Level of Proof for Evolution
- Thread starter BenTheMan
- Start date
Are you still a student seeing things through the prism of what you are learning. What you fail to understand that there is a place for using words which have been carefully defined, and one for everyday usuage.
I bet if you go to the butcher you do not ask for a piece of steak by supplying all the biological data. In fact, I can imagine a Monty -Python sketch in which someone goes to the butcher and quotes at length from a book. The butcher replies, " so you want a piece of steak mate ? Python character " well, if you wish to put it like that, yes."
Cheer up, it may never happen.We've all been there.
i can feel a misunderstanding coming up here : theories do never upgrade to facts because they're inherently different things - the implied gradation from guess to hypothesis to theory to fact does not exist
as you said, observations are the coinage of science which most closely approaches what in the vernacular is known as fact
theories, again as in the wikipedia description, are attempts to explain groups of observations and which usually lead to predictions which may throw light on other observations
a theory becomes stronger once it has withstood repeated attempts to refute it and when it is found to have enlarged explanatory power by explaining something that was originally not covered by the theory
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Unfortunately scientists themselves don't adhere to that rule. If you Google "scientific truth" you'll be dismayed by the volume of papers, articles, course notes, etc., by otherwise respectable scientists. I found an entire university course on scientific truth that didn't even mention a controversy over the terminology.
To be fair, as I've noted before, science is laboring under the handicap of inadequate vocabulary. We don't have the all the terms we need to explain science to laymen.
I guess there is one category of true scientific fact: When there is only one instance of the object or condition being studied. Once people had sailed all around the world, we can say that it is a scientific truth--or fact--that this one planet is round.
You never know. Never say never
No John,
you have confused the two different meanings of the word "theory" :
1. theory = speculation
2. theory = explanation
The Theory of Evolution means the explanation for how evolution works.
It does NOT mean speculation about IF evolution is true.
This mis-understanding is extremely common, and causes untold confusion.
Iasion
the following site is worth perusing to clear up some of the murky semantics
CHARIZAARRRD!!!
Registered Member
I actually do have a problem with the an implication of the theory of evolution by natural selection, from a scientific perspective, in that it seems to imply some innate direction/tendency with the selection process, which is surely dependant on the very specific (both time and space dependant) complexities of one's environmental bubble, and is thus highly random......
We can not in the same breath hold the vast array of exogenous variables we know as nature to do our selective biddings AND suggest that there is some kind of concious decision to promote the best genes (or can we?), surely no such concious decision exists, and as with the dynamically changing environment no attribute can be described as more advantageous than another in a general sense, and thus the only way for species to evolve is to be exposed to conditions that over time in which it is consistently advantageous to have gene characteristics
I'm seeking further understanding, and perhaps my interpretation of the theory of evolution is misguided (perhaps in applying an abstract idea - that best genes are promoted - and a condition that infers it - the natural environment culling off the less well adapted (even this is generalising however, because experiences are unique).
Evolution is yet another scientific thinking breakthrough that has overturned mystery stones left long unexplained by man, except by more supernatural or frivolous ideas..... or should i say creations
.. much like the crying of the gods that was onced believe to explain rainfall.....
what evidence is there as justification for creationism btw? except criticisms of why other factors could not explain life.... there are bibles and holyscripts yes, but these MAY just be glorified story books.. is there any empirical evidence?? (empirical meaning within the last 2 millenia please )
We can not in the same breath hold the vast array of exogenous variables we know as nature to do our selective biddings AND suggest that there is some kind of concious decision to promote the best genes (or can we?), surely no such concious decision exists, and as with the dynamically changing environment no attribute can be described as more advantageous than another in a general sense, and thus the only way for species to evolve is to be exposed to conditions that over time in which it is consistently advantageous to have gene characteristics
I'm seeking further understanding, and perhaps my interpretation of the theory of evolution is misguided (perhaps in applying an abstract idea - that best genes are promoted - and a condition that infers it - the natural environment culling off the less well adapted (even this is generalising however, because experiences are unique).
