Atheistforums.com

Science Section => Science General Discussion => Topic started by: josephpalazzo on February 03, 2016, 02:53:45 PM

Title: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 03, 2016, 02:53:45 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/03/headteacher-mocked-twitter-claim-evolution-not-fact?CMP=twt_b-gdnnews (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/03/headteacher-mocked-twitter-claim-evolution-not-fact?CMP=twt_b-gdnnews)


Ok, the UK has its lunatics too. But I like how it was handled by the social media.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Baruch on February 03, 2016, 10:25:23 PM
Its a parochial school.  She would be fired if she didn't believe in the Bible.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hydra009 on February 03, 2016, 10:45:11 PM
QuoteWilkinson wrote: “Evolution is not a fact. That’s why it’s called a theory! There’s more evidence that the Bible is true.”
It's interesting how they always confuse evolution with atheism.  In effect, they're trying to prove their (questionable) religious beliefs true by attacking pretty solid science.  It's almost comical.  Strike that.  It's very comical.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: facebook164 on February 04, 2016, 12:29:58 AM

Quote from: Baruch on February 03, 2016, 10:25:23 PM
Its a parochial school.  She would be fired if she didn't believe in the Bible.
So what?
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: PickelledEggs on February 04, 2016, 02:16:03 AM
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 03, 2016, 10:45:11 PM
It's interesting how they always confuse evolution with atheism.  In effect, they're trying to prove their (questionable) religious beliefs true by attacking pretty solid science.  It's almost comical.  Strike that.  It's very comical.
I think it's not only very comical, but also pretty great. The fact that they are making sure they make it clear that a belief in the bible and a belief in evolution do not mix and are contradictory, is a very good point in the favor of nonbelievers. Making that distinction causes people to think. "Why is it contradictory to believe both the bible and evolution?" It gets them asking questions that shatter dogmatic faith.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Mr.Obvious on February 04, 2016, 02:26:18 AM
Funny thing is, evolution is not 'a fact' but is indeed 'a theory'. Theories are higher on The scientific ladder after all.
So really, she's actually right about that bit, but for all The wrong reasons.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: PickelledEggs on February 04, 2016, 02:54:27 AM
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 04, 2016, 02:26:18 AM
Funny thing is, evolution is not 'a fact' but is indeed 'a theory'. Theories are higher on The scientific ladder after all.
So really, she's actually right about that bit, but for all The wrong reasons.
This is true.
I can bet that she... And people like her do not know what a theory is though, as well as the overwhelming amount of evidence required to come to the title of "theory"

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 04, 2016, 05:16:02 AM
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 04, 2016, 02:26:18 AM
Funny thing is, evolution is not 'a fact' but is indeed 'a theory'. Theories are higher on The scientific ladder after all.
So really, she's actually right about that bit, but for all The wrong reasons.

Clarification: there are the "facts" of evolution - a gazillion of fossils as evidence - and there is the "theory" of evolution that explains those facts.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Sal1981 on February 04, 2016, 05:26:15 AM
Just deserves.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on February 04, 2016, 06:16:20 AM
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 03, 2016, 10:45:11 PM
It's interesting how they always confuse evolution with atheism.  In effect, they're trying to prove their (questionable) religious beliefs true by attacking pretty solid science.  It's almost comical.  Strike that.  It's very comical.
They need everyone to have a "faith", and claim that "evolution" is our faith. "I'm a drunk, so you must drink too much too!"
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on February 04, 2016, 06:17:03 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 04, 2016, 05:16:02 AM
Clarification: there are the "facts" of evolution - a gazillion of fossils as evidence - and there is the "theory" of evolution that explains those facts.
This. Evolution happens. The Theory of Evolution tries to explain how it happens.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 01:29:00 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 04, 2016, 05:16:02 AM
Clarification: there are the "facts" of evolution - a gazillion of fossils as evidence - and there is the "theory" of evolution that explains those facts.

So the "facts"/evidence of evolution = a gazillion fossils.  Then....

The "theory" of evolution explains those gazillion fossils.  Are you saying the "theory" of evolution explains Permineralization - Petrification?  Isn't that the process of fossilization?

What is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....?

thanks
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: kilodelta on February 23, 2016, 01:39:04 PM
Headteacher, eh? I guess they're really serious about oral sex education over there...
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on February 23, 2016, 02:07:42 PM
Quote from: kilodelta on February 23, 2016, 01:39:04 PM
Headteacher, eh? I guess they're really serious about oral sex education over there...
The Catholic Church totally misunderstood the "Head Start" program.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hydra009 on February 23, 2016, 02:47:13 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 01:29:00 PM
So the "facts"/evidence of evolution = a gazillion fossils.  Then....

The "theory" of evolution explains those gazillion fossils.  Are you saying the "theory" of evolution explains Permineralization - Petrification?  Isn't that the process of fossilization?
I really don't think so and I'm having a hard time understanding where you got the impression that evolution explains the process of fossilization, because no one claimed or even implied that at all.  But to answer your question, one of the facts that the theory of evolution attempts to explain is that we have fossils of extinct species that bear a striking resemblance to living species.  Evolution provides a model that matches these findings and makes predictions about what sorts of species we'll find in the fossil record.  For example, we won't find rabbit skeletons in precambrian strata.  There have been many discoveries that could have falsified evolution and sent biologists back to the drawing board - DNA sequencing of fossils, for example.  To date, the theory of evolution held up pretty well with these new discoveries.

QuoteWhat is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....?
Descent with modification (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02).  That site covers the basics pretty well.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Nonsensei on February 23, 2016, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 01:29:00 PM
So the "facts"/evidence of evolution = a gazillion fossils.  Then....

The "theory" of evolution explains those gazillion fossils.  Are you saying the "theory" of evolution explains Permineralization - Petrification?  Isn't that the process of fossilization?

What is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....?

thanks

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+scientific+theory+of+evolution
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: aitm on February 23, 2016, 03:14:13 PM
as well she should.....and THEN get bitch slapped.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 03:20:11 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 23, 2016, 02:47:13 PM
I really don't think so and I'm having a hard time understanding where you got the impression that evolution explains the process of fossilization, because no one claimed or even implied that at all.

Well because 'josephpalazzo' said.... "there are the "facts" of evolution - a gazillion of fossils as evidence - and there is the "theory" of evolution that explains those facts."

 
QuoteBut to answer your question, one of the facts that the theory of evolution attempts to explain is that we have fossils of extinct species that bear a striking resemblance to living species.

Again, what is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?

"Resemblances", "Similarities", "Comparisons" ect... isn't Science.  Science is in the business of validating/confirming then explaining "Cause and Effect" relationships between Independent and Dependent Variables so as to make "Predictions"....it's called Hypothesis TESTING...The Scientific Method.

QuoteEvolution provides a model that matches these findings and makes predictions about what sorts of species we'll find in the fossil record.

What's your "Independent Variable" here with fossils?  The Angle of the Shovel, Eyelids, Imagination ?

Scientific Predictions are the Consequent of the Antecedent.... "Independent Variable".

Predictions without viable Independent Variables are in the: Jeanne Dixon, Edgar Cayce, Nostradamus, Carnival Tent genre.


QuoteFor example, we won't find rabbit skeletons in precambrian strata.  To date, it's held up pretty well.

This is an implied Formal Logical Fallacy (Denying The Antecedent)...

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

If they are buried together (P) then they both existed together (Q)
They're not buried together (Not P).
Therefore, they didn't exist together. (Therefore, not Q).


QuoteDescent with modification (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02).  That site covers the basics pretty well.

I didn't request a "link", I simply asked for the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?

   
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Nonsensei on February 23, 2016, 03:35:09 PM
Are you asking him to hand type an explanation of the scientific theory of evolution instead of giving you a link to go read about it yourself?
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hydra009 on February 23, 2016, 03:52:06 PM
Quote from: Nonsensei on February 23, 2016, 03:35:09 PM
Are you asking him to hand type an explanation of the scientific theory of evolution instead of giving you a link to go read about it yourself?
Yeah wtf.  Either the most obtuse person I've ever met or a creationist insincerely asking for evidence like Wendy Wright.  Either way, the stupid burns!
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 23, 2016, 04:10:04 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 01:29:00 PM
So the "facts"/evidence of evolution = a gazillion fossils.  Then....

The "theory" of evolution explains those gazillion fossils.  Are you saying the "theory" of evolution explains Permineralization - Petrification?  Isn't that the process of fossilization?

What is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....?

thanks

There are the facts of gravity: take a 10kg, 1kg, 100g iron balls. Release them all under free fall, and they all accelerate at 9.8m/s2. Then there's the theory of gravity that explains the facts, which was initially proposed by Newton F=GM1M2/r2, then modified by Einstein Gij = (8Ï€G/c4)Tij.

Similarly, there are the facts of evolution: if you place side by side the fossils unearthed, there is a progression - in the limbs, the eyes, in the ears, in just about every anatomical features from one species to another. The theory of evolution explains that with natural selection, gene drift, gene flow, common descent, adaption. In case you don't know: NO, HUMANS DON'T COME FROM MONKEYS. 
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: SGOS on February 23, 2016, 04:16:28 PM
I've seen better explanations of why evolution is both fact and theory.  But this googled up right away, and it's probably sufficient (for now).  You can google more on your own if you want.    But the theory of evolution has been checked, verified, and cross referenced so intensely across the broad spectrum of sciences, that the fact it happens is indisputable.

I used to say evolution was theory and  not actual fact, but after having it explained to be me in a couple of debates with actual biologists, and after reading their links, I no longer make that claim.  The claim might hold true if you are willing to consider odd explanations as worthwhile considerations, like "Satan put the fossils in rocks to confuse us. " If you insist that we must entertain every absurd explanation as possibly factual, you might convince yourself that evolution is not a fact.

I think Darwin's actual theory was pretty simple, along the lines of "small changes in individuals over long time periods accumulate until new species separate from other species."  Back then it was dicey enough for debate, but that was before so many other discoveries kept verifying the basically simple explanation that is the theory.  Today, there are an abundance of spin off theories that explain spin off discoveries, but theory of evolution is still essentially as Darwin put forth in his so simple almost naïve elegance.

Fact in science is a scientifically indisputable statement.  Of course Ken Hamm disputes it, but his claims cannot be distinguished from lies, falsehoods and the mad ravings of seers.  And even at that, his "factual" claims are almost all just one "claim", "Goddidit."  Overall, he doesn't claim many facts at all.  By far, most of his energy is devoted to disputing science.  Oddly, science expends no energy disputing the Bible, and produces much without bothering to do so, something that probably pisses off Ken Hamm to no end.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

QuoteScientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 23, 2016, 04:20:35 PM
Two minute explanation on video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnzmxeZJeho
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Mike Cl on February 23, 2016, 04:29:34 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 01:29:00 PM
So the "facts"/evidence of evolution = a gazillion fossils.  Then....

The "theory" of evolution explains those gazillion fossils.  Are you saying the "theory" of evolution explains Permineralization - Petrification?  Isn't that the process of fossilization?

What is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....?

thanks
Oh good--another brain dead theist who only believes and can't or won't reason.  WTF, Daniel, who don't you simply return to your wonderful book of Daniel, read a masturbate to that.  And leave us alone.  Or, why not take the time and effort to introduce yourself and indicate whether you are a drive-by stupido or somebody who is going to stay around for awhile.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 23, 2016, 04:38:17 PM
I think he wants some 'formula' called "Scientific Theory of Evolution". Something that resembles f= m. a? 
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Unbeliever on February 23, 2016, 04:44:31 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 03, 2016, 10:45:11 PM
It's interesting how they always confuse evolution with atheism.  In effect, they're trying to prove their (questionable) religious beliefs true by attacking pretty solid science.  It's almost comical.  Strike that.  It's very comical.
Here's what St Augustine of Hippo said about science and Christianity:
QuoteOften a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 05:27:14 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 23, 2016, 04:10:04 PM
There are the facts of gravity: take a 10kg, 1kg, 100g iron balls. Release them all under free fall, and they all accelerate at 9.8m/s2. Then there's the theory of gravity that explains the facts, which was initially proposed by Newton F=GM1M2/r2, then modified by Einstein Gij = (8Ï€G/c4)Tij.

