http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.

The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.

Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory.

Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation. Just because a theory is not scientific does not mean that it has no merit. However, claiming that a theory is scientific lends it undeserved authority and diminishes the authority of science.

The modern scientific method arose during the scientific revolution - after the renaissance. Observation of nature and speculation do form part of the scientific method. That is how new hypotheses are formed. However, they should be immediately checked to see whether they are scientific or not.

Old discussions:

Denialism of science.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1271213213/45#45

EVOLUTION VS RELIGION

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167973400/405#405

You're flogging a dead horse there, Diver.  You used Wiki in your blog and here's Wiki again. Consider your claim falsified. ;)

However, evolution is considered falsifiable by scientists because it can make predictions that, were they contradicted by the evidence, would falsify evolution. Several kinds of evidence have been proposed that could falsify evolution, such as the fossil record showing no change over time, confirmation that mutations are prevented from accumulating, or observations showing organisms being created supernaturally or spontaneously.[60] Many of Darwin's ideas and assertions of fact have been falsified as evolutionary science has developed and has continued to confirm his central concepts.[62] In contrast, creationism consists largely of unsubstantiated claims that evolution has been falsified.[60] Creationist explanations involving the direct intervention of the supernatural in the physical world are not falsifiable, because any result of an experiment or investigation could be the unpredictable action of an omnipotent deity.[63]

In 1976, philosopher Karl Popper said that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme".[64] However, Popper later recanted and offered a more nuanced view of its status:

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.[65][66]

The most direct evidence that evolutionary theory is falsifiable may be the original words of Charles Darwin who, in chapter 6 of On the Origin of Species wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."[67]

In response to the unfalsifiability criticism of evolutionary theory, numerous examples of potential ways to falsify evolution have been proposed. J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era".[68][69] Numerous other potential ways to falsify evolution have also been proposed.[43] For example, the fact that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than the great apes offered a testable hypotheses involving the fusion or splitting of chromosomes from a common ancestor. The fusion hypothesis was confirmed in 2005 by discovery that human chromosome 2 is homologous with a fusion of two chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. Extra, inactive telomeres and centromeres remain on human chromosome 2 as a result of the fusion.[70] The assertion of common descent could also have been disproven with the invention of DNA analysis. If true, human DNA should be far more similar to chimpanzees and other great apes, than to other mammals. If not, then common descent is falsified. DNA analysis has shown that humans and chimpanzees share a large percentage of their DNA (between 95% to 99.4% depending on the measure).[71] Also, the evolution of chimpanzees and humans from a common ancestor predicts a (geologically) recent common ancestor. Numerous transitional fossils have since been found.[72] Hence, human evolution has passed several falsifiable tests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

We're discussing falsifiability and Popperism on the other thread. Perhaps we'll come back here later.

Quote:

However, evolution is considered falsifiable by scientists because it can make predictions that, were they contradicted by the evidence, would falsify evolution.

For it to be scientific you have to be able to design a repeatable experiment. Otherwise you allow all sorts of theories to be considered scientific that are clearly not. Your examples demonstrate this....


Quote:

such as the fossil record showing no change over time

There are plenty of examples of very long periods where the fossil record remained the same. The theory merely adapted to this - hence the term punctuated equilibria.


Quote:

confirmation that mutations are prevented from accumulating

Not true. Harmful mutations are prevented from accumulating. This supports the theory, rather than falsifying it.


Quote:

or observations showing organisms being created supernaturally or spontaneously

So you think evolution is scientific because we don't observe supernatural events that contradict it? The absence of magic makes it science? That is a pretty low bar to set. Is any old theory at all that is not disproven by magic now to be considered scientific?


Quote:

In contrast, creationism consists largely of unsubstantiated claims that evolution has been falsified.

So evolution is scientific becase creationism is unsubstantiated? All you need to make a theory scientific is a competing theory that isn't scientific?


Quote:

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

I make the same distinction. I clearly separate the scientific theory of natural selection from the non-scientific 'extrapolations' that give you the theory of evolution. That is why practitioners in the field so clearly delineate natural 'history' from 'science'.


Quote:

In response to the unfalsifiability criticism of evolutionary theory, numerous examples of potential ways to falsify evolution have been proposed. J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era".

That would not disprove evolution. It would merely show that rabbit like creatures evolved in the past, died out, then evolved again. Either that or it would prove that it was not in fact the precambrian era. Or maybe someone buried the rabbit in that particular layer. Or it must be a hoax. Maybe a giant flood mixed everything up....

Quote:

For it to be scientific you have to be able to design a repeatable experiment.

Well you are in luck, a little planet just a few million light years from here is seeing some strange reactions in their primordial soup as we speak.
If you can just wait another 268 million years we will be able to compare answers.

freediver wrote on Jul 28^th, 2010 at 9:40pm:

Quote: However, evolution is considered falsifiable by scientists because it can make predictions that, were they contradicted by the evidence, would falsify evolution. For it to be scientific you have to be able to design a repeatable experiment. Otherwise you allow all sorts of theories to be considered scientific that are clearly not. Your examples demonstrate this.... [quote]such as the fossil record showing no change over time

There are plenty of examples of very long periods where the fossil record remained the same. The theory merely adapted to this - hence the term punctuated equilibria.


Quote:

confirmation that mutations are prevented from accumulating

Not true. Harmful mutations are prevented from accumulating. This supports the theory, rather than falsifying it.


Quote:

or observations showing organisms being created supernaturally or spontaneously

So you think evolution is scientific because we don't observe supernatural events that contradict it? The absence of magic makes it science? That is a pretty low bar to set. Is any old theory at all that is not disproven by magic now to be considered scientific?


Quote:

In contrast, creationism consists largely of unsubstantiated claims that evolution has been falsified.

So evolution is scientific becase creationism is unsubstantiated? All you need to make a theory scientific is a competing theory that isn't scientific?


Quote:

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

I make the same distinction. I clearly separate the scientific theory of natural selection from the non-scientific 'extrapolations' that give you the theory of evolution. That is why practitioners in the field so clearly delineate natural 'history' from 'science'.


Quote:

In response to the unfalsifiability criticism of evolutionary theory, numerous examples of potential ways to falsify evolution have been proposed. J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era".

That would not disprove evolution. It would merely show that rabbit like creatures evolved in the past, died out, then evolved again. Either that or it would prove that it was not in fact the precambrian era. Or maybe someone buried the rabbit in that particular layer. Or it must be a hoax. Maybe a giant flood mixed everything up....[/quote]


Are you being genuine FD or is there some disconnect going on?


Do you know what you're talking about ? Natural selection is part and parcel of the theory of evolution. It's acknowledged as a major driver. You'd have to be the only person I know that thinks they're separate. You seem to be arguing a straw man. What do you understand by the theory of evolution?

You say there are several  examples where the fossil record remained unchanged - punctuated equilibria. So you're looking at part of the fossil record and not the overall fossil record which shows change. That's a bit precious, isn't it?

With respect to confimations being prevented from accumulating I think what is meant there is the reference to small mutations accumulating over time. If this could not be found then evolution would be falsified.

Creationism is a competing hypothesis, it offers the idea that life was as it is today from it's beginning. That would be a refutation if they or anyone could show it. You're characterisation of it is a straw man.

Come on, FD, that rebuttal of Haldane's rabbits is off the wall. You're grasping at straws and you're indicating either that you don't really understand what it is that you're addressing or are just doing anything to win an argument.

That rabbits evolved in pre-cambrian times , died out and evolved again? Excuse me, if rabbits existed in Pre-cambrian times it would disprove evolution which holds that life at that time was less complex than a mammalian lifeforms which EVOLVED over time and are found in higher rock stratas.

Hoax? Well, by definition that would not be falsification. Only a genuine fossil from that time would be accepted.

You have not addressed the examples from human evolution.

So , while we're here, how do you think life that we see around us today got here if not by evolution?  :-?

Quote:

Come on, FD, that rebuttal of Haldane's rabbits is off the wall. You're grasping at straws and you're indicating either that you don't really understand what it is that you're addressing or are just doing anything to win an argument.

-Ziggy

lol, those of us who have been arguing with FD for years, all face the same question Ziggy, and I found this cartoon which I felt illustrated very well what it is like arguing with FD, see what you think.

---

Ziggy wrote on Jul 28^th, 2010 at 10:18pm:

So , while we're here, how do you think life that we see around us today got here if not by evolution?  :-?

By abiogenesis then by evolutionary processes, including what approximates to standard evolutionary theory and some other minor influences such as Lamarckian inheritance.

I'm interested in FD's take on that question too. It's about time you put your cards on the table FD, because the only other people to be nit-picking over the philosophy of science are those who believe in 'magic'.

Popper's sophisticated falsification 'theory' of philosophy has largely been replaced by writers such as Thomas Kuhn, whose praises you have sung frequently, and who advocates a more balanced approach. Probabilistic Induction is one new paradigm that severely upsets the sacred cow of falsifiability.

The limitation of Popper's theory is that you need to be able to establish criteria for falsification. All data is subject to natural variation. If you had one or two points that didn't fall on the line, would that be regarded as falsification? How about 3 points?


Your argument that Evolution should not be taught because it doesn't fit certain definitions of Scientific would imply that we should stop teaching a wide range of other things, particularly aspects of cosmology such as string theory.

If you took that attitude practically no science would be taught.  

Which barrow are you pushing exactly? Are you a Creationist? I somehow don't think so, but why single out Evolution?

1978: POPPER ‘RECANTS’ AND ADMITS THAT THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION CAN BE SCIENTIFIC
Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind, Dialectica 32:339-355, 1978. See pp. 344-346.

   “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. … The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological.”

Evolution is considered falsifiable by scientists because it can make predictions that, were they contradicted by the evidence, would falsify evolution. Several kinds of evidence have been proposed that could falsify evolution, such as the fossil record showing no change over time, confirmation that mutations are prevented from accumulating, or observations showing organisms being created supernaturally or spontaneously. Many of Darwin's ideas and assertions of fact have been falsified as evolutionary science has developed and has continued to confirm his central concepts.



The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific  sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model that explains observations and makes predictions through mechanisms such as natural selection.

When scientists say "evolution is a fact" they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical, and when this is what scientists mean, then "evolution" is used to mean observed changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.

Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with other primates.



(I wasn't allowed to post the Wikipedia links but they are under "evolution as theory and fact" and Objections to evolution")
There may be some people who reject Wikipedia but I think the above quotes sum it up.

freediver wrote on Jul 28^th, 2010 at 9:40pm:

Quote: However, evolution is considered falsifiable by scientists because it can make predictions that, were they contradicted by the evidence, would falsify evolution. For it to be scientific you have to be able to design a repeatable experiment. Otherwise you allow all sorts of theories to be considered scientific that are clearly not. Your examples demonstrate this.... [quote]such as the fossil record showing no change over time

There are plenty of examples of very long periods where the fossil record remained the same. The theory merely adapted to this - hence the term punctuated equilibria.


Quote:

confirmation that mutations are prevented from accumulating

Not true. Harmful mutations are prevented from accumulating. This supports the theory, rather than falsifying it.


Quote:

or observations showing organisms being created supernaturally or spontaneously

So you think evolution is scientific because we don't observe supernatural events that contradict it? The absence of magic makes it science? That is a pretty low bar to set. Is any old theory at all that is not disproven by magic now to be considered scientific?


Quote:

In contrast, creationism consists largely of unsubstantiated claims that evolution has been falsified.

So evolution is scientific becase creationism is unsubstantiated? All you need to make a theory scientific is a competing theory that isn't scientific?


Quote:

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

I make the same distinction. I clearly separate the scientific theory of natural selection from the non-scientific 'extrapolations' that give you the theory of evolution. That is why practitioners in the field so clearly delineate natural 'history' from 'science'.


Quote:

In response to the unfalsifiability criticism of evolutionary theory, numerous examples of potential ways to falsify evolution have been proposed. J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era".

That would not disprove evolution. It would merely show that rabbit like creatures evolved in the past, died out, then evolved again. Either that or it would prove that it was not in fact the precambrian era. Or maybe someone buried the rabbit in that particular layer. Or it must be a hoax. Maybe a giant flood mixed everything up....[/quote]

FD,
I see you are into more -
Credible
Reliable
Abundant
Paradoxes

I think, I will take "Darwin's theories", in preference to "your scientific evidence", whether it be falsifiable, repeatable, adaptable, punctuatable, unsubstantiable, extrapolatable or even fricasseeable!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact  

Quote:

Do you know what you're talking about ? Natural selection is part and parcel of the theory of evolution.

So now all a theory needs in order to be considered scientific is some part of it that is scientific?


Quote:

You say there are several  examples where the fossil record remained unchanged - punctuated equilibria. So you're looking at part of the fossil record and not the overall fossil record which shows change. That's a bit precious, isn't it?

No. Just proving a point.


Quote:

With respect to confimations being prevented from accumulating I think what is meant there is the reference to small mutations accumulating over time. If this could not be found then evolution would be falsified.

No it wouldn't. The evolutionists would just say you need to wait a bit longer. Most confirmation don't happen till puberty. It would never actually be disproved.


Quote:

Creationism is a competing hypothesis, it offers the idea that life was as it is today from it's beginning. That would be a refutation if they or anyone could show it. You're characterisation of it is a straw man.

I just don't see how the theory of creationism somehow makes evolution scientific. Can you explain it so it makes sense?


Quote:

That rabbits evolved in pre-cambrian times , died out and evolved again? Excuse me, if rabbits existed in Pre-cambrian times it would disprove evolution which holds that life at that time was less complex than a mammalian lifeforms which EVOLVED over time and are found in higher rock stratas.

I don't think the theory of evolution actually states that. The historical record can and will be simply chopped and changed as the evidence comes in. This has never disproved the theory of evolution, so I don;t see why it would in the future.


Quote:

Popper's sophisticated falsification 'theory' of philosophy has largely been replaced by writers such as Thomas Kuhn, whose praises you have sung frequently, and who advocates a more balanced approach. Probabilistic Induction is one new paradigm that severely upsets the sacred cow of falsifiability.

I don't really see a contradiction between the two. They merely addressed the same question from different scales - like micro and macro economics. Not that I have read a lot of Popper's work, but people seem to insist my views are close to his.


Quote:

The limitation of Popper's theory is that you need to be able to establish criteria for falsification. All data is subject to natural variation. If you had one or two points that didn't fall on the line, would that be regarded as falsification? How about 3 points?

That sounds like a poorly designed experiment to me. No philosophy of science will get around statistical problems. I am not saying a single experiment or a single point disproves a theory. It has to be repeatable. The disproof itself is not the undoing of the theory, but rather what follows - the loss of confidence in the scientific community. This is getting into Kuhn's territory, but again I don't see any contradiction with my views.


Quote:

Your argument that Evolution should not be taught because it doesn't fit certain definitions of Scientific would imply that we should stop teaching a wide range of other things, particularly aspects of cosmology such as string theory.

Which particular aspects? I have seen a lot of theories that are indistuinguishable from science fiction and cannot be tested in any way. I have seen many that are scientific. I think this is a great way to reinforce the value of understanding science.


