. The fact that they do attack Evolution shows what a bunch of hogwash they are spewing (and know it).
Andrew
No, you're right. A theory to most people is just a working idea to account for a situation or a series of facts, whereas a "scientific" theory, such as the theory of gravity or of relativity, is a cohesive series of rules devised and checked as closely as possible and found to agree from the observed results, at least within acceptable limits. These theories are (ideally) tested as precisely as possible, and by (again, ideally) disinterested observers who desire only to aseertain whether or not the theory in question can be used to predict the outcome of the experiments, and are tested again and again and are updated whenever new data is possible and has been absorbed into the current state of the theory.
What I want to know about evolution, though, is why did some single cell organisms evolve into multi-cellular species who possessed movement, instincts, and even in some cases intelligence, but other single cell organisms regressed and became Commodore users? That was some faulty DNA there....
Agreed but I still feel that it's not "complete" enough, as to my mind, there are just so many missing pieces to prove it one way rather than the other.
What do you think is missing?
Mainly the supposed "missing link(s)" of Homo Sapiens.
Aieeee!
AieeeeeeEE!
Nonononononono! Nothing is ever proven conclusively in science.
There is no such thing as "scientific fact".
Even very very well established theories are always being tested, because theories always involve at least some sort of model, and the model may be incomplete. Scientists only talk "colloquially" of fact, but everything in science is up for question.
For example, until Einstein came along, Newton's laws of motion were, at least to the layman, completely proven. But further probing showed that the laws of motion, while not wrong, were incomplete - and hence we got relativity. Now relativity is very well established, but guess what - it's being pushed and probed because it may too turn out to be incomplete.
Nothing in science is proven conclusively. The only conclusive things in science is things getting disproven conclusively. Every scientific theory in the world is subject to continuous testing, prodding, probing, and attempts to show they are wrong. Evolution isn't unusual in that, indeed, evolution is entirely typical as a scientific theory. And the theory of evolution, erm... evolves too as the model is further refined as we find out more, probe the theory and refuse to accept anything as fact. In science you are never, ever done. This is the pivotal distinction between the theory of evolution and religious faith. As a simple summary, religion sees strong unquestioning faith and belief in its tenets as good. Science on the other hand sees strong unquestioning belief in a theory as bad. To a scientist, questioning what's accepted to be true is seen as good, and should be encouraged. To a religious leader, questioning what the religion says to be true is seen as bad, and should be discouraged. This discouragement sometimes involves rivers of blood, or cutting off various appendages belonging to the questioner.
And this, in a nutshell, is why religion will never find the truth; it is supremely arrogant. On the other hand, any good scientist is very happy to accept that science does not answer everything, and is happy to accept that our scientific models are imperfect.
I agree with (probably all of) the points you make. I am just a bit of a literalist when it comes to something as very important as the theory of evolution is.
I do not take it as hard of a "truth" as so many others do, and at the same time I do not disregard it, per se.
What is 'supposed' about them? There is the clear similarities between our DNA and that of our nearest relatives the Chimpanzees. There is also a substantial record of hominid fossils/remains that show a progression towards modern Humans.
Here is a timeline of hominids. The page has links to articles on various hominid species. You can see a progression in skull appearance from the earliest hominid to modern day Homo Sapiens. talkorigins has lots of reading on the subject of human evolution. It also debunks supposed problems espoused by creationists. Their summarisation is that there are clear trends from the earliest hominids to modern day humans. However, the exact lineage of Homo Sapiens is up for debate.
My opinion is that whilst we don't know everything, their is plenty of evidence to suggest that we are related to other animals, and not separate from them. The striking similarities between our DNA and that of Chimpanzees is very convincing. This article goes into quite some depth regarding primate DNA. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, whereas apes have 24. The theory being that a pair of ape chromosomes fused into a single chromosome. This theory can be tested. The ends of a chromosome (telomeres) are distinctive, as is the centre (centromere). If one of the human chromosomes is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, then that fused chromosome should show evidence of the two ape centromeres, and internal telomeres.
Ape Chromosomes
T
C
T T
C
T
Human Chromosome
T
C
TT
C
T
Lo and behold! That's is exactly what was found. Experiment matching prediction, just what every good theory needs.
Perhaps a bad choice of a word.
Exactly! I need the stinking skeleton(s) in front of me.
I still need the missing skeletons, thank you very much. That's why I said previously that I am a bit of a literalist. For me it's not enough to have something look good on paper. In this case there should be abundant prove in all the different (superficial) geological layers of the earth. So far we've only discovered a select few different skeletons (depicting a very fragmented lineage) but perhaps with time we will stumble on the other ones that are missing and we will all be happy.