What does gravity have to do with the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....?

QuoteSimilarly, there are the facts of evolution: if you place side by side the fossils unearthed, there is a progression - in the limbs, the eyes, in the ears, in just about every anatomical features from one species to another.

Begging The Question (Fallacy): "evolution".  Again, what is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?

Again: "Similarities", "Resemblances", "Correlations"...aren't Science.


QuoteThe theory of evolution explains that with natural selection, gene drift, gene flow, common descent, adaption.

Begging The Question (Fallacy) again.  SEE above: What is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?

Sorry for repeating this.  My intent is not to be obtuse but nobody has posted a response to what should be a very simple query.
If I wanted to provide evidence for duccolslopoelgerts it follows logically that I need to "define" what duccolslopoelgerts are, first.

QuoteIn case you don't know: NO, HUMANS DON'T COME FROM MONKEYS.

Yes thanks, I know that.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 05:32:30 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 23, 2016, 03:52:06 PM
Yeah wtf.  Either the most obtuse person I've ever met or a creationist insincerely asking for evidence like Wendy Wright.  Either way, the stupid burns!

So since you can't post the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....I'm obtuse, and stupid ??  I think there's some holes in your thesis.

regards
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 05:37:34 PM
Quote from: SGOS on February 23, 2016, 04:16:28 PM
But the theory of evolution has been checked, verified, and cross referenced so intensely across the broad spectrum of sciences, that the fact it happens is indisputable.

What happens...?

Well when somebody posts the "Scientific Theory" of evolution then we'll evaluate whether the evidence fits.

I really am struggling to see how this is unreasonable request.

regards
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 23, 2016, 05:50:10 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 05:32:30 PM
So since you can't post the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....I'm obtuse, and stupid ??  I think there's some holes in your thesis.

regards

As far as obtuse and stupid go I'm willing to withhold judgement until more evidence comes in. In the meantime my money is on just another fucking asshole.

As far as what the theory of evolution is no one on this forum could possibly explain it all in a post. That would literally take volumes of books. Evolution in a nutshell has already been explained in this thread. It is decent with modification. Evolution is also an observed fact. It has been observed and documented many many times. And please before you get into the whole micro/macro thing be prepared to explain the mechanism that stops small changes from accumulating into larger ones.

Finally, what are these holes you speak of?
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hydra009 on February 23, 2016, 05:51:58 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 05:27:14 PMFallacy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 23, 2016, 05:55:35 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 05:27:14 PM
What does gravity have to do with the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....?

Begging The Question (Fallacy): "evolution".  Again, what is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?

Again: "Similarities", "Resemblances", "Correlations"...aren't Science.


Begging The Question (Fallacy) again.  SEE above: What is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?

Sorry for repeating this.  My intent is not to be obtuse but nobody has posted a response to what should be a very simple query.
If I wanted to provide evidence for duccolslopoelgerts it follows logically that I need to "define" what duccolslopoelgerts are, first.

Yes thanks, I know that.

I'm not sure if you are dense or simply ignorant, or possibly just trolling.

The reason I gave you the example with gravity is to make you aware of what constitute "facts" and what constitute a "scientific theory", If you haven't understood that simple distinction, then I'm talking to someone who is less intelligent than my 5 year-old nephew, because I have absolutely no difficulty of making him understand that much.

Second, you have the facts of gravity that needs an explanation. If bodies were to accelerate at any rate under free fall, you would NOT need an explanation. But the fact that they all fall under the same acceleration regardless of mass, composition, shape, and so on, requires an explanation. And that explanation is the theory of gravity, first proposed by Newton, then modified by Einstein. Are we on the same page in regard to why there is need of a theory to explain certain facts? If not, then you are an imbecile, and I'm wasting my time.

A similar situation exists with fossils that have been unearthed for the last 200+ years by scientists from all over the planet. There are literally millions of these fossils that exist in hundreds of  institutions, museums, and universities. The remarkable thing is that there is a progression in variations from species to species - some of those species are extinct, some are not. And therefore this requires an explanation. And maybe to your sadness, but to the joy of people who love science,  this progression can be explained at the molecular level (gene drift and mutation), in terms of survival (natural selection, adaption), and with flow charts (common ancestry). Not only that but the theory of evolution is supported by:

- Biochemistry, which is the study of the basic chemistry and processes that occur in cells, the biochemistry of all living things on Earth is incredibly similar, showing that all of Earth’s organisms share a common ancestry.

- Comparative anatomy, which is the comparison of the structures of different living things. This figure compares the skeletons of humans, cats, whales, and bats, illustrating how similar they are even though these animals live unique lifestyles in very different environments. The best explanation for similarities like the ones among these skeletons is that the various species on Earth evolved from common ancestors.

- Biogeography, the study of living things around the globe. Basically, if evolution is real, you’d expect groups of organisms that are related to one another to be clustered near one another because related organisms come from the same common ancestor.

On the other hand, if evolution isn’t real, there’s no reason for related groups of organisms to be found near one another. When biogeographers compare the distribution of organisms living today or those that lived in the past (from fossils), they find that species are distributed around Earth in a pattern that reflects their genetic relationships to one another.

- Comparative embryology compares the embryos of different organisms. The embryos of many animals, from fish to humans, show similarities that suggest a common ancestor.

- Molecular biology focuses on the structure and function of the molecules that make up cells. Molecular biologists have compared gene sequences among species, revealing similarities among even very different organisms.

- Paleontology is the study of prehistoric life through fossil evidence. The fossil record (all the fossils ever found and the information gained from them) shows detailed evidence of the changes in living things through time.

Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 06:07:21 PM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 23, 2016, 05:50:10 PM
As far as obtuse and stupid go I'm willing to withhold judgement until more evidence comes in. In the meantime my money is on just another fucking asshole.

My word sir.

Oh and by the way (for the followers), I will not be responding to 3rd grade playground name calling. If the mood swings you to post them, I will not respond.  I'll afford you the same courtesy.

QuoteAs far as what the theory of evolution is no one on this forum could possibly explain it all in a post. That would literally take volumes of books.

I didn't say explain it, just post the "Scientific Theory" is all.


QuoteEvolution in a nutshell has already been explained in this thread. It is decent with modification.

This is not a Scientific Theory.  Scientific Theories are validated/confirmed hypothesis.  They explain...."The How" (Mechanisms/Process).

QuoteEvolution is also an observed fact. It has been observed and documented many many times.

Then it should be a cakewalk to post the Scientific Theory of it then.


QuoteAnd please before you get into the whole micro/macro thing be prepared to explain the mechanism that stops small changes from accumulating into larger ones.

I will attempt to restrain myself from Equivocating.

QuoteFinally, what are these holes you speak of?

Well it doesn't follow logically that I'm obtuse and stupid as a result of you not being able to answer a question.


Title: How Evolution Works
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 23, 2016, 06:18:17 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 06:23:21 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 23, 2016, 05:55:35 PM
I'm not sure if you are dense or simply ignorant, or possibly just trolling.

Ahh yes, the ad hominems.

QuoteThe reason I gave you the example with gravity is to make you aware of what constitute "facts" and what constitute a "scientific theory",

How about just posting the "Scientific Theory' of evolution and drop the ad hominems and theatrics?

I already know what a Scientific Theory is, thanks for your concern however.


QuoteNot only that but the theory of evolution is supported by:

Again, Begging The Question (Fallacy): "evolution".

QuoteBiochemistry, which is the study of the basic chemistry and processes that occur in cells, the biochemistry of all living things on Earth is incredibly similar, showing that all of Earth’s organisms share a common ancestry.

Good to know.  Common Ancestry??

If the ancestry is not assumed from similarities, then there is no correlation between similarities and ancestry; ergo, to make the argument you need to make that "assumption".

All you have is a TEXTBOOK.....Affirming The Consequent (Formal Fallacy):

If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.

The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag"  Post Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Similarity/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Post Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.

Or

If Common Ancestry is True we will Observe Similarities.
We Observe Similarities.
Therefore, Common Ancestry is True.

1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.

Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries?

As mentioned previously: Similarities, Resemblances, Correlations...aren't Science.


Quote- Paleontology is the study of prehistoric life through fossil evidence. The fossil record (all the fossils ever found and the information gained from them) shows detailed evidence of the changes in living things through time.

What's their "Independent Variable" used to Validate/Confirm??  Eyelids, Angle of the Shovel, Imagination??

regards
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 23, 2016, 06:39:07 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 06:23:21 PM
I already know what a Scientific Theory is, thanks for your concern however.

Among all those field examples joseph gave, only paleontology bugged you? Because all of them should be problematic for you in the same sense, if you understand what is 'scientific theory'.

You don't know what is science or theory, let alone what is scientific theory.






Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 23, 2016, 06:47:43 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 06:23:21 PM
Ahh yes, the ad hominems.

There was no hominem as my statement is an IF statement.

QuoteHow about just posting the "Scientific Theory' of evolution and drop the ad hominems and theatrics?


I have but you skipped to common ancestry. Now, go back and read the full post.

QuoteI already know what a Scientific Theory is, thanks for your concern however.


So far, you've shown the opposite.


QuoteIf the ancestry is not assumed from similarities, then there is no correlation between similarities and ancestry; ergo, to make the argument you need to make that "assumption".


That there is a progression from fossils to fossils is an observation, not an assumption. Have you ever examine these fossils? I have. But I can see that you haven't. So you're talking with not knowing what is at stakes. So get out of your closet and do some investigations as you are embarrassing yourself.



QuoteIf P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.

The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag"  Post Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Similarity/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Post Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.


Well, here we go:


If God exists, then he created the world.
It is true the world exists.
Therefore God exists is true.


So you see, two can play at the same game. However, the argument that I gave you is not found on that kind of logic. It's based on the notion that certain facts require an explanation. I gave you two examples: gravity and evolution. But you chose to ignore that. Your loss.


Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: aitm on February 23, 2016, 08:07:24 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 01:29:00 PM
So the "facts"/evidence of evolution = a gazillion fossils.  Then....

The "theory" of evolution explains those gazillion fossils.  Are you saying the "theory" of evolution explains Permineralization - Petrification?  Isn't that the process of fossilization?

What is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....?

thanks

Oh stop with the posturing, that's not what he said. You're mis-representation of his statement is boring. Welcome to the forum. Try a new angle, that one won't work for long…at all, and it is more becoming a troll than an "earnest" seeker of which I am sure you are.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 23, 2016, 08:13:03 PM
Fossils, strictly speaking, aren't necessarily evidence of evolution. However, evolution can be proven without fossils, and in fact the basis of the theory is entirely rooted in biology. The fact that fossil evidence lines up with evolutionary theory is more icing on the cake than anything else.


Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Baruch on February 23, 2016, 08:25:03 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 05:32:30 PM
So since you can't post the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....I'm obtuse, and stupid ??  I think there's some holes in your thesis.

regards

This was very well answered in reply #23.  Do you have a problem with what "scientific" is or what "theory" is?  I suspect you don't, you just like to argue.  Evidence from both macro and micro biology, substantiate the evolution hypothesis ... into a evolution theory.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Mike Cl on February 23, 2016, 08:46:23 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2016, 08:25:03 PM
This was very well answered in reply #23.  Do you have a problem with what "scientific" is or what "theory" is?  I suspect you don't, you just like to argue.  Evidence from both macro and micro biology, substantiate the evolution hypothesis ... into a evolution theory.
He is simply a drive-by whose only intent is to stir up the ant heap.  When a person launches directly into an 'argument' without introducing themselves and giving any indication that they mean to stay and exchange ideas, then they are a troll.  If he had any real interest in the exchange of ideas he could easily look up old threads that have addressed this issue.  But he has not interest in that sort of give and take.  He is only a troll.   
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: SGOS on February 24, 2016, 02:58:52 AM
He also accused me of not providing the theory, when in fact I had stated the theory in simplified form in the very post he was responding to me.  It's like throughout the thread, he scans for quotes that he can object too with one creationist talking point or another, but when coming across information he doesn't want, he goes into a coma.

