Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

Allow me to clarify. I have read assertions by believers in evolution that it is not a theory but a law. Not sure that makes a big difference to the idea about scientific concepts.

No one has said that. You do not seem to realize that in the scientific hierarchy that theories if anything are above laws in rank.

Why do you want to demote it to just a law?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh I was wondering where you were. And guess what? I thought someone would mention about gravity. Gravity is considered a law. Whatever that means. Like immutable??? I'm not going to contest it. Or look for sidelines. You may say evolution fits the same type of category (like law, true, proved, etc.). I do not agree.

No, there is both a "law of gravity" which only means that it has been observed to always have been true under specific conditions. Newton's Law of Gravity fails when the effects one is measuring are relativistic. As in Einstein's General Relativity. Einstein's Relativity is more accurate than Newton's Law. Newton's Law is more than accurate enough to get us to the Moon and back, but it fails when extreme accuracy is needed, like in GPS. If you use GPS you have relied upon the Theory of Gravity, not the Law.


Theories are essentially Laws with an explanation.

 

[YoursTrue]

No one has said that. You do not seem to realize that in the scientific hierarchy that theories if anything are above laws in rank.

Why do you want to demote it to just a law?

No, there is both a "law of gravity" which only means that it has been observed to always have been true under specific conditions. Newton's Law of Gravity fails when the effects one is measuring are relativistic. As in Einstein's General Relativity. Einstein's Relativity is more accurate than Newton's Law. Newton's Law is more than accurate enough to get us to the Moon and back, but it fails when extreme accuracy is needed, like in GPS. If you use GPS you have relied upon the Theory of Gravity, not the Law.


Theories are essentially Laws with an explanation.

Meantime law or no law, gorillas give birth to gorillas, that seems to be rather consistent in operation, and are you now saying that the theory of evolution is greater than the law of evolution meaning of course in the hierarchy? Because the theory explains the law... where's the law though?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, there is both a "law of gravity" which only means that it has been observed to always have been true under specific conditions. Newton's Law of Gravity fails when the effects one is measuring are relativistic. As in Einstein's General Relativity. Einstein's Relativity is more accurate than Newton's Law. Newton's Law is more than accurate enough to get us to the Moon and back, but it fails when extreme accuracy is needed, like in GPS. If you use GPS you have relied upon the Theory of Gravity, not the Law.


Theories are essentially Laws with an explanation.

Regarding science, though, no proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Meantime law or no law, gorillas give birth to gorillas, that seems to be rather consistent in operation, and are you now saying that the theory of evolution is greater than the law of evolution meaning of course in the hierarchy? Because the theory explains the law... where's the law though?

Why do you keep saying that? Your children, if you have any, are going to be human beings, but they are also apes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Regarding science, though, no proof.

Really? Then by your poor poor standards you should be claiming that your God is fake since you have no proof of him.

 

[John53]

Regarding science, though, no proof.

And you're smarter than the vast majority of scientists so tell us what happened and show your proof. I've asked this several times now.

 

[ppp]

Allow me to clarify. I have read assertions by believers in evolution that it is not a theory but a law. Not sure that makes a big difference to the idea about scientific concepts.

What do you think a scientific law is? Not trying to trap you. Just trying to get an idea of what you are thinking.

 

[exchemist]

Well in my opinion (which is irrelevant and won’t be addressed in this thread because it would-be out of topic) the theory of evolution would only give points to “Atheism” if you can explain the diversity and complexity of life with simple mechanisms such random mutations + natural selection.

[snip]

Ah, so what you are really concerned about is not the science, but whether or not science supports atheism. I see. But this is a very old chestnut. Plenty of biologists are religious. The science certainly is not consistent with naïve biblical literalism, as espoused by the more ridiculous sects in Christianity for instance. But it is perfectly consistent with Christian belief.

 

[exchemist]

well Lets look for a judge

person A Said that a single rabbit fossil in the Precambrian (or something equivalent) would falsify evolution

Person B said, that evolution is a robust theory and you need more than a single “out of place fossil” (like a rabbit in the Precambrian) to falsify that theory.

Who do you think is correct.

Lets see if any of them whants to be the judge
@shunyadragon @exchemist @It Aint Necessarily So

who is correct person A or Person B?

This is silly game-playing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, so what you are really concerned about is not the science, but whether or not science supports atheism. I see. But this is a very old chestnut. Plenty of biologists are religious. The science certainly is not consistent with naïve biblical literalism, as espoused by the more ridiculous sects in Christianity for instance. But it is perfectly consistent with Christian belief.

