The Backside of Evolution

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Evolution means development, unfolding, it is a term of observation -
"We watched the play evolve"

It is what the observer thinks is happening.

It is guessing.

Now a theory is also a guess,

so The Theory of Evolution is

The Guess of Guessing.

Guessing is not knowing

and not knowing is ignorance.

So The theory of Evolution is

The Ignoring of Ignorance

A Double Denial

 

[Buddha12]

so The Theory of Evolution is

Evolution has been described as "fact and theory", "fact not theory", "only a theory, not a fact", "multiple theories, not fact", and neither "fact, nor theory". The disagreements among these statements, however, has little bearing on the relative veracity of evolution. Different researchers have different reasons in the nuances of their philosophical outlook that leads to different claims. For example, Fitzhugh (2007) claimed that evolution is neither fact nor theory, because such a statement is too general to carry proper meaning or understanding of the specific things or processes being referenced. "To say ‘evolution is a fact’ is just an inexact reference to what is thought to have existed, which are organisms and the events in which they were involved." In contrast, however, Gould (1981) claimed that Charles Darwin developed a testable theory of mechanism (e.g., natural selection) that caused the manifest fact of evolution to occur. The reason for these different claims in reference to evolution as fact and theory is that Gould (1981) refers to evolution in broader terms, whereas Fitzhugh (2007) emphasizes the importance of constructing theory in the strictest sense for testing explicit hypotheses through specific reference to the facts in need of explanation.

Science cannot achieve absolute "certainty" nor is it a continuous march toward an objective truth as the vernacular meaning of the terms "proof" or "fact" might imply. A proof, fact, theory, hypothesis, and other words of science are hobbled by multiple meanings but are used nonetheless because they invigorate research methods and lead to discovery in all branches of scientific research. The philosophy of scientific inquiry solves problems of novelty as discoveries are made. Scientific knowledge is shared, incorporated, and tested across disciplines. Charles Darwin, for example, not only advanced theory and hypotheses in evolution, but experimented and tested his ideas across disciplines, including and not limited to geology, botany, psychology, and ecology.


http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...5IDgDw&usg=AFQjCNHmqOtnkqZ0h81bOFED4S_VSfr34A

 

[James R]

Evolution means development, unfolding, it is a term of observation -
"We watched the play evolve"

It is what the observer thinks is happening.

It is guessing.

First you say it is a term of observation - what is observed - then you change your mind and say it is what somebody thinks.

So, which is it? Clearly, you're not sure.

Now a theory is also a guess,

Not in science it isn't. A scientific theory is about as far from a guess as you can get.

You're probably confusing the term "theory" with "hypothesis", or even "conjecture".

so The Theory of Evolution is

The Guess of Guessing.

Ba Bowm! Try again. And try not to guess what the theory of evolution is. Why not google it and learn something?

 

[wlminex]

Not unlike the proverbial 'happening' of fecal material . . . . ."evolution . . .(just) . . .happens"!

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Evolution has been described as "fact and theory", "fact not theory", "only a theory, not a fact", "multiple theories, not fact", and neither "fact, nor theory". The disagreements among these statements, however, has little bearing on the relative veracity of evolution. Different researchers have different reasons in the nuances of their philosophical outlook that leads to different claims. For example, Fitzhugh (2007) claimed that evolution is neither fact nor theory, because such a statement is too general to carry proper meaning or understanding of the specific things or processes being referenced. "To say ‘evolution is a fact’ is just an inexact reference to what is thought to have existed, which are organisms and the events in which they were involved." In contrast, however, Gould (1981) claimed that Charles Darwin developed a testable theory of mechanism (e.g., natural selection) that caused the manifest fact of evolution to occur. The reason for these different claims in reference to evolution as fact and theory is that Gould (1981) refers to evolution in broader terms, whereas Fitzhugh (2007) emphasizes the importance of constructing theory in the strictest sense for testing explicit hypotheses through specific reference to the facts in need of explanation.