For some reason, he tunes the theory out, even when it's been posted, paraphrased, or explained by different people for him.  For some reason, he has taken into his head, that no one can explain the theory of evolution, and when they do, he keeps repeating that no one can explain it.

I could understand if he tried to point out a flaw in the theory, but he keeps coming back to the flat out assertion that no one has stated the theory.  And I'm perplexed as to why he hangs on to such a silly claim when there are better arguments he could make.  Not that they would be good arguments, but certainly better than that one silly assertion, which he can't seem to get out of his head.

Ahh, debating for Jesus.  You don't need to win.  But you still earn valuable coupons that can be redeemed at the gates of Heaven.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: SGOS on February 24, 2016, 07:53:45 AM
When you think about it, it's odd that the creationist position is defended with so much vigor.  It seems like it would be easier to deny the Big Bang, based on the fact that we don't know what caused it.  Just put your god into the equation at that point, and forget about all the rest.  Because if a god created the universe, by extension, he created everything.  You don't have to defend your version of the origin of the species.  One way or the other, Goddidit!  The water, the sky, the stars, wind and tides, all become acts of god.  Why get caught up in the claims like God created kangaroos on day 5?  You just invite ridicule by immersing yourself into details, which are far too many to keep track of.

There is enough poetic sounding contradictory fiddle faddle in the Bible that you can easily apologize for it like you do about what Jesus had to say about this and that.  Something doesn't fit?  Just ignore it, and chalk it up to God's mysterious plan.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 08:18:14 AM
The creationist position is about undermining science. It's the same mindset that denies global warming (God will save the planet) or evolution (God created Adam and Eve). God decides everything ( God micro-manages every detail in the universe, even when you take a piss). He acts in mysterious ways, so how dare you question what he does!!
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: SGOS on February 24, 2016, 09:18:48 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 08:18:14 AM
The creationist position is about undermining science.

This becomes apparent when you realize creationism does no research of it's own. It tries to pass as science, but ignores the method.  It's methodology is to sit on the sidelines and take pot shots.  It's a process not designed to arrive at discovery, as if all important discoveries are either revealed in the Bible, or will become clear in the afterlife.  There is no mechanism included that leads to new knowledge, discovery, or verification.  It's not a science, it's pure anti-science.  Yet it wants to be included in science classes.  LOL
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 11:44:52 AM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 23, 2016, 06:47:43 PM
There was no hominem as my statement is an IF statement.

No, you surely didn't.

QuoteI have but you skipped to common ancestry. Now, go back and read the full post.

I read it, I didn't see the "Scientific Theory" of evolution. Can you bold it in your next post.


QuoteSo far, you've shown the opposite.

Really?  Can you show precisely where, so as to support your Generalized Baseless 'bald' Assertion ?


QuoteThat there is a progression from fossils to fossils is an observation, not an assumption.

Well an Observation is merely an "Observation".  Are you familiar with The Scientific Method (It's Rhetorical @ this point)...

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

You haven't yet breached the First Step.  It's Observe a Phenomenon, not Observe Nouns/end results, then make up a story for goodness sakes.



QuoteHave you ever examine these fossils? I have. But I can see that you haven't.

Really?  By what Method did you arrive @ your conclusion: Crystal Ball, Tea Leaves, Dowsing Rods, Special Mind Powers, Other??  Let's TEST your Blind Conjecture Acumen...what's my Favorite Color?


QuoteSo you're talking with not knowing what is at stakes.

Is English your first language ?


QuoteSo get out of your closet and do some investigations as you are embarrassing yourself.

Yes, like the Chicago Bears embarrassed themselves in Super Bowl XX.


QuoteWell, here we go:

If God exists, then he created the world.
It is true the world exists.
Therefore God exists is true.

So you see, two can play at the same game.

What on Earth sir ? It would be a Fallacy....IF I MADE THAT ARGUMENT (lol).  So you conjure Arguments (Straw Man) then you mow them down, eh? Must be rough.  Tell me, do you prime the flame thrower just before or right after you conjure these?


QuoteHowever, the argument that I gave you is not found on that kind of logic.

Yes it clearly was and I demonstrated it to you.


QuoteIt's based on the notion that certain facts require an explanation.

This isn't "Science" sir, this is "Just So" Story time.  Have you heard of Hypothesis TESTING, by chance?
If so, can you please post the "Independent Variable" you used in the TEST that you never conducted to validate your claim?


QuoteI gave you two examples: gravity and evolution. But you chose to ignore that. Your loss.

Tell ya what, after you post the Scientific Theory of evolution, I'll go ahead and bludgeon those other matheMagical fairytales sr and gr for ya.  Deal??

regards
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 11:55:05 AM
Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2016, 08:25:03 PM
This was very well answered in reply #23.

Sir, this is post #23...

"Oh good--another brain dead theist who only believes and can't or won't reason.  WTF, Daniel, who don't you simply return to your wonderful book of Daniel, read a masturbate to that.  And leave us alone.  Or, why not take the time and effort to introduce yourself and indicate whether you are a drive-by stupido or somebody who is going to stay around for awhile."

Can you Highlight the part where the "Scientific Theory" of evolution is....?


QuoteDo you have a problem with what "scientific" is or what "theory" is?  I suspect you don't, you just like to argue.

No I do not; however, it appears MOST don't know what either are. 


QuoteEvidence from both macro and micro biology, substantiate the evolution hypothesis ... into a evolution theory.

So, what is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....?  After that, will get to the Scientific Hypotheses that support it.

regards
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 12:05:15 PM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 23, 2016, 08:13:03 PM
Fossils, strictly speaking, aren't necessarily evidence of evolution.
1. Exactly.  Moreover, you first have to define what your evidence is in support of, right?

2. If your evidence is in support of the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....then what is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution?


QuoteHowever, evolution can be proven without fossils, and in fact the basis of the theory is entirely rooted in biology. The fact that fossil evidence lines up with evolutionary theory is more icing on the cake than anything else.
my emphasis

What is the Scientific Theory ??

regards
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 12:06:46 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 11:44:52 AM



What on Earth sir ? It would be a Fallacy....IF I MADE THAT ARGUMENT (lol). 

Yes, you used that fallacy  to argue against evolution.

To refresh your mind:

QuoteThe logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag"  Post Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Similarity/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Post Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.

You are a total waste.


Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 24, 2016, 12:13:20 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 12:05:15 PMWhat is the Scientific Theory ??
If you're fine reading a somewhat out-dated version, "Origin of Species" explains the theory fairly well. For a more up-to-date version, you'll need to pore over about 150 years of scientific writing and consult evolutionary biologists who actually spend their lives studying this (instead of average joes like us).

We can give you simplified versions like "descent with modification" or "change over time," but a full understanding of a scientific theory can't be given in a 10-second sound byte. Hell, I'd need a few weeks to fully explain everything I know about gravity to you, and the theory of gravity is arguably much simpler than the theory of evolution. So if you really want to learn, go study.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 12:14:52 PM
Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 23, 2016, 06:39:07 PM
Among all those field examples joseph gave, only paleontology bugged you?

Not so much, he didn't provide anything other than stories.  I merely focused on that because of his "gazillion of fossils---evidence" in the first post I replied to.

QuoteBecause all of them should be problematic for you in the same sense, if you understand what is 'scientific theory'.

1. As mentioned previously, a Scientific Theory is validated/confirmed Scientific Hypotheses.  It "Explains"....The How (Mechanisms/Processes).
As opposed to Scientific Laws which "Describe"....The What/IS, often expressed mathematically.

2. How are they "problematic"....?


QuoteYou don't know what is science or theory, let alone what is scientific theory.

Really??  How so...?

regards
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Baruch on February 24, 2016, 12:26:47 PM
Quote from: SGOS on February 24, 2016, 09:18:48 AM
This becomes apparent when you realize creationism does no research of it's own. It tries to pass as science, but ignores the method.  It's methodology is to sit on the sidelines and take pot shots.  It's a process not designed to arrive at discovery, as if all important discoveries are either revealed in the Bible, or will become clear in the afterlife.  There is no mechanism included that leads to new knowledge, discovery, or verification.  It's not a science, it's pure anti-science.  Yet it wants to be included in science classes.  LOL

Biblical archeology similarly messes with proper archeology.  The actual archeology both confirms and denies the Bible claims.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hydra009 on February 24, 2016, 12:27:57 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 11:44:52 AMI read it, I didn't see the "Scientific Theory" of evolution. Can you bold it in your next post.
QuoteTell ya what, after you post the Scientific Theory of evolution, I'll go ahead and bludgeon those other matheMagical fairytales sr and gr for ya.  Deal??
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 11:55:05 AMSo, what is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....?  After that, will get to the Scientific Hypotheses that support it.
I gave you a link to a brief definition that 5th graders (and adult creationists) could understand back in page 1.  It's painfully obvious now that your questions are insincere and you are in fact yet another creationist buffoon unwilling to accept answers that don't fit your religious beliefs.  How can we educate someone who can't learn?
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 12:30:24 PM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 24, 2016, 12:13:20 PM
If you're fine reading a somewhat out-dated version, "Origin of Species" explains the theory fairly well.

There is no "Scientific" theory in any of Darwin's publications.  If I missed it, please post....?


QuoteFor a more up-to-date version, you'll need to pore over about 150 years of scientific writing and consult evolutionary biologists who actually spend their lives studying this (instead of average joes like us.

1.  Up to Date Version??  Ahhh, Scientific Theories are either validated by their Hypotheses or they're NOT. They don't get "UPDATED" they get "Falsified" well before they reach "Scientific Theory".
If it's an "ACTUAL" Scientific Theory, the task to falsify is akin to attempting to summit Mount Everest alone without arms, legs, and sight.

2. Define "average joe"....?

QuoteWe can give you simplified versions like "descent with modification" or "change over time," but a full understanding of a scientific theory can't be given in a 10-second sound byte.

That's not a Scientific Theory.

Scientific Theories are concise statements that elucidate mechanisms validated by Scientific Hypotheses.  If you need more than 3 sentences, you got yourself a story not a Scientific Theory.


QuoteHell, I'd need a few weeks to fully explain everything I know about gravity to you, and the theory of gravity is arguably much simpler than the theory of evolution. So if you really want to learn, go study.

There is the Universal Law of Gravitation. There is no "Viable" Theory of Gravity. (However, that's for another day.  I don't want to derail this discussion)

regards
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: TrueStory on February 24, 2016, 12:35:55 PM
@ daniel2012   Since you think it is quite easy to post a scientific theory could you post one that is not about evolution and by using that as a model maybe I could post about evolution in the same format.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 12:40:46 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 24, 2016, 12:27:57 PM
I gave you a link...

I queried for the Scientific Theory of evolution, NOT a "link".  A 5th grader can type evolution in any search engine then post a "link".  I'm not here to prove "YOUR" case for "YOU", the onus is on "YOU" to prove "YOUR" case, counselor.


QuoteIt's painfully obvious now that your questions are insincere and you are in fact yet another creationist buffoon unwilling to accept answers that don't fit your religious beliefs.

1.  It's Painfully Obvious that nobody on this thread can answer a simple query from "allegedly" the most Validated Scientific Theory in the History of Science for ever and ever and ever.  Kinda strange, don't ya think?

2.  Well the sine qua non of 'Religion' is....Belief without Evidence.  Nobody here can even post what their 'religion' is yet.


regards
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: aitm on February 24, 2016, 12:42:09 PM
I only need three thumbs down to flush.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Baruch on February 24, 2016, 12:44:54 PM
Daniel - do you know what a sophist is?  And are you aware that in spite of the naming convention, such people are not really sophisticated?  Socrates whiped the floor with poseurs.  I am a theist, so I could tell you what religion is, but that is done many times in other strings here, not in the science section.

Microevolution actually is done, on a lab bench under controlled conditions ... it is indisputably scientific.  Until you go do professional microbiology research ... you won't get it, I fear.

Analysis of evolution ala Darwin, involves plausible inference from existing life forms, not controlled experiments.  Similarly for paleontology (for extinct life forms).