Quote:

If you took that attitude practically no science would be taught.

All of it would be taught. Note that I am not saying it should not be taught, just as I am not saying that history, maths, English etc should not be taught.


Quote:

Which barrow are you pushing exactly? Are you a Creationist? I somehow don't think so, but why single out Evolution?

This is where the issue first arose for me, and the only one that people take an interest in. If I argued that certain aspects of cosmology should not be taught in high school science classes, I would get blank stares. Also, many people's interest in the evolution vs creationsim argument leads them to loose sight of what science is. It's like they will sacrifice science for evolution.


Quote:

“I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. … The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological.”

I have never argued that natural selection is not scientific. I suspect you lead yourselves astray a bit in comparing me with Popper.


Quote:

Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with other primates.

I suspect you will find the explanation of the use of the term fact far less tortuous if you call them natural historians and use examples from the study of history.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 3:52am:

Quote: Come on, FD, that rebuttal of Haldane's rabbits is off the wall. You're grasping at straws and you're indicating either that you don't really understand what it is that you're addressing or are just doing anything to win an argument. -Ziggy lol, those of us who have been arguing with FD for years, all face the same question Ziggy, and I found this cartoon which I felt illustrated very well what it is like arguing with FD, see what you think.

That seems like a reasonable depiction!

FD, you ignored this on the other thread, but once more, this is what Thomas Kuhn wrote (emphasis mine):


Quote:

The role thus attributed to falsification is much like the one this essay assigns to anomalous experiences, i.e. to experiences that, by evoking crisis, prepare the way for a new theory. Nevertheless, anomalous experiences may not be identified with falsifying ones. Indeed, I doubt that the latter exist. As has repeatedly been emphasized before, no theory ever solves all the puzzles with which it is confronted at an given time; nor are the solutions already achieved often perfect. On the contrary, it is just the incompleteness and imperfection of the existing data-theory fit that, at any time, define many of the puzzles that characterize normal science. If any and every failure to fit were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times. On the other hand, if only severe failure to fit justifies theory rejection, then the Popperians will require some criterion of "improbability" or of "degree of falsification." In developing one they will almost certainly encounter the same network of difficulties that has haunted the advocates of the various probabilistic verification theories.

From the "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (pp.146-47)

That's as clear as I can make it.

There is no absolute truth in the philosophy of science and just like everything else, we base it on our perception of reality. These philosophies change, just like scientific theories. We can't see everything, so we may find later that our falsified theory actually holds out under different conditions.

There is a disconnect. As Kuhn rightly pointed out, many scientists continue to present their work according to their falsification model. On the other hand, the research is carried out on a much more intuitive basis. Research science is more like a prolonged game of chess between different workers in the field. There is inevitably a degree of advocacy involved. It provides the social drive for the research in the first place. However if a researcher continues to cling to his theory long after the work has been invalidated, that's where pseudoscience creeps in.  

The falsification model of Popper has its place, but you treat it as a rigid principle of demarcation, and it certainly is not that. The newer paradigm of Thomas Kuhn is a more flexible approach.

Quote:

muso There is no absolute truth in the philosophy of science and just like everything else, we base it on our perception of reality. These philosophies change, just like scientific theories. We can't see everything

That pretty much says it!

And, with just a little re-arranging, we are nearly there -

There is no absolute truth, we base all on our perception of reality. These philosophies change, just like scientific theories, we can't see everything.

Quote:

If any and every failure to fit were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times. On the other hand, if only severe failure to fit justifies theory rejection, then the Popperians will require some criterion of "improbability" or of "degree of falsification."

Sounds like a strawman to me muso. I ignored it because I don't see the relevance to my argument. My argument does not require a different view of what disproving actually involves to other philosophies.


Quote:

There is a disconnect. As Kuhn rightly pointed out, many scientists continue to present their work according to their falsification model. On the other hand, the research is carried out on a much more intuitive basis.

Actually, I think that what he pointed out is that they do not necessarily need to even be aware of the model. It is only necessary to recognise unscientific theories. A scientist could even go through his whole career without ever needing to understand it. In most cases where an unscientific theory is put forward it is obvious as the theory looks and sounds like science fiction, and does not lead anywhere anyway because there is no way to test it. The confusion arises with the theory of evolution because the methods and standards from the study of history have been applied, but people still think of it a scientific theory and a scientific method.


Quote:

Research science is more like a prolonged game of chess between different workers in the field. There is inevitably a degree of advocacy involved.

I have not ruled any of this out. At no stage did I claim to present the whole picture of the tos and fros of the scientific community. I just talked about those aspects that are relevant to the topic at hand. You need to explain how you think this contradicts what I am saying. All I see is someone talking about a different topic.


Quote:

However if a researcher continues to cling to his theory long after the work has been invalidated, that's where pseudoscience creeps in.

 

Again, Kuhn (and I) would disagree with you. Read the whole book. It is very enlightening.

Also, lets try to avoid arguments along the lines of 'this famous guy said this, so the matter is settled'. If Kuhn makes what you think is a good argument, then demonstrate the usefullness of the argument here, rather than quoting his conclusion in the absence of context. If all you have are his conclusions, you should probably read the arguments to get a better understanding of what he is actually saying, as a lot of it is very subtle, like most of the points here.

The philosophy of science is not an area in which I'm fully comfortable.  In order  to expand our knowledge, we can't rely on that which can be falisified. It's like assembling a huge jigsaw puzzle. You might try a piece somewhere that may or may not be right in order that more pieces may also fit. In fact you have to do that or you'll get nowhere. Sometimes you have to remove whole sections because something else works better.

Nothing in Science is absolutely 100% perfectly. We are continually refining our ideas about virtually everything.

All we're doing is making the best mirror of perceived reality that we can make.

In order to teach science, you inevitable have to teach about research, and often about different schools of thought. There is no one true answer and there are no sacred cows either. The same goes for all branches of knowledge, and philosophy is by no means clear-cut either.

Do we regard something as half baked if it's 43.2% baked or 99.9% baked? You're suggesting throwing out all the loaves because they have minor imperfections, but in point of fact, that's as good as they are going to get.

Quote:

In order  to expand our knowledge, we can't rely on that which can be falisified. It's like assembling a huge jigsaw puzzle. You might try a piece somewhere that may or may not be right. In fact you have to do that or you'll get nowhere.

Falsifiable does not mean wrong or disprovable, though in practice it often is. What is means is that it would be possible to disprove it, if it is false. Testable is a closer synonym.


Quote:

You're suggesting throwing out all the loaves because they have minor imperfections, but inpoint of fact, that's as good as they are going to get.

Can you expolain how? Which loaves are being thrown out?

So how is global warming a scientific theory and evolutions is not? We don't have an identical planet Earth to use as a control do we?

pjb05 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 12:24pm:

So how is global warming a scientific theory and evolutions is not? We don't have an identical planet Earth to use as a control do we?

We discussed this over at Environment. There is a whole range of predictions that would be a consequence of Global warming from increased atmospheric CO2. If these could be shown not to occur then the theory could be falisified. One example is decreasing longwave radiation to space.

Even though we could do with another Earth, we don't have one, and we don't need one to validate the theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory for the reasons given already. Aprt from that, it can be observed to occur in more primitive species.

This is what we get from this shoddy way of thinking:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-students-taught-humans-coexisted-with-dinosaurs/story-e6freoof-1225899437968


Quote:

PRIMARY school students are being taught that man and dinosaurs walked the Earth together and that there's fossil evidence to prove it. Fundamentalist Christians are hijacking religious instruction classes despite education experts saying Creationism and attempts to convert children to Christianity have no place in state schools.

It's tantamount to child abuse. It really is. These people should be arrested and tried for corrupting the education system of our kids.

pjb05 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 12:24pm:

So how is global warming a scientific theory and evolutions is not? We don't have an identical planet Earth to use as a control do we?

Both are certain enough to be considered scientific facts by the vast majority of workers in the respective fields.

Quote:

So how is global warming a scientific theory and evolutions is not? We don't have an identical planet Earth to use as a control do we?

By controlling our emissions and observing the effect on climate, we are actually doing an experiment. Not a very good one of course. Plus, AGW is a collection (or prediction based on) many theories, most or all of which are scientific. If you want to test the greenhouse effect, build yourself a greenhouse.


Quote:

Aprt from that, it can be observed to occur in more primitive species.

I think you are confusing natural selection with evolution.


Quote:

This is what we get from this shoddy way of thinking:

No muso, that is what you get from your shoddy way of thinking. Not mine. Think about what you are saying.

=1280659447]
Quote:

So how is global warming a scientific theory and evolutions is not? We don't have an identical planet Earth to use as a control do we?

By controlling our emissions and observing the effect on climate, we are actually doing an experiment. Not a very good one of course.

But were not controlling emissions. Plus even if we were we don't know what the temperature would be in the unchecked emssions scenario.

Plus, AGW is a collection (or prediction based on) many theories, most or all of which are scientific. If you want to test the greenhouse effect, build yourself a greenhouse.

So is evolution. You can do experiments which demonstate natural selection as well as numerous other observations which support the theory. Why isn't this scientific?

.[/quote]

Quote:

So now all a theory needs in order to be considered scientific is some part of it that is scientific?

What's the unscientific part? And don't you dare say evolution!  :P


Quote:

No. Just proving a point.

You didn't.



Quote:

No it wouldn't. The evolutionists would just say you need to wait a bit longer. Most confirmation don't happen till puberty. It would never actually be disproved.

???????????? I think we're at tangents here. This one I'll leave in limbo.


Quote:

I just don't see how the theory of creationism somehow makes evolution scientific. Can you explain it so it makes sense?

No cigar. I made sense. Your characterisation is what is senseless here, FD. I get the feeling that you just argue for argument's sake and couldn't care less about what you throw out.

Notwithstanding, Creationism makes a claim which would falsify evolution. Creationism would maintain that various creatures we see today were there when life came to be on this planet. You asked for falsifiability. This shows that evolution is falsifiable. AND youhave been given a number of other potential falsifiers. If you feel compelled to ask how evolution can be falsified again, just read back.


Quote:

I don't think the theory of evolution actually states that. The historical record can and will be simply chopped and changed as the evidence comes in. This has never disproved the theory of evolution, so I don;t see why it would in the future.

It's something that would falsify evolution. (I think you should look at that chicken cartoon very closely, FD. )

The theory implies that complex life today evolved from simpler life. Haldane's rabbit would falsify that. There is no way that the theory would be valid if Haldane's rabbit showed up- not unless, of course, you could show that it travelled through time somehow.

I would now iterate the potential falsifiers that I mentioned earlier, however, I'll save myself the time and only reiterate that you read back.

What you think is an alternative to the theory of evolution's explanation of how complex life on this planet came to be?

You don't believe that genetic variation and natural selection brought it about? Those are the two limbs evolution stands on. You accepted natural selection as scientific because you thought it was falsfiable. So what's unscientific and unfalsifiable about the remaining limb- genetic variation?  Tell me, what do you think natural selection works on?  ::)

You are playing with words but are completely overlooking substance. You made a false and absurd dichotomy.

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:44pm:

I think you are confusing natural selection with evolution.

Natural selection is the primary mechanism for evolution.

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:44pm:

If you want to test the greenhouse effect, build yourself a greenhouse.

I think you're confusing the greenhouse effect with greenhouses.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/theory-sufficient-genetic-potential.html

The first time I've read this particular gem of knowledge. It speaks volumes:


Quote:

The earth is an ark. The organisms currently living on the earth contain all the genetic information required to breed any of the organisms that have ever lived on the earth. This would require no beneficial mutations, just a careful and prolonged selective breeding program, and the exchange of DNA that often occurs naturally between different species. This genetic information has been available for the entire time that life has existed on earth.

I think we're wasting our time here talking about the finer points of the philosophy of science.

Evolution and Creationism should not be taught at schools, because both theories have obvious fundamental flaws. Teaching these non-factual and flawed theories to young school students is paramount to psychological child abuse.

Creationism relies on a belief that there is an omnipotent being somewhere.

Evolution relies on the belief that species characteristics change over a period of time.

It was my understanding that scientists have proven that the species of human beings has a “missing-link” somewhere in it evolutionary history.

I believe, that until that Omnipotent being and missing link is found; then the theories of evolution and creationism should not be part of the school curriculum.  

Well that is the sort of nonsense we here from Creationists Culldav.

Evolution deserves to be taught as a theory, and creationism deserves to be shown as what some morons believe if they are so stupid that they think The Flintstones is a documentary.

culldav wrote on Aug 5^th, 2010 at 12:23pm:

Evolution and Creationism should not be taught at schools, because both theories have obvious fundamental flaws. Teaching these non-factual and flawed theories to young school students is paramount to psychological child abuse. Creationism relies on a belief that there is an omnipotent being somewhere. Evolution relies on the belief that species characteristics change over a period of time. It was my understanding that scientists have proven that the species of human beings has a “missing-link” somewhere in it evolutionary history. I believe, that until that Omnipotent being and missing link is found; then the theories of evolution and creationism should not be part of the school curriculum.

This is the Technically Speaking Section.  The Woolly Thinking Section is somewhere under the "Fringe" Board.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 5^th, 2010 at 2:48pm:

Well that is the sort of nonsense we here from Creationists Culldav. Evolution deserves to be taught as a theory, and creationism deserves to be shown as what some morons believe if they are so stupid that they think The Flintstones is a documentary.

I don't know. The coexistence of homo sapiens and dinosaurs  has been proven, except that 'dinosaurs' is just another name for creationists.  

Laughs @ Muso's posts!

I've no problem with both Evolution AND Creationism being taught in schools.

These represent 2 competing schools of thought .. sure .. but so what?

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 2:17am:

I've no problem with both Evolution AND Creationism being taught in schools. These represent 2 competing schools of thought .. sure .. but so what?

That's the point Lisa. Most Christians don't have a problem with evolution, at least in Australia.

As far as Biology classes are concerned, Evolution should be taught. Evolution does not imply that life spontaneously came about on Earth. It's concerned with the development of more complex forms of life from less complex ones through the process of natural selection.

It is regarded by the vast majority of scientists as a scientific fact. Nothing can be proven 100% in this world, but evolutionary theory is as close to fact as the heliocentric  view  of the Solar System.

(OK, the Earth and sun orbit around a common axis with slight aberations caused by other planets if you really want to nit pick, and you could go on about the curvature of space-time.... yadda yadda)

- In other words the other Scientific theories that creationists have absolutely no problem with as long as it supports their one true paradigm.

New Age Creationists don't even know their own mythology. Adam was not the first man according to the Bible. There were other pre-existing people in the land of Nod, where Cain found a wife.  Adam was just the first Jew according to Biblical mythology.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 2:17am:

I've no problem with both Evolution AND Creationism being taught in schools. These represent 2 competing schools of thought .. sure .. but so what?

I have a problem with it. One is a school of thought, the other is dribble.

locutius wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 10:15am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 6th, 2010 at 2:17am: I've no problem with both Evolution AND Creationism being taught in schools. These represent 2 competing schools of thought .. sure .. but so what? I have a problem with it. One is a school of thought, the other is dribble.