Evolution is yet another scientific thinking breakthrough that has overturned mystery stones left long unexplained by man, except by more supernatural or frivolous ideas..... or should i say creations
.. much like the crying of the gods that was onced believe to explain rainfall.....what evidence is there as justification for creationism btw? except criticisms of why other factors could not explain life.... there are bibles and holyscripts yes, but these MAY just be glorified story books.. is there any empirical evidence?? (empirical meaning within the last 2 millenia please
)CHARIZAARRRD!!!
Registered Member
more ramblings
... though it is not the idea of creationism that i object, as i am not so blindly ignorant to dismiss other peoples ideas based on what i have been told
It may be that science and religion are united on some level given enough comprehension of the world around us.. what one sees as an energy the other sees as holy force.. what is the difference really?.. it is the personification of this existent life form and the religious driven wars, rules and power struggles with which i am not comfortable, so I apologise for perhaps seeming to attack the idea in my last post, i was merely seeking to ask, as has been expected to such great detail of the evolutionist theory, what evidence there is to support the idea. The amazing level of intricacy and micro level symmetry present within our universe is not such a bad argument in itself, given that a slight adjustment of conditions would leave us being a lifeless planet, but i would argue is not necessarily pertaining to the idea of a more powerful being meticulously planning everything.. i guess what im getting at is that neither side will ever be satisfied with the others justifications.. ever.. and this could be a loonngggggg thread
... though it is not the idea of creationism that i object, as i am not so blindly ignorant to dismiss other peoples ideas based on what i have been told
It may be that science and religion are united on some level given enough comprehension of the world around us.. what one sees as an energy the other sees as holy force.. what is the difference really?.. it is the personification of this existent life form and the religious driven wars, rules and power struggles with which i am not comfortable, so I apologise for perhaps seeming to attack the idea in my last post, i was merely seeking to ask, as has been expected to such great detail of the evolutionist theory, what evidence there is to support the idea. The amazing level of intricacy and micro level symmetry present within our universe is not such a bad argument in itself, given that a slight adjustment of conditions would leave us being a lifeless planet, but i would argue is not necessarily pertaining to the idea of a more powerful being meticulously planning everything.. i guess what im getting at is that neither side will ever be satisfied with the others justifications.. ever.. and this could be a loonngggggg thread
No but we have organisms that are intermediates - dinokaryotes.
Opinion is somewhat divided on whether the arrangement of the nucleus and nucleic proteins are evidence of a primitive intermediate between ekaryotes and prokaryotes, or whether this is evidence of an advanced intermediate between eukaryotes and a next stage of cellular/nuclear arrangement.
I'm in the camp that views them as advanced eukaryotes - either way they are still intermediates
There is no conscious decision. Evolution is a statistical statement. Organisms that have beneficial mutations will tend to survive more often. Further, male organisms which are more fit to survive will also be stronger when it comes time to compete for mates. This means that the more fit organisms reproduce more often. And this is (as far as I see it) what evolution IS.
This is a popular argument among people who have trouble rejecting one or the other
Dinosaurs -> Birds?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
If I see a large truck hurtling down a hill with a white faced driver at the wheel. Then later observe the truck's wreckage scattered on the ground and an ambulance attending the injured driver, it is reasonable to believe even though I have not observed it, that there has been a crash.
This fixation on seeing things is just a nonsense.
Maybe, but something as simplistic as a single celled life, that by all experiments have never wittnessed evolved, seems conspicuous.
Better said yet, is that a single celled life is not prone in the long run to do such a thing, for logic would suggest it should happen frequently, because the chances of having only one single-celled life do such a thing, is evidently small, if not vanishing.
Not so hard to believe, since we have observed genetic mistakes being again, genetically superimposed into siblings. But a single celled life seems to find it harder to genetically modify.
I also know, that we have experiemented on creating life from a goo of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and carbon, by sending strong electrical impulses into its structure, and each experiment has prooved fruitless. What does this say about the theory of evolution?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It only has to happen once.. and it did.