How do you define SCIENCE?

[YoursTrue]

Then you were either getting a very poor education in science, or you weren't listening in class. My guess is that you were an ideologue then, as you are now, and so you simply ignored all admonishments for the need of skepticism.

That is antithetical to the practice and purpose of science.

Yes. See the problem here is that you were looking for "the truth" in an area of human endeavor that neither seeks not claims to have found any truth. Science an area of human endeavor that simply imagines and then explores possibilities. That's it. There is no seeking of any truth in science, nor even seeking the evidence for truth, which is why you're looking for it there came up empty. What YOU were engaged in was philosophy, not science. Which is why you were not finding what you were seeking in the area of science.

I am not in the habit of believing things when I can't know them to be so. So I believe very little. Science is not about what any of us believe. It's simply about testing possibilities to see if they are indeed, possible. So far the theory of evolution remains a viable possibility after having been tested in a lot of different ways. And that stands as it stands. I have no need to believe nor disbelieve in it.

Well, mutations do happen, as we can see them happening, occasionally, for ourselves. And it stands to reason that if a particular genetic mutation gives the recipient a survival or mating advantage, and it is the kind of mutation that can be passed on genetically, that it would likely be passed on. And over time, it would spread throughout the species' population.

That's not true. Mutations occur all the time. We just don't notice most of them, or we write them off as unique individual effects. But they do still often provide advantages and disadvantages to those who receive them, and they do sometimes get passed on through the general population over time. Humans get taller, less hairy, smarter, and so on, because these traits prove more effective at surviving and mating. And the same is true of all species. We/they are all constantly changing, almost imperceptibly, over time, thanks to these small genetic imperfections that cause mutations to keep occurring. And thanks to circumstances giving advantage to some of them, and disadvantage to others of them.

Of course mutations happen. This does not make fish eventually to mutate (evolve) to humans.

 

[John53]

When I was in school i did not question the theory of evolution because I thought what they were teaching me was the truth. I had no reason to doubt what I was being taught. The point is that I believed I was being taught the truth. It was later that I realized the gaps in the theory which are covered over by conjecturing what may have happened, in other words.. guessing according to the established theoretical framework.

So tell us what these gaps are and what actually happened.

 

[John53]

Because it seems to me that you can't back up your viewpoint with anything but conjecture using what is called evidence for the theory.

And you won't even post what you believe happened. There's been a big fat silence despite numerous requests.

 

[HonestJoe]

Because it seems to me that you can't back up your viewpoint with anything but conjecture using what is called evidence for the theory.

I've not presented any viewpoint in this thread. This is your thread so the topic of discussion is your viewpoint.

I think the fundamental problem here is that you're not seeking a discussion but an argument. You want to attack ideas (you believe) challenge or contradict your religious beliefs and you're assuming (wrongly) that anyone questioning anything you might state must be making an argument for the opposite of your position.

The related issue is your evasiveness, how you weren't even willing to be honest about the actual topic in your OP, instead distracting with the whole "definition of science" angle, presumably in an attempt to create a trap to present aspects of evolution and unscientific. You obviously failed to do that and haven't engaged in any meaningful discussion about evolution. You also mentioned "Creation" and religion in your OP, despite not apparently being willing to discuss them, not that either are relevant to scientific discussion about evolution anyway.

If you want to discuss evolution, discuss evolution (which includes actually acknowledging and responding to points other people make). Otherwise, what is the point here?

 

[exchemist]

The hypothesis does not validate the theory at all.

Good grief, no, look, it's the observations that are the test of the hypothesis or theory, not the other way round.

 

[exchemist]

Reproducible such as smaller or larger beaks? Shorter or longer legs? Birds remain birds, humans stay as humans, there's nowhere to go beyond that with any substance. Speculation, yes. Actuality, no.

Reproducible as in any palaeontologist who wants to can go and see a fossil that has been discovered. So the data, i.e. the structure of the fossil, and its interpretation, i.e. what relationships it bears to others, is open to all to discuss and validate.

You really are trying, very hard, to fail to understand this, aren't you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I was in school i did not question the theory of evolution because I thought what they were teaching me was the truth. I had no reason to doubt what I was being taught. The point is that I believed I was being taught the truth. It was later that I realized the gaps in the theory which are covered over by conjecturing what may have happened, in other words.. guessing according to the established theoretical framework.

You have never demonstrated any gaps in the theory. Just gaps in your understanding of the theory. And for some odd reason you resist learning the very basics of science. If you learned the basics of science then you could apply what you know to the claimed (and it is actual) evidence. You would then be able to understand how and why it is evidence for evolution and you would no longer need to "believe". Believing in science is a mistake. One should study it so that one can know it. If you have doubts that is fine, but the only solution is to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course mutations happen. This does not make fish eventually to mutate (evolve) to humans.

Mutations by themselves do not do so. But they are necessary for that evolution. What you keep forgetting is that there are other factors involved working at the same time. Once again, it is largely (there are other factors) mutation and natural selection working together that drive evolution. If you only can focus on one at a time you will always be wrong.

