Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[GoodAttention]

I don't know that, but you can believe it if you like. An argument for another thread. Perhaps you'll start it.

Another thread?

I’m only curious what you consider truth or fact, since you haven’t acknowledged science to be either.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Another thread?

I’m only curious what you consider truth or fact, since you haven’t acknowledged science to be either.

Thank you for your interest. Don't let it keep you up at night.

 

[GoodAttention]

Thank you for your interest. Don't let it keep you up at night.

It would cure my insomnia if I did.

 

[gnostic]

Science is the only means to reveal facts.

No, science is to explain observed facts, and then demonstrate (test the hypothesis with experiments & evidence) whether the proposed explanations are scientifically valid or not.

IF NOT, THEN A NEW HYPOTHESIS HAS BEEN DEBUNKED, and therefore rejected.

If so, then either they test it some more or submit for publication after it has been reviewed by independent scientists (eg Peer Review).

No new hypotheses are accepted as science if it hasn't been tested.

 

[GoodAttention]

No, science is to explain observed facts, and then demonstrate (test the hypothesis with experiments & evidence) whether the proposed explanations are scientifically valid or not.

IF NOT, THEN A NEW HYPOTHESIS HAS BEEN DEBUNKED, and therefore rejected.

If so, then either they test it some more or submit for publication after it has been reviewed by independent scientists (eg Peer Review).

No new hypotheses are accepted as science if it hasn't been tested.

So where do “theories” fit in?

 

[wellwisher]

I can't possibly agree to this no matter how you define "natural". There is a vast amount of reality we don't comprehend and it could all be supernatural or even just other. Without a definition for consciousness we don't know that even it isn't some aspect of God or engineered by supernatural forces. You have convinced yourself you know everything through science which allow everyone to see beyond perception right into all of reality.

You simply turn a blind eye to the fact that every event is impossible. Every single combination of a trillion coin flips is equally likely including all heads or all tails. You only see what you believe and you don't believe in God or anomalies. You don't believe in order or disorder. You believe in a mechanical universe where everything is not only predictable but preordained. And these beliefs for the main part make free will and consciousness impossible so there is no need for definitions.

The easiest approach to see where naturalism ends, is by looking at our five senses. The human five senses evolved naturally. If this was all we had, and there were no science tools, we could not prove 1% of modern science naturalism. That modern proof requires tools that enhance our senses beyond the natural; microscope and telescope.

However, these tools too not form naturally. Microscopes do not grow on trees inside giant pods. Without those tools you cannot see cells or DNA, and the theory of evolution would be have to be different. You would not be able to do carbon dating to prove any fossil age. All the tool needed, do not form naturally. They all required human consciousness, can to detach from natural forces, to make the tools, since the tools cannot form naturally, no matter how long you wait.

Tools are manmade things that would not appear naturally through any sequence of natural forces. They start in the brain, more like a new rearrangement of information, that is not exactly material in nature. This stage is often ridiculed. If man was meant to fly he would already have wings. The development effort attempts to turn this information into a material form, even if not natural. This unnatural tool, enhances our senses, so we see even more detail within natural reality and extend its known frontiers.

Many animals have stronger senses that humans; eagle eyes. Conceptually, the eagle can see data human eyes cannot see. Yet, they do not do eagle science. Rather their eyes evolved within material reality, to help them remain, within material reality, based on the added sensory limits. They do not have that extra something, that makes tools, that could never naturally form.

All we need to so, is look when innovation took off; rise of civilization, That is where materialism sprouted a new parallel branch, this detaches and roots on its own, to form a second tree; ego or divine soul, with will and choice beyond just materialism; creation of tools.

 

[cladking]

Ancient science. No evidence has been presented and none is known to support this claim.

I've listed extensive evidence over numerous threads.

Perhaps the best evidence is the invention of agriculture. Complex behavior can not spring from coincidence or accident. It requires complex knowledge.

The existence of cities as well suggest a complexity of planning and infrastructure and especially of distribution of resources.

Few people realize or have any idea at all of the complexity or perfection of the Great Pyramid. The ascending passage is made of blocks of a very highly complex shape and passages are perfectly aligned. People have no idea how large these are being 6 1/2 million tons which is larger than the Hoover Dam. The dam was lowered into position from above but the pyramid had to be lifted an average of more than 125'.

Our history is discontinuous. While this doesn't prove there mustta been a science it certainly explains why no "ologist" is aware of it. We can't remember what isn't recorded and there most assuredly should have been a lot recorded because writing was invented 1200 years before history began!!!

I have listed hundreds of other reasons to believe ancient science existed and these are just a short synopsis. Of course this hardly proves there was a speciation event at the dawn of recorded history in 2000 BC but it is certainly consistent with a speciation event. Just as no human speaks Dog, Bat, or Crayfish perhaps no human can speak Homo Sapien (what I call Ancient Language) either. If nobody from after the speciation event could speak it then it could not be recorded. I would remind readers that it is now known that bees use a metaphysical scientific language that is likely universal among all bees. So why shouldn't humans have had a metaphysical scientific language that was universal among all humans just as ancient sources all say?

