I need really good information.

[Shadow Wolf]

Be careful using a tape recorder. I'm pretty sure it's illegal to record someone without their knowledge.

It's not uncommon for students to use them to record lectures to listen to them later for note taking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

4. If she rejects radiometric dating, then she also reject, in addition to all of Biology, all of Geology, all paleontology, archeology, and lots of physics. Probably all of astronomy and cosmology. Where on earth did you get such an anti-scientific philosophy prof?

Not all of geology.

There's a ton of geology that demonstrates an old Earth (or at least puts a low enough lower bound on the Earth's age to make young earth creationism untenable) that doesn't depend on radiometric dating at all. Shadow Wolf's prof will have to find some other argument if she's going to hand-wave all of geology away.

 

[bobhikes]

Actually, yes we can test the theory and we have in labs around the world.

wa:do

I can not find the hypothesis to verify the ability to test. Can you perhaps provide it.

All I get are explainations for a theory but no actualy written theory.

One can not use the scientific method 1st without a working theory.
You also would have a hard time proving what I thought I understood was the theory.

Evolution is generated by random mutations where only the benefitial survive.

If I was to watch a baterium and see that they develop a _____ over time and it was benefitial.

If I was to watch them for the same time period again they probably wont develop a ______ again as to the mutations will probably be different.

Even if you did the same experiment on opposite ends of the world at the same time in the exact same enviroment the odds are slim to none that the same ______ would develop.

It is untestable as a theory if a written hypothesis even actually exists.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Not all of geology.

There's a ton of geology that demonstrates an old Earth (or at least puts a low enough lower bound on the Earth's age to make young earth creationism untenable) that doesn't depend on radiometric dating at all. Shadow Wolf's prof will have to find some other argument if she's going to hand-wave all of geology away.

Ice cores provide accurate dating back to at least 760,000 years. Probably even further back, I didn't spend that much time looking at it.

 

[Alceste]

This is a college "teacher." I already planned on using a tape recorder in her class, to have it on tape the non-sense that she teachers (more than just evolution and religion), and if it gets bad I'll have hard evidence that she is more of a propagandist than a teacher.
As for her religious slant goes, my girlfriend's uncle also teachers at this school and I am asking him what the policy is regarding such a situation, especially since it is a philosophy class and it can be dismissed as an "alternative viewpoint." But telling students that the body loses weight at the moment of death, and that is when the soul leaves the body is not an alternative viewpoint, it is horse manure.

I just read "Spook" by Mary Roach. She addresses the single experiment your teacher was referring to. (Thanks, auto, good recommendation!)

To equip yourself with enough ammunition to gun down creationism wherever you find it, read Dawkins "Greatest Show on Earth". That's a fantastic overview of the evidence, conveniently broken down to cover all the bases creationists use to argue against evolution.

 

[Alceste]

I can not find the hypothesis to verify the ability to test. Can you perhaps provide it.

All I get are explainations for a theory but no actualy written theory.

One can not use the scientific method 1st without a working theory.
You also would have a hard time proving what I thought I understood was the theory.

Evolution is generated by random mutations where only the benefitial survive.

If I was to watch a baterium and see that they develop a _____ over time and it was benefitial.

If I was to watch them for the same time period again they probably wont develop a ______ again as to the mutations will probably be different.

Even if you did the same experiment on opposite ends of the world at the same time in the exact same enviroment the odds are slim to none that the same ______ would develop.

It is untestable as a theory if a written hypothesis even actually exists.

The bacteria experiment has been done. It's quite famous, in fact. You say "I'm not aware of any of this" then use that to justify your grand pronouncements about whether it's been done? For shame. You've clearly never even looked into it! No wonder you're not aware of it!

 

[YmirGF]

So I got into an argument with my philosophy teacher about evolution. She claims it cannot be proven with the scientific method. I (the only one in the class) called her out.

I don't think I'd be too inclined to want to learn her views on philosophy. Get another teacher.

