Thoughts on Evolution?

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Thanks, Spider-Aziz. You made me apologize and retract a mistake I never even made.

 

[JAK®]

well evolution is contingent on mutation and natural selection and they are both facts. if mutation and natural selection exist and have the effects we observe then it's logically impossible that evolution doesn't follow. if genetic diversity and isolation of populations from others and natural selection occurs evolution must happen. it's not only true it's logically impossible with the established facts for it not to be true. i suppose someone could argue last fridayism style that evolution hasn't always been true.

I don't understand why you are arguing with me because I have stated that evolution is a fact multiple times. But it's still called the Theory of Evolution because even though it is considered fact, it's full effects can not be demonstrated in laboratory conditions. Microevolution and adaptability can be proved, which therefore proves the theory, but because macroevolution cannot be demonstrated due to it's nature then evolution remains a theory.

Gravity is a theory, which sounds ridiculous because everybody can observe it's effects. But we don't know where it comes from or why it works. So it's still a theory. Even if it's a fact.

 

[Dr.]

There seems to be a misconception that atheists routinely brag about being able to “prove a negative” (i.e., there’s definitive proof that god doesn’t exist). No so. Even a “strident” atheist like Dawkins stipulates that a suitably conceptualized version of god can’t be disproved.

The vast majority of atheists are of the so-called “soft” variety. This view is expressed as “insufficient evidence or reason(s) to accept the existence of god(s).” There’s nothing here about attempting to “prove a negative.”

Now, of course, you’re free to disagree with the atheists about insufficient reasons and evidence. Maybe you’ve got really good reasons and tons of evidence. But at that point, you’re acknowledging the proper onus; the burden of proof is on the theistic side. Absent such proof, the “null position” (atheism) is stable.

Moreover… it’s also a misconception (or, at least, an oversimplification) to say that a negative can’t be proved.

God, for most people, isn’t merely an intellectual concept that technically resists disproof. Rather, god is a being with fairly detailed attributes – one who interacts with the physical world. He/she/it created the Universe, provided a moral framework, performs miracles, answers prayers and oversees the afterlife – administering eternal rewards and punishments.

So, unlike the vaguely defined deistic or pantheistic version of god, there’s specificity here. But such specificity is a double-edged sword as it lends itself to rational disproof. If god is supposed to do a, b and c… but there is no sign of a, b and c, then absence of evidence does become evidence of absence. (Analogously – the mundane claim that there’s milk in the fridge is subject to specific investigation. If we look in the fridge and find no milk then the non-existence of milk in the fridge has been proven.) In philosophy, this is formalized as modus tollens.

 

[Dr.]

I don't understand why you are arguing with me because I have stated that evolution is a fact multiple times. But it's still called the Theory of Evolution because even though it is considered fact, it's full effects can not be demonstrated in laboratory conditions. Microevolution and adaptability can be proved, which therefore proves the theory, but because macroevolution cannot be demonstrated due to it's nature then evolution remains a theory.

Gravity is a theory, which sounds ridiculous because everybody can observe it's effects. But we don't know where it comes from or why it works. So it's still a theory. Even if it's a fact.

No. You’re near the correct description. But you don’t quite have it.

A scientific theory is an explanatory model that conceptualizes and unites a series of facts. So, first comes the facts and then a theory is (potentially) applicable.

You mentioned gravity. Stuff falls down and planets orbit the Sun. Those are the facts that Newton was confronted with. He then came up with a theory of gravity to explain the facts.

Likewise, the theory of natural selection (preferential survival of advantageous mutations) is the mechanism that explains the fact of evolution.

A theory isn’t really something you do experiments on in a lab. Facts are demonstrated (or not) in the lab; a theory is the intellectual framework for the facts.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Thanks, Spider-Aziz. You made me apologize and retract a mistake I never even made.

No worries, guess I need to triple check some of the stuff I took in school

 

[JAK®]

No. You’re near the correct description. But you don’t quite have it.

A scientific theory is an explanatory model that conceptualizes and unites a series of facts. So, first comes the facts and then a theory is (potentially) applicable.

You mentioned gravity. Stuff falls down and planets orbit the Sun. Those are the facts that Newton was confronted with. He then came up with a theory of gravity to explain the facts.

Likewise, the theory of natural selection (preferential survival of advantageous mutations) is the mechanism that explains the fact of evolution.

A theory isn’t really something you do experiments on in a lab. Facts are demonstrated (or not) in the lab; a theory is the intellectual framework for the facts.

This is pretty much what I'm saying.

 

[SuperFerret]

So, slight change of topic, am I the only one who finds the scientific method cripplingly limited?

 

[JAK®]

So, slight change of topic, am I the only one who finds the scientific method cripplingly limited?

How is it limited?

 

[SuperFerret]

Basically if it can't be replicated in a lab, science doesn't acknowledge it.

 

[JAK®]

Basically if it can't be replicated in a lab, science doesn't acknowledge it.

But that isn't true. In fact we've been talking at length about how things can be accepted as fact without being replicated in a lab

 

[SuperFerret]

Replace lab with "controlled setting" or whatever then. Oh, and that "repeatable" crap they go on about.

 

[cryptic name]

Well I have been up all night reading articles and watching videos before making this topic. I wished to start this thread to get your broad thoughts on Evolution. Do you believe in it? Do you think it should be taught in schools? What are your thoughts on creationism and Intelligent design?