Science cannot achieve absolute "certainty" nor is it a continuous march toward an objective truth as the vernacular meaning of the terms "proof" or "fact" might imply. A proof, fact, theory, hypothesis, and other words of science are hobbled by multiple meanings but are used nonetheless because they invigorate research methods and lead to discovery in all branches of scientific research. The philosophy of scientific inquiry solves problems of novelty as discoveries are made. Scientific knowledge is shared, incorporated, and tested across disciplines. Charles Darwin, for example, not only advanced theory and hypotheses in evolution, but experimented and tested his ideas across disciplines, including and not limited to geology, botany, psychology, and ecology.


http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...5IDgDw&usg=AFQjCNHmqOtnkqZ0h81bOFED4S_VSfr34A

Well pointed out, what theory is and how an understanding of what science teaches should be taken seriously, but the whole point of my post is to show that the term theory of evolution is too slippery for such assurances, and science is not doing itself a favour by keeping it.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

First you say it is a term of observation - what is observed - then you change your mind and say it is what somebody thinks.

So, which is it? Clearly, you're not sure.

Not in science it isn't. A scientific theory is about as far from a guess as you can get.

You're probably confusing the term "theory" with "hypothesis", or even "conjecture".

Ba Bowm! Try again. And try not to guess what the theory of evolution is. Why not google it and learn something?

Congratulations for actually reading English. You have picked up the ambiguous term "observation" that it defines the rest of the prose in the manner I used it.

We could argue what observation can be trusted etc, which is not the point of this post. It is merely meant to show how imprecise the term theory of evolution is.

How science uses those terms is another thing, but theory on a language level is just a guess.

Maybe if science is so sure of its observations, it should rename the theory of evolution.

The thing is, the term was introduced in a time when the majority did not believe in it, and so it had to be done gingerly with timid terms, and now science is stuck with its dubious beginnings.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Not unlike the proverbial 'happening' of fecal material . . . . ."evolution . . .(just) . . .happens"!

May I add a few more lines?

Denial is dangerous

It can lead to death

As the saying goes "the people perish for the lack of knowledge"

So if the theory of evolution is a double denial

Then it is a deadly education

A cult

 

[Buddha12]

Well pointed out, what theory is and how an understanding of what science teaches should be taken seriously, but the whole point of my post is to show that the term theory of evolution is too slippery for such assurances, and science is not doing itself a favour by keeping it.

But as my post pointed out there's many sides to everything that we study, some things are facts but others only conjecture, we must try to separate them and find the truth by scientific investigation. Science can provide data that must be interpreted by others to determine the validity of statements to assure that we are fact finding not theorizing. Once theory is tested and proven to be factual, like quantum mechanics has demonstrated, we then can place that type of fact into the real world as a truth.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

But as my post pointed out there's many sides to everything that we study, some things are facts but others only conjecture, we must try to separate them and find the truth by scientific investigation. Science can provide data that must be interpreted by others to determine the validity of statements to assure that we are fact finding not theorizing. Once theory is tested and proven to be factual, like quantum mechanics has demonstrated, we then can place that type of fact into the real world as a truth.

I don't doubt the tremendous input the theory has had over the years.

I am somewhat cautious of intellectual codependence though, because the entire world has been wrong before.

At the moment we are seeing a change in the BB theory, it may not be valid in the near future, so how does that make all the believers look in retrospect? And at what point will the human race admit that it is dependent on an outside source of truth, or will it continue searching down one alley, backing up and searching down another dead end?

 

[spidergoat]

It's a fact that the universe expanded rapidly at some point in the past, so a change in the Big Bang Theory makes no one look stupid. What "outside" source of truth are you talking about? Outside of what?

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

It's a fact that the universe expanded rapidly at some point in the past, so a change in the Big Bang Theory makes no one look stupid. What "outside" source of truth are you talking about? Outside of what?

Outside of between our ears. Nature continuously avoids know-alls like the flat earthers and Bbangers. I predict that within two years the BB will be in the wreckers going rusty. The BB has many facts attached to it, but it is just a theory at best.

 

[sideshowbob]

Now a theory is also a guess,

A scientist makes an observation. He guesses at possible explanations. Based on his knowledge, he chooses one of them for further investigation, an educated guess. He develops a hypothesis, which is a testable guess, and he designs experiments to test it. If and when the hypothesis passes the tests, it is combined with other tested hypotheses to become a theory.