 

[waitasec]

So I got into an argument with my philosophy teacher about evolution. She claims it cannot be proven with the scientific method.

my question to you would be
is this philosophy teacher claiming that evolution cannot be proven philosophically?
why would you be speaking about evolution in a philosophy class?

or is that a dumb question to ask?

 

[AllanV]

If the teacher is a Christian, she may not be reading the scriptures correctly.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

This is one verse that could be saying the earth was the main developer of species.

The "earth" could be environment or the actual dirt that is made up of minerals. But of course it is both.
"Bring forth the living creature" is to actually make appear out of the earth. The earth produced animate beings. There is also a measure of time when bringing forth.
"after his kind" is separate species.

Therefore, The earth produced over time, living animate beings of separate species. A dictionary can be used to open up the full meaning of the words.

What science does is test what the earth has done not what God is doing.

 

[painted wolf]

I can not find the hypothesis to verify the ability to test. Can you perhaps provide it.

Which hypothesis? There are dozens of hypothesis being tested in evolution... from Red Queen hypothesis to Kin selection to Punk Eck...

All I get are explainations for a theory but no actualy written theory.

You mean: "allele frequencies change in populations over time".

One can not use the scientific method 1st without a working theory.
You also would have a hard time proving what I thought I understood was the theory.

Evolution has a working theory... see above.

Evolution is generated by random mutations where only the benefitial survive.

No. The vast majority of mutations are neutral actually. "Benefit" changes based on circumstance.

If I was to watch a baterium and see that they develop a _____ over time and it was benefitial.

If I was to watch them for the same time period again they probably wont develop a ______ again as to the mutations will probably be different.

Even if you did the same experiment on opposite ends of the world at the same time in the exact same enviroment the odds are slim to none that the same ______ would develop.

It is untestable as a theory if a written hypothesis even actually exists.

This experiment has been done... and is still going on.
Overview of the E. coli long-term evolution experiment

wa:do

 

[bobhikes]

Which hypothesis? There are dozens of hypothesis being tested in evolution... from Red Queen hypothesis to Kin selection to Punk Eck...

You mean: "allele frequencies change in populations over time".

Evolution has a working theory... see above.

No. The vast majority of mutations are neutral actually. "Benefit" changes based on circumstance.

This experiment has been done... and is still going on.
Overview of the E. coli long-term evolution experiment

wa:do

Exactly, Theory of evolution as based on scientific method does not exist. Yes you can find specific theories or as you say hypothesis that fall under the base theory of evolution. But no one to date has used just the theory of evolution as a hypothesis thereby it has not been tested by the scientific method and to be honest as a theory is not testable..

Your E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an observation. I went to the page, no hypothesis, no result.

I said it was word play. It is a philosophy teacher is it not. Scientific method is a specific procedure. Give me an excepted definition of Theory of Evolution and then show a paper testing that hypothesis.

You can't. Philosophy is phun like that. I can produce words all day and show why Theory of Evolution has not been tested using the scientific method.

Notice I do not say it has not been tested or it does not have data supporting it.

 

[painted wolf]

Exactly, Theory of evolution as based on scientific method does not exist. Yes you can find specific theories or as you say hypothesis that fall under the base theory of evolution. But no one to date has used just the theory of evolution as a hypothesis thereby it has not been tested by the scientific method and to be honest as a theory is not testable..

Your E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an observation. I went to the page, no hypothesis, no result.

You didn't bother to really check it out did you?

Hypothesis (one example of several hypothesis covered in this lab): E.coli grown in increasing amounts of citrate will have to evolve a way to digest citrate (via a genetic mutation) or die out.... and that the resulting changes in alleles will then come to dominate the population of E.coli growing in a citrate rich substrate.

Results: There are more than 50 papers published on the ongoing results of this experiment.
Publication Search Results

This isn't "just observation" this is direct experimentation. This is the scientific method at work.

I said it was word play. It is a philosophy teacher is it not.

Scientific method is a specific procedure. Give me an excepted definition of Theory of Evolution and then show a paper testing that hypothesis.