It should be taught that some people hold this curious view, but it shouldn't be taught as fact. It has no place in science classes. It's a consequence of a handful of fundamentalist  religious sects only. Kids need to know that it exists as a social phenomenon.

It annoys me that fundamentalists have hijacked our education system with this crap. To me knowledge is sacred, and this kind of thing is sacrilege. Keep life imprisonment for murderers and pedophiles, but maybe we should think about Old Testament justice for these fossils who corrupt our kids.  It would be poetic justice.

Stoning, do you reckon? (I'll start a poll) If we do, maybe we should include those who get money on false pretenses for writing horoscopes.

(Dummy spit brought to you by Powdermilk biscuits.  Made from whole wheat raised by Norwegian bachelor farmers)

Regarding the poll, I mean of course those who creep into the public education system and teach that dinosaurs and men coexisted and that DNA was not invented back then etc.

muso wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 10:26am:

locutius wrote on Aug 6th, 2010 at 10:15am: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 6th, 2010 at 2:17am: I've no problem with both Evolution AND Creationism being taught in schools. These represent 2 competing schools of thought .. sure .. but so what? I have a problem with it. One is a school of thought, the other is dribble. It should be taught that some people hold this curious view, but it shouldn't be taught as fact. It has no place in science classes. It's a consequence of a handful of fundamentalist  religious sects only. Kids need to know that it exists as a social phenomenon. It annoys me that fundamentalists have hijacked our education system with this crap. To me knowledge is sacred, and this kind of thing is sacrilege. Keep life imprisonment for murderers and pedophiles, but maybe we should think about Old Testament justice for these fossils who corrupt our kids.  It would be poetic justice. Stoning, do you reckon? (I'll start a poll) If we do, maybe we should include those who get money on false pretenses for writing horoscopes. (Dummy spit brought to you by Powdermilk biscuits.  Made from whole wheat raised by Norwegian bachelor farmers)

I agree with everything you said. The Quality education of children is the most important and sacred task we are responsible for along with their physical wellbeing.

It is the reason I'd like to see an end to private education.

Well I think cut their tongues out and stone them while they are on the cross. Then bury them beneath a public toilet.

I only chose stoning because of the exercise benefit to be gained.

School children should be taught that creationism & evolution are theories ONLY, because there is no factual scientific evidence to support either theory.

Teaching children or anyone that creationism and evolution are factual scientific theories, is nothing more than psychological abuse, and these two idiocies needs to be stopped being taught in schools as being factual theories.

Until scientists find the missing-link between ape & human, then children should be taught evolution is only a theory.

Until we find that omnipotent being, then the same rules should be applied to creationism.

Anyone with a rational mind would understand that creationism is a religious theory to support a religion, and religion in its later form was adopted to control society and the population.  

Religions and governments were the two most destructive and dangerous inventions mankind has ever conceived, and it just might end up being our species undoing.

As a developing species, just what has religions and governments done for the betterment of human being over the past few thousand years.

culldav wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 12:20pm:

School children should be taught that creationism & evolution are theories ONLY, because there is no factual scientific evidence to support either theory.

There is a plethora of evidence that supports evolution, not least the fact that we can observe it in action for primitive organisms.

Most experts in the field regard it as a fact. If we stopped teaching evolution, we should also stop teaching astronomy, geology, any theory of gravitation, chemistry, meteorology, psychology, quantum mechanics and science in general, because all of these sciences have some degree of uncertainty. If we stopped teaching quantum mechanics, we'd have great difficulty making certain pieces of electronic equipment work, and we'd progress to a new dark age.  Everybody in physics is aware that Relativity is not a perfect theory, but we need it to get communications satellites to work.

Evolutionary theory is more robust than most aspects of astronomy and meteorology, and it's much more robust than psychology.

As for your comment on the 'missing link', I'm sorry I was flippant, but honestly where have you been in the last 30 years?   Haven't you heard about Lucy  (Australopithecus afarensis) and the many other discoveries that provide a pretty conclusive demonstration of evolution in action?

culldav wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 12:20pm:

School children should be taught that creationism & evolution are theories ONLY, because there is no factual scientific evidence to support either theory. Teaching children or anyone that creationism and evolution are factual scientific theories, is nothing more than psychological abuse, and these two idiocies needs to be stopped being taught in schools as being factual theories. Until scientists find the missing-link between ape & human, then children should be taught evolution is only a theory. Until we find that omnipotent being, then the same rules should be applied to creationism. Anyone with a rational mind would understand that creationism is a religious theory to support a religion, and religion in its later form was adopted to control society and the population.   Religions and governments were the two most destructive and dangerous inventions mankind has ever conceived, and it just might end up being our species undoing. As a developing species, just what has religions and governments done for the betterment of human being over the past few thousand years.

That there are gaps in the fossil record does not mean that evolution is not validated by other means. Our understanding of genetics, for instance, validates that human beings shared a common ancestor with other primates such as chimpanzees. For example, our inability to synthesise vitamin C in our bodies is shared with other primates, and is a result of a shared genetic defect. Other mammals outside of primates don't need to take vitamin C in directly like primates do. The odds of us sharing this common genetic defect, which occurs in the same spot on a shared gene, outside  of having a common ancestor with  are infinitely small. You'd have better chances in siring a goat.

You are completely wrong about no factual evidence to support the theory of evolution. What do you think the fossil record is? What do you think morphological and biochemical similarities are? What do you think the increasing resistence of bacteria to antibiotics is?


As to your assertions about governments and religions are not only fatuous, they are irrelevant.

muso wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 1:43pm:

culldav wrote on Aug 6th, 2010 at 12:20pm: School children should be taught that creationism & evolution are theories ONLY, because there is no factual scientific evidence to support either theory. There is a plethora of evidence that supports evolution, not least the fact that we can observe it in action for primitive organisms. Most experts in the field regard it as a fact. If we stopped teaching evolution, we should also stop teaching astronomy, geology, any theory of gravitation, chemistry, meteorology, psychology, quantum mechanics and science in general, because all of these sciences have some degree of uncertainty. If we stopped teaching quantum mechanics, we'd have great difficulty making certain pieces of electronic equipment work, and we'd progress to a new dark age.  Everybody in physics is aware that Relativity is not a perfect theory, but we need it to get communications satellites to work. Evolutionary theory is more robust than most aspects of astronomy and meteorology, and it's much more robust than psychology. As for your comment on the 'missing link', I'm sorry I was flippant, but honestly where have you been in the last 30 years?   Haven't you heard about Lucy  (Australopithecus afarensis) and the many other discoveries that provide a pretty conclusive demonstration of evolution in action?

Yes basically what I had written before my computer went down.

The old missing link reference is a classic and one that I heard frequently from my wife and her sister....both with private catholic school educations.

"But where is the missing link?" they would ask with infantile sunday school smuggness.

"Which one are you waiting for?" I would reply. "There have been many stages/links found as well as many hominid deadends etc".

No they didn't initially know what I was talking about...since then my wife has read a little about evolution, watched some quality programs and read the "Seven Daughters of Eve" and understood enough to accept evolution as a branch of knowledge that complements her faith by making it all the more interesting and exciting. Her sister who is less challanged by her spouse and the company she keeps hasn't altered her view anywhere near the same degree. Oh well it's easier to put on slippers than carpet the whole world.

Interestingly, while they held evolution as doubtful and a corrupting concept they accepted the story of "Fatima" without question. I'm happy to say that I have destroyed the complacency of that belief.

locutius wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 2:36pm:

No they didn't initially know what I was talking about...since then my wife has read a little about evolution, watched some quality programs and read the "Seven Daughters of Eve" and understood enough to accept evolution as a branch of knowledge that complements her faith by making it all the more interesting and exciting. Her sister who is less challanged by her spouse and the company she keeps hasn't altered her view anywhere near the same degree. Oh well it's easier to put on slippers than carpet the whole world. Interestingly, while they held evolution as doubtful and a corrupting concept they accepted the story of "Fatima" without question. I'm happy to say that I have destroyed the complacency of that belief.

Exactly. There is no need for anybody to get their rosary beads in a twist about this, because evolution is perfectly compatible with most religions. It's not a choice between god and evolution. God could quite happily fill in the gaps that we'll never be able to fill with any degree of certainty, regardless of what Stephen Hawkings has to say about it.  

There will always be a mysterious element (call it God if you like) as to how the universe happened to come into being as it did, and there will always be a yearning for understanding.

Why can't they be like the Monks of New Norcia?

http://www.abc.net.au/dimensions/dimensions_people/Transcripts/s928568.htm


Quote:

BRENDAN HUTCHENS: The relationship between the Benedictine monks and the European scientists quickly developed beyond just a working relationship. DOM CHRIS POWERS: We've become good friends over the last couple of years. A lot of the scientists who came out for the building stage stayed with us here in the guest house, and we got to know them very well. BRENDAN HUTCHENS: On the face of it, you may have expected a conflict of interests. But that's not the case. FATHER BERNARD ROONEY: Authors, academics, people have said there's a conflict between science and religion. Well, there isn't, because religion simply adds a dimension to science. You need to know the meaning behind things. DR GRAHAM MANN: Even though science and religion are very different games played by different rules in some ways, we're still after the same sorts of truth. What are our position in the universe? What's out there? Is life just something that exists on Earth? All of those sorts of questions, I think, we're approaching in different ways. DOM CHRIS POWERS: We all think of the universe as another part of creation and the work of the creator and I don't think science is going to discover anything that will undermine what we believe in, no.

muso wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 3:00pm:

locutius wrote on Aug 6th, 2010 at 2:36pm: No they didn't initially know what I was talking about...since then my wife has read a little about evolution, watched some quality programs and read the "Seven Daughters of Eve" and understood enough to accept evolution as a branch of knowledge that complements her faith by making it all the more interesting and exciting. Her sister who is less challanged by her spouse and the company she keeps hasn't altered her view anywhere near the same degree. Oh well it's easier to put on slippers than carpet the whole world. Interestingly, while they held evolution as doubtful and a corrupting concept they accepted the story of "Fatima" without question. I'm happy to say that I have destroyed the complacency of that belief. Exactly. There is no need for anybody to get their rosary beads in a twist about this, because evolution is perfectly compatible with most religions. It's not a choice between god and evolution. God could quite happily fill in the gaps that we'll never be able to fill with any degree of certainty, regardless of what Stephen Hawkings has to say about it.   There will always be a mysterious element (call it God if you like) as to how the universe happened to come into being as it did, and there will always be a yearning for understanding. Why can't they be like the Monks of New Norcia? http://www.abc.net.au/dimensions/dimensions_people/Transcripts/s928568.htm Quote: BRENDAN HUTCHENS: The relationship between the Benedictine monks and the European scientists quickly developed beyond just a working relationship. DOM CHRIS POWERS: We've become good friends over the last couple of years. A lot of the scientists who came out for the building stage stayed with us here in the guest house, and we got to know them very well. BRENDAN HUTCHENS: On the face of it, you may have expected a conflict of interests. But that's not the case. FATHER BERNARD ROONEY: Authors, academics, people have said there's a conflict between science and religion. Well, there isn't, because religion simply adds a dimension to science. You need to know the meaning behind things. DR GRAHAM MANN: Even though science and religion are very different games played by different rules in some ways, we're still after the same sorts of truth. What are our position in the universe? What's out there? Is life just something that exists on Earth? All of those sorts of questions, I think, we're approaching in different ways. DOM CHRIS POWERS: We all think of the universe as another part of creation and the work of the creator and I don't think science is going to discover anything that will undermine what we believe in, no.

The problem is that various minions from both camps can't help stepping on each other's toes whilst waltzing .

+++1

Ziggy

You failed to mention that other species like Caviidae; Capybaras; some Passerine birds & bats have also lost there ability to synthesise Vitamin C.   Does this mean we are also related to them through evolution?  

The theory of evolution is about as wacked-out as the theory of creationism.

Both fundamentally flawed, and have no place being taught to children as being factual.

If we look at the timeline of say 1 million years for humanity to evolve from Homo Rhodesians to current Homo Sapiens, then shouldn’t the question be asked as to why humanity is the only species that has evolved.

Elephants and blue whales have larger brains than humans, but they have not evolutionarily evolved over the past 1 million years. Pygmy Shrews have a ratio of brain mass which is roughly equal to that of humans, but they haven’t evolutionarily evolved over the past 1 million years.  

If human beings have lost the ability to synthesise vitamin C, how could that be considered evolution?  A species that loses its ability to synthesise an important vitamin for its own well being doesn’t say evolution.

Quote:

You failed to mention that other species like Caviidae; Capybaras; some Passerine birds & bats have also lost there ability to synthesise Vitamin C.   Does this mean we are also related to them through evolution?   The theory of evolution is about as wacked-out as the theory of creationism.

Here you go, Culldav:

...... researchers were able to use evolutionary theory to make some testable predictions. If the ancestors of humans, the other higher primates, and guinea pigs originally had the ability to synthesize vitamin C then each of these species should still carry the evidence of this lost ability in their genetic material. In addition, researchers predicted that humans and the other higher primates would likely have the same cause for this lost ability, since the scientific evidence suggested that they have all descended from a relatively recent common ancestor. In other words, they predicted that it wasn't a mere coincidence; decent from a common ancestor was the explanation for why humans and other primates are all unable to synthesize vitamin C. Finally, researchers predicted that guinea pigs, a species that was known to be only distantly related to primates, would most likely show evidence of a different cause for this lost ability.

Eventually, researchers confirmed each of these predictions by finding GULO-related DNA sequences in genomes of humans, other higher primates, and guinea pigs. Just as predicted, the sequences exist as broken genes meaning that they are present but non-functional. Here you can see a portion of the human, chimpanzee, orangutan, macaque, and guinea pig sequences compared to the functional GULO sequence found in a cow. This evidence suggests that a frame shift mutation is what originally rendered the GULO gene non-functional in the ancestor of higher primates by creating a premature stop codon. Just as expected, this particular mutation is not found in the same location of the guinea pig sequence. Instead, the evidence suggests that a point mutation in a different part of the guinea part sequence may have been what broke the GULO gene in the ancestor of the modern guinea pigs, again, by creating a premature stop codon. These completely separate mutations both had the same result: they deactivated the GULO enzyme and rendered the bearers of the mutation and all of their descendants unable to produce their own vitamin C. For the animals that originally inherited these mutations their natural diet probably provided all of the vitamin C they needed. This explains how such a seemingly harmful mutation could become so prevalent that it is now found in all members of these populations. A closer analysis of the DNA sequences confirms another prediction of evolutionary theory. In comparison to humans, the chimpanzee's sequence was the most similar, followed by the orangutan's sequence, followed by the macaque's sequence, followed by the guinea pig and cow sequences. Furthermore, ever since the original mutations broke the genes the altered genetic material has accumulated mutations at exactly the rate that is predicted by the evolutionary theory.

