Fallacies of Evolution Redux

Discussion in 'Science' started by ChemEngineer, May 9, 2017.

  1. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope.
    Science is predicated on constants and laboratory conditions that permit duplication of any Science experiment by any Scientist.
    Any Scientist can run the entire gamma of Scientific investigations that constitute proof of what once was hypothesis, the existence of Electrons, and Atoms, and other particles and are working on others.

    Lowering the bar for Evolution is junk Sciences and lowering the bar of standards which is unacceptable.
     
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you think science can produce an explanation of how something works that is stronger than theory, then NAME IT!
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  3. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you're looking for examples of psuedo science/quackery try the Institute for Creation Research
    or the Discovery Institute.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
  4. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When I was only a nipper, I separated water, H2O into Hydrogen and Oxygen and other simple stuff like Electroplating and simple radio sets, that is Science fact and not Random theory, We have Computers and sophisticated programs and operating systems, all solid fact, not theory.

    We could theorize that Vampires exist, but that would be theory and fairy stories as we know that there are no Vampires.

    You can't read very well, I said I do not disbelieve Evolution, I am simply not accepting Junk Science or fairy stories, I want solid facts.
     
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's a popular definition of theory, not the definition from scientific method.
    Sure. I did a little of that kind of stuff, too. Not electroplating. But, I built a crystal radio that didn't require a battery to listen to some of the relatively strong stations, etc.

    But that's engineering, NOT science.

    In scientific method, a fact is a documented observation - such as a temperature taken at a specific time and place with a specific methodology. Facts do not include logic. "It's hotter today" is not a fact.

    Like you, I want facts. But, that's not because I think that will let me create some new fact. The best that can be created is theory.

    There is a rock solid reason for that, by the way. It is NOT some sort of accident or conceit that humans can not create scientific facts.
     
  6. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bull crap, a Theory or hypothesis is unproven.
    You can't get around that.
    2+2= 4 that is not a Theory.

    You can't cheat on the involved maths.
    When all the proper Data is finally available,
    Evolution will be fact and true science, today is not that day, Theory will always be Theory, cousin to fairy stories, and there be Dragons there, etc....
     
  7. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing in your posts suggest you have done any "real research";your failure to present anything scientific that you think would support your opinions only helps confirm it.
     
    HereWeGoAgain likes this.
  8. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
    - Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
     
    HereWeGoAgain likes this.
  9. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No theory can ever be proven. They can only be falsified.

    So you are a psychic and a Holiday Inn scientist!

    You clearly have no idea what is required for a hypothesis to become a scientific theory. What scientists call theory, most people would call fact.
     
  10. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Spoken like a non Scientist, learn the difference between Fact and Theory.
    In Electronics you have facts, not Theories, a diode is a specific component, you cannot use a resistor to replace a diode, when a diode shorts out, it needs to be replaced, building a radio requires proper wiring and placement of components, schematic diagrams, facts, and if a component is placed improperly, the radio will simply not work.

    I remember theorizing why a radio did not work, then proving it by fixing it and making it work.
     
  11. Max Rockatansky

    Max Rockatansky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    25,394
    Likes Received:
    8,172
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow. A chemical engineer who is a science denier? Interesting.

    Although there are some deep questions such as "what sparked life on Earth" (not to mention "What caused the Big Bang), evolution has a lot of solid science behind it. Except for the most literal of the Biblical literalists, I fail to see why evolution can't be compatible with a belief in God.
     
    DoctorWho likes this.
  12. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Scientist questions things.
    I agree with his post, and I see wisdom in your post too.
    Too much slut shame-ing involved in these discussions as well as not knowing the difference between a Theory and a Fact, and trying to tell me both are the same.
     
  13. Max Rockatansky

    Max Rockatansky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    25,394
    Likes Received:
    8,172
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Questioning is good. OTOH, I have a problem with people who question whether or not gravity is real and, that if they really put their minds to it, they can fly off a building without assistance.

    Agreed about those ignorant on the differences between theory and fact, but also on those ignorant about the scientific definition of a "theory" and the colloquial definition.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2018
    DoctorWho likes this.
  14. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now that was well put !

    I tend to deal with things on a Scientific basis and not in a colloquial sense.

    My passion growing up was electronics and building breadboard projects, I had a C.B. radio when you needed a license for it, cost $ 5 and then no more license, I was a bit put off by that.

    Amateur radio followed after.

    I loved playing with 555 timer chips, 741 op amps, audio chips and later, processor chips, etching boards, it was loads of fun.
     
    Max Rockatansky likes this.
  15. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Science has moved way past Darwin and his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which is nowadays included in a set of theories from a wide field of scientific study, called the Modern evolutionary synthesis, which collectively explain how evolution occurs.

    Which of them do you consider to be a "random theory"?
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2018
    DoctorWho likes this.
  16. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That was a Random expression.
    I may just re-study Evolution, if I am Moti-vated enough, just that so much to study, and that is on a back burner on a low flame.

    Edited to add:
    There is so much new Medical stuff to update, ancient History hardly seems worth the effort..... lol
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2018
    Cosmo likes this.
  17. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,857
    Likes Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if that were true you would know that on a scientific basis the definition of Theory is "accepted as true" and remains so until it is dis-proven.
     
  18. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Oh Pooh, silly bear......"

    A Theory is just that, like a pretty girl, and then you find out that she is a he, once you get round it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2018
  19. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,857
    Likes Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I assumed you knew the difference between the colloquial usage and actual scientific definition of Theory, apparently not...
     
  20. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.
     
  21. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I am ignorant of that usage, I must have dozed off or am hopelessly outdated.
     
  22. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can run with that...
    Thanks !

    Crumbs !
    I wuz Schooled !
    lol
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2018
    tecoyah likes this.
  23. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,857
    Likes Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it starts as a Hypothesis which is can be challenged/defeated or supported with similar studies...once a Hypothesis has withstood repeated challenges it's advanced to Theory-Accepted to be True

    once accepted as a Theory does not guarantee permanence it can be modified or overturned at a later date if further studies based on new knowledge is sufficient to do so...TOE, as new research comes on stream there may be some tweaking of the evolutionary process involved but the base is solid.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2018
    DoctorWho likes this.
  24. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok !
     
  25. ESTT

    ESTT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,150
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I see. And in this way you differ from Prunepicker since there is no hypocrisy regarding what you think is true.
     

Share This Page