One of the best examples in biology is that of Ken Miller. If one has taken a biology class in the US the odds are very high that one used the textbook that he wrote. He is also a practicing Christian.

Kenneth R. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It appears that he is retired now, but he was a professor at Brown University. Though not as well known as Harvard of Yale it is right up there with them in scientific prestige.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes. And that is why there is the concept of "irreducible complexity" in organisms.

There is no such thing as "irreducible complexity" that can be falsified by science. The Conservative religious agenda simply asserts the "irreducible complexity" exists, therefore, God, with no basis in science. Yes, complexity in life and in non-life exists, but there are no examples that have not been adequately explained by science.

Ir you believe there is an example of "irreducible complexity" that justifies your assertion present it and I will knock it down like a clay pigeon.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh I was wondering where you were. And guess what? I thought someone would mention about gravity. Gravity is considered a law. Whatever that means. Like immutable??? I'm not going to contest it. Or look for sidelines. You may say evolution fits the same type of category (like law, true, proved, etc.). I do not agree.

Of course, you do not agree based on your ancient tribal religious agenda, but not science.

 

[shunyadragon]

From what I understand so far, many believe there IS no question about evolution, the theory of.

Fundamentally there has been no alternative hypothesis to explain the history of life on Earth other than natural evolution. The only alternative provided is non-science beliefs based on ancient tribal religious agendas.

What would be an adequate alternative hypothesis based on science?

 

[shunyadragon]

Allow me to clarify. I have read assertions by believers in evolution that it is not a theory but a law. Not sure that makes a big difference to the idea about scientific concepts.

Assertions by believers?' No such thing is meaningful in science. It is best not to consider it a Theory or a Law.. Evolution is not really a law of nature, and is never considered as such by science..

I prefer to deal with the scientific discoveries and research over the past 200 years that support the 'sciences of evolution.' Actually, a number of scientific laws and theories are involved with evolution like the rest of the sciences concerning the nature of our physical existence.

 

[leroy]

Everyone is on to your games. You might learn something if you changed your ways and people would be willing to help you. You are demonstrably wrong, but wouldn't you rather learn so that you could be right for once in the future?

Yes I would like to learn from my mistakes , this is why I keep asking you to quote my alleged mistakes and explain why am I wrong

And no, you are not a skeptic. A skeptic follows the evidence and you have to know by now that all of the evidence supports evolution.

Which is why I dont reject evolution

 

[leroy]

Why do you go out of your way to create ridiculous strawman arguments? If you cannot get your opponents arguments correct your exercise is pointless. This is, as has been pointed out to you by at least one other, is dishonest.

It is not a strawman,.... you said that a bunny in the precambrian would falsify evolution ... do you whant me to quote you ?

 

[gnostic]

Regarding science, though, no proof.

You are repeating the same stupid argument.

Sciences are dependent on observable & testable empirical evidence, not on the stupid proofs.

proofs are mathematical solutions (eg EQUATIONS!), proofs (or equations) are not the same as evidence. Proofs would only show that you can do maths, but maths alone, don’t validate any hypothesis or theory, only evidence can do that.

Without evidence, you would have nothing but speculative concepts. The concepts would be failure.

You keep burying head in the sand.

What validate General relativity, Quantum Physics, Maxwell’s field theory, etc, as “science”, are the same as Genetics, Evolutionary Biology, Germ Theory, etc - verifiable EVIDENCE, not this stupid proof you keep bringing up.

Are you impervious to learning from your mistakes?

But it is no longer about ignorance.

You integrity is questionable. No one can trust your words, since you have been corrected so many times, but you keep making false claims, over and over again, that make you look incompetent and worse, intellectually dishonest.

 

[leroy]

Ah, so what you are really concerned about is not the science, but whether or not science supports atheism. I see. But this is a very old chestnut. Plenty of biologists are religious. The science certainly is not consistent with naïve biblical literalism, as espoused by the more ridiculous sects in Christianity for instance. But it is perfectly consistent with Christian belief.

I am not saying that evolution absolutely disproves the existence of God, but I do think that atheism gained some points thanks to this theory. (specially if all the diversity of life can be explained by simple mechanisms like random mutations + natural selection)

 

[leroy]

There is no such thing as "irreducible complexity" that can be falsified by science. The Conservative religious agenda simply asserts the "irreducible complexity" exists, therefore, God, with no basis in science. Yes, complexity in life and in non-life exists, but there are no examples that have not been adequately explained by science.

Ir you believe there is an example of "irreducible complexity" that justifies your assertion present it and I will knock it down like a clay pigeon.

what is your understanding of rreducible complexity? how do you define it?