Compared to the acual process of science, your trivialization seems pretty ignorant.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Evolution means development, unfolding, it is a term of observation -
"We watched the play evolve"

It is what the observer thinks is happening.

It is guessing.

Now a theory is also a guess,

so The Theory of Evolution is

The Guess of Guessing.

Guessing is not knowing

and not knowing is ignorance.

So The theory of Evolution is

The Ignoring of Ignorance

A Double Denial

That, my dear sir, is the worst prose I have ever had the misfortune to set my eyes on. Not only are, what, 35 words, inadequate to disprove a scientific theory supported by 150 years of observation, your semantic failures merely pave the path for your charming display of ignorance both about the concepts of science in general and biology in particular. I suspect you will have far more meaningful conversations, not to mention make better use of your mental faculties should you for once be willing to do what not creationist has done before - read a proper science textbook.

While my words may come across as harsh, other here have done a fine job of pointing out where you erred thereby leaving me with the choices of either repeting the same thing or to try and put your illogic in its place. I hope this is constructive in its critique of your, um, lets call it a post to be polite.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

A scientist makes an observation. He guesses at possible explanations. Based on his knowledge, he chooses one of them for further investigation, an educated guess. He develops a hypothesis, which is a testable guess, and he designs experiments to test it. If and when the hypothesis passes the tests, it is combined with other tested hypotheses to become a theory.

Compared to the acual process of science, your trivialization seems pretty ignorant.

It is not ignorant of the terms though, even though I do not revere men like Darwin, let alone all those lick up his primitive thoughts.

 

[spidergoat]

Outside of between our ears. Nature continuously avoids know-alls like the flat earthers and Bbangers. I predict that within two years the BB will be in the wreckers going rusty. The BB has many facts attached to it, but it is just a theory at best.

No one is asserting absolute truth. Your argument is just a strawman.

 

[sideshowbob]

It is not ignorant of the terms though, even though I do not revere men like Darwin, let alone all those lick up his primitive thoughts.

On the contrary, your characterization of the Theory of Evolution as a "guess" is thoroughly ignorant of the term. The Theory of Evolution is a well-tested explanation of how evolution works. To call it a "guess" is sheer nonsense.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

That, my dear sir, is the worst prose I have ever had the misfortune to set my eyes on. Not only are, what, 35 words, inadequate to disprove a scientific theory supported by 150 years of observation, your semantic failures merely pave the path for your charming display of ignorance both about the concepts of science in general and biology in particular. I suspect you will have far more meaningful conversations, not to mention make better use of your mental faculties should you for once be willing to do what not creationist has done before - read a proper science textbook.

While my words may come across as harsh, other here have done a fine job of pointing out where you erred thereby leaving me with the choices of either repeting the same thing or to try and put your illogic in its place. I hope this is constructive in its critique of your, um, lets call it a post to be polite.

The post is to show the inadequacy of the term "theory of evolution." I did not make that term up,

And in regards to 150 years of careful gazing, as pointed out by Sideshowbob, what is 150 years in thousands of years?

Oh, I forgot "WE ARE THE MOST ADVANCED GENERATION OF ALL TIME"

The trouble is - if we were not how would we know?

Most likely answer - the generation which boasts of the greatest knowledge is the most ignorant.

They have even used a weak name to describe their most treasured baby.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

No one is asserting absolute truth. Your argument is just a strawman.

No absolute truth? then what is wrong with the initial post?

The terms are rubbery, Sideshowbob, and others.

I am not debating whether dear scientists have invested so much of their delicate energies into this doctrine.

The language of the term Evolution is open to ambiguity and doubt.

 

[spidergoat]

No absolute truth? then what is wrong with the initial post?

You think if we don't know everything we can know nothing. And that's nonsense. Evolution means change. The Theory of Evolution describes how that happens. The evidence which supports it is overwhelming, and nothing in biology makes sense without it. Sure we will learn more about it, but that's how science works. We accumulate knowledge in spite of sometimes finding out that our knowledge is incorrect or incomplete. We still use Newton's Laws of Motion even though it is ignorant of relativity.

 

[sideshowbob]

The language of the term Evolution is open to ambiguity and doubt.

All language is open to ambiguity and doubt. You don't have to work so hard at misunderstanding it though.