So, there you have it. A close examination of the evidence leads to a powerful explanation of a large set of biological observations. These observations only make sense using the real science of evolution.

http://en.wikicaptions.org/wiki/Youtube:SF2N2lbb3dk

There's nothing whacked out about evolution.  


Quote:

Both fundamentally flawed, and have no place being taught to children as being factual.

Wrong as far as evolution is concerned. The above should help you understand this.


Quote:

If we look at the timeline of say 1 million years for humanity to evolve from Homo Rhodesians to current Homo Sapiens, then shouldn’t the question be asked as to why humanity is the only species that has evolved.

You seem to have some weird idea about evolution floating around in your head. Of course other species have undergone evolution- whales, for example.


Quote:

Elephants and blue whales have larger brains than humans, but they have not evolutionarily evolved over the past 1 million years. Pygmy Shrews have a ratio of brain mass which is roughly equal to that of humans, but they haven’t evolutionarily evolved over the past 1 million years.

Yup, you have some weird idea about it . How do you think blue whales came to be? Just popped into existence? Have you seen the fossil record on whales?  We still have Crocs that have been about for milllions of years. That doesn't mean that evolution hasn't occurred in other lifeforms. Look at the fossil record. Look at moths and industrialism, look at bacteria changing to become antiboitic resistant- It's all EVOLUTION.


Quote:

If human beings have lost the ability to synthesise vitamin C, how could that be considered evolution?  A species that loses its ability to synthesise an important vitamin for its own well being doesn’t say evolution.

Evolution doesn't mean ever onward and upward to some  kind of perfection that you might imagine- it's genetic change and natural selection. That primates lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C didn't make them unfit to survive did it? So , they stuck around.

culldav wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 4:43pm:

Ziggy You failed to mention that other species like Caviidae; Capybaras; some Passerine birds & bats have also lost there ability to synthesise Vitamin C.   Does this mean we are also related to them through evolution?   The theory of evolution is about as wacked-out as the theory of creationism. Both fundamentally flawed, and have no place being taught to children as being factual. If we look at the timeline of say 1 million years for humanity to evolve from Homo Rhodesians to current Homo Sapiens, then shouldn’t the question be asked as to why humanity is the only species that has evolved. Elephants and blue whales have larger brains than humans, but they have not evolutionarily evolved over the past 1 million years. Pygmy Shrews have a ratio of brain mass which is roughly equal to that of humans, but they haven’t evolutionarily evolved over the past 1 million years.   If human beings have lost the ability to synthesise vitamin C, how could that be considered evolution?  A species that loses its ability to synthesise an important vitamin for its own well being doesn’t say evolution.

You mean homo rhodesiensis I take it?

This Wikipedia article is quite good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Evolution of the Elephant:
http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Stories/Evolution/evolution.html

What makes you think that the Elephant has not evolved significantly, even in the last 1 million years? There would not be a great deal of difference morphologically between homo habilis and modern man if you were looking at it from the perspective of an elephant.  From a human perspective all Elephants look alike too.

You've got the wrong end of the stick if you think that evolution always leads to improvements. Sometimes evolution hits a brick wall and some species become extinct.

.. extinct even???

I've read through this topic .. and I still maintain that we should teach BOTH evolution AND creationism.

Why?

1) We all ought to know what these competing paradigms consist of.

2) We all ought to be able to make informed decisions based on the information we have available.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 7:55pm:

I've read through this topic .. and I still maintain that we should teach BOTH evolution AND creationism. Why? 1) We all ought to know what these competing paradigms consist of. 2) We all ought to be able to make informed decisions based on the information we have available.

We almost agree. I just think that evolution should be taught as part of biology, while creationism should be taught as part of social science or study of religions. Creationism is really just an extension of a specific religion or certain sects within that religion. (Abrahamic Monotheism)  . It is certainly not a competing paradigm within biology.

Thanks for the pick up on my typo.

Ermm, carry on.  :-[

We almost agree. I just think that evolution should be taught as part of biology, while creationism should be taught as part of social science or study of religions.

- Muso

No .. we actually agree! My original posts were a tad general in nature.

I merely stated that both paradigms ought to be taught; I never outlined/stipulated under which discipline/s.

I'll endeavour to be more thorough in future :)

And .. Muso .. I believe I need new specs!!!

.. sighs ..

I must be very tired .. I could have sworn the last word in your 2nd last post was "exist" .. which prompted my correction to "extinct"

Yet I'm still 100% sure your post had a typo in it. However that doesn't appear to be the case now????

????

I give up!

Please accept my apologies .. I was only trying to be helpful.

It's been a long day.


Regards Lisa

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 8:31pm:

We almost agree. I just think that evolution should be taught as part of biology, while creationism should be taught as part of social science or study of religions. - Muso No .. we actually agree! My original posts were a tad general in nature. I merely stated that both paradigms ought to be taught; I never outlined/stipulated under which discipline/s. I'll endeavour to be more thorough in future :)

Nooooooooooo, you did more than that. You called them COMPETING PARADIGMS...You've just shifted ground.

Ahh I see now lol .. the modify function allows you to go back and correct your own posts!

... and Muso edited his post lol :)

Ok .. let's move on!

muso wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 7:48pm:

You've got the wrong end of the stick if you think that evolution always leads to improvements. Sometimes evolution hits a brick wall and some species become extinct.

I like this hidden/unselfconciously religious angle to your take on evolution. No evolutionist has ever thought that evolution is just chaotic change. The only way it has ever been conceptualised is as a process of improvement. There is an unconscious Robinson Crusoe aspect to it, or a teleology, if you like.

The odd thing is - it does not work with us. We do not adopt to our environment but alter it to our needs. We have imposed society (civilisation) between ourselves and nature.

Umm Ziggy or whoever you are ..

Evolution --->scientific paradigm

Creationism ---> traditional paradigm

As such, they are competing paradigms.

Perhaps you ought to avail yourself of the opportunity to read the following book by Thomas Kuhn:

http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083

As it so happens .. I studied Kuhn at University a few years back (within History and Philosophy of Science) under the esteemed Professor David Oldroyd lol ... good times lol :)

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 8:49pm:

muso wrote on Aug 6th, 2010 at 7:48pm: You've got the wrong end of the stick if you think that evolution always leads to improvements. Sometimes evolution hits a brick wall and some species become extinct. I like this hidden/unselfconciously religious angle to your take on evolution. No evolutionist has ever thought that evolution is just chaotic change. The only way it has ever been conceptualised is as a process of improvement. There is an unconscious Robinson Crusoe aspect to it, or a teleology, if you like. The odd thing is - it does not work with us. We do not adopt to our environment but alter it to our needs. We have imposed society (civilisation) between ourselves and nature.

Actually, that's not a fair charge. The idea of improvement came from the outside by the likes of Herbert Spencer. Strictly speaking, improvement isn't inbuilt into the theory at all.

Yes, we do impose society between ourselves and nature, yet nature is still working away e.g bacteria and viruses will still be forces shaping the human genome.

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 8:49pm:

muso wrote on Aug 6th, 2010 at 7:48pm: You've got the wrong end of the stick if you think that evolution always leads to improvements. Sometimes evolution hits a brick wall and some species become extinct. I like this hidden/unselfconciously religious angle to your take on evolution. No evolutionist has ever thought that evolution is just chaotic change. The only way it has ever been conceptualised is as a process of improvement. There is an unconscious Robinson Crusoe aspect to it, or a teleology, if you like. The odd thing is - it does not work with us. We do not adopt to our environment but alter it to our needs. We have imposed society (civilisation) between ourselves and nature.

Ziggy is right. It just means adapting to a changing environment.  For example ammonites developed convoluted sutures in response to  a changing marine environment. The later Triassic ammonites are associated with much deeper water assemblages and have convoluted sutures which withstand pressure to a greater extent. The shallower water species of the Jurassic  had relatively simple sutures which worked well for buoyancy control, which was more important in shallow water environments. We can track the lineages of ammonites and their adaptation through the fossil record.  

All this did not help the ammonites very much, because they went extinct (no typo this time Lisa)  at the end of the Cretaceous. The nearest surviving relative these days is the Pearly Nautilus.

In some environments, simpler is better. For example high salinity, the presence of hydrocarbons etc can defeat more complex organisms.

We still have vestiges of this adaptation to older environments in our body structure. For example, the very complex renal system is well adapted for living in saline water.

- and yes, you can go back and change your post, but be careful about it. I sometimes type <edit>. if I go back and change something, unless it's just a typo, otherwise you can be accused of being dishonest.

If it's just simply adapting to a changing environment -why bother? A rock doesn't adapt.  It just sits there, recalcitrant. What is it about life?
COme to think of it - in what way is the appearance of life an evolutionary way of  'adapting to the environment'?

Creationism is really just an extension of a specific religion or certain sects within that religion. (Abrahamic Monotheism) . It is certainly not a competing paradigm within biology.

- Muso

Just read back .. and realized I had not responded to the above comment.

In stating that the paradigms were competing .. I was alluding to the fact that:

Evolution --->scientific paradigm

Creationism ---> traditional paradigm

As such, they are indeed competing paradigms.

Here, this might help clarify things before we get bogged down in meanings.

"In colloquial contexts, evolution can refer to any sort of progressive development, and often bears a connotation of gradual improvement: evolution is understood as a process that results in greater quality or complexity. This common definition, when misapplied to biological evolution, leads to frequent misunderstandings. For example, the idea of devolution ("backwards" evolution) is a result of erroneously assuming that evolution is directional or has a specific goal, or that it necessarily leads to greater complexity. In reality, the evolution of organisms does not entail objective improvement; advancements are only situational. It is not part of the theory of evolution to consider any one species, such as humans, to be more "highly evolved" or "advanced" than another. Likewise, evolution does not require that organisms become more complex. Depending on the situation, organisms' complexity can either increase, decrease, or stay the same, and all three of these trends have been observed in biological evolution.[2]

Creationist sources frequently use evolution in a colloquial, rather than scientific, meaning while attacking the scientific concept. This often leads to the promotion of misunderstandings by creationists.[1][3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_(term)

locutius wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 10:15am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 6th, 2010 at 2:17am: I've no problem with both Evolution AND Creationism being taught in schools. These represent 2 competing schools of thought .. sure .. but so what? I have a problem with it. One is a school of thought, the other is dribble.

Have you considered that both function much like binary opposites and as such give a better sense of clarity about themselves and each other?

Oh and why hide information?

As I stated above .. people ought to know what these 2 competing paradigms consist of. Also .. people ought to be able to make informed decisions based on the information we have available.

In essence ... this is what/how I am thinking :

Thesis + Antithesis ==> Synthesis

----> ( simplified version of Hegelian Dialectic ) ie the basis of critical thought.

i would suggest that you only use 20% of your brain matter

(the other 80% is activated when you sleep/dream or meditate)

and could have no grasp on the cruciable unless you activate

the endocrine system the conduit to the higher dimensions.

you are a master

in the making.

your ignorance has no bareing upon this fact

and so it is

namaste

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 10:04pm:

If it's just simply adapting to a changing environment -why bother? A rock doesn't adapt.  It just sits there, recalcitrant. What is it about life? COme to think of it - in what way is the appearance of life an evolutionary way of  'adapting to the environment'?

Let's get this straight. Evolution can't tell you anything about the appearance or instigation of life. That's not covered by evolution at all. Not one bit even.

Evolution is just concerned with the way organisms adapt to their environment. If the main food supply grows on trees for example, those critters with a longer neck can reach it more easily and thus have an evolutionary advantage. The phenotypes survive and gradually over time and many generations, the phenotypes become more typical of the general population. It's basic stuff.

If you want metaphysical discussions on existence, try Spirituality. There's a new poster called it_is_the_light. You'll get a lot of sense out of him.

Enjoy.  

PJ:


Quote:

But were not controlling emissions. Plus even if we were we don't know what the temperature would be in the unchecked emssions scenario.

Yes an experiment on a global scale is very limited from a scientific perspective.


Quote:

So is evolution. You can do experiments which demonstate natural selection as well as numerous other observations which support the theory. Why isn't this scientific?

Natural selection is a scientific theory.

Ziggy:


Quote:

What's the unscientific part? And don't you dare say evolution!

An example is universal common ancestry.


Quote:

Notwithstanding, Creationism makes a claim which would falsify evolution. Creationism would maintain that various creatures we see today were there when life came to be on this planet. You asked for falsifiability. This shows that evolution is falsifiable. AND youhave been given a number of other potential falsifiers. If you feel compelled to ask how evolution can be falsified again, just read back.

Falsification by magic etc does not satisfy the scientific requirements for falsifiability. You have to be able to design a repeatable experiment that would disprove it if it were false. Not just dream up an alternative and hold it as proof of your own theory.


Quote:

The theory implies that complex life today evolved from simpler life.

The theory makes no claims of directionality of change, with regard to complexity or any other subjective assessment of life.


Quote:

What you think is an alternative to the theory of evolution's explanation of how complex life on this planet came to be?

Absense of an alternative does not make it scientific either.


Quote:

You don't believe that genetic variation and natural selection brought it about?

I am making claims about science, not belief. Unscientific does not mean wrong. If anything, scientific means wrong.


Quote:

You made a false and absurd dichotomy.

It is not false. The dichotomy between the scientific and unscientific aspects is genuine and enlightening.

Muso:


Quote:

The first time I've read this particular gem of knowledge. It speaks volumes:

Muso, you are clearly misrepresenting the article by quoting that out of context. It is obviously meant to be put forward as a theory to demonstrate a point, not a fact.


Quote:

Evolution does not imply that life spontaneously came about on Earth.

According to my high school biology textbook it does.


Quote:

It annoys me that fundamentalists have hijacked our education system with this crap. To me knowledge is sacred, and this kind of thing is sacrilege. Keep life imprisonment for murderers and pedophiles, but maybe we should think about Old Testament justice for these fossils who corrupt our kids.  It would be poetic justice.

Sacred cows are the greatest threat to the aquisition of new knowledge.

locutious:


Quote:

I agree with everything you said. The Quality education of children is the most important and sacred task we are responsible for along with their physical wellbeing. It is the reason I'd like to see an end to private education.

By any objective measure private schools offer a better quality education.

Ziggy:


Quote:

...... researchers were able to use evolutionary theory to make some testable predictions.

They have doen so many times. Sometimes they were right. Sometimes they were wrong. Where they are right, they claim it proves the theory. Where they are wrong, they simply alter the theory, or discover they don't need to do anything because the theory didn't actually predict it. Evolution as a theory owes it's survival to it's infinite adaptability more than anything else.

Muso:


Quote:

In some environments, simpler is better. For example high salinity, the presence of hydrocarbons etc can defeat more complex organisms.

Another example of the 'flexibility' of 'predictions' based on evolution. This is an after the fact explanation that does not stand up to scrutiny.

freediver wrote on Aug 7^th, 2010 at 10:08am:

Quote: Evolution does not imply that life spontaneously came about on Earth. According to my high school biology textbook it does.

Which textbook is that? Evolution says nothing about how the first primitive forms of life came about. That's abiogenesis. I'd be very  surprised that a high school textbook would state that abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution, although many subjects at High School level tend to be simplified.

Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Evolution is about what happened after life arose on Earth. Numerous life origins studies proceed under a number of hypotheses and remain very tentative. Let's get this straight - If you're talking about abiogenesis, I agree that it's not a scientific theory - just a number of differing hypotheses.

The hypotheses are not scientific either.

freediver wrote on Aug 7^th, 2010 at 10:54am:

The hypotheses are not scientific either.

Correct, but that doesn't mean that they are useless.

If you want metaphysical discussions on existence, try Spirituality. There's a new poster called it_is_the_light. You'll get a lot of sense out of him.

Enjoy.

- Muso

Too funny lol :)

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 11:48pm:

locutius wrote on Aug 6th, 2010 at 10:15am: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 6th, 2010 at 2:17am: I've no problem with both Evolution AND Creationism being taught in schools. These represent 2 competing schools of thought .. sure .. but so what? I have a problem with it. One is a school of thought, the other is dribble. Have you considered that both function much like binary opposites and as such give a better sense of clarity about themselves and each other? Oh and why hide information? As I stated above .. people ought to know what these 2 competing paradigms consist of. Also .. people ought to be able to make informed decisions based on the information we have available.

Sure they should know about it..one falls into the category of a scientific discipline and should be taught in science..the other falls into a category where it should be looked at in history as the smoke and mirror shadow puppetry of science. A subject of study that would include such things as drinking molten gold as a means to imortality.

Sure, study them at school, but as competing schools of thought????....I wouldn't even class creationism as an also-ran. It's politics, not science.

Quote:

locutious: Quote: I agree with everything you said. The Quality education of children is the most important and sacred task we are responsible for along with their physical wellbeing. It is the reason I'd like to see an end to private education.

Quote:

By any objective measure private schools offer a better quality education

- FD

I think that may have been what Locutious was actually alluding to FD, the disparity between the level of education opportunities available, and how in an ideal world we could hope to see kids from humble backgrounds, afforded similiar opportunities as are those from the more privileged demographic.
If that was Locutious' opinion, I would agree wholeheartedly, and think we should, at the very least,  be seeking to minimise that gap between what is offered privately, and what is delivered in public schools.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 2:54pm:

Quote: locutious: Quote: I agree with everything you said. The Quality education of children is the most important and sacred task we are responsible for along with their physical wellbeing. It is the reason I'd like to see an end to private education. [quote] By any objective measure private schools offer a better quality education

- FD

I think that may have been what Locutious was actually alluding to FD, the disparity between the level of education opportunities available, and how in an ideal world we could hope to see kids from humble backgrounds, afforded similiar opportunities as are those from the more privileged demographic.
If that was Locutious' opinion, I would agree wholeheartedly, and think we should, at the very least,  be seeking to minimise that gap between what is offered privately, and what is delivered in public schools.[/quote]

Mozz, that is exactly the point I was making and I will take it further. If all kids were looking at the same educational system then the well to do would make damn sure that that system was as good as it possibly could be.

Of course those from the lesser privileged backgrounds need to take their own educations more seriously as well. With Governments and courts cracking down on children and adults that want to sabotage our places of learning.

Quote:

If that was Locutious' opinion, I would agree wholeheartedly, and think we should, at the very least,  be seeking to minimise that gap between what is offered privately, and what is delivered in public schools.

At some point you can only do this by lowering the standard of private schools. If everything is equal, you have socialism. So where do you draw the line?

Remember, poor people benefit also from having very well educated people around, even if it isn't them.


Quote:

If all kids were looking at the same educational system then the well to do would make damn sure that that system was as good as it possibly could be.

Not true. They would also seek other avenues to give their child an advantage. They would certainly not demand that all schools achieve the same standard as today's public schools. It would be possible of course, but the cost would be too much.

freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 7:12pm:

Quote: If that was Locutious' opinion, I would agree wholeheartedly, and think we should, at the very least,  be seeking to minimise that gap between what is offered privately, and what is delivered in public schools. At some point you can only do this by lowering the standard of private schools. If everything is equal, you have socialism. So where do you draw the line?

"If everything is equal, you have Socialism" FD I can't say that that is the most damning criticism of Socialism I have ever heard, in fact it sounds positively glowing.


freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 7:12pm:

Remember, poor people benefit also from having very well educated people around, even if it isn't them.

FD, while what you say here IS true, it is far from the whole truth or even an acceptable truth...when you say this I have definite visions of the black fella saying to his "born to rule overlord" yes massa or yes sahib.

I'm sure I would "benefit" from my mum taking my wage and doling out an allowance for me but the benefit would be according to her POV not mine.

ALL in a democratic wealthy society should have provided free the highest level of equal education to make them good and accountable citizens. Death to the "Old School Tie" BS that exists alive and well out there.


freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 7:12pm:

Quote: If all kids were looking at the same educational system then the well to do would make damn sure that that system was as good as it possibly could be. Not true. They would also seek other avenues to give their child an advantage. They would certainly not demand that all schools achieve the same standard as today's public schools. It would be possible of course, but the cost would be too much.

What is too much cost when it comes to educating ALL children? The higher the level of education the better our foundation for our nation and our future.

I have no problem about lowering the standard of private schools if it means removing governemnt funding from private schools. It is one of the first and best places to attack elitism.

Quote:

"If everything is equal, you have Socialism" FD I can't say that that is the most damning criticism of Socialism I have ever heard, in fact it sounds positively glowing.

Yes, I was hoping I wouldn't have to connect the rest of the dots for you.


Quote:

ALL in a democratic wealthy society should have provided free the highest level of equal education to make them good and accountable citizens. Death to the "Old School Tie" BS that exists alive and well out there.

The problem here is defining exactly what the 'highest' level is. For some children you would inevitably impose a lower standard.


Quote:

What is too much cost when it comes to educating ALL children?

Well, I would consider 20% of GDP as way too expensive. It's the principle of diminishing returns. You can't just insist on the best possible, because at some point you have to also consider the cost. At some point, society becomes wrose off because you are wastying money.


Quote:

I have no problem about lowering the standard of private schools if it means removing governemnt funding from private schools. It is one of the first and best places to attack elitism.

What is the purpose of this? To save revenue, or to bring the 'elite' down to your level? If it is the former, it may well defeat the purpose.

Increasing funding for schools in the real world doesn't have the effect that it does in Sim City. It may do some positive things, but ultimately the willingness (and dilligence) and ability of the child ultimately puts a limit on how much "academic success" you can squeeze out of him. There's no getting around it. When it comes to academic success, nothing matters more than these things put together. I really wouldn't be surprised that children in private schools do better than children in public schools not because of the increased perceived "quality" of education in private schools, but because the kind of children who are going to private schools in the first place are harder working and more intelligent in general.

In the case against exuberant facilities and funding to improve educational performance in schools, here's a story from the United States. It all began when a particularly low performing school district in Kansas City was ordered by a judge in the late 1980s to improve its test and grade averages. The judge would not settle simply for repairing and refurbishing the existing schools; he ordered them to be bulldozed to the ground and new facilities to be put up in their place. The result? Air conditioned classrooms, a 2000 foot planetarium, a twenty five acre farm, a model U.N general assembly that was wired for simultaneous interaction in various foreign languages, radio and television studios and a temperature controlled art gallery. The main high school in the district had one computer for every three pupils (this was in 1993), a $5 million dollar swimming pool, a fencing course taught by the head coach of the Soviet Olympic fencing team, and a range of academic courses described by one commentator as "mind boggling" (perhaps approaching the variety you would encounter at a major university). All of it cost 1.3 billion dollars more than the typical school budget; 36,000 a year for each of the school district's students.


The results? The dropout rate increased every year from 1987 and 1993, and scores on standardized academic achievement tests actually decreased. The Economist finally pointed out:

"Almost 200 econometric studies have come to the same conclusion that student's performance is unrelated to the quality of school they attend. But such studies are too boringly statistical to influence political opinion, as witness the recurrent cry for more spending on public schools."

The point is obviously lost on Liberals; the quality of your education and your school depends mostly on yourself and the quality of the students that go to your school. If students really want to learn they will, even if they *gasp* don't have access to $2000 laptops and Olympic fencing coaches :P

Education is one of those issues that politicians love because it means they can go mad pressing the spending button without arousing much outrage. Everybody buys into the idea that education is god itself so opposing more money for it is almost like a heretical preist in the Aztec empire opposing more human sacrifice for Quetzalcoatl.

Oh dear,
the old Evolution V Creation.

...well the problem is the Big V in between those two words for starters.
Seems we still live in a world where there can be only 'one' right answer to a problem.
If that is the case, then I guess we should be just watching 'individual' Sports like Golf, Tennis, Lawn Bowls, etc ...where there can only be 'one' winner. Lets get rid of all the 'Team' Sports where 2 to 20 people can be a winner.

Evolution AND Creation are both right and have a right to exist.

You could say that = A woman will 'Create' a Child (with a liddle help from the male), but it is the School, Town, SportsClub, Farm ...and even the Father - that will 'Evolve' the child.
So the woman dug up a block of Clay (and said "do something with this will ya" - being the initiating intellect) and the man moulded the image of Adam and Lilith out of the earth from it.

Then there is the fact that in another part of the world, a lot of people perceive the Religious view as Evolutionary and Science as the more 'Creative' (I guess that means masculine and feminine as well ;))
Even as I speak, Religion is going through some 'evolutionary' phases to be in sync with the world of today ...and God doesn't this world need an 'up-dated' Religion! Its amazing how many people still think its the woman's fault if the sex of the child isn't a boy.

Evolution and Creation are both right ...so whats all the fuss?
::)

I think the problem arises when some fundamentalists want to teach kids Young Earth Creationism - that the Earth is 7000 years old, that dinosaurs and humans lived together, that bananas (and everything else) were designed by God from scratch (no evolutionary principles came into play), and that DNA wasn't invented in prehistoric times among other things.

If it came down to a Deist position on creation together with evolution, most scientists wouldn't bat an eyelid. That's a non issue.

If it came down to the moderate Catholic or Anglican acceptance of evolutionary theory as it is taught, again there would be no problem.

Again - evolution is about what happens after you have life. It is separate from abiogenesis, which is the theory that life arose spontaneously.

Deism and abiogenesis are compatible world views.

Jas,

Are you talking about Evolution vs Creation OR Evolution vs Creationism?

As Muso pointed out previously Evolution makes NO claims to a definitive point of reference as to the origins of Life thus many evolutionary scientists have no conflict of interest when they believe in a "Creator" as well as Evolution. My wife (not a scientist) hold this point of view being a believer. I hold a materialistic point of view in that I do not know how Life came to be but I do not believe in a "Creator". I view the origins of life and the subsequent diversification of life as simple but wonderful chemistry and mechanics.

That said I believe that Creationism as I am familiar with it, and I have read some of their "scientific"  ::) literature, should be mocked and ridiculed at every opportunity. Like I said it deserves to be viewed in the same way we view medieval or chinese alchemy where the drinking of molten metal would ensure immortality.

So NO, they are not both right. Not by a long shot.

Quote:

By any objective measure private schools offer a better quality education

Just on that subject, which is off the topic of the main thread. I've thought about the subject a fair bit, and it comes down to return on investment every time. Currently the private schools are receiving the same funding as the public schools, but the parents are paying more on top of that for a better education.

I really don't have a problem with that. If we withdrew funds, less parents would be able to afford the unsubsidized private education, which would increase the burden on the public system and thus result in a lower quality of education overall. If our objective is for the best level of education for the most people, then we should continue to subsidize private schools at the current level, or at a level consistent with the best ROI for society. The investment is money, and the return is raising the national standard of education.  

If you focus on the overall objective rather than focusing on how some people are gaining an advantage due to having rich parents (in other words remove the emotive issue), you see it from a whole new perspective.    

Having worked both Public & Private sytems in the Hospitals, I can only wonder about how 'ripped off' parents in Private Schools are. They deliver the same mode of Edumacation, but the only difference a child gets is that the 'discipline' and self-esteem is far better in the Private.
Mind you, if your parent's were forking out $5,000+ a term, you wouldn't really wanna go home and say you were suspended for misbehaving.
In the Public Schools you tend to have to contend with all sorts of lack of discipline. You try to concentrate when a couple of guys are punching on in the class or a girl across the room is teasing you with her legs open.
But like I said - the Mode of Education is the same and the Privates are more apt to 'budget' for want of greater profit, besides the Publics 'having' to budget for lack of.


Creationism V Evolution ...well it always seems the same debate. I do believe in both and I hope more facets of our existence can come into being to rival these two.
The 'Religious' Creationism is far fetched but they were primitive peoples back then. Go to Rotorua in New Zealand and you are still pounded with Maori 'oogidy-bogidy' rather than geo-physic explainations for the Mudpools etc.
I guess we just have to 'metaphorically' explain things in our own image sometimes.
I'm pretty sure if you remove the 'Tax-Free-Threshold', a lot of people will suddenly believe a lot less.
Pay me $1000 that my Sharks team will win the Grand Final at least once and I would actually believe it!

Jaisignature, your point is a good one. If there is any reason to send your children to a private rather than a public school (performance ain't it) it's to keep your kids away from the dregs you find in public schools.

Quote:

But like I said - the Mode of Education is the same and the Privates are more apt to 'budget' for want of greater profit, besides the Publics 'having' to budget for lack of.

Most private schools are nonprofit organisations I think.

Quote:

"If everything is equal, you have Socialism" FD I can't say that that is the most damning criticism of Socialism I have ever heard, in fact it sounds positively glowing.

It's funny that private schools are essentially socialist as well.
A freind of mine that I grew up with who was obviously not as smart as me in many areas (hard to imagine hey?) went to a private school and had a very good headstart financially speaking.

As far as the business doctrine goes, he ddin't quite understand a few fundamentals and eventually lost most of his wealth and the wealth of his parents too.

The doctrine that I was brought up with was very different, and I so wish that I had been privvy to this confidence way of wealth.

I aquired some wealth, and I would not let it be stolen by the confidence people. I was schooled with a defensive attitude which has served me well when applied correctly. However, it's by no means a way of riches.
There is a massive barrier to be broken if you want to enter the world of the controllers. And in the end, they ain't that smart or special, they've just been brought up to think that they are and it is this socialist certainty which is very hard to break.i

Quote:

I can only wonder about how 'ripped off' parents in Private Schools are. They deliver the same mode of Edumacation, but the only difference a child gets is that the 'discipline' and self-esteem is far better in the Private. Mind you, if your parent's were forking out $5,000+ a term, you wouldn't really wanna go home and say you were suspended for misbehaving. In the Public Schools you tend to have to contend with all sorts of lack of discipline. You try to concentrate when a couple of guys are punching on in the class or a girl across the room is teasing you with her legs open.

Parents should be responsible for disciplining their kids. You pay for others to mould your kids when you send them to a private school.

Public schools aren't as slack as you're inferring Jai. Overall - government schools have always outperformed elite schools academically. Although public school kids might not have been taught the same social skills - that doesn't mean private is best.

Some of the most devious, psychopathic criminals have been brought up in the private system.