What do you have against change?  If you knew Heraclitus, you would realize that almost nothing stays the same over time, biological or physical .. and slow long term change in biology is what we call evolution.  What does apparently stay the same over time (and is applicable everywhere in space) we call physical law.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 12:46:04 PM
Quote from: TrueStory on February 24, 2016, 12:35:55 PM
@ daniel2012   Since you think it is quite easy to post a scientific theory could you post one that is not about evolution and by using that as a model maybe I could post about evolution in the same format.

Sure...

"Germ Theory in medicine, the theory that certain diseases are caused by the invasion of the body by microorganisms, organisms too small to be seen except through a microscope.'
http://www.britannica.com/topic/germ-theory (http://www.britannica.com/topic/germ-theory)
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Baruch on February 24, 2016, 12:49:10 PM
You accept this germ theory?  But you deny equally validated evolution theory?  And it turns out, these germs (bacteria, protozoa, viruses, prions) i really quite complicated business.  How much more, with evolution theory, since it involves all species that exist or have existed in the past.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: TrueStory on February 24, 2016, 12:54:47 PM
@ daniel2012   Since you think it is quite easy to post a scientific theory could you post one that is not about evolution and by using that as a model maybe I could post about evolution is the same format.
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 12:46:04 PM
Sure...

"Germ Theory in medicine, the theory that certain diseases are caused by the invasion of the body by microorganisms, organisms too small to be seen except through a microscope.'



Evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

http://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory

Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 01:00:07 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 24, 2016, 12:44:54 PM
Daniel - do you know what a sophist is?  And are you aware that in spite of the naming convention, such people are not really sophisticated?  Socrates whiped the floor with poseurs.  I am a theist, so I could tell you what religion is, but that is done many times in other strings here, not in the science section.

Thanks.  Didn't I just post what "Religion" is, basically?

QuoteMicroevolution actually is done, on a lab bench under controlled conditions ... it is indisputably scientific.  Until you go do professional microbiology research ... you won't get it, I fear.

"Micro-evolution"??  Don't you have to post what the "Scientific Theory" of evolution is first... before you paste adjectives in front of it?

QuoteAnalysis of evolution ala Darwin, involves plausible inference from existing life forms, not controlled experiments.  Similarly for paleontology (for extinct life forms).

If you don't follow The Scientific Method...it's not "Science", Period.  Science without Observing Phenomenon, Formulating Hypotheses, then TESTING them... is like water without hydrogen.


QuoteWhat do you have against change?

"Change" is not a mechanism/process it's the result of a mechanism/process. It's tantamount to answering the query: "How do Hurricanes form".....with, "the Weather Changed".


QuoteIf you knew Heraclitus, you would realize that almost nothing stays the same over time, biological or physical .. and slow long term change in biology is what we call evolution.

I'm not asking for the definition of the word "evolution".  I'm asking for the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?  Much like, I'm not asking for the definition of the word "Germ", I'm asking for Germ Theory.  Follow?

Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 01:01:09 PM
Quote from: aitm on February 24, 2016, 12:42:09 PM
I only need three thumbs down to flush.

You have my thumb.

It doesn't matter what you response, he denies.  Along with there is no theory of evolution, there is no "Viable" Theory of Gravity. He quotes a theory from Encyclopedia Britannica (Germ Theory) as an example of an acceptable scientific theory, , yet the same website has a page on the theory of evolution. So what we have here is someone completely wacko. It's time for the BANHAMMER.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hydra009 on February 24, 2016, 01:06:37 PM
Quote from: aitm on February 24, 2016, 12:42:09 PM
I only need three thumbs down to flush.
(https://media.riffsy.com/images/6a4502f0e1ce4f517c29f633accc94fe/raw)
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 01:09:29 PM
Quote from: TrueStory on February 24, 2016, 12:54:47 PM
@ daniel2012   Since you think it is quite easy to post a scientific theory could you post one that is not about evolution and by using that as a model maybe I could post about evolution is the same format.
Evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

http://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory

That isn't a Scientific Theory. 

1. Begging The Question:  "other pre-existing types";  What was the FIRST organism and mechanism for Life from Non-Life...?

2.  What's the mechanism after you already have life for the "distinguishable differences?? ("modifications" is not a mechanism). 
Also a complete nincompoop @ the beginning of time could have come to roughly the same conclusion by observing successive generations of his family and a family of squirrels.

ps. thanks for @ least trying

regards
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: TrueStory on February 24, 2016, 01:14:08 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 01:09:29 PM
1. Begging The Question:  "other pre-existing types";  What was the FIRST organism and mechanism for Life from Non-Life...?

The first organism is not addressed by evolution so there is no fallacy.

Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 01:09:29 PM
2.  What's the mechanism after you already have life for the "distinguishable differences?? ("modifications" is not a mechanism). 
Also a complete nincompoop @ the beginning of time could have come to roughly the same conclusion by observing successive generations of his family and a family of squirrels.

I've provided the scientific theory as thoroughly as you have for germ theory.  You've provided no mechanism for germ theory, caused is not a mechanism.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 24, 2016, 01:19:01 PM
I am not sure, but if you consider the Gem Theory example, I still maintain that he thinks he needs to be served some neat, magical formula kind of explanation of the whole evolution process in one step with its mechanisms that can be 'tested' back an fourth in a linear understanding. Like a mathematical one. Except like a recipe,lol.

Is it a theist or an atheist offended by evolution? Is it a poe? Do I care?

Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: stromboli on February 24, 2016, 01:19:37 PM
Hold on, don't leave yet.

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

QuoteIs Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related question

Scientific method:

QuoteAsk a Question.
Do Background Research.
Construct a Hypothesis.
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment.
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Communicate Your Results.

The theory is based on an abundance of evidence. Starting with literally millions of fossils. Mammoth bones, for example, ahave provided DNA the DNA cosnfirms age, species and a few other things. We have so-called living fossils:

QuoteThe rare coealacanth’s genome is slowly evolvingâ€"and contrary to prior speculation, it probably isn’t the common ancestor of all land animals.

Now, though, the coelacanth’s full genome has been sequenced for the first time, and the results, published by an international team of researchers today in Nature, suggest otherwise. Genetic analysis suggests that the coelacanth doesn’t appear to be the most recent shared ancestor between sea and land animalsâ€"so its lobed fins didn’t make that first fateful step onto land after all.

When the researchers used what they found out about the coelacanth’s genome to build an evolutionary tree of marine and terrestrial animals (below), they found it’s more likely that ancestors of closely-related class of fish called lungfish played this crucial role. The ancestors of coelacanths and lungfish split off from each other before the latter group first colonized any land areas.

The genetic sequencing showed that terrestrial animals share a more recent common ancestor with lungfish, rather than coelacanths. Image via Nature/Amemiya et. al.

Additionally, the coelacanth’s prehistoric appearance has led to it commonly being considered a “living fossil”: a rare, unchanging biological time capsule of a bygone prehistoric era. But the genomic sequencing indicated that the fish species is actually still evolvingâ€"just very, very slowlyâ€"supporting the recent argument that it’s time to stop calling the fish and other seemingly prehistoric creatures “living fossils.”

“We found that the genes overall are evolving significantly slower than in every other fish and land vertebrate that we looked at,” Jessica Alföldi, a scientist at MIT and Harvard’s Broad Institute and a co-author, said in a press statement. Small segments of the fish’s DNA had previously been sequenced, but now, she said, “This is the first time that we’ve had a big enough gene set to really see that.”

The fact that the fish is evolving isn’t surprisingâ€"like all organisms, it lives in a changing world, with continuously fluctuating selection pressures that drive evolution. What’s surprising (though reflected by its seemingly-prehistoric appearance) is that it’s evolving so slowly, compared to a random sampling of other animals. According to the scientists’ analysis of 251 genes in the fish’s genome, it evolved with an average rate of 0.89 base-pair substitutions for any given site, compared to 1.09 for a chicken and 1.21 for a variety of mammals (base-pair substitution refers to the frequency with with DNA base-pairsâ€"the building blocks of genesâ€"are altered over time).

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-sequencing-reveals-that-coelacanths-werent-the-missing-link-between-sea-and-land-25025860/?no-ist

DNA sampling is more than sufficient testing of a hypothesis.

By the way- the only place I have heard "independent variable" mentioned was in a statistics class, never in biology.

Its called PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. Millions of fossil bones, much DNA testing, bones found in identified geological strata, radiographic and so on. Evolution has been subject to every form of testing day one. Add to that ongoing examples such as Tiktaalik, Coelocanth, sharks and other critters.  The scientists involved are overwhelmingly believers in evolution. 
Sorry. Evolution has more basis in fact than any claim you make against it.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 01:21:01 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 01:01:09 PM
You have my thumb.

Great.  What time is recess over?

QuoteIt doesn't matter what you response, he denies.

For instance....?

QuoteAlong with there is no theory of evolution, there is no "Viable" Theory of Gravity.

That's right.  As I said, we'll get to that in due time.  I don't want to derail this topic.

QuoteHe quotes a theory from Encyclopedia Britannica (Germ Theory) as an example of an acceptable scientific theory,

Yes, is there a problem other than attempting to float a Genetic Fallacy?  How about Harvard...

Germ theory states that specific microscopic organisms are the cause of specific diseases.
http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/germtheory.html (http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/germtheory.html)

Quoteyet the same website has a page on the theory of evolution.

SO?? Does the mere fact that a source has a viable Scientific Theory for one subject, Ipso Facto mean that every other "Theory" posted there is viable?

QuoteSo what we have here is someone completely wacko. It's time for the BANHAMMER.

Yea, you better...that's the only tactic that can save you.  You better have them start deleting your posts also.

regards
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: stromboli on February 24, 2016, 01:32:20 PM
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/evolution-is-just-a-theory/?repeat=w3tc

QuoteAs the first requirement shows, “theory” in scientific use does not mean “guess” or anything similar. In fact, for a scientific explanation to be called a theory, it must be well-supported by evidence. When a scientist wishes to explain the cause of some object or event, they make an educated guess, usually called a hypothesis. This hypothesis is then tested by experiment and observation, and graduates to the status of theory if and only if enough evidence is found to support it and it repeatedly passes the tests it is subjected to. This is a standard the theory of evolution passes with flying colors: in a hundred and fifty years of scientific study of the natural world, evolution has never failed any crucial test, and an overwhelming amount of evidence has been found which supports it.

A scientific theory must also be, at least in principle, testable and falsifiable. If there is no imaginable test that could be performed to check a hypothesis, or if there is no evidence that could possibly prove it wrong, it can never become a theory. Evolution likewise meets both these requirements. To name some obvious examples, every discovery of a new fossil or a new species is a test of evolution. If a newly discovered species does not fit into the nested tree pattern used to classify all living things, or if a fossil is found in rock strata dramatically different from those where it should be, the theory of evolution would have to be drastically changed or discarded altogether.

The last requirement is whether a theory can be used to predict new discoveries we should make in the future. Anyone can patch together a hypothesis that explains a set of facts; the real test is whether we can take the organizing principles of that hypothesis and use them to deduce the existence of new evidence or phenomena not yet known. If such predictions cannot be made, or if they are made and then shown to be false, then the hypothesis fails to meet the qualifications for a theory and must be rejected. Evolution possesses great predictive power â€" not in the sense of predicting exactly how life will evolve in the future, because that depends on many chance factors too subtle for us to measure, but in the sense of predicting how new discoveries will fit into life’s established family tree. For example, if we possess part of a fossil series, we can reliably predict when in the rock record other members of that series will be found. See the Talk.Origins January 1997 Post of the Month for an example predicting where the ancestors of modern ants would be found. See here for a list of other verified predictions.

List of verified predictions:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 01:52:49 PM
Quote from: stromboli on February 24, 2016, 01:19:37 PM
Hold on, don't leave yet.

Oh, I'm not leaving.


QuoteScientific method:

Ask a Question.
Do Background Research.
Construct a Hypothesis.
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment.
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Communicate Your Results.

Ask a Question??  Ahh, I don't think so.