(ps this is my first made topic t

Evolution should absolutely be taught in schools. That being said, I have no issue with people believing in creationism/intelligent design, as that and evolution are in no way mutually exclusive.

There's room in education for theories other than evolution, but they're probably better placed in Philosophy than science.

 

[JAK®]

Evolution not being taught in schools is criminally negligent. People shouldn't be allowed to decide what is fact or not based on their beliefs. Facts are facts. The sky is blue; anybody who thinks otherwise isn't worth catering to. Same goes for evolution.

 

[SuperFerret]

What about history?

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

There's room in education for theories other than evolution, but they're probably better placed in Philosophy than science.

I guess I really wouldn't have an issue with intelligent design being taught in some kind of elective philosophy class, but it should definitely stay the hell out of any science class.

 

[Bill]

Evolution should absolutely be taught in schools. That being said, I have no issue with people believing in creationism/intelligent design, as that and evolution are in no way mutually exclusive.

There's room in education for theories other than evolution, but they're probably better placed in Philosophy than science.

The problem is that ID/Creationism isn't even good philosophy. And they are in no way, shape or form, theories.

 

[8wid]

I guess I really wouldn't have an issue with intelligent design being taught in some kind of elective philosophy class, but it should definitely stay the hell out of any science class.

I think there needs to be a required world culture class that touches on subjects of different civilizations, including religion and political beliefs. It's separate from world religions, philosophy, and world history. This would kind of help to counter balance the ignorance of Americans.

 

[Dr.]

This is pretty much what I'm saying.

Well, okay. But you did state…

It's only called a theory because millions of years of changes is hard to recreate in a lab.

This somewhat suggests that if scientists could somehow manage to conduct a million year lab experiment, the additional evidence discovered would “promote” evolution from mere theory to something that sounds more impressive and certain.

So I wanted to clarify that this is not how a scientific theory is defined. There’s no sense (at all) that, with the addition of new evidence, a theory becomes (for example) a law. The Theory of Relativity will never be the Law of Relativity. Theories and laws are separate things and not ranks of certainty.

 

[JAK®]

Well, okay. But you did state…

This somewhat suggests that if scientists could somehow manage to conduct a million year lab experiment, the additional evidence discovered would “promote” evolution from mere theory to something that sounds more impressive and certain.

So I wanted to clarify that this is not how a scientific theory is defined. There’s no sense (at all) that, with the addition of new evidence, a theory becomes (for example) a law. The Theory of Relativity will never be the Law of Relativity. Theories and laws are separate things and not ranks of certainty.

I wasn't suggesting that. My point was all about why it is called a Theory and what that entails, to explain to people who believe that calling it a Theory means it shouldn't be taken as fact, that they are wrong.

 

[Bill]

I wasn't suggesting that. My point was all about why it is called a Theory and what that entails, to explain to people who believe that calling it a Theory means it shouldn't be taken as fact, that they are wrong.

Evolution is a fact in the realm of science, which means that it is "confirmed to such a degree so that it would be perverse to withhold proverbial consent." But the mechanisms of evolution are still far from being completely understood. That is the theory. Whether or not Evolution can be recreated in a lab is irrelevant, and there are examples of Macroevolution in our lifetimes. It is the understanding of the mechanisms of Evolution that must be fleshed out further, and there is always something new to be learned about them. The theory refers to the mechanisms of Evolution that bring it about, not Evolution itself.

 

[raybia]

.

Muslims believe- He was Jesus Christ, the greatest of all prophets and will return at the end of all to defeat the Antichrist.

What is the basis for this statement?

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

There seems to be a misconception that atheists routinely brag about being able to “prove a negative” (i.e., there’s definitive proof that god doesn’t exist). No so. Even a “strident” atheist like Dawkins stipulates that a suitably conceptualized version of god can’t be disproved.

The vast majority of atheists are of the so-called “soft” variety. This view is expressed as “insufficient evidence or reason(s) to accept the existence of god(s).” There’s nothing here about attempting to “prove a negative.”

Now, of course, you’re free to disagree with the atheists about insufficient reasons and evidence. Maybe you’ve got really good reasons and tons of evidence. But at that point, you’re acknowledging the proper onus; the burden of proof is on the theistic side. Absent such proof, the “null position” (atheism) is stable.

Moreover… it’s also a misconception (or, at least, an oversimplification) to say that a negative can’t be proved.

God, for most people, isn’t merely an intellectual concept that technically resists disproof. Rather, god is a being with fairly detailed attributes – one who interacts with the physical world. He/she/it created the Universe, provided a moral framework, performs miracles, answers prayers and oversees the afterlife – administering eternal rewards and punishments.

So, unlike the vaguely defined deistic or pantheistic version of god, there’s specificity here. But such specificity is a double-edged sword as it lends itself to rational disproof. If god is supposed to do a, b and c… but there is no sign of a, b and c, then absence of evidence does become evidence of absence. (Analogously – the mundane claim that there’s milk in the fridge is subject to specific investigation. If we look in the fridge and find no milk then the non-existence of milk in the fridge has been proven.) In philosophy, this is formalized as modus tollens.

Sooo...I read that, and comprehended, at least I like to think so. Did I just earn a B.A.?

 

[Timstuff]

My thoughts on Evolution? IT'S NOT WORKING!

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

My thoughts on Evolution? IT'S NOT WORKING!

I think it skips the midwest.