Quote:

Overall - government schools have always outperformed elite schools academically.

Did you just make that up?

Are you referring to selective government schools, Mantra?

freediver wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 10:21pm:

Quote: Overall - government schools have always outperformed elite schools academically. Did you just make that up?

No FD - of course I didn't, but I should have added low socio economic areas might not have been included.




Quote:

6 April 2005 A study released today by Monash University researchers Ian Dobson and Eric Skuja has found students from public schools outperform those from private schools when they reach university. Mr Dobson said a survey of 12,500 first year Monash University students revealed public school students who left Year 12 with lower marks than their private school rivals overtook them academically at university. "Once on a level playing field, students from non-selective government schools tend to do much better," he said. http://www.monashuniversity.com/news/newsline/story.php?story_id=350

and


Quote:

For example Geelong Grammar's Toorak campus  in Victoria, which charges nearly $30,000-a-year in Year 12 fees and was once attended by Prince Charles, performed substantially below the average of similar Year 3 schools in spelling. It was also below the average of similar schools in reading, grammar and numeracy. A comparison with other similar schools claims Year 3 students results at Geelong Grammar were "substantially below" the performance of similar public schools at Camberwell Primary in Melbourne, Castle Cove Primary in NSW, Epping North Public School in Sydney and Stirling East Public School in Adelaide. By comparison, students at the James Ruse Agricultural High School in Sydney, a selective public school for the "gifted" performed substantially above the average of similar schools and all schools in Australia across all measures. In WA, girls at the Presbyterian Ladies College at Peppermint Grove, where fees can top $18,000-a-year, were below the average of similar schools in Year 5 reading, spelling and grammar and substantially below average in Year 5 and Year 7 numeracy. At the Cranbrook School in NSW, where media heir James Packer once attended, students were below the average of similar schools in Year 9 results for reading, writing, spelling and grammar. However they were substantially above the average across all schools in Australia. In Adelaide, students attending the prestigious Prince Alfred College, which educated cricketing greats the Chappell brothers, Year 3 and Year 5 results were below the average of similar schools in reading. Year 5 test results were also below the average of similar schools in writing, spelling, grammar and punctuation. At St Peters College boys school in Adelaide, which boasts of "three Nobel laureates, forty one Rhodes scholars and eight state premiers", results were below the average of similar schools in writing, spelling and grammar for Year 3 NAPLAN results. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/public-schools-in-wealthy-areas-outperforming-private-colleges-my-school-website-says/story-e6frgczf-1225824185882

mantra wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 7:53pm:

Parents should be responsible for disciplining their kids. You pay for others to mould your kids when you send them to a private school. Public schools aren't as slack as you're inferring Jai. Overall - government schools have always outperformed elite schools academically. Although public school kids might not have been taught the same social skills - that doesn't mean private is best. Some of the most devious, psychopathic criminals have been brought up in the private system.

Probably the religious influence. Did you ever see Dead Poets Society?

I disagree with your comments on Public Schools outperforming private schools though.

Some strange comments in that last article. Did you know that 50% of schools in Western Australia are below average ?  ;D

I'm not saying Private is better/worse than Public,
no wait,
its a no-win situation as they are both good and bad from one another for different reasons.

I think in Public you have Bullying from a lower socio-economic background, whereas in Private you have Bullying from a higher socio-economic background.

My sister excelled in the Public system and went on to becoming Dux at Uni.
There are pros and cons for both systems.
I found that for a very long time neither catered to the 'Clever' Child (ironic in the so-called Clever Country) and thus why a lot of boys dropped out at year 10.
Sure there were indeed 'drop-outs', but the Clever boys, who went onto Trades etc, found that Years 11 & 12 were only for kids wanting to pursue an Academic Career and into Uni.
Only recently has the Education system recognised the needs of Clever kids with such projects as 'Get Skilled'.
I'm amazed when I did a SignCraft course as a MAS, how many youngsters thought that ny going to TAFE - they were social losers!
They didn't understand that they were 'clever'.
In fact the TAFE art course was far superior than Fine and Graphic Art course that the Universities provided.
University is good, but there needs to be other Educational establishments to cater to other qualities of kids.

mantra wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 8:46am:

freediver wrote on Sep 3rd, 2010 at 10:21pm: Quote: Overall - government schools have always outperformed elite schools academically. Did you just make that up? No FD - of course I didn't, but I should have added low socio economic areas might not have been included. [quote]6 April 2005 A study released today by Monash University researchers Ian Dobson and Eric Skuja has found students from public schools outperform those from private schools when they reach university. Mr Dobson said a survey of 12,500 first year Monash University students revealed public school students who left Year 12 with lower marks than their private school rivals overtook them academically at university. "Once on a level playing field, students from non-selective government schools tend to do much better," he said. http://www.monashuniversity.com/news/newsline/story.php?story_id=350

and


Quote:

For example Geelong Grammar's Toorak campus  in Victoria, which charges nearly $30,000-a-year in Year 12 fees and was once attended by Prince Charles, performed substantially below the average of similar Year 3 schools in spelling. It was also below the average of similar schools in reading, grammar and numeracy. A comparison with other similar schools claims Year 3 students results at Geelong Grammar were "substantially below" the performance of similar public schools at Camberwell Primary in Melbourne, Castle Cove Primary in NSW, Epping North Public School in Sydney and Stirling East Public School in Adelaide. By comparison, students at the James Ruse Agricultural High School in Sydney, a selective public school for the "gifted" performed substantially above the average of similar schools and all schools in Australia across all measures. In WA, girls at the Presbyterian Ladies College at Peppermint Grove, where fees can top $18,000-a-year, were below the average of similar schools in Year 5 reading, spelling and grammar and substantially below average in Year 5 and Year 7 numeracy. At the Cranbrook School in NSW, where media heir James Packer once attended, students were below the average of similar schools in Year 9 results for reading, writing, spelling and grammar. However they were substantially above the average across all schools in Australia. In Adelaide, students attending the prestigious Prince Alfred College, which educated cricketing greats the Chappell brothers, Year 3 and Year 5 results were below the average of similar schools in reading. Year 5 test results were also below the average of similar schools in writing, spelling, grammar and punctuation. At St Peters College boys school in Adelaide, which boasts of "three Nobel laureates, forty one Rhodes scholars and eight state premiers", results were below the average of similar schools in writing, spelling and grammar for Year 3 NAPLAN results. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/public-schools-in-wealthy-areas-outperforming-private-colleges-my-school-website-says/story-e6frgczf-1225824185882

[/quote]

Mantra, that just demonstrates that children in private schools do better academically than they would in public schools.

It is not showing that private schools somehow hold students back once they hit university, but that public high schools hold students back while they are in public highschools, but they make up some of the gap at uni.

For example, this:


Quote:

"Once on a level playing field, students from non-selective government schools tend to do much better," he said.

is not saying they do better than private school students in general, but that they do comparitively better in uni than they themselves did in high school.

Is that more to do with the fact that the dumb public school attendees just get weeded out before they pass on to university? Of course public school attendees would do better in universities than in their public schools.. you've cut out basically 3/4th of them.

Not changing the subject too much.
But does anyone know if ADD/ADHD is just a Public School thing or even just a Co-Educational thing??

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 8:35pm:

Not changing the subject too much. But does anyone know if ADD/ADHD is just a Public School thing or even just a Co-Educational thing??

Didn't the most prominent ADHD-afflicted individual in Oz (Tony Abbott) go to a Catholic school!?

Well then, it blows my Theory that I was labelled ADD (back then) because I kept looking at the girls spreading their legs on the other side of the classroom, out of the water.
::)

What do you mean "evolution should not be taught in high-schools"? Evolutions is the most complete explanation of how we as humans came to be. On top of that, the title 'Theory of Evolution' means today that Charles Darwin's original theory is now an 'over theory' of sorts, it's Big Daddy of all evolutionary science. Theories like Natural Selection came from Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution. Also evolution IS a theory you can test. If you look at the physiology of a Whale, you can see arm and shoulder bones similar to those in a land mammal, even though the Whale is deep sea creature... and mammal. See, simple observable proof the evolution is a proper theory.   8-)

Quote:

What do you mean "evolution should not be taught in high-schools"?

I wouldn't say that. I have been considering a way to rephrase what I actually said more appropriately.


Quote:

Theories like Natural Selection came from Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution.

Mendel was also a key player.


Quote:

Also evolution IS a theory you can test.

I didn't say you couldn't test it. I said you cannot perform a scientific experiment that would disprove the theory if it were incorrect. That is, it is not falsifiable.

MrLegoiNation wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 6:28pm:

What do you mean "evolution should not be taught in high-schools"? Evolutions is the most complete explanation of how we as humans came to be. On top of that, the title 'Theory of Evolution' means today that Charles Darwin's original theory is now an 'over theory' of sorts, it's Big Daddy of all evolutionary science. Theories like Natural Selection came from Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution. Also evolution IS a theory you can test. If you look at the physiology of a Whale, you can see arm and shoulder bones similar to those in a land mammal, even though the Whale is deep sea creature... and mammal. See, simple observable proof the evolution is a proper theory.   8-)

Apart from the original inception of the first life. That's abiogenesis.

freediver wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 8:10pm:

I didn't say you couldn't test it. I said you cannot perform a scientific experiment that would disprove the theory if it were incorrect. That is, it is not falsifiable.

That's not the same as non-scientific.  That's the old Popper gamut again. Popper had a great theory with one very slight problem: It didn't actually take account of how science works in practice.

If we believed Popper, none of the observational sciences would be scientific.

muso wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 9:30pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 8:10pm: I didn't say you couldn't test it. I said you cannot perform a scientific experiment that would disprove the theory if it were incorrect. That is, it is not falsifiable. That's not the same as non-scientific.  That's the old Popper gamut again. Popper had a great theory with one very slight problem: It didn't actually take account of how science works in practice. If we believed Popper, none of the observational sciences would be scientific.

Herein lies where I throw my hands in the air and start looking at art and stuff on the net,...

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/malevich/sup/malevich.petersburg.jpg

ah, now...

  8-) 8-)

(art clears the mind apparently,.. the secrets of life are found in art they say..!)

freediver wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 8:10pm:

I didn't say you couldn't test it. I said you cannot perform a scientific experiment that would disprove the theory if it were incorrect. That is, it is not falsifiable.

That is smacking rubbish. Find a fossil out of its geologic time slot, evolution disproved.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 9:22am:

freediver wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 8:10pm: I didn't say you couldn't test it. I said you cannot perform a scientific experiment that would disprove the theory if it were incorrect. That is, it is not falsifiable. That is smacking rubbish. Find a fossil out of its geologic time slot, evolution disproved.

Apparently there are many....

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 12:09pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 9:22am: freediver wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 8:10pm: I didn't say you couldn't test it. I said you cannot perform a scientific experiment that would disprove the theory if it were incorrect. That is, it is not falsifiable. That is smacking rubbish. Find a fossil out of its geologic time slot, evolution disproved. Apparently there are many....

Really, show me one that has been verified and peer-reviwed.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 12:27pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 12:09pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 9:22am: freediver wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 8:10pm: I didn't say you couldn't test it. I said you cannot perform a scientific experiment that would disprove the theory if it were incorrect. That is, it is not falsifiable. That is smacking rubbish. Find a fossil out of its geologic time slot, evolution disproved. Apparently there are many.... Really, show me one that has been verified and peer-reviwed.

yeh, well...  ::) ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 1:15pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 12:27pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 12:09pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 9:22am: freediver wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 8:10pm: I didn't say you couldn't test it. I said you cannot perform a scientific experiment that would disprove the theory if it were incorrect. That is, it is not falsifiable. That is smacking rubbish. Find a fossil out of its geologic time slot, evolution disproved. Apparently there are many.... Really, show me one that has been verified and peer-reviwed. yeh, well...  ::) ::)

So in other words no.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 1:15pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 12:27pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 12:09pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 9:22am: freediver wrote on Feb 16th, 2014 at 8:10pm: I didn't say you couldn't test it. I said you cannot perform a scientific experiment that would disprove the theory if it were incorrect. That is, it is not falsifiable. That is smacking rubbish. Find a fossil out of its geologic time slot, evolution disproved. Apparently there are many.... Really, show me one that has been verified and peer-reviwed. yeh, well...  ::) ::) So in other words no.

So in other words yeh, well...  :D :D

Quote:

That's not the same as non-scientific.

It is if you include falsifiability in your definition of science.


Quote:

That's the old Popper gamut again. Popper had a great theory with one very slight problem: It didn't actually take account of how science works in practice.

It is not supposed to say anything about how it works in practice. Kuhn had a lot to say about that side of things, but it does not actually contradict falsifiability as part of science.


Quote:

If we believed Popper, none of the observational sciences would be scientific.

Including observation as a requirement for science does not rule out observation. However, if it ends at observation, you might as well include stamp collecting.


Quote:

That is smacking rubbish. Find a fossil out of its geologic time slot, evolution disproved.

That is still not falsifiable. Falsifiable means that you cannot perform a scientific experiment that would disprove the theory if it were incorrect. If you find a fossil out of the geological time slot it would not actually disprove evolution. You would just make another slot for it.

::)

http://quintessentialruminations.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/leprin11.jpg

freediver wrote on Feb 17^th, 2014 at 7:23pm:

That is still not falsifiable. Falsifiable means that you cannot perform a scientific experiment that would disprove the theory if it were incorrect. If you find a fossil out of the geological time slot it would not actually disprove evolution. You would just make another slot for it.

Well actually it would, because it would contradict the whole biological and geological time span. E.g finding monkey fossils in Jurassic era rocks. Monkeys/apes appear later than this in the evolutionary time scale and thus finding this would throw the current evolutionary tree out, science would be forced to start again. You're right in the sense that evolution wouldn't necessarily be disproved, it would just change it from a theory to a hypothesis.

freediver wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 8:00pm:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific. The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true. Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory. Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation. Just because a theory is not scientific does not mean that it has no merit. However, claiming that a theory is scientific lends it undeserved authority and diminishes the authority of science. The modern scientific method arose during the scientific revolution - after the renaissance. Observation of nature and speculation do form part of the scientific method. That is how new hypotheses are formed. However, they should be immediately checked to see whether they are scientific or not. Old discussions: Denialism of science. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1271213213/45#45 EVOLUTION VS RELIGION http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167973400/405#405

many blessings ,

1. caterpillar ~ butterfly

same DNA yet metamorphosis and transmutation

manifests through evolution

not a darwinian lie

through the beingness in life ,

whether ready or not

the shift will happen without the caterpillars permission

or approval ...consequently be at peace

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucvLuGgsGS8

in love and light

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 9:26am:

freediver wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 8:00pm: http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific. The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true. Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory. Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation. Just because a theory is not scientific does not mean that it has no merit. However, claiming that a theory is scientific lends it undeserved authority and diminishes the authority of science. The modern scientific method arose during the scientific revolution - after the renaissance. Observation of nature and speculation do form part of the scientific method. That is how new hypotheses are formed. However, they should be immediately checked to see whether they are scientific or not. Old discussions: Denialism of science. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1271213213/45#45 EVOLUTION VS RELIGION http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167973400/405#405 many blessings , 1. caterpillar ~ butterfly same DNA yet metamorphosis and transmutation manifests through evolution not a darwinian lie through the beingness in life , whether ready or not the shift will happen without the caterpillars permission or approval ...consequently be at peace in love and light namaste - : ) = ॐ

May I suggest an education before commenting.

many blessings ,

still stinging from past encounters with the light

you still resist truth which is the maxim of law

this affliction is not comforted by one such as I am

in truth , so your confusion persists and as such

the margin betwixt truth and mistruth is still within

your belief system and the synapses create the

confusionary construct and paradox you face .

this is ok and cool and was predicted in accordance with

the divine plan ..

the caterpillar and butterfly share the same DNA

do you deny this fact ?

