Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne

[David M]

Pluto's orbit has never been observed. It never will be either, not in any single human beings lifetime that is.

We'd be lucky to see a full orbit of Uranus (84.5 years) in a single lifetime and no-one has seen a full orbit of Neptune in their life (164.8 years).

 

[David M]

Isn't that what I just said in the quote you posted.

No its not.

Evolution is a fact. It is accepted as a fact.
The Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory.

They are not the same thing.

If you want to be imprecise with your use of language then any mistakes that arise are down to you.

 

[Lyndon]

There are facts which point to life evolving, and theories that try to explain why and how life evolved, you don't seem to be able to distinguish between the two. Generally when we talk about Evolution we are talking about the whole process, the facts we have observed, and the theories as to how and why those facts occurred.

So in this sense Evolution as a whole is theory, which includes facts about life evolving, but Evolution as a whole, the whole process is not a fact, but rather a theory, because we don't know for a fact the reasons for the whole process.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I've given you the context (hint: it's more than 3 sentences) many times before, thanks.

Please don't play dumb.

So Dawkins shortened his own quote back to simply

"It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history"

and yes we still agree 100%

I don't hear (or read anywhere) him retracting the truth of statement, do you? only expressing his regret for acknowledging it.

 

[outhouse]

There are facts which point to life evolving, and theories that try to explain why and how life evolved, you don't seem to be able to distinguish between the two

False. Evolution is fact. Life changes over time.

"How" and "why" are well known almost in full. And it does not change the FACT that live changes in time often due to environmental changes.

If you want to be imprecise with your use of language then any mistakes that arise are down to you.

Don't expect any changes. His participation is similar to a hurdle.

 

[outhouse]

So Dawkins shortened his own quote back to simply

"It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history"

and yes we still agree 100%

I don't hear (or read anywhere) him retracting the truth of statement, do you? only expressing his regret for acknowledging it.

Sorry you quote mine everything, and never have any credible sources.

 

[Ouroboros]

Dawkins:

I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history." Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader's appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore "gaps" in the fossil record.

Creationists also love to create gaps in quotes and people's intentions of what they're actually are saying to make them say something else, as this thread demonstrates repeatedly.

It's easy to make books and authors to say something other than they intended. For instance, the Bible says: "There is no God" in Ps 14:1.

 

[Lyndon]

False. Evolution is fact. Life changes over time.

"How" and "why" are well known almost in full. And it does not change the FACT that live changes in time often due to environmental changes.





Don't expect any changes. His participation is similar to a hurdle.

You don't sound like a scientist, a scientist would understand the points I am making.

 

[outhouse]

You don't sound like a scientist, a scientist would understand the points I am making.

No they do not understand you. I have seen few that do.

You have nothing to argue about except that you don't like the factual status evolution holds in academia.

You have already showed a great misunderstanding of science an academia and communication.


Have you ever though to try and further credible topics? Not just put road blocks up you think are 3' high when there only a inch high?

You don't contribute to academia, your just fighting society. WHY?

 

[Lyndon]

Unlike you, I have worked as a research scientist. And as an electrical engineer.

 

[Sunstone]

Unlike you, I have worked as a research scientist.

On the internet? I have an IQ of 140 on the internet. Is that like being a research scientist on the internet?

 

[Lyndon]

No, I have two years as a Neurosurgery research lab technician, 1 year as a biochemistry lab technician, 3 years as an audio engineer designing audiophile loudspeakers. So if one thing is clear, I know what the scientific method is, what a hypothesis, a theory and an established fact are.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unlike you, I have worked as a research scientist. And as an electrical engineer.

A sparky, eh?
How on Earth did you get stuck doing research? On what?

Oh, I see you answered above.
Anyway, I should point out to others than in your post #70, we are
pretty much in agreement about theories & facts in science.
I sense some of the arguing going on is just miscommunication.

 

[Lyndon]

You and I are in agreement Revoltingest, some others seem to be just trying to be difficult, or maybe the don't understand what a theory is, beats me.

 

[Revoltingest]

You and I are in agreement Revoltingest, some others seem to be just trying to be difficult, or maybe the don't understand what a theory is, beats me.

Even people with a science background will quibble with each other.
It's just too much work for me.
Where's @LegionOnomaMoi when you need'm, eh?
Even when we disagree, he's illuminating.
(And no, Legion....I'm not hitting on you.)

 

[outhouse]

Unlike you, I have worked as a research scientist. And as an electrical engineer.

Means nothing.

Some researchers working UNDER a scientist are paid minimum wage.

Sir you are no scientist, nor engineer.

 

[outhouse]

I know what the scientific method is, what a hypothesis, a theory and an established fact are.

You have shown nothing of the sort. Factually you have showed the exact opposite.

You have shown a complete lack of knowledge on how a scientific theory is defined.

If you knew what your were actually debating, you would not refuse all credible scientific academies that stated evolution is fact.

You cannot claim you know science then refuse what the scientific academies say is fact.

 

[outhouse]

Where's @LegionOnomaMoi when you need'm, eh?

Yep.

Highest IQ here. Never seen a man with so much knowledge on tap. Doesn't make him perfect or always right, but I would study under him every day if I could.

 

[Aset's Flames]

The quote in context if it helps:

In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

Even less confusing in context isn't it? Dawkins and I agree entirely here. Your argument (once again) would be with him.

There where several fossils found pre-camberian. Why must you try to manipulate science to bring your deity back into the equation?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep.

Highest IQ here. Never seen a man with so much knowledge on tap. Doesn't make him perfect or always right, but I would study under him every day if I could.

He once let me touch his brain.
I giggled like a little girlie!