 

[Yerda]

Of course mutations happen. This does not make fish eventually to mutate (evolve) to humans.

Consider the following:

1. Fish bodies are built from the blueprint contained within fish DNA
2. Human bodies are built from the blueprint contained within human DNA
3. The difference in fish bodies and human bodies is down to the difference in the DNA
4. DNA can mutate
5. The difference between fish DNA and human DNA could be spanned by a finite number of mutations

Given this, would you say that it is possible that a lineage that produced fish could later produce humans?

 

[YoursTrue]

Consider the following:

1. Fish bodies are built from the blueprint contained within fish DNA
2. Human bodies are built from the blueprint contained within human DNA
3. The difference in fish bodies and human bodies is down to the difference in the DNA
4. DNA can mutate
5. The difference between fish DNA and human DNA could be spanned by a finite number of mutations

Given this, would you say that it is possible that a lineage that produced fish could later produce humans?

As has been said, no proof. Perhaps one day I'll go into the statistical possibilities. But even that wouldn't prove anything, would it? (No, it wouldn't.)

 

[Pete in Panama]

The question could be...is there global warming?

That's a valid question. The whole idea of the entire globe being heated by the greenhouse is rediculous. The mass of the earth is more than 5.97x10^24 kilograms, meaning if ALL the solar energy were absorbed it would still take 10K years to heat up by one degree.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've not presented any viewpoint in this thread. This is your thread so the topic of discussion is your viewpoint.

I think the fundamental problem here is that you're not seeking a discussion but an argument. You want to attack ideas (you believe) challenge or contradict your religious beliefs and you're assuming (wrongly) that anyone questioning anything you might state must be making an argument for the opposite of your position.

The related issue is your evasiveness, how you weren't even willing to be honest about the actual topic in your OP, instead distracting with the whole "definition of science" angle, presumably in an attempt to create a trap to present aspects of evolution and unscientific. You obviously failed to do that and haven't engaged in any meaningful discussion about evolution. You also mentioned "Creation" and religion in your OP, despite not apparently being willing to discuss them, not that either are relevant to scientific discussion about evolution anyway.

If you want to discuss evolution, discuss evolution (which includes actually acknowledging and responding to points other people make). Otherwise, what is the point here?

Is the concept or theory or study (however you want to express it) of evolution considered science?

 

[YoursTrue]

I've not presented any viewpoint in this thread. This is your thread so the topic of discussion is your viewpoint.

I think the fundamental problem here is that you're not seeking a discussion but an argument. You want to attack ideas (you believe) challenge or contradict your religious beliefs and you're assuming (wrongly) that anyone questioning anything you might state must be making an argument for the opposite of your position.

The related issue is your evasiveness, how you weren't even willing to be honest about the actual topic in your OP, instead distracting with the whole "definition of science" angle, presumably in an attempt to create a trap to present aspects of evolution and unscientific. You obviously failed to do that and haven't engaged in any meaningful discussion about evolution. You also mentioned "Creation" and religion in your OP, despite not apparently being willing to discuss them, not that either are relevant to scientific discussion about evolution anyway.

If you want to discuss evolution, discuss evolution (which includes actually acknowledging and responding to points other people make). Otherwise, what is the point here?

I'm wondering and considering opinions. As you said, you're not presenting any viewpoint of your belief, do I have this right? You're kind of like neutral, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

That's a valid question. The whole idea of the entire globe being heated by the greenhouse is rediculous. The mass of the earth is more than 5.97x10^24 kilograms, meaning if ALL the solar energy were absorbed it would still take 10K years to heat up by one degree.

So accordingly, only various parts of the earth are being heated up to a destructive degree, is that your opinion?

 

[Pete in Panama]

Science not about right or wrong. The Oxford definition is good because it avoids those terms entirely...

That idea may be a bit controversial. Some say that if a scientitst falsifies his experimental results then there's hell to pay. Their thinking is that it's wrong to do so because it's not the truth.

Like it or not, science does not function w/o concepts such as right/wrong and truth/falsehood.

 

[YoursTrue]

That idea may be a bit controversial. Some say that if a scientitst falsifies his experimental results then there's hell to pay. Their thinking is that it's wrong to do so because it's not the truth.

Like it or not, science does not function w/o concepts such as right/wrong and truth/falsehood.

how about possibilities? how many fish would need to mutate to continue burgeoning to humans?

 

[YoursTrue]

how about possibilities? how many fish would need to mutate to continue burgeoning to humans?

 

[YoursTrue]

Let me not forget about "survival of the fittest" in that possibility of how many fish evolve to become humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh, and of course, similar to the UCA (Unknown Common Ancestor) of humans -- plus a few other "mammals," how about what fish it was? Gone? Forgotten? No trace? Conjecture like tiktaalik, or however you spell it? The type of fish it ostensibly came from is -- gone? unknown?

 

[Yerda]

As has been said, no proof. Perhaps one day I'll go into the statistical possibilities. But even that wouldn't prove anything, would it? (No, it wouldn't.)

I'm not trying to prove anything. Did you understand my post?