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 9:32am:

many blessings , still stinging from past encounters with the light you still resist truth which is the maxim of law this affliction is not comforted by one such as I am in truth , so your confusion persists and as such the margin betwixt truth and mistruth is still within your belief system and the synapses create the confusionary construct and paradox you face . this is ok and cool and was predicted in accordance with the divine plan .. the caterpillar and butterfly share the same DNA do you deny this fact ? namaste - : ) = ॐ

No I deny that metamorphosis is classified as evolution.

many blessings ,

you simply misinterpret linguistics ,

I observe your confusion with forgiveness

however

now you know .. you are welcomed

- : ) =

namaste

ॐ

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 9:42am:

many blessings , you simply misinterpret linguistics , I observe your confusion with forgiveness however now you know .. you are welcomed - : ) = namaste ॐ

SO you've used the term evolution to describe something else even though the thread is about the scientific term evolution.

Needless to say, Evolutionary Theory is woefully inadequate in explaining a lot of what we see around us.

I believe in Evolution, but it definitely doesn't explain it all.

There are other forces at work, and I say this as an agnostic atheist.

8-)

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 10:23am:

Needless to say, Evolutionary Theory is woefully inadequate to explain a lot of what we see around us. I believe in Evolution, but it definitely doesn't explain it all. There are other forces at work, and I say this as an agnostic atheist. 8-)

"It is my suspicion that the universe is not only stranger than we do imagine but it is stranger than we can imagine."
J.B.S.Haldane - biochemist

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 10:23am:

Needless to say, Evolutionary Theory is woefully inadequate in explaining a lot of what we see around us. I believe in Evolution, but it definitely doesn't explain it all. There are other forces at work, and I say this as an agnostic atheist. 8-)

Care to list an example of what you think evolution doesnt explain?

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 10:23am:

Needless to say, Evolutionary Theory is woefully inadequate in explaining a lot of what we see around us. I believe in Evolution, but it definitely doesn't explain it all. There are other forces at work, and I say this as an agnostic atheist. 8-)

Yes, but the things it doesn't explain are not living.  That's the scope of the theory.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 11:48am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 10:23am: Needless to say, Evolutionary Theory is woefully inadequate in explaining a lot of what we see around us. I believe in Evolution, but it definitely doesn't explain it all. There are other forces at work, and I say this as an agnostic atheist. 8-) Care to list an example of what you think evolution doesnt explain?

If almost all creatures [including man], are so 'fixated' on the the climax of the sex act, why didn't we most creatures evolve into creatures that had both sexual organs, so that we could orgasm whenever we wanted [i.e. continually] ?

You know that it is what you want!    ;)

Yadda wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:01pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:48am: Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 10:23am: Needless to say, Evolutionary Theory is woefully inadequate in explaining a lot of what we see around us. I believe in Evolution, but it definitely doesn't explain it all. There are other forces at work, and I say this as an agnostic atheist. 8-) Care to list an example of what you think evolution doesnt explain? If almost all creatures [including man], are so 'fixated' on the the climax of the sex act, why didn't we most creatures evolve into creatures that had both sexual organs, so that we could orgasm whenever we wanted [i.e. continually] ? You know that it is what you want!    ;)

Easy, the act of sexual reproduction in higher animals ensures adequate mixing of genetic material. If you just reproduced from yourself, you'd essentially be just cloning yourself. Higher diversity leads to faster evolution generally.

Yadda wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:01pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:48am: Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 10:23am: Needless to say, Evolutionary Theory is woefully inadequate in explaining a lot of what we see around us. I believe in Evolution, but it definitely doesn't explain it all. There are other forces at work, and I say this as an agnostic atheist. 8-) Care to list an example of what you think evolution doesnt explain? If almost all creatures [including man], are so 'fixated' on the the climax of the sex act, why didn't we most creatures evolve into creatures that had both sexual organs, so that we could orgasm whenever we wanted [i.e. continually] ? You know that it is what you want!    ;)

many blessings ,

though sex does not reflect the all encompassing aspect

of divine love , from which all beings emanate

into physicality ..

any being focusing and pursuing sex is locked within

a certain harmonic resonance that is the base chakra

and that is the energy one conducts him/herself from

and toward as like attracts like however

one embodying the higher aspects

of the physical garment that is your physical body

will reflect and project from the divine mind

and the divine centre of that being not clouded

and distracted by a physical act ..

so in fact harmonics has alot to do

with an individuals' interpretation of any and all events

one may or may not experience

all hearts remain loved regardless

and so it is so be it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMCo1_n8-9k

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 12:10pm:

Yadda wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 12:01pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 11:48am: Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 10:23am: Needless to say, Evolutionary Theory is woefully inadequate in explaining a lot of what we see around us. I believe in Evolution, but it definitely doesn't explain it all. There are other forces at work, and I say this as an agnostic atheist. 8-) Care to list an example of what you think evolution doesnt explain? If almost all creatures [including man], are so 'fixated' on the the climax of the sex act, why didn't we most creatures evolve into creatures that had both sexual organs, so that we could orgasm whenever we wanted [i.e. continually] ? You know that it is what you want!    ;) many blessings , though sex does not reflect the all encompassing aspect of divine love , from which all beings emanate into physicality .. any being focusing and pursuing sex is locked within a certain harmonic resonance that is the base chakra and that is the energy one conducts him/herself from and toward as like attracts like however one embodying the higher aspects of the physical garment that is your physical body will reflect and project from the divine mind and the divine centre of that being not clouded and distracted by a physical act .. so in fact harmonics has alot to do with an individuals' interpretation of any and all events one may or may not experience all hearts remain loved regardless and so it is so be it namaste - : ) = ॐ

Light,

A typical human being,    ....we place before him/her two items,
1/ a green leafy cabbage, and
2/ a 220g block of Cadbury Dairy Milk.

And we tell them; "You can only have one. Choose."

Which item is the typical 'modern', intelligent, human being going to choose ?

Is he/she, going to choose the cabbage, so that they can go off, and make themselves cabbage soup ?




Google;
obesity plague, in western nations

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-39kP2MONVRw/T404R9-StQI/AAAAAAAAAR8/H49RQJRiLq0/s1600/SDC12004.JPG



We 'get' become, what we choose ?

Why would anyone choose the cabbage when it only has 1/20 the energy of the same weight in chocolate?

Quote:

Well actually it would, because it would contradict the whole biological and geological time span. E.g finding monkey fossils in Jurassic era rocks.

Again, that is simply not what falsifiable means. Get a dictionary if necessary. Repeating yourself is not the same thing as debating. You criticise others as ignorant for using an "out-of-context" meaning for evolution, yet you do the same thing with falsifiable.


Quote:

Monkeys/apes appear later than this in the evolutionary time scale and thus finding this would throw the current evolutionary tree out, science would be forced to start again.

There is no real reason why monkey-like creatures could not have evolved with the dinosaurs. Obviously you cannot know whether they are actually monkeys, if you only have fossilized bones. We see this sort of parallel evolution all the time. You would not throw the whole tree out. You would just add a branch for the dinosaur-monkeys.


Quote:

Care to list an example of what you think evolution doesnt explain?

Quantum mechanics.

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:36pm:

Quote: Well actually it would, because it would contradict the whole biological and geological time span. E.g finding monkey fossils in Jurassic era rocks. Again, that is simply not what falsifiable means. Get a dictionary if necessary. Repeating yourself is not the same thing as debating. You criticise others as ignorant for using an "out-of-context" meaning for evolution, yet you do the same thing with falsifiable. [quote]Monkeys/apes appear later than this in the evolutionary time scale and thus finding this would throw the current evolutionary tree out, science would be forced to start again.

There is no real reason why monkey-like creatures could not have evolved with the dinosaurs. Obviously you cannot know whether they are actually monkeys, if you only have fossilized bones. We see this sort of parallel evolution all the time. You would not throw the whole tree out. You would just add a branch for the dinosaur-monkeys.


Quote:

Care to list an example of what you think evolution doesnt explain?

Quantum mechanics.[/quote]



Excellent, since evolutionary theory came before quantum theory, has nothing to do with physics, of course evolutionary theory doesnt explain quantum theory.

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 1:36pm:

Quote: Well actually it would, because it would contradict the whole biological and geological time span. E.g finding monkey fossils in Jurassic era rocks. Again, that is simply not what falsifiable means. Get a dictionary if necessary. Repeating yourself is not the same thing as debating. You criticise others as ignorant for using an "out-of-context" meaning for evolution, yet you do the same thing with falsifiable. .

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false


So evolutionary theory is falsifiable in the sense, it is possible to prove it false.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 3:08pm:

Care to list an example of what you think evolution doesnt explain? freediver wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:36pm: Quantum mechanics. Excellent, since evolutionary theory came before quantum theory, has nothing to do with physics, of course evolutionary theory doesnt explain quantum theory.

I suspect that FD means that 'Quantum mechanics', are not merely not explained by evolution, but that the 'working' of Quantum mechanics are beyond the realm of human understanding and theory [beyond even human supposition and hypothesis].

I think that some aspects of what we humans have discovered about 'Quantum mechanics', seem to defy all logical explanation of how 'things' can function and exist.

???

Quote:

Excellent, since evolutionary theory came before quantum theory, has nothing to do with physics, of course evolutionary theory doesnt explain quantum theory.

That's what happens when you ask a stupid question.


Quote:

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false.

Sure. Just like evolution is when a grub changes into a butterfly. Get a dictionary. Better yet, get an education before commenting.


Quote:

but that the 'working' of Quantum mechanics are beyond the realm of human understanding

No.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 3:08pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 1:36pm: Quote: Well actually it would, because it would contradict the whole biological and geological time span. E.g finding monkey fossils in Jurassic era rocks. Again, that is simply not what falsifiable means. Get a dictionary if necessary. Repeating yourself is not the same thing as debating. You criticise others as ignorant for using an "out-of-context" meaning for evolution, yet you do the same thing with falsifiable. [quote]Monkeys/apes appear later than this in the evolutionary time scale and thus finding this would throw the current evolutionary tree out, science would be forced to start again. There is no real reason why monkey-like creatures could not have evolved with the dinosaurs. Obviously you cannot know whether they are actually monkeys, if you only have fossilized bones. We see this sort of parallel evolution all the time. You would not throw the whole tree out. You would just add a branch for the dinosaur-monkeys. [quote]Care to list an example of what you think evolution doesnt explain?

Quantum mechanics.[/quote]



Excellent, since evolutionary theory came before quantum theory, has nothing to do with physics, of course evolutionary theory doesnt explain quantum theory.[/quote]

many blessings ,

to be correct quantum theory is just that

a theory constructed through the mind of man

quantum mechanics is a constant and has been

in effect before man stumbled across its existence

and tried to verbalize through linguistics the definition

upon as much

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-grD9On3Ki_E/UMAX6EeF3RI/AAAAAAAAW00/wCySvAxlfoQ/s640/ButtefliesCat.jpg

all is well enough

http://www.joshgitalis.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/epigenetics2.jpg

so be at peace

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 3:49pm:

Quote: Excellent, since evolutionary theory came before quantum theory, has nothing to do with physics, of course evolutionary theory doesnt explain quantum theory. That's what happens when you ask a stupid question. [quote]Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false.

Sure. Just like evolution is when a grub changes into a butterfly. Get a dictionary. Better yet, get an education before commenting.


Quote:

but that the 'working' of Quantum mechanics are beyond the realm of human understanding

No.
[/quote]



Ummm, I think you've equated  someone elses quotes with mine. I never said evolution was when a grub changes into a butterfly. I was disputing with someone else who else said that.

Yes you were. I was equating your ignorance of the meaning of the term falsifiability with their ignorance of the meaning of the term evolution.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 8:56am:

freediver wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 7:23pm: That is still not falsifiable. Falsifiable means that you cannot perform a scientific experiment that would disprove the theory if it were incorrect. If you find a fossil out of the geological time slot it would not actually disprove evolution. You would just make another slot for it. Well actually it would, because it would contradict the whole biological and geological time span. E.g finding monkey fossils in Jurassic era rocks. Monkeys/apes appear later than this in the evolutionary time scale and thus finding this would throw the current evolutionary tree out, science would be forced to start again. You're right in the sense that evolution wouldn't necessarily be disproved, it would just change it from a theory to a hypothesis.

Reminds me of a geology field trip in which one of the students drew a graptolite (they look like pencil markings) fossil on to some shale. He gave it to another student who, totally unaware of the hoax, showed it to our Geology lecturer. He spent about 5 minutes saying - but it can't be! You didn't get that from here - did you. Finally the first student licked his finger and (somewhat embarrassed) rubbed it out, explaining that it was just a pencil mark, and  that he didn't intend it to end up that way.

Of course a thin section would have exposed it for what it was.

FD: 

If you're stuck in the era of Popper, I'm not going to argue the case. I realise that you're not making a case for Creationism, and that it's basically mental mastication around some defunct Philosophy of Science concepts. 

If you equate Astronomy and Cosmology with stamp collecting, then that's not a problem I need to get involved with. In a field where there are no proven absolutes, we need to avail ourselves of the logic of probability.

Quote:

If you're stuck in the era of Popper, I'm not going to argue the case. I realise that you're not making a case for Creationism, and that it's basically mental mastication around some defunct Philosophy of Science concepts.

 

You keep telling me I am parroting popper, then debunking popper, all the while ignoring what I actually say. It is a strawman. I don't know exactly what popper said or how it might differ from what I say, and I am not particularly interested in the details. You on the other hand seem completely focussed on popper to the exclusion of the debate you are participating in. You are the one who is stuck. I am actually far more interested in Kuhn's philosophy.


Quote:

If you equate Astronomy and Cosmology with stamp collecting, then that's not a problem I need to get involved with.

I don't.


Quote:

In a field where there are no proven absolutes, we need to avail ourselves of the logic of probability.

I have never suggested we don't, just that we call it for what it is.

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 9:39am:

I have never suggested we don't, just that we call it for what it is.

- science

- and I also think thatl an obsession with requiring experiments and falsification in order to label something as science should be called for what it is.

- philosophism.

Of course. You cannot perform an experiment to determine the definition of science.

Most people call it philosophy.

