Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact

Started by josephpalazzo, February 03, 2016, 02:53:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

TrueStory

@ 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

Please don't take anything I say seriously.

Daniel2021

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?


josephpalazzo

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.


Daniel2021

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

TrueStory

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.
Please don't take anything I say seriously.

drunkenshoe

#66
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?

"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

stromboli

#67
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.

Daniel2021

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

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

stromboli

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

Daniel2021

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

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

stromboli

#71
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.

Daniel2021

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"?


stromboli

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.

Daniel2021

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.