 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Theory of Evolution - argument for/against
 |
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by grumpier 
A fact is something established beyond all doubt, on the basis of evidence and reasoning, to exist or have happened. To establish something beyond doubt, there must be some awareness of doubt. Which means some cognitive process that can objectively and completely examine the evidence and reasoning.
•
•
•
•
Not really. A hypothesis is a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument, and tested on the basis of evidence. A hypothesis may be proposed as a means of organising facts into patterns, but need not be.
It is not necessary that a hypothesis predict something not yet known. It is required to predict something that can be tested through evidence, and falsifiable if conduct of the test yields a result that is not predicted.
A hypothesis is not required to be reproducible. For example, a hypothesis can be tested statistically. The samples, from which statistics are derived, provide a body of evidence and provides evidence to accept or reject a hypothesis to some specified level of confidence. However, given the same samples, derived statistical quantities, and level of confidence then the same conclusion will always be drawn. But given a different set of samples (eg by doing the same measurement process at a different time) a different conclusion may be drawn.
If the level of confidence is required to be 100% (probability 1), then testing the hypothesis represents proof or disproof.
According to Schick and Vaughn,[1] researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:
* Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
* Simplicity (as in the application of "Occam's razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
* Scope - the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
* Fruitfulness - the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
* Conservatism - the degree of "fit" with existing recognized knowledge-systems....
•
•
•
•
That's not really true. A theory is, in general, a coherent body of propositions that offer an explanation for a class of phenomena. A theory can make predictions that are not possible on the basis of the individual propositions. The theory can be tested by gathering evidence to prove or disprove any of the component propositions, or phenomena predicted by the theory.
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.
•
•
•
•
That's not true. A law (in the philosophical sense) is a statement of a relationship or sequence of phenomena that are invariable some set of conditions. In other words, if a set of conditions can be identified under which that theory is true, the component propositions of that theory become laws.
Laws are simply theories for which there is a significant body of evidence and no refuting evidence. Laws can therefore be disproven like any theory (eg with a counter-example) although, given the amount of effort that goes into trying to prove or disprove a theory before it is declared a law, that is possible but unlikely.
A law is not required to be true outside the conditions for which it is established. For example, according to Einstein, Newton's laws of mechanics are only an approximation. However, the error in Newton's laws is less than the error in measurement in many practical conditions (most notably, when relative speed of object and observer is very different from speed of light). So under those practical conditions those laws still hold.
"The origin of this confusion has it's roots in the history of the development of science. When we speak of early, classical physics, we talk about laws, Newton's laws of motion for instance, the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word "law" has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.
Since that time, science has gotten warier about describing anything as being absolute. Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may or may not be true in every case. In order to say if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours, that's completely impractical. Science can say if something is probably true all the time if observations of a phenomena are the same in many cases. This tiny bit of waffling bothers many people who are not familiar with the inner workings of science. Shouldn't something be always true if it is true at all? Science just can't commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn't be science, it would be faith.
So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge." The fact that 'laws of nature/science' is still used in general conversation does not validate its use in science.
•
•
•
•
I agree. A hypotheses and theories are key parts of scientific method: hypotheses and theories must be developed so they may be tested through evidence.
And creationism cannot be tested. It must be assumed, or taken on faith. According to scientific method, it can be never proven nor disproven.
Last edited by GrimJack; Oct 31st, 2008 at 3:55 pm. Reason: I expect to have more time to get around to the actual topic at hand after we have hashed out our definitions.
Imagine a world without hypotheticals....
You can have my book when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
You can have my book when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
For those interested in the pure topic of Evolution for/against. What concepts can you find against evolution in the current form? (Please, leave outside the bigotries begotten by the masses that evolution can not fit inside creation)
What I mean is, what do you know that is in shaking ground when it comes to evolution?
For those that are quick to jump to the keyboard to eagerly proclaim the "facts" and the "evidences":
Let me remind you that it is a theory after all, which indicates that things haven't been proved, neither has produced any laws. (e.g. Relativity, Gravity). Reason enough for questioning and pondering.
What I mean is, what do you know that is in shaking ground when it comes to evolution?
For those that are quick to jump to the keyboard to eagerly proclaim the "facts" and the "evidences":
Let me remind you that it is a theory after all, which indicates that things haven't been proved, neither has produced any laws. (e.g. Relativity, Gravity). Reason enough for questioning and pondering.
•
•
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 849
Reputation: 
Solved Threads: 67
Practically a Posting Shark
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by VernonDozier
You are asking the impossible. We can't prove without a doubt that we all have the same ancestor as apes/monkeys, etc.. None of us was around then. We do the best we can with what we have, which is an awful lot (DNA, fossils, etc.), but it's not going to be perfect.
“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.” - Dr. Seuss
-- The documentation is inevitable, you may get away with it for a little while but eventually you too will have to do the deed.
-- The documentation is inevitable, you may get away with it for a little while but eventually you too will have to do the deed.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Aia
For those interested in the pure topic of Evolution for/against. What concepts can you find against evolution in the current form? (Please, leave outside the bigotries begotten by the masses that evolution can not fit inside creation)
What I mean is, what do you know that is in shaking ground when it comes to evolution?
For those that are quick to jump to the keyboard to eagerly proclaim the "facts" and the "evidences":
Let me remind you that it is a theory after all, which indicates that things haven't been proved, neither has produced any laws. (e.g. Relativity, Gravity). Reason enough for questioning and pondering.
This is why I am willing to wander off into the world of definitions - if we do not use the same language, we will have some difficulty communicating and will end up talking past each other (which is part of the fun and frustration of these discussions).