All the evidence suggests there was a science and there is none that says otherwise except a methodology that interprets ancient writing in terms of a religious book from 1000 years later. This is the domino that must fall before we can restore our birthright. This methodology must be exposed for what it is for our species to regain its humanity and mitigate any confusion caused by an abstract symbolic language that uses taxonomies as mnemonics.

We must progress. We must always strive for the truth no matter where it takes us even if it shows we as a species have devolved.

 

[YoursTrue]

I find it truly amazing that instead of reckoning with the truth about what Darwin said or didn't say some here continue propounding the idea instead of ignorance of those who would appreciate truthful comments.

 

[F1fan]

I can only speak for myself but I certainly don't doubt science for a moment. I doubt scientists though.

Absurd comment since it's scientists who publish science.

Until you find one who jumps or summersaults into his pants EVERY morning (anyone can do it when they're young and motivated) or is anointed by God I will continue to doubt every single scientist and the opinions he rode in on.

It's defininately a YOU problem. Meanwhile science progresses.

 

[shunyadragon]

I find it truly amazing that instead of reckoning with the truth about what Darwin said or didn't say some here continue propounding the idea instead of ignorance of those who would appreciate truthful comments.

Not meaningful.

Darwin simply proposed the natural Theory of evolution based on the limited scientific evidence at the time, HE acknowledge that the the evidence was limited and more discoveries and research was needed, He did not consider anything he proposed as "truthful;'

Likewise the scientist who research the sciences of evolution as "truthful," As ith Darwin they consider it the evolving and changing knowledge of science.

What objective evidence could determine something is "truth or truthful."?

 

[shunyadragon]

I've listed extensive evidence over numerous threads.

Perhaps the best evidence is the invention of agriculture. Complex behavior can not spring from coincidence or accident. It requires complex knowledge.

The existence of cities as well suggest a complexity of planning and infrastructure and especially of distribution of resources.

None provided in the history of your posts. All you have claimed is the certainty of your belief in your metaphysical beliefs.

Still waiting for you to document the experiments to support your claims.

 

[F1fan]

So where do “theories” fit in?

It's covered in 7th grade science class. At least when I was in school.

But for those who got a D on the tests, or forgot, it's available for free on the intenet.

When I was in college for my psych degree I had t tak an experimental psychology class. Our final was based on an actual study that we created. I had noticed from my time debating religious issues that those who rejected science tended to be very fevernt believers, most typically Christian. So I wanted to test my observation. My hypotheists was that the more religious a person was the less likely they would accept science. I had to design a test, so I created a survey of 72 true/false questions, 12 of which related to matters of basic science including asking if evolution is a valid theory in science. The other 60 questions were randon so the subjects couldn't see what I wanted to know about them. I also had the subject take the standard religiosity survey that ranked where a person stood.

I compared the religiosity score to the answers about science. As I predicted the higher the religiosity the lower the knowledge about science. That means the higher a person scored on the religiosity survey the more likely they were to say the questions about science were false. My results were a stunning 99.99%. This met the minimum of 99.95% which means my experiment is a theory. If it had only reached 99.94% it would have failed, and I could rework the test to be most specific and precise.

 

[cladking]

I find it truly amazing that instead of reckoning with the truth about what Darwin said or didn't say some here continue propounding the idea instead of ignorance of those who would appreciate truthful comments.

What I find amazing is it took three years of links and repeating that Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" to get the believers to acknowledge the simple fact he did and now they turn it around as evidence we're ignorant. At least when I suggested beavers ate fish and swamp denizens I admitted the error immediately.

 

[cladking]

Absurd comment since it's scientists who publish science.

All consciousness is individual. All life is individual. All ideas are individual. "Science" is a word, an abstraction that means something very different to a metaphysician than to a believer in science. I never doubt the power and efficacy of science when practiced properly. I doubt many individual's ability to properly define, seek, or promote science.

 

[GoodAttention]

It's covered in 7th grade science class. At least when I was in school.

But for those who got a D on the tests, or forgot, it's available for free on the intenet.

When I was in college for my psych degree I had t tak an experimental psychology class. Our final was based on an actual study that we created. I had noticed from my time debating religious issues that those who rejected science tended to be very fevernt believers, most typically Christian. So I wanted to test my observation. My hypotheists was that the more religious a person was the less likely they would accept science. I had to design a test, so I created a survey of 72 true/false questions, 12 of which related to matters of basic science including asking if evolution is a valid theory in science. The other 60 questions were randon so the subjects couldn't see what I wanted to know about them. I also had the subject take the standard religiosity survey that ranked where a person stood.

I compared the religiosity score to the answers about science. As I predicted the higher the religiosity the lower the knowledge about science. That means the higher a person scored on the religiosity survey the more likely they were to say the questions about science were false. My results were a stunning 99.99%. This met the minimum of 99.95% which means my experiment is a theory. If it had only reached 99.94% it would have failed, and I could rework the test to be most specific and precise.

Sample size?

I also question you understanding of p values, but you’re a psychology student so I won’t push it.

Your “experiment” reeks of personal bias also.