The First Step in the Scientific Method appears to be somewhat confusing to most. It's not just "Make an Observation"; it's Observe a Phenomenon.
It's an "ACTION" that you OBSERVE, that must be based in reality so as to afford the ability to TEST it. It's not just "OBSERVE" as in Observe "Nouns" (rock, fossil, et al)...you have to OBSERVE a "Phenomenon", an Action.  It's also not "Conjure a Phenomenon".  And it has to be repeatable, it can't be a "One-Off"...if so, How can you TEST it?

"No phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon."
Niels Bohr, as quoted in; Science and Ultimate Reality. Quantum Theory, Cosmology and Complexity: Cambridge University Press, p. 209


If you try and circumvent The Scientific Method and Hypothesize Observations of Nouns, this is what you're reduced to (an example)...

If it was just "Make an Observation" then let's do it:

I Observe a Tree "Noun". What's the Hypothesis.......? .....

How did this Tree Form? (Invalid, not Observed)
What circumstances led to this Tree growing in my backyard? (Invalid, not Observed)
The Tree formed by evolution. (Invalid, not Observed). And, you have a Begging The Question Fallacy in the Hypothesis.

*These aren't valid Scientific Hypotheses to begin with anyway.


OK what's the TEST? Set up the Experiments, then please Elucidate...
What are the Dependent/Independent/Control Variables of the TESTS?

"You make a set of observations, then hypothesize an explanation which accounts for all of the observations."
http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/scimeth.htm (http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/scimeth.htm)

OK lets Hypothesize an explanation which accounts for ALL the Observations.... So with our Tree:

Since we just "Observe the Tree", how do we account for all the Observations? THIS IS YOUR ONLY RECOURSE (Each and every Time you just "Make an Observation" of Nouns): Your Hypothesis from the Train-wreck Observation...

[In the daytime] Open your Eyelids then billions of bits of data hit the Retina which then the Photo-Receptors have to ENCODE then send to the Visual Cortex for DECODING (Symbolic Logic)--- which btw, the Laws of Physics and Chemistry have no Symbolic Logic Functions.

Viola, A Tree!  The Independent Variable here...is your Eyelids, for goodness sakes.

It's Observe a Phenomenon, not just "Make an Observation"---of Nouns!


QuoteThe theory is based on an abundance of evidence.

A Scientific Theory is based on Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses.

QuoteDNA sampling is more than sufficient testing of a hypothesis.

1. What's the Scientific Hypothesis...?

2. Begging The Question:  where'd you get DNA??  Start here...

a. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer-RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin.

Then the WOOLLY Mammoth in the Room...

b. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?


QuoteBy the way- the only place I have heard "independent variable" mentioned was in a statistics class, never in biology.

Thanks for hammering the c4 fire; you just identified ONE of the problems.

List the tenets of a Scientific Hypothesis....?

QuoteIts called PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.

Factually Incorrect.  It's called "Just So" Stories.

QuoteThe scientists involved are overwhelmingly believers in evolution.

We don't "believe" in Science, we Hypothesis TEST.  "Believing" is for Propaganda States, 2nd Grade Story Time, Religion, and Politics.
 
QuoteSorry. Evolution has more basis in fact than any claim you make against it.

Yes, and Anna Nicole married for Love and Pol Pot was her florist.

regards
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: stromboli on February 24, 2016, 02:08:37 PM
Preponderance of evidence and real scientists- biologists, microbiologists, Paleologist and other sciences to an overwhelming degree accept it. Sorry, some dude on the internet does not trump science.

And I don't know if you are a creationist or what you are, we are still back to preponderance of evidence. And the finding of millions of date able fossils is more than enough in terms of experiential data. And observing ongoing finding of more evidence answers the predictability issue.

If you are a creationist, please come up with the experiential data to back it. DNA supports evolution, not creationism.  Otherwise you are still just a dude on the internet, so goodbye. You won't be here long.

Just so stories? Anna Nicole? Pol Pot?  Lol. You are reaching now.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 02:10:07 PM
Quote from: stromboli on February 24, 2016, 01:32:20 PM
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/evolution-is-just-a-theory/?repeat=w3tc

From your source...

Quote"A scientific theory must also be, at least in principle, testable and falsifiable. If there is no imaginable test that could be performed to check a hypothesis, or if there is no evidence that could possibly prove it wrong, it can never become a theory."

Slightly vague but correct.

QuoteEvolution likewise meets both these requirements. To name some obvious examples, every discovery of a new fossil or a new species is a test of evolution.

1.  "evolution", what's that??  Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution....? (For roughly the 30th time)

2.  What was the "Independent Variable" for your new fossil find?  Eyelids, Angle of the Shovel ??

Species (The Taxonomic Classification System) is a man-made classification system, a convention and somewhat arbitrary.  It's definition has changed hundreds of times since Aristotle postulated it, i.e., it's a Rubber Ruler.
Moreover, it's not even part of the argument yet...since you haven't defined that which you are attempting to provide evidence for.

QuoteList of verified predictions:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html

Can you post the difference between: "Scientific Predictions" and Jeanne Dixon/Edgar Cayce/Nostradamus "Predictions"?

Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: stromboli on February 24, 2016, 02:11:53 PM
When you start pulling in random crap like Jeane Dixon that isn't to the point or making a point, now you are just blithering.

Thumbs up.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 02:24:22 PM
Quote from: stromboli on February 24, 2016, 02:08:37 PM
Preponderance of evidence and real scientists- biologists, microbiologists, Paleologist and other sciences to an overwhelming degree accept it. Sorry, some dude on the internet does not trump science.

Acceptance/beliefs/consensus ect are the Antithesis of Science...they are based on Subjectivity.  The Scientific Method is Objective/Empirical; it was created to eradicate them and those of their ilk.


QuoteAnd I don't know if you are a creationist or what you are

I don't want to derail this thread.  We can get to that in due time.

Quotewe are still back to preponderance of evidence.

For what?


QuoteAnd the finding of millions of date able fossils is more than enough in terms of experiential data. And observing ongoing finding of more evidence answers the predictability issue.

All fossils point to is things "Died"...all of a sudden like, via water filled sediments.


QuoteIf you are a creationist, please come up with the experiential data to back it.

We'll get to it @ some point as mentioned.

QuoteDNA supports evolution, not creationism.

See previous response to this and answer the questions when you get a chance.


QuoteOtherwise you are still just a dude on the internet, so goodbye.

So I'm a "dude on the internet"; therefore...goodbye??  Not following


QuoteYou won't be here long.

Why not?


QuoteJust so stories? Anna Nicole? Pol Pot?  Lol.

Thought you might like it.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 02:29:18 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 01:21:01 PM




Germ theory states that specific microscopic organisms are the cause of specific diseases.
http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/germtheory.html (http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/germtheory.html)

SO?? Does the mere fact that a source has a viable Scientific Theory for one subject, Ipso Facto mean that every other "Theory" posted there is viable?



Weird that Harvard also carry  a whole bunch of articles/books on the theory of evolution...LOL.

http://hollis.harvard.edu/primo_library/libweb/action/dlSearch.do?institution=HVD&vid=HVD&tab=everything&search_scope=everything&mode=Basic&onCampus=false&displayMode=full&highlight=true&query=any%2Ccontains%2Ctheory+of+evolution&displayField=all&pcAvailabiltyMode=true&bulkSize=30 (http://hollis.harvard.edu/primo_library/libweb/action/dlSearch.do?institution=HVD&vid=HVD&tab=everything&search_scope=everything&mode=Basic&onCampus=false&displayMode=full&highlight=true&query=any%2Ccontains%2Ctheory+of+evolution&displayField=all&pcAvailabiltyMode=true&bulkSize=30)




Keep digging yourself in a bigger hole...



Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 02:29:36 PM
Quote from: stromboli on February 24, 2016, 02:11:53 PM
When you start pulling in random crap like Jeane Dixon that isn't to the point or making a point, now you are just blithering.

It's not random and it has a clear delineated purpose in the juxtaposition, it's quite germane to the point.


regards 
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: stromboli on February 24, 2016, 02:32:43 PM
You got my vote for a ban. This guy knows more than thousands of scientists and 150 years of evolutionary theory testing and reevaluating. No point in dealing with it further.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 02:36:50 PM
Quote from: stromboli on February 24, 2016, 02:32:43 PM
You got my vote for a ban. This guy knows more than thousands of scientists and 150 years of evolutionary theory testing and reevaluating. No point in dealing with it further.

Don't you know by now that the theory evolution is a hoax, the theory of gravity is a hoax, global warming is a hoax, and only the bible is true... dumb atheists...
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 02:39:20 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 02:29:18 PM
Weird that Harvard also carry  a whole bunch of articles/books on the theory of evolution...LOL.

Here we go again.  SO??

Post their "Scientific Theory" of evolution....?

I'm not following your logic here, you're saying... since Harvard has Viable Authentic Information on some "Theories" that Ipso Facto renders ALL of them Viable ??  Can you tell us why?


QuoteKeep digging yourself in a bigger hole...

Yes like the World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers dug their hole deeper and deeper in Super Bowl IX.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 02:41:53 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 02:39:20 PM
Here we go again.  SO??

Post their "Scientific Theory" of evolution....?

I'm not following your logic here, you're saying... since Harvard has Viable Authentic Information on some "Theories" that Ipso Facto renders ALL of them Viable ??  Can you tell us why?


Yes like the World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers dug their hole deeper and deeper in Super Bowl IX.

You're just a troll, and we're having fun with you. It's a matter of time before you are banned. You are what many call a "chewtoy".
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 02:45:15 PM
Quote from: stromboli on February 24, 2016, 02:32:43 PM
You got my vote for a ban.

Why??  I didn't violate any of the forum rules.  I have however, had numerous ad hominems (name calling ect) directed towards my AO.

QuoteThis guy knows more than thousands of scientists

I never said that, and who said they were Scientists?  Don't you have to follow/adhere to The Scientific Method to be a "Scientist" ?

Quoteand 150 years of evolutionary theory

Appeal to Age (Fallacy)


QuoteNo point in dealing with it further.

So a hand-wave dismissal, eh?  Never seen that before.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: aitm on February 24, 2016, 02:46:44 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 01:52:49 PM
Oh, I'm not leaving.

No, no your not.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 02:53:52 PM
Hypothesis:  Daniel2021 will be banned (post #80)

Observation:  Daniel2021 is banned (post#82)

Therefore the theory has been confirmed...

:051bye:
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: PickelledEggs on February 24, 2016, 04:17:48 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 02:53:52 PM
Hypothesis:  Daniel2021 will be banned (post #80)

Observation:  Daniel2021 is banned (post#82)

Therefore the theory has been confirmed...

:051bye:
Wrong.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 04:33:13 PM
Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 24, 2016, 04:17:48 PM
Wrong.

What happened? He was banned at the time I posted. Was he unbanned??
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 24, 2016, 05:07:37 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 12:30:24 PMAhhh, Scientific Theories are either validated by their Hypotheses or they're NOT. They don't get "UPDATED"
Thank you for confirming that you don't understand the words you are speaking. Now I don't have to waste my breath on you.

(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/ronald-reagan-berlinwall.jpg)
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 24, 2016, 05:24:52 PM
Daniel, how much science have you learned at the university level? Not much, because what you've been spouting does not indicate that you have not had any university level science.

For instance, you say:

QuoteAgain: "Similarities", "Resemblances", "Correlations"...aren't Science.

Well, actually... yeah, they are. They're not 100% solid, but similarities, resemblances, and correlations are all indicative and point towards some kind of unifying principle. Even the mathematical law of Newton's second law of motion, F=ma, isn't quite correct. Not only because F=dp/dt (force is time-rate-change of momentum), but also because you can't account for every piddly little force on any real object, so there's no way to confirm the law to 100% confidence.

The real world is messy and noisy, so the kinds of proofs you find in mathematics are impossible. Instead, you look for evidence that confirms or undermines your hypotheses and theories. Evolution predicts that there will be a strong correlation between the phylogenetic trees constructed by the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and genetic analysis, a prediction that is confirmed â€" they do mostly match up, and where they don't, it's because the phylogeny is not clear. Evolution predicts that there will be a succession of forms within the geological column, distributed in a particular way in both space and time, and with specified intermediaries, and again this is what we find. In particular for us, evolution predicts that Africa, the ancestral home of humanity, will contain the most genetic diversity in humans, and once again this is confirmed â€" when you do a cladistic analysis of human populations, there are twenty someodd clades of African tribes, and one clade containing everyone else (including some Africans).

