Level of Proof for Evolution
- Thread starter BenTheMan
- Start date
It didn't. Why not read up on it a bit and see what you think. There is an awful lot of confusion about evolution, when the whole thing is based on a few simple, elegant ideas.
Believe me when I say Marshall was saying nothing new. The type of argument he is using, the argument from design, was used in Darwin's time.
Intelligent Design is an expression used by Creationists. You will find no such thing mentioned by evolutionists.
It occurs to me that we could start small: what "level of proof" is necessary for people to believe that oak trees grow from acorns ?
We can devide the question into two parts, if people prefer - the "micro" growth, that can be observed in labs and the like, and the "macro" growth, that takes hundreds of years and has never been "observed", in some senses of that word.
We can devide the question into two parts, if people prefer - the "micro" growth, that can be observed in labs and the like, and the "macro" growth, that takes hundreds of years and has never been "observed", in some senses of that word.
Your just limiting the discussion, forget about your us .vs religion fixation. I am really not interested in it and singling out Christianity is ridiculous considering all the Jewish doctors, surgeons and scientists who would not accept evolution as the only answer either.
I didn't single him out. You drew my attntion to him. Had he been a Muslim or a Jew or whatever, do you honestly think I would have responded differently ?
The fact you cannot escape is that virtually all scientists worldwide have no problems with evolutionary theory. If a scientist could find a flaw and support his argument in the customary way, he'd be well on the way to a Nobel prize. Can you imaging a scientist failing to do that . He'd be famous overnight .
I honestly feel you should look into evolutionary theory a bit more and, if you have objections, air them here so we can discuss them
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
We have a sticky for Evolution Denialism, which is generous since it should be in with Religion or Pseudoscience. Why are we allowing this crackpottery to take up more bandwidth than that?
I missed that. It would make sense to go there, if there is anythging useful left to say. My own feeling is that we have come to a standstill.
Have you ever heard of the Tardigrada? It's a bizarre little phylum of creatures that, when their aquatic habitats dry up, package their proteins in carbohydrates, then dessicate to such an extent that all cellular metabolism turns off. They are totally dead. Caused quite a stir when first discovered. The only known living creature to have died and come back was Jesus.
how about Lazarus ?
Uhhh.....
ok, ok. The thread title is 'level of proof for evolution' however evoltion is already proven, it is the details that are in dispute.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=define:evolution&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
:shrug:
Can we at least agree on that?
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=define:evolution&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
:shrug:
Can we at least agree on that?
Why would you say that ?
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
No no no no no. Scientific theories are never proven, only mathematical theories. They're just so well supported, tested and peer-reviewed that their probability of ever being disproved is small enough to work with comfortably. I call these "canonical theories" because they can be safely integrated into the scientific canon, i.e. they are so rarely falsified that the canon does not come tumbling down in chaos. I have not been able to find good scientific terminology for this; you'd almost think scientists don't care about our ability to communicate effectively with laymen.
In legal terminology, they're "true beyond a reasonable doubt." The closest the scientific method comes to addressing this issue is to imply (only imply!) that a challenge to what I am calling a canonical theory automatically qualifies as an "extraordinary claim," and therefore we are under no obligation to treat it with respect until it is accompanied by "extraordinary evidence."We all behave this way intuitively. We rudely dismiss every hypothesis of Evolution Denialism as religion, crackpottery, and the stuff of undergraduate papers from third-rate universities, as soon as we are satisfied that it covers no new ground and therefore does not constitute extraordinary evidence. But it would be nice, not just for the Denialists but for ourselves, if we could do it in a more--um--canonical way, actually citing a principle in the scientific method. Just because we are not obligated to treat such a hypothesis with respect does not mean that we are not permitted to at least explain why.
And in order to do that we need a vocabulary.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Hey I am just applying common sense here.. I haven't gone into the 'eye matter' so I won't be answering your question.
OK, but the "common sense" of calling something that has evolved multiple times, in different taxonomic branches of the animal kingdom, "the eye", has to be given context.
It's like saying "the flagellum", referring to bacteria. Either you don't know there's no such thing, or you're being sloppy, by not contextualising it. I do it too, but it's only OK if you're clear that your talking about a general structure (i.e. all examples). Otherwise it looks like you aren't sure if there is only one kind of "eye", or "flagellum", by not being specific.
Not many people are aware that there is no "eye', there are a lot of parallel evolved examples of the "eye", though.
It's like saying "the flagellum", referring to bacteria. Either you don't know there's no such thing, or you're being sloppy, by not contextualising it. I do it too, but it's only OK if you're clear that your talking about a general structure (i.e. all examples). Otherwise it looks like you aren't sure if there is only one kind of "eye", or "flagellum", by not being specific.
Not many people are aware that there is no "eye', there are a lot of parallel evolved examples of the "eye", though.
Fraggle,
I am not here to argue just present a viewpoint and not to deny what is obvious.
A theory is NOT proven, because when it is it is no longer a theory but rises to the level of fact.
Fact in science:
Further information: scientific method and philosophy of science
Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[19]
Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation, some of which are detailed below. Also, rigorous scientific use of the term "fact" is careful to distinguish: 1) states of affairs in the external world; from 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.[20]
That is from Wikipedia, feel free to dispute it but your not going to change it. You post has such an air of condescension that i have to ask what was your profession?
I am not here to argue just present a viewpoint and not to deny what is obvious.
A theory is NOT proven, because when it is it is no longer a theory but rises to the level of fact.
Fact in science:
Further information: scientific method and philosophy of science
Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[19]
Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation, some of which are detailed below. Also, rigorous scientific use of the term "fact" is careful to distinguish: 1) states of affairs in the external world; from 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.[20]
That is from Wikipedia, feel free to dispute it but your not going to change it. You post has such an air of condescension that i have to ask what was your profession?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No.. i was applying common sense to Q's statement. I just told you what he said, that's all.
Last edited:
Name one.
You are being far too clever. In a forum of this kind where we are talking to people who reject evolution, do you think your form of explanation would be any more convincing?I don't. The detail you are talking about MIGHT be relevant in answering subsequent questions.
Evolutionists talk of "the eye "developing ,in a general sense , and expect to be understood. The do not feel it a requirement to start with the evolutionary advantage of a single light-sensitive cell, talk of genes, gene pools, taxonomy and all the rest.
You know exactly what was meant, as do I. Your suggested approach would simply cause confusion. We have enough of that already.