Imagine a world without hypotheticals....
You can have my book when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
You can have my book when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by GrimJack
I will continue to argue against the use of the word 'LAWS' in science - it is not the accepted standard and has not been since Relativity modified Newton's work and Quantum Theory shook the world of science. There has never been a 'law' of Relativity and wonder what you mean by 'law' of Gravity (your examples not mine). Let me remind you that you are using the word 'theory' in the vernacular not with the rigors of scientific thought.
In what way is evolution flawed?
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by R0bb0b
There is no fossil record that even supports evolution. If this were actually the case scientists would have found fossil records showing several variations between man and ape. What the fossil record does show is animals and plants appearing abruptly, not evolving.
Before we get too deep into this discussion, I need to know if you believe in a New Earth or Old Earth - if you believe in a New Earth, then there is not much room for discussion. Do you believe that everything was created exactly as it is in 7 days within the last 10-100,000 years? If so, how do you explain the various forms of finding the age of items (fossils, rocks, etc) using radio-active half-life?
Imagine a world without hypotheticals....
You can have my book when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
You can have my book when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Aia
Alright, let's set definitions on the side, for the sake of sanity.
In what way is evolution flawed?
Imagine a world without hypotheticals....
You can have my book when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
You can have my book when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by GrimJack
Do you want me to argue against evolution?
If you are completely convinced and totally in the boat for it, I suppose you will not have any thing to say against, which will render you a peon of whatever opinions and changes those driving the boat make.
If not one has anything against evolution except some form of prejudice that goes against "religion beliefs" and every one that are against "creationism" uses the "mighty power of evidence" to disassemble religious faith, then this is nothing more that another "God vs no God" thread; regardless how it is phrased.
Last edited by Aia; Oct 31st, 2008 at 4:56 pm.
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,813
Reputation: 
Solved Threads: 501
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Aia
For those interested in the pure topic of Evolution for/against. What concepts can you find against evolution in the current form? (Please, leave outside the bigotries begotten by the masses that evolution can not fit inside creation)
What I mean is, what do you know that is in shaking ground when it comes to evolution?
For those that are quick to jump to the keyboard to eagerly proclaim the "facts" and the "evidences":
Let me remind you that it is a theory after all, which indicates that things haven't been proved, neither has produced any laws. (e.g. Relativity, Gravity). Reason enough for questioning and pondering.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Aia
If you care about it.
If you are completely convinced and totally in the boat for it, I suppose you will not have any thing to say against, which will render you a peon of whatever opinions and changes those driving the boat make.
If not one has anything against evolution except some form of prejudice that goes against "religion beliefs" and every one that are against "creationism" uses the "mighty power of evidence" to disassemble religious faith, then this is nothing more that another "God vs no God" thread; regardless how it is phrased.
>Why do you feel the need to introduce words like "bigotry", "prejudice", "peon", "in the boat", etc. into the conversation?
Sorry, you don't have a comfortable sofa.
>You comment often about others' lack of civility in these threads and you phrase these posts as a plea for civility,
Is...is that ci.vi.li.ty or ci.vil.i.ty? I am afraid you are confusing me with someone else, doc, I wouldn't know how to use that word.
>but then you immediately start throwing gasoline onto the fire
See, now I know you're impersonating a shrink. Everyone knows how expensive gasoline is.
Why on earth would I go that extreme and waste it?. No, don't tell me...I saw it in a movie, I can do this; does it has to do with my inability to cope with so much yellow color every where in summer? I am afraid of sun-flowers, they look at me, laughing, with their yellow petals. It is horrible. I can't stand it.
Happy Halloween, everyone!!.
Sorry, you don't have a comfortable sofa.
>You comment often about others' lack of civility in these threads and you phrase these posts as a plea for civility,
Is...is that ci.vi.li.ty or ci.vil.i.ty? I am afraid you are confusing me with someone else, doc, I wouldn't know how to use that word.
>but then you immediately start throwing gasoline onto the fire
See, now I know you're impersonating a shrink. Everyone knows how expensive gasoline is.
Why on earth would I go that extreme and waste it?. No, don't tell me...I saw it in a movie, I can do this; does it has to do with my inability to cope with so much yellow color every where in summer? I am afraid of sun-flowers, they look at me, laughing, with their yellow petals. It is horrible. I can't stand it.
Happy Halloween, everyone!!.
Last edited by Aia; Oct 31st, 2008 at 6:46 pm.
|
Similar Threads
- Collins: Why this scientist believes in God (Geeks' Lounge)
- Evolution: Science vs. Religion (Geeks' Lounge)
Other Threads in the Geeks' Lounge Forum
- Previous Thread: Helpminutes left! from a desperate mom!
- Next Thread: Happy new Year to All
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
You need to join our community in order to build your list of favorite forums. You can visit the forum index for a listing of all forums.
Related Forum Features
Latest Geeks' Lounge Posts
- Today's Posts
- Unanswered Threads
amazon apple article bankruptcy bear beard beijing bot chat children clocks code cognitive_disorder complaint console consoles convert cracked.com daniweb design development disk ebook empty facebook feed financialcrisis fun game games gaming garbage google grandtheftauto gta gtaiv hardware hunting internet java kids kindle knife language library life linux mad madden manly marketing mars merger microsoft murder netbook news nintendo obama odf olympics opinion os outlook pain parenting playstation ps3 ps4 python research rss school search software softwaredevelopment sony source starteam stocks study subversion survey tablet thelostanddamned timeisonmyside. unused usarmy vapid videogames viruses wave wii windows>all windows_wins wow www xbox xbox360 zomg_conspiracy