These are slam-dunks for evolution. Regardless of mechanisms or whatnot, there's something in the theory that has great explanatory power. It keeps its title as a scientific theory only because it has that great explanatory power. That's not religion.

Special creation, on the other hand, gets just about everything wrong. The flood geology predicts a particular sedimentation type to be present worldwide â€" a sedimentation type that we do not see. Catastrophic floods simply do not produce the strata we see in most of the geological column. Only slow sedimentation can produce the striated forms we actually see most everywhere. Furthermore, there would be many more creatures of each type that lived before the flood than at the time of the flood; there would be fossil bunnies in the Precambrian stratum, which we don't find. This is to say nothing of other problems with where the water came from and went, Kent Hovind's "theories" notwithstanding. Moving from YEC, special creation has no explanation for the Linnaean taxonomy, with its strict hierarchy of traits. Special creation has no explanation of why organisms organize themselves into groups of groups of groups. Special creation has no explanation for why the genetic phylogenetic tree matches the fossil record's phylogenetic tree, which in turn matches the taxonomic phylogenetic tree. Special creation has no explanation for the intermediate forms. And it has no accounting of why Africans are the most genetically diverse group of humans bar none.

These are epic failures for creationism of all stripes. It absolutely and positively fails to explain anything. Yet, proponents of these claims refuse to give them up despite the evidence to the contrary. That is religion.

Mechanisms, proofs, and other things you bleat about are besides the point in science. The point of a theory is its explanatory power, and the theory of evolution does have explanatory power, even if to you it just seems like a black box with a crank on the side. And the fact that you refuse to learn about the content of the box is clear from the very fact that you are demanding an explanation of us, rather than visiting your nearest university and asking your friendly neighborhood biologist what's going on. It's so you can maintain your pleasant little delusion that there really is nothing in the box and it's all just religion, rather than daring to find out the truth. Coward.

(http://i925.photobucket.com/albums/ad94/4udonge/main/Reimu_beat.jpg) (http://s925.photobucket.com/user/4udonge/media/main/Reimu_beat.jpg.html)

QuoteWhy??  I didn't violate any of the forum rules.  I have however, had numerous ad hominems (name calling ect) directed towards my AO.
Rules lawyering will avail you nothing. If you prove yourself to be an annoying pest, pointing out that it isn't against the rules will not save you; we'll just update the rules and use them on the boot we implant knee-deep into your kiester on your way out the door.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 24, 2016, 05:47:58 PM
And before you try to accuse us of ganging up on you, Daniel, understand this:

We have repeatedly told you where to look for the information you desire. We are not professors, and we are not obligated to give you a crash course in biology. I will be the first to welcome a contrary opinion that has a lot of thought behind it; but if you can't be bothered to have basic knowledge about the subject you are debating, then fuck off.

We have a saying on the internet: "Not sure if he's stupid, or just trolling." You're riding that line, Daniel. You're riding it reeeeeeeally hard.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: mauricio on February 24, 2016, 06:01:21 PM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 01:09:29 PM
That isn't a Scientific Theory. 

1. Begging The Question:  "other pre-existing types";  What was the FIRST organism and mechanism for Life from Non-Life...?

2.  What's the mechanism after you already have life for the "distinguishable differences?? ("modifications" is not a mechanism). 
Also a complete nincompoop @ the beginning of time could have come to roughly the same conclusion by observing successive generations of his family and a family of squirrels.

ps. thanks for @ least trying

regards

DNA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Gerard on February 24, 2016, 06:07:57 PM
Frankly I'm inclined to react badly these days to people who, using nifty syllogisms and notions about logic that are strangely convenient to their POV, think they've got it all figured out, but don't actually know stuff. Especially when they get on a high horse and demand to be provided with evidence that would refute their self concocted rationalizations about how they're right and everybody else (including the scientific community) is wrong.

Gerard
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Baruch on February 24, 2016, 06:40:10 PM
There are amino acids among the stars ... and it was demonstrated 60 years ago, that amino acids can be spontaneously generated in a primitive atmosphere by lightning and other energy inputs.  This is happening now.  But it takes special conditions, that we don't understand, to generate the earliest life forms from these more or less organic molecules.  I would suspect that the existence of a developed biosphere, selects against new photo-life forms forming.  But out among those recently discovered exo-planets, it probably is going on.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Gerard on February 24, 2016, 07:01:30 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 24, 2016, 06:40:10 PM
There are amino acids among the stars ... and it was demonstrated 60 years ago, that amino acids can be spontaneously generated in a primitive atmosphere by lightning and other energy inputs.  This is happening now.  But it takes special conditions, that we don't understand, to generate the earliest life forms from these more or less organic molecules.  I would suspect that the existence of a developed biosphere, selects against new photo-life forms forming.  But out among those recently discovered exo-planets, it probably is going on.

Sure, but that's not biological evolution. Just organic molecules. Organic molecules certainly played a part in the origin of life. But that's another matter altogether. Evolution begins after life originated

Gerard
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 07:37:05 PM
Quote from: Gerard on February 24, 2016, 07:01:30 PM
Sure, but that's not biological evolution. Just organic molecules. Organic molecules certainly played a part in the origin of life. But that's another matter altogether. Evolution begins after life originated

Gerard

Yeah, the study of life arising from inert matter is called abiogenesis. A lot of people confuse that with evolutionary biology.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 24, 2016, 09:01:44 PM
Okay guys, I wasn't banned for trolling even though I made it very obvious that I trolling (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9592.msg1118814#msg1118814), which I take to mean trolling is now allowed. So I guess we can't ban this troll. Glad this was made so clear in the site rules. :lol:
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hydra009 on February 24, 2016, 09:08:01 PM
Don't tempt fate.  Please, let's all just try to go about our business normally and not try to make the situation worse.  And if you have to disagree, do so in a decently polite way so as to not have the recepient reject the message because of the tone.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: stromboli on February 24, 2016, 09:24:58 PM
What a fun thread. 100,000 years from now an alien race will reclaim it from the the ether, read it, and laugh themselves into hysterics. Carry on.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Draconic Aiur on February 24, 2016, 09:26:13 PM
thees one British crazy ive found
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: wolf39us on February 24, 2016, 10:25:05 PM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 24, 2016, 09:01:44 PM
Okay guys, I wasn't banned for trolling even though I made it very obvious that I trolling (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9592.msg1118814#msg1118814), which I take to mean trolling is now allowed. So I guess we can't ban this troll. Glad this was made so clear in the site rules. :lol:

[mod]I suggest you refrain from intentionally antagonizing a moderator[/mod]
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 25, 2016, 07:08:09 AM
I think what triggers regulars with posters like Daniel is a few certain things:

-they almost never introduce themselves or they turn their introduction thread into a "I'll teach you how wrong you are, atheists" topic.

-they do not try to build a conversation and go from there, but they show -again- a deliberately agitated stance themselves from the moment they get into the forum. The interaction starts from an already escalated point right there.

-all their attitude is based on "I'm right and you are wrong and I am here to show you this in a minute". They are not really here to have a communication to present an opinion, but show a group full of a forum how stupid they are.


While I completely agree with Pickel on principle, I have to say that at most times what carries the situation to this point is the escalation these posters create themselves to begin with. Should we take the bait, of course we shouldn't. We should ignore them after it is obvious what they are after which is the ideal, but if you think what this forum stands for and that it doesn't have much traffic, it is not possible at most times.

People here want this space to be free form the usual mainstream bullshit -can't blame them- they see everywhere and get triggered and attack at some point. The world outside belongs to Daniels. We are a minority that is considered 'extreme' and 'radical'.

Having said all that these posters could be given suspensions instead of pushing the banhammer. 3 days, 1 week, 1 month.... A scale. May be that would work better.


Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 25, 2016, 07:52:29 AM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 24, 2016, 09:01:44 PM
Okay guys, I wasn't banned for trolling even though I made it very obvious that I trolling (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9592.msg1118814#msg1118814), which I take to mean trolling is now allowed. So I guess we can't ban this troll. Glad this was made so clear in the site rules. :lol:

Daniel has been been banned. You are a regular so you are given more leeway than he was, but it stops now if you don't want to join him. 
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 25, 2016, 08:25:53 AM
Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 24, 2016, 12:30:24 PM
Scientific Theories are concise statements that elucidate mechanisms validated by Scientific Hypotheses.  If you need more than 3 sentences, you got yourself a story not a Scientific Theory.

I know Danny boy is gone, but I wanted to address this little gem because it is flat out wrong.

Quotescientific theory
noun
1. a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
example: the scientific theory of evolution.

It was pointed out in several posts that the theory of evolution is complex. It cannot be explained in its entirety in a sentence, paragraph or even a volume of encyclopedias. It is not a law. It will never be a law. It can not be expressed as a single mathematical formula. It covers many things because there is no single reason or driving force behind evolution. The theory that explains the hows and whys of evolution does change as new observations are made. It has been repeatedly confirmed through both observation and experimentation. New hypothesis related to evolution are developed and either rejected and confirmed on a regular basis.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 25, 2016, 10:57:09 AM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 25, 2016, 08:25:53 AM
I know Danny boy is gone, but I wanted to address this little gem because it is flat out wrong.

Thank God... oh wait... er, huh, ... never mind...

Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 25, 2016, 11:04:44 AM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 25, 2016, 07:52:29 AM
Daniel has been been banned. You are a regular so you are given more leeway than he was, but it stops now if you don't want to join him. 
Okay, dude, I don't have to be told twice. Shut the fuck up and let it go already.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 25, 2016, 11:10:44 AM
Apparently you do. The warning I posted was the result of a discussion between the mods. It was the least of the options being discussed. Tell me to shut the fuck up again, and you'll earn yourself a temp ban. 
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 25, 2016, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 25, 2016, 11:10:44 AM
Apparently you do.
Why? I took it to PMs like a civilized person after Wolf's warning. You are literally the only one continuing to perpetuate the drama, and if this were one of my forums you would be on a 48 hour vacation just for that. Knock it off.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 25, 2016, 11:25:02 AM
You, and anyone else on this forum, are welcome to continue this discussion as long as you want. But the next time I see you tell a member of the staff acting in an official capacity to shut up I'll temp ban you and the rest of the staff can decide if I was right or wrong after the fact.

Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 25, 2016, 11:38:29 AM
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 25, 2016, 11:25:02 AM
You, and anyone else on this forum, are welcome to continue this discussion as long as you want. But the next time I see you tell a member of the staff acting in an official capacity to shut up I'll temp ban you and the rest of the staff can decide if I was right or wrong after the fact.
Okay first of all, it's only official if you use the mod mail (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9451.msg1118854#msg1118854) format, and I am free to consider it a personal opinion otherwise.

Also, this right here is precisely my frustration with the staff of this forum. From an outside perspective, it appears as though there is no communication going on whatsoever. That post you warned me about? I made that before Daniel was banned, back when it looked like the ban reversal would be upheld. I don't know what's going on with you guys, it is extremely frustrating not to know when and how things will be enforced, and since there is no unified voice I can bring my concerns to I have no recourse but to vent my frustration somewhere. Now maybe I shouldn't have told you to "shut the fuck up," and I apologize for that, but you have to understand that things look extremely disorganized from where I'm standing, to the point where I can't tell a lack of communication apart from an organized response.

I said it in a PM yesterday and I will say it here: you guys need to get your act together, because right now it is impossible to tell what's going on and which staff members I should be listening to.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: PopeyesPappy on February 25, 2016, 12:01:53 PM
OK, How's this?

[mod]You are treading on thin fucking ice. I suggest you stop.[/mod]

Yes you got two warnings. Now you've had four. There won't be a fifth.