I think it's great that you are interested in such a broad range of topics - pretty much everything except why evolution is not a scientific theory.

freediver wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 9:17pm:

Yes you were. I was equating your ignorance of the meaning of the term falsifiability with their ignorance of the meaning of the term evolution.

many blessings

evolution can mean many things

individual evolution , terrestrial evolution and so on

the term has many meanings and for one

to project their interpretation on the definition of

that or any other word is mere linguistic chess ..

an art yes

however

the message is lost in semantic petty to and fro

point scoring and the thread in question can get

bogged down to a level of inanity .. the facts remain

nothing stays the same

everything is changing in every now moment

blinking in and out of reality as the DNA and atoms

respond to harmonic resonance in physicality

at a constant ..

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Particles.htm

which is the truth ie : maxim of law

so be at peace

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

Particle Physics


For the longest time as history records, science has held that all matter is composed of fundamental building blocks. Even though they could not see it, the ancient Greeks for example presumed that a stone could be ground up into finer and finer grains until it reached single indivisible points of matter which they called átomos, meaning “uncuttable”. Their suspicions proved correct, as some two-and-a-half-thousand years later scientists in the early 20th century discovered that indivisible unit and named it the atom.

This naming turned out to be premature as it was later found these atoms could be further broken into smaller particles, namely the proton, neutron and electron. But that was not the end of the tale. Over the following decades particle accelerator experiments revealed there to be large number of, what were labeled, sub-atomic particles. This gave birth to a new branch of science called particle physics.



Developmental Problems

As time passed and more and more particles were discovered, it became clear that something was amiss with these ‘fundamental’ units of nature. Their numbers ran into tens then to over a hundred. Could nature be this complicated? A study of their properties and interactions led to the idea that many of these were made up of still smaller units. This led to the discovery of quarks, which are said to compose protons, neutrons and other particles.

While it is true that a large number of particles might pose a philosophical problem, a more fundamental problem must be the way in which they are said to interact. In the world of particle physics, matter is constantly flashing in and out of existence as new particles are created and destroyed. And while this process may seem strange, it is stranger still that many of these interactions appear to occur without regard to mass conservation. Take muons for example.



Muons

Muons are charged particles that are primarily generated as a result of cosmic bombardment in the upper atmosphere. They are mostly negatively charged and can be thought of as heavy but unstable electrons. Muons have a short half-life of 2.2 microseconds, after which they decay into an electron and a couple of neutrinos. The decay process goes like this:

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/img/Part-muonDeqn.gif

This reaction obeys the charge conservation rule in that both muon and electron have an equal negative charge while the neutrinos are neutral. But a muon is 206 times heavier than an electron and the neutrinos weigh nothing (or next to nothing). Where did all that mass go? According to modern physics, mass must either be conserved or converted to an equivalent amount of energy, determined via the E=mc2 relation. This energy must be released in the form of electromagnetic radiation, i.e. as photons. But there is no suggestion in the standard texts that photons are released during this process.

Actually, the above diagram is incomplete because there should also be a W– boson particle involved. This W particle weighs in at 157 thousand times heavier than an electron and quickly flashes in-and-out of existence while creating the electron and one of the neutrinos. Here again is another apparent violation of mass conservation, and a huge one at that! But since it quickly disappears we could give it the benefit of doubt and say that it causes no overall conservation problem.

One possibility for mass conservation may have to do neutrino momentum. I will discuss this further on.



Pions

The next question has to do with where muons come from. Muons come from pion decay, which in turn are generated from high-energy proton collisions in the upper atmosphere. The pion to muon conversion process looks like this:

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/img/Part-pionDeqn.gif

Again there is a temporary intermediate W particle involved which I’ve not shown. The pion has a mass of 273 electrons which is only slightly above the muon (at 206) and there are no photons in sight. Hence again we have a mass conservation problem, albeit only minor. Ignoring the various neutrinos then, the complete process goes something like this:

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/img/Part-protonDeqn.gif

Notice something amiss? That’s right: the positive proton yields a negative pion! This is surely impossible according to charge conservation rules. Now to be fair, the interaction is not stated in full like this. Various literatures on the subject discuss the pion/muon and muon/electron decays separately and each decay process shown preserves charge correctly. But when it comes to the full process the literature becomes somewhat vague, particularly in regard to the pion’s charge. For example on Wikipedia’s muon page we find the following [1]:

When a cosmic ray proton impacts atomic nuclei of air atoms in the upper atmosphere, pions are created. These decay within a relatively short distance (meters) into muons (the pion's preferred decay product), and neutrinos.

The above excerpt does not say what charge these pions have except they are somehow created from protons. Since protons are positive this indicates the created pions must also be positive, in which case they could not decay into negative muons. The webpage from SLAC helps clear this up when it says [2]:

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/img/Part-muon2electon.gif

http://phys.org/news/2011-12-physicists-darkness-breakthrough-discovery.html

Physicists’ ‘light from darkness’ breakthrough named a top 2011 discovery
Dec 19, 2011 By Nicole Casal Moore

http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2011/physicistsli.jpg

A team of physicists including a researcher from the University of Michigan observed what's called the dynamical Casimir effect for the first time earlier this year. They essentially squeezed light particles from the vacuum of space. Credit: Philip Krantz

(PhysOrg.com) -- They shook light from darkness. They coaxed something out of what we normally think of as nothing—the vacuum of space. And now their work has been named one of the top 10 breakthroughs of the year by Physics World, the international magazine announced today.

University of Michigan physics researcher Franco Nori is involved in the work, which was published in Nature in November.
The physicists directly observed, for the first time, light particles that flicker in and out of existence in the vacuum. They witnessed the long-predicted quantum mechanical phenomenon known as the dynamical Casimir effect.
"One of the profound consequences of quantum mechanics is that we know that something can come from nothing," Nori said. "The vacuum is actually teeming with activity, the question is how to harness it and observe it because the particles move in an out of existence in the blink of an eye."

and as such

evolution is science yes

not a limited fragmented theory dreamt up by

you ' scientists ' whom remain constantly baffled ..

yet evolution is much much more

in love and divine light

and so it is

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 11:27am:

Of course. You cannot perform an experiment to determine the definition of science.

Correct. Most people who want a definition of science would ask scientists.


Quote:

Most people call it philosophy.

Philosophism is the the love or practice of philosophy for its own sake, usually for the purpose of obfuscation. It usually implicates the branches of philosophy variously termed sophistry and/or charlatanism. 


Quote:

I think it's great that you are interested in such a broad range of topics - pretty much everything except why evolution is not a scientific theory.

It all hinges on the narrow interpretation of science that you are ascribing to. All science is effectively observational. Even in experimental science, that observation consists of data.  Data in the real world is seldom clear-cut enough to sanction a position of 100% certain falsification or non-falsification.  To insist on a theory being falsifiable before it's accepted as "scientific" is often an unattainable dream. Many theories have been "falsified" as rigorously as possible at the time, only to resurface later as new findings come to light.

Quote:

Correct. Most people who want a definition of science would ask scientists.

Kuhn explained the folly of this. See - nothing to do with popper at all.


Quote:

Philosophism is the the love or practice of philosophy for its own sake, usually for the purpose of obfuscation. It usually implicates the branches of philosophy variously termed sophistry and/or charlatanism.

You made the accusation. Now back it up. Am I actually wrong about evolution not being a scientific theory?


Quote:

It all hinges on the narrow interpretation of science that you are ascribing to.

Well done. I think we are getting somewhere.


Quote:

All science is effectively observational. Even in experimental science, that observation consists of data.  Data in the real world is seldom clear-cut enough to sanction a position of 100% certain falsification or non-falsification.

That is not actually a part of falsifiability. You get around this issue by relying on repeatable experiment.


Quote:

To insist on a theory being falsifiable before it's accepted as "scientific"

I suspect you are introducing a red herring here. There is no need to accept or reject it at all.


Quote:

Many theories have been "falsified" as rigorously as possible at the time, only to resurface later as new findings come to light.

Falsified means they are wrong (as all good scientific theories are). We are talking about falsifiability. What you describe is the forefront of science - figuring out new and creative ways to test theories. It does not always require a million dollar piece of infrastructure. Sometimes it merely takes a coin held above your hand to test one of the most apparently unobtainable theories around.

The distinction to make is between a restriction based on new technology or new ideas, or new scientific understanding itself, and one based on more fundamental limitations - eg the "dinosaur experiment".

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 2:21pm:

You made the accusation. Now back it up. Am I actually wrong about evolution not being a scientific theory? Quote: It all hinges on the narrow interpretation of science that you are ascribing to. Well done. I think we are getting somewhere.

You and I both know that this is the sticking point in the argument.

To answer your highlighted question depends on the definition of "scientific" that you use.

Kuhn is a red herring. The basis of the argument around falsifiability is essentially Popperism.

If we draw that argument to its logical conclusion, whole Faculties of Science would be shutting down entire  Departments of the various branches of "Observational Science" as being non - scientific.  Observational science is just as valid and scientific as experimental science.

Quote:

You and I both know that this is the sticking point in the argument.

You have picked up more than you let on.


Quote:

Kuhn is a red herring. The basis of the argument around falsifiability is essentially Popperism.

You are doing it again.


Quote:

If we draw that argument to its logical conclusion

How about you just stick with the argument I am making? What is your fascination with Popper?

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 3:09pm:

How about you just stick with the argument I am making? What is your fascination with Popper?

Well I could talk about the evolution of bacteria to form new species.  That is directly measurable and observable. That's an example where a bacterium will mutate, and a few of the surviving mutant strains gradually become  tolerant to one or a number of waste products. In other words an organism changes over several generations in reponse to environmental constraints. It's commonly used in  bioremediation. They usually start with Escherichia coli or Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and end up with something that will withstand all kinds of toxic substances and probably antibiotics.

Now surely you're not going to bring up that special pleading argument that it's "not real evolution" - it's "micro" evolution or something like that?

If you run out of special pleading arguments, the Creationist sites have a good supply of them.

Quote:

Now surely you're not going to bring up that special pleading argument that it's "not real evolution" - it's "micro" evolution or something like that?

You mean natural selection? It sure sounds like it. Whatever label you want to use, I am happy to label it scientific, as that process is essentially an experiment that can be repeated. You would probably even get identical results.  :P It's what Popper would have wanted.

Natural selection is the basis of evolution.

Darwin’s process of natural selection has four components.

*Variation.  Organisms (within populations) exhibit individual variation in appearance and behavior.  These variations may involve body size, hair color, facial markings, voice properties, or number of offspring.  On the other hand, some traits show little to no variation among individuals—for example, number of eyes in vertebrates.

*Inheritance.  Some traits are consistently passed on from parent to offspring.  Such traits are heritable, whereas other traits are strongly influenced by environmental conditions and show weak heritability.

*High rate of population growth.  Most populations have more offspring each year than local resources can support leading to a struggle for resources.  Each generation experiences substantial mortality.

*Differential survival and reproduction.  Individuals possessing traits well suited for the struggle for local resources will contribute more offspring to the next generation.

Yes muso that is natural selection, most of it open to direct scientific enquiry. What point are you trying to make?

I'm making the point that natural selection is the central mechanism that drives evolutionary processes.  Actually genetics and epigenetics postdate the Theory of Evolution, but this information actually reinforces the original theory. 

Charles Darwin's book is titled "On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection"

If you are reading anything more into the term "Evolution", please elucidate.

Are you saying that Evolution = Natural Selection plus Abiogenesis? We've been down that track before.  It isn't.

Abiogenisis. Universal common ancestry. The tree. All beyond scientific enquiry. Conveniently, this is also where people distinguish the theory of evolution from the theory of natural selection.

If we have been down this road before, why do you keep bringing up Popper?

scientific conclusions are theories based on observable facts.

If you mean abiogenesis, then say abiogeneis, and I'd agree with you. Evolution is totally different.  They are chalk and cheese.

In fact we have no idea what the actual mechanisms of abiogenesis were. All we have is wild , albeit intelligent guesses.

I'm glad someone invented and decided to compile, a dictionary.
[...for all of these words i do not know]

:)

Quote:

If you mean abiogenesis, then say abiogeneis, and I'd agree with you. Evolution is totally different.  They are chalk and cheese.

I mean abiogenesis, universal common ancestry, the tree, etc - all beyond scientific enquiry. Conveniently, this is also where people distinguish the theory of evolution from the theory of natural selection.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 10:46pm:

Quote: If you mean abiogenesis, then say abiogeneis, and I'd agree with you. Evolution is totally different.  They are chalk and cheese. I mean abiogenesis, universal common ancestry, the tree, etc - all beyond scientific enquiry. Conveniently, this is also where people distinguish the theory of evolution from the theory of natural selection.

Oh really

Yadda wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 10:01pm:

I'm glad someone invented and decided to compile, a dictionary. [...for all of these words i do not know] :)

Yadda - some words that you understand:

Quote:

Genesis 2:7 (KJ21) 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Some "scientific" abiogenesis stuff:


Quote:

Clay Could Have Encouraged First Cells to Form Oct 24, 2003 |By Sarah Graham COURTESY OF J.W. SZOSTAK While many armchair philosophers are searching for the meaning of life, researchers are hard at work investigating the origins of life on Earth. New findings suggest that a lump of clay could have provided a platform for the formation of primordial cells. Previous research indicated that chemicals found in so-called montmorillonite clay could catalyze reactions involved in constructing RNA from nucleotides....

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clay-could-have-encourage/

Both mention clay, but one text uses the words "could have".
Which do you think is probably the most accurate? The account of Genesis taken literally or not so literally, or on the other hand, the untested hypothesis?

Then according to greek mythology Prometheus created man from clay, while Athena breathed life into them.

.. and even the Koran:


Quote:

023.012 YUSUFALI: Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay); PICKTHAL: Verily We created man from a product of wet earth; SHAKIR: And certainly We created man of an extract of clay,

The Chinese made whole armies out of clay.

muso wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 6:07pm:

Yadda wrote on May 3rd, 2014 at 10:01pm: I'm glad someone invented and decided to compile, a dictionary. [...for all of these words i do not know] :) Yadda - some words that you understand: Quote: Genesis 2:7 (KJ21) 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Some "scientific" abiogenesis stuff: [quote] Clay Could Have Encouraged First Cells to Form Oct 24, 2003 |By Sarah Graham COURTESY OF J.W. SZOSTAK While many armchair philosophers are searching for the meaning of life, researchers are hard at work investigating the origins of life on Earth. New findings suggest that a lump of clay could have provided a platform for the formation of primordial cells. Previous research indicated that chemicals found in so-called montmorillonite clay could catalyze reactions involved in constructing RNA from nucleotides....

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clay-could-have-encourage/

Both mention clay, but one text uses the words "could have".
Which do you think is probably the most accurate? The account of Genesis taken literally or not so literally, or on the other hand, the untested hypothesis?

Then according to greek mythology Prometheus created man from clay, while Athena breathed life into them.

.. and even the Koran:


Quote:

023.012 YUSUFALI: Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay); PICKTHAL: Verily We created man from a product of wet earth; SHAKIR: And certainly We created man of an extract of clay,

[/quote]


I'd go with neither. A fairy tale on one hand, untested hypothesis on the other