Yes the mods could have handled this situation with Daniel better. We understand that. You don't like it. We understand that too. In your case I posted what I posted because I didn't want to see you get banned. I'm having a change of heart here.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 25, 2016, 12:12:28 PM
I don't know if this is the right place but as Hijiri said, it has to be somewhere. We need new rules to deal with the Daniel2021 incident, in which a new poster comes into this forum with this gotcha' attitude. He wasn't strictly speaking trolling nor outright impolite, but the tone of his posts was anything but a desire for discussion. The way he dismissed every poster, his refusal to even discuss any links that were given to him, repeating constantly the same demand, which no one would ever  satisfy, that is the NEW TROLLING. And we should adjust our rules accordingly. And more importantly, avoid the bickeringnot only among members of this forum but also among the mods. So, someone should start the ball, preferably a mod we can all trust, because right now as Hijiri also pointed out, we don't know who should we listen to.


Best regards,
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 25, 2016, 12:14:07 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 25, 2016, 12:12:28 PM
I don't know if this is the right place but as Hijiri said, it has to be somewhere. We need new rules to deal with the Daniel2021 incident, in which a new poster comes into this forum with this gotcha' attitude. He wasn't strictly speaking trolling nor outright impolite, but the tone of his posts was anything but a desire for discussion. The way he dismissed every poster, his refusal to even discuss any links that were given to him, repeating constantly the same demand, which no one would ever satisfied, that is the NEW TROLLING. And we should adjust our rules accordingly. And more importantly, avoid the bickering that unfurled last night not only among members of this forum but also among the mods. So, someone should start the ball, preferably a mod we can all trust, because right now as Hijiri also pointed out, we don't know who should we listen to.


Best regards,
I'd leave it alone. I've requested a 48 hour ban so I won't be tempted to continue this before I finish calming down. Just waiting on it to be applied right now.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: PickelledEggs on February 26, 2016, 01:28:48 PM
Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 25, 2016, 07:08:09 AM
I think what triggers regulars with posters like Daniel is a few certain things:

-they almost never introduce themselves or they turn their introduction thread into a "I'll teach you how wrong you are, atheists" topic.

-they do not try to build a conversation and go from there, but they show -again- a deliberately agitated stance themselves from the moment they get into the forum. The interaction starts from an already escalated point right there.

-all their attitude is based on "I'm right and you are wrong and I am here to show you this in a minute". They are not really here to have a communication to present an opinion, but show a group full of a forum how stupid they are.


While I completely agree with Pickel on principle, I have to say that at most times what carries the situation to this point is the escalation these posters create themselves to begin with. Should we take the bait, of course we shouldn't. We should ignore them after it is obvious what they are after which is the ideal, but if you think what this forum stands for and that it doesn't have much traffic, it is not possible at most times.

People here want this space to be free form the usual mainstream bullshit -can't blame them- they see everywhere and get triggered and attack at some point. The world outside belongs to Daniels. We are a minority that is considered 'extreme' and 'radical'.

Having said all that these posters could be given suspensions instead of pushing the banhammer. 3 days, 1 week, 1 month.... A scale. May be that would work better.



Yeah like I said, I regret bringing up Daniel in the post. It was never about him and it distracted everyone from the point that we need to not be so hostile.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 26, 2016, 01:34:09 PM
Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 26, 2016, 01:28:48 PM
Yeah like I said, I regret bringing up Daniel in the post. It was never about him and it distracted everyone from the point that we need to not be so hostile.

I know. I support you, I think you are right.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: u196533 on March 29, 2016, 10:50:15 AM
Evolution is not yet a proven fact, it is a theory. There is a huge amount of evidence to back it up, and I am convinced that most aspects of natural selection are true.  However there are still huge gaping holes in the theory.  How (not why but how) did sexual reproduction evolve?  How (not why but how) did multi-cellular organisms with specialized cells/organs evolve from single cells? How did self preservation evolve in  non-sentient beings?  We still don't really know the answer to Darwin's original question that started his quest:  How did the Venus Flytrap evolve?

We need to keep asking these questions to move science forward.  To mock anyone who questions a theory with huge holes is as ignorant as someone dogmatically believing in the bible.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hydra009 on March 29, 2016, 12:37:28 PM
Quote from: u196533 on March 29, 2016, 10:50:15 AM
Evolution is not yet a proven fact, it is a theory.
Scientific theories never graduate to become facts.  Heliocentrism is a theory.  Gravity is a theory.  Atomic theory is...well, you get the idea.

QuoteHowever there are still huge gaping holes in the theory.
Oh?

QuoteHow (not why but how) did sexual reproduction evolve?
link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction)

QuoteHow (not why but how) did multi-cellular organisms with specialized cells/organs evolve from single cells?
How did multicellular organisms evolve?  Or how did organs evolve?  I'm assuming you mean the latter.

Well, we currently have animals with various levels of organ complexity - from complex to simple to practically non-existent.  It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots and figure out that the complex organs evolved from simple organs.  Pick a human organ and you'll find a species out there with a very rudimentary version of it.  Lungs, for example.  Some fish have lungs.  Lungs are homologous with swim bladders, both likely arose from simple gas sacs in fish (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/02/ct-scans-help-answer-question-fish-lung-evolution).  So, it's pretty obvious that lungs evolved from more rudimentary antecedents.  Same goes with other organs.

QuoteHow did self preservation evolve in  non-sentient beings?
Is this a serious question?  Seems pretty self-explanatory.  And since when was sentience necessary for harm avoidance?  Someone should tell the horse-fly buzzing about my room.

QuoteWe still don't really know the answer to Darwin's original question that started his quest:  How did the Venus Flytrap evolve?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8151000/8151644.stm

Poor soil + sticky leaves -> venus flytrap.  Lots of other plant species made similar transitions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivorous_plant#Evolution).

QuoteWe need to keep asking these questions to move science forward.  To mock anyone who questions a theory with huge holes is as ignorant as someone dogmatically believing in the bible.
Her full quote was "Evolution is not a fact. That’s why it’s called a theory! There’s more evidence that the Bible is true."  Pretty obviously a creationist whose denial of evolution stemmed from a religious ideological basis rather than someone who simply "questions" evolution.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 29, 2016, 02:24:06 PM
Quote from: u196533 on March 29, 2016, 10:50:15 AM
Evolution is not yet a proven fact, it is a theory.
That's... not how it works. Theories are made out of facts; they do not become facts unto themselves. A theory is the highest level of explanation you can get in science.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Gerard on March 29, 2016, 02:54:04 PM
Quote from: u196533 on March 29, 2016, 10:50:15 AM
Evolution is not yet a proven fact, it is a theory. There is a huge amount of evidence to back it up, and I am convinced that most aspects of natural selection are true.  However there are still huge gaping holes in the theory.  How (not why but how) did sexual reproduction evolve?  How (not why but how) did multi-cellular organisms with specialized cells/organs evolve from single cells? How did self preservation evolve in  non-sentient beings?  We still don't really know the answer to Darwin's original question that started his quest:  How did the Venus Flytrap evolve?

We need to keep asking these questions to move science forward.  To mock anyone who questions a theory with huge holes is as ignorant as someone dogmatically believing in the bible.


These are not holes in the theory. The theory still works fine even if we don't know some of the more detailed workings of the things this theory explains. There are for instance no huge and gaping holes in the theory of gravity, not even when considering the fact that we still have no clue whatsoever how gravity works.

Gerard
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: u196533 on March 29, 2016, 03:37:08 PM
Actually I am an agnostic engineer that needs to understand the nuts and bolts before I accept anything.  Your pithy explanations did not answer my questions. That article on origin of sex just presented really high level “well maybe it happened like this” explanations.  This excerpt from your article proves my point.- “As acknowledged above, however, serious problems with this explanation have led many biologists to conclude that the benefit of sex is a major unsolved problem in evolutionary biology.”

I was asking how things evolved from single to multi-cell.  I believe they did, but nobody really knows how.

Poor soil does not explain the Venus Flytrap to me.  It would have been much less energy intensive to simply evolve longer roots.  The complexity of the trap would have taken so long that the plant would have dies out before it evolved so I don’t accept poor soil. 

think the evolution of self-preservation is key.  All organisms exist in a state that is far from equilibrium. The atoms would be in a lower state of energy and a higher state of entropy (which is what all things strive for) if they simply died.  Life defies entropy by metabolizing energy from the environment. That can be explained in a sentient being but how did that evolve in simple things?

I concede you are correct about facts.  However, the highest level of acceptance is not a theory, but a law.   E.g.  The Laws of Thermodynamics have been proven countless times without exception, and there are no unexplained loose ends.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Gerard on March 29, 2016, 03:51:30 PM
Quote from: u196533 on March 29, 2016, 03:37:08 PM
Actually I am an agnostic engineer that needs to understand the nuts and bolts before I accept anything.  Your pithy explanations did not answer my questions. That article on origin of sex just presented really high level “well maybe it happened like this” explanations.  This excerpt from your article proves my point.- “As acknowledged above, however, serious problems with this explanation have led many biologists to conclude that the benefit of sex is a major unsolved problem in evolutionary biology.”

I was asking how things evolved from single to multi-cell.  I believe they did, but nobody really knows how.

Poor soil does not explain the Venus Flytrap to me.  It would have been much less energy intensive to simply evolve longer roots.  The complexity of the trap would have taken so long that the plant would have dies out before it evolved so I don’t accept poor soil. 

think the evolution of self-preservation is key.  All organisms exist in a state that is far from equilibrium. The atoms would be in a lower state of energy and a higher state of entropy (which is what all things strive for) if they simply died.  Life defies entropy by metabolizing energy from the environment. That can be explained in a sentient being but how did that evolve in simple things?

I concede you are correct about facts.  However, the highest level of acceptance is not a theory, but a law.   E.g.  The Laws of Thermodynamics have been proven countless times without exception, and there are no unexplained loose ends.


I understand you're an engineer. But these are not matters of bare engineering. The Venus Fly trap didn't develop the ability to catch flies BECAUSE it lived on poor soil. Development of longer roots would have taken enough time to kill all of them before that developed as well. The Venus Fly trap however could survive in, and conquer that niche (poor soil) because the beneficial survival strategy was already in some form (perhaps more primitive than at present) in place BEFORE the plant in question entered that particular niche. It could then adapt further by discarding other energy consuming strategies and refining the existing beneficial one. Evolution is not always initially reactive. Traits that seem indispensable for bare survival in a particular niche always are already there (in some form) before they become indispensable (because of a new niche the organism enters or because other strategies are eventually discarded). That is one of the main points that, for instance, the folks who promoted Intelligent design and irreducible complexity, failed to grasp. Engineers are finding solutions to EXISTING problems. Evolution doesn't work that way.

Gerard
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: u196533 on March 29, 2016, 04:59:20 PM
"These are not holes in the theory. The theory still works fine even if we don't know some of the more detailed workings of the things this theory explains. There are for instance no huge and gaping holes in the theory of gravity, not even when considering the fact that we still have no clue whatsoever how gravity works."

In my view the inability to explain quantum leaps such as sexual reproduction and the evolution of multi cellular organisms are huge gaps.  I don't deny evolution, but I don't think it is done cooking.

There are very likely huge holes in the theory of gravity.  Since we don't understand it and the equations don't balance, physicists theorize things like dark energy to compensate for their ignorance.  I strongly suspect that in the future when we do understand gravity, Dark energy will be viewed as the phlogiston of the 21st Century.

Also your explanation of the Venus Flytrap doesn't make much sense.  How could such a complex, energy intensive system as the trap, digestion etc evolve in an environment in which it was not useful?  It seems to me that the ability to grow better root or metabolize the nutrient would have evolved faster than the trap system.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Gerard on March 29, 2016, 05:14:40 PM
Quote from: u196533 on March 29, 2016, 04:59:20 PM
"These are not holes in the theory. The theory still works fine even if we don't know some of the more detailed workings of the things this theory explains. There are for instance no huge and gaping holes in the theory of gravity, not even when considering the fact that we still have no clue whatsoever how gravity works."

In my view the inability to explain quantum leaps such as sexual reproduction and the evolution of multi cellular organisms are huge gaps.  I don't deny evolution, but I don't think it is done cooking.

There are very likely huge holes in the theory of gravity.  Since we don't understand it and the equations don't balance, physicists theorize things like dark energy to compensate for their ignorance.  I strongly suspect that in the future when we do understand gravity, Dark energy will be viewed as the phlogiston of the 21st Century.

Also your explanation of the Venus Flytrap doesn't make much sense.  How could such a complex, energy intensive system as the trap, digestion etc evolve in an environment in which it was not useful?  It seems to me that the ability to grow better root or metabolize the nutrient would have evolved faster than the trap system.

The simple answer is that none of these were quantum leaps. They all have surprisingly simple antecedents that were low energy and NOT indispensable for survival at initiation. They did however open new possibilities for the organism involved. Like entering a new niche. And only then discarding other traits not needed anymore. And only then these new traits developed into the more complex form we see them in today, which happened in circumstances (environment) different from the ones in which they first appeared. The ancestral plant that first primitively digested insect material could not have lived in the poor soil niche its present descendants live in. Also, the intricate way in which that trait (trapping flies) works today developed from a much simpler antecedent (probably just a hole in the plant material where their insides leaked out attracting flies that got stuck there). Indispensable traits in organism don't develop when they are needed. They're just an added gift. They BECOME needed, or even indispensable in new circumstances. And only then they can improve and become more complex.

Gravity just works like the theory explains from observation. No holes there. We don't know how it does what it does, but it still works. Evolution is another thing altogether. We may not know all the details but we know HOW it works.

Gerard
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on March 29, 2016, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: u196533 on March 29, 2016, 03:37:08 PM


I concede you are correct about facts.  However, the highest level of acceptance is not a theory, but a law.   E.g.  The Laws of Thermodynamics have been proven countless times without exception, and there are no unexplained loose ends.


A law is based on observations, a theory is an explanation of the law. Don't mix your apples with your oranges... :-)
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Unbeliever on March 29, 2016, 06:00:36 PM
Quote from: u196533 on March 29, 2016, 03:37:08 PM
The Laws of Thermodynamics have been proven countless times without exception, and there are no unexplained loose ends.

Science is not in the business of "proving" anything at all. (http://blog.drwile.com/?p=5725) No scientific theories have ever been "proven" in the sense of having been shown to be absolutely and certainly true. Theories can have experimental confirmation or disconfirmation, but no proof. Only mathematicians are out to prove things.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Gerard on March 29, 2016, 06:21:12 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 29, 2016, 06:00:36 PM
Science is not in the business of "proving" anything at all. (http://blog.drwile.com/?p=5725) No scientific theories have ever been "proven" in the sense of having been shown to be absolutely and certainly true. Theories can have experimental confirmation or disconfirmation, but no proof. Only mathematicians are out to prove things.

Sure, but at some point a scientific theory that keeps being affirmed by new observations (new from the old ones that it was initially based on) becomes impossible to refute. Simply because any refutation thinkable, causes more problems than it solves versus the facts that already confirm the theory. To say that a theory like that (Evolution being a prime example) is not proven ( OK let's say consistently confirmed) is a matter of semantics. But basically you're right of course...... I'm just sometimes bothered by the semantics. Mathematics is of course another subject altogether. The way we deal with those premises is not comparable. ok, but that shouldn't even suggest that knowledge in other fields is impossible or even worth less.

Gerard
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Baruch on March 29, 2016, 06:39:58 PM
Quote from: Gerard on March 29, 2016, 06:21:12 PM
Sure, but at some point a scientific theory that keeps being affirmed by new observations (new from the old ones that it was initially based on) becomes impossible to refute. Simply because any refutation thinkable, causes more problems than it solves versus the facts that already confirm the theory. To say that a theory like that (Evolution being a prime example) is not proven ( OK let's say consistently confirmed) is a matter of semantics. But basically you're right of course...... I'm just sometimes bothered by the semantics. Mathematics is of course another subject altogether. The way we deal with those premises is not comparable. ok, but that shouldn't even suggest that knowledge in other fields is impossible or even worth less.

Gerard

Multiple observational and experimental confirmations make a theory very persuasive, even if unlike a math theorem, it isn't proven.  Newton's theory works almost always ... and is what engineers use most of the time.  Einstein didn't change that.  Maxwell's theory isn't quite as useful on its own, since solid state theory (quantum mechanics) is very useful too.  Quantum mechanics came about, with Max Planck, because he was trying to make a more efficient light bulb (on top of Edison's et al invention).
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Unbeliever on March 29, 2016, 06:57:45 PM

"The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
Thomas Huxley
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Gerard on March 29, 2016, 07:30:48 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 29, 2016, 06:39:58 PM
Multiple observational and experimental confirmations make a theory very persuasive, even if unlike a math theorem, it isn't proven.  Newton's theory works almost always ... and is what engineers use most of the time.  Einstein didn't change that.  Maxwell's theory isn't quite as useful on its own, since solid state theory (quantum mechanics) is very useful too.  Quantum mechanics came about, with Max Planck, because he was trying to make a more efficient light bulb (on top of Edison's et al invention).

Of course. There is a line between different fields of knowledge and how their findings are acknowledged. Mathematics, Physics, Biology, alpha, beta.... and oh.... history, sociology. These are very different fields that are argued in somewhat different ways. But that's not the subject at hand.

Gerard
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Gerard on March 29, 2016, 07:35:48 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 29, 2016, 06:57:45 PM
"The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
Thomas Huxley


An ugly fact would of course end a wrong hypothesis. Which would have no chance turning into a theory. Strangely (or perhaps insightful), there are no such facts around that would do that to the theory of evolution. And that has remained consistently so since it's inception back in the 19th century.

Gerard
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: u196533 on March 30, 2016, 10:01:23 AM
"The simple answer is that none of these were quantum leaps."

Biologists have been asking these questions for decades and they have NO answers, let along simple ones.  It is a fact that we don't know the answer to some very basic questions:
How did sexual reproduction evolve?  How did multi-cellular life evolve? How did self preservation evolve?  This seems trivial at first, however when you consider simple /primitive organisms, it is a conundrum.  Why didn't they simple succumb to entropic forces and die?

"No scientific theories have ever been "proven" in the sense of having been shown to be absolutely and certainly true."
This is an absurd statement.  Copernicus heliocentric theory, the existence of Neptune (There is currently a new theory of another planet that will eventually proven or dis-proven), the existence of atoms. etc.  I could go on and on and on.

"And that has remained consistently so since it's inception back in the 19th century."
I don't think that is true.  Darwin didn't know about genes/DNA.  Since their discovery, his theory has been revised several times.  Microbial cooperation conflicts with the idea of genetic competition. Recent gene mapping has confirmed horizontal gene transfer.  The Evolutionary tree with a trunk and 3 branches needs to be redrawn. (It will likely look like a colony of Aspen trees but who knows.)
A good theory makes accurate predictions and guides research in the right direction.  Recent advances in biology have occurred despite Darwinian Evolution, but because of it. 

I am not an ID proponent suggesting that we throw the baby out with the bath water.  I consider it a fact that natural selection occurs.  I also consider it a fact that random mutations and natural selection alone cannot explain all of the diversity of life.  I think from a purely scientific perspective, the Theory of Evolution needs to be refined/revised to explain these new findings.  That's how science works.
I think you have been too busy defending it against attacks from religious people that you became unable to acknowledge its' flaws.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Gerard on March 30, 2016, 11:33:47 AM
Quote from: u196533 on March 30, 2016, 10:01:23 AM
"The simple answer is that none of these were quantum leaps."

Biologists have been asking these questions for decades and they have NO answers, let along simple ones.  It is a fact that we don't know the answer to some very basic questions:
How did sexual reproduction evolve?  How did multi-cellular life evolve? How did self preservation evolve?  This seems trivial at first, however when you consider simple /primitive organisms, it is a conundrum.  Why didn't they simple succumb to entropic forces and die?

We may not know all of the details, but since we do know the outcome and the mechanism, there are plausible narratives about the main aspects of these occurrences that are NECESARILLY true. In other words the things you mention here are not mysteries for which no plausible answer is available.


Quote from: u196533 on March 30, 2016, 10:01:23 AM"And that has remained consistently so since it's inception back in the 19th century."
I don't think that is true.  Darwin didn't know about genes/DNA.  Since their discovery, his theory has been revised several times.  Microbial cooperation conflicts with the idea of genetic competition. Recent gene mapping has confirmed horizontal gene transfer.  The Evolutionary tree with a trunk and 3 branches needs to be redrawn. (It will likely look like a colony of Aspen trees but who knows.)
A good theory makes accurate predictions and guides research in the right direction.  Recent advances in biology have occurred despite Darwinian Evolution, but because of it. 

I am not an ID proponent suggesting that we throw the baby out with the bath water.  I consider it a fact that natural selection occurs.  I also consider it a fact that random mutations and natural selection alone cannot explain all of the diversity of life.  I think from a purely scientific perspective, the Theory of Evolution needs to be refined/revised to explain these new findings.  That's how science works.
I think you have been too busy defending it against attacks from religious people that you became unable to acknowledge its' flaws.

The discovery of genes and DNA have not basically changed the theory of evolution at all. Just the underlying narrative about what evolution brought about and how that has worked in detail in separate cases. It's important to separate these two very different things, the theoretical framework and the underlying detailed narrative. The fact that the underlying tree needs to be redrawn, or that Darwin didn't know what DNA was has not changed the mechanism Darwin proposed in any significant way. Every discovery made since Darwin's theory has essentially confirmed his findings. Of course they have also raised questions about details, but the thing is that they have not ever raised INSURMOUNTABLE questions about these details. The theory would have been abandoned if it had. You say: "I also consider it a fact that random mutations and natural selection alone cannot explain all of the diversity of life." I'm afraid that that is exactly what the theory of evolution asserts. That that random mutations and natural selection explain biodiversity as we observe it.

Very insightful things about these matters have been raised in books like "The selfish gene" and "The blind watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins (you don't have to like his more recent discourse on religion to see that he has described most or all the matters you raise here in a way that is still regarded as authoritative. The theory of evolution is not anywhere near the crisis you suppose it to be in.

Gerard
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: TrueStory on March 30, 2016, 12:49:40 PM
Quote from: u196533 on March 30, 2016, 10:01:23 AM
I also consider it a fact that random mutations and natural selection alone cannot explain all of the diversity of life.  I think from a purely scientific perspective, the Theory of Evolution needs to be refined/revised to explain these new findings.

What findings would that be?
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Baruch on March 30, 2016, 01:01:01 PM
Consider the species of crab, in Japan ... whose carapace all look like scowling Samurai.  This is because of a local superstition, and the more likely a crab shell looked like that, the less likely they were eaten.  Similarly with deliberate breeding of dogs.  So of course, there is more than random mutation and the success or failure of predation and natural hazards preventing offspring.  Humans have been messing around with plants and animals for thousands of years.
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: josephpalazzo on March 30, 2016, 01:07:53 PM
Quote from: u196533 on March 30, 2016, 10:01:23 AM
... the Theory of Evolution needs to be refined/revised to explain these new findings. 

That's why it's still an active field of research...
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: u196533 on March 30, 2016, 02:32:48 PM
I did not mean to convey that it is in a state of crisis, but that it is still needs refinement. 
I have been meaning to read the Selfish Gene, but I think that is an old book  (I find this stuff fascinating.)  I would encourage you to look into some of the new ideas from other biologists.  There are other ideas that augment, not substitute genetic mutation. I think that in the future, biologists will accepct that other natural forces in addition to genetic mutation contribute to the biodiversity. 
Title: Re: Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on March 30, 2016, 05:20:01 PM
Quote from: u196533 on March 30, 2016, 02:32:48 PM
I did not mean to convey that it is in a state of crisis, but that it is still needs refinement. 
This is true even in well-developed fields. Science is always a work-in-progress. There's always something new to learn. This is why whenever a ballsy scientist announces the "end of" or the "death of" a certain field, he's always been wrong. It was wrong for astronomy, and it was wrong for physics, and it will be wrong for biology if anyone ever is stupid enough to say it.