"alleles change in populations over time"
Altered Regulation of the OmpF Porin by Fis in Escherichia coli during an Evolution Experiment and between B and K-12 Strains -- Crozat et al. 193 (2): 429 -- The Journal of Bacteriology
Access : Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli : Nature

You can't. Philosophy is phun like that.

I can produce words all day and show why Theory of Evolution has not been tested using the scientific method.

Notice I do not say it has not been tested or it does not have data supporting it.

You seem to have a different definition of "scientific method" than I do...
I'm sure you can keep "producing words all day" but you would still be mistaken. And so would the professor.

wa:do

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

Exactly, Theory of evolution as based on scientific method does not exist.

Actually - evolution is an observed fact of nature.
But creationists insist on always using the word "theory" whenever they mention evolution.

Do we see creationists insist gravity is a theory?
Do we see creationists insist electricity is a theory?
Do we see creationists insist germs is a theory?
No.

But they ALL have theories to explain them - creationists don't grasp that however.

Yes you can find specific theories or as you say hypothesis that fall under the base theory of evolution. But no one to date has used just the theory of evolution as a hypothesis thereby it has not been tested by the scientific method and to be honest as a theory is not testable..

Evolution has been tested by millions of experiments and observations by thousands of scientists in dozens of countries for over a century.

The score ?

MILLIONS of tests support evolution.
ZERO tests disprove evolution.

Meanwhile :
ZERO tests support creationism.
MANY tests disagree with creationism.

Your E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an observation. I went to the page, no hypothesis, no result.

It's one of MILLIONS of tests that support evolution.

I said it was word play. It is a philosophy teacher is it not. Scientific method is a specific procedure. Give me an excepted definition of Theory of Evolution and then show a paper testing that hypothesis.

There are many such tests.
You can read some here :
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent
When you've read all of that page, get back to us.

You can't. Philosophy is phun like that. I can produce words all day and show why Theory of Evolution has not been tested using the scientific method.

Evolution is an observed fact of nature.
MILLIONS of tests and experiments and observations support it.
If only you'd look.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

THEORY has 2 meanings

It is all too common for people like bobhikes to confuse the two meanings of the word "theory".

In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation. Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just speculation".

But,
in scientific terms, there is another, different, meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION.


Theories EXPLAIN facts

Theories explain the facts we observe :

Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.

Evolution is a fact, it is observed.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.



the ToE is an EXPLANATION, NOT speculation

The Theory of Evolution is NOT "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all.

Rather -
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for how evolution works, it models the behaviour of the FACTS of evolution, and allows predictions to be made.

Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.
Would one say "germs are just a theory" ?
Of course not.


Yet
some people say
"evolution is (just) a theory"

as if it means
"evolution is merely untested speculation" (false)


EVOLUTION = FACT & THEORY

Evolution is a FACT.
We observe evolution.
And,
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION, or model, for the observed facts of evolution.


Iasion

 

[AfterGlow]

my question to you would be
is this philosophy teacher claiming that evolution cannot be proven philosophically?
why would you be speaking about evolution in a philosophy class?

or is that a dumb question to ask?

That's what I was thinking. If she were a biology or general science teacher, I'd consider her unfit to be teaching. But since she's a philosophy teacher her belief or lack of regarding evolution should be of no relevance, it's her understanding of the likes of Plato, Descartes and Russell you should be concerned with.

 

[painted wolf]

That's what I was thinking. If she were a biology or general science teacher, I'd consider her unfit to be teaching. But since she's a philosophy teacher her belief or lack of regarding evolution should be of no relevance, it's her understanding of the likes of Plato, Descartes and Russell you should be concerned with.

I don't know... all the time spent preaching against evolution is time that should have been spent actually teaching the subject they were hired to teach.

If you are paying for this class, you are not getting what you paid for.... not to mention wondering how they will handle teaching philosophers they disagree with.

If they can't manage to teach the subject without preaching against an unrelated subject, how can you expect to get a worthwhile coverage of the actual subject you are there to study?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I believe the issue is understanding the scientific method and the theory of evolution. In the scientific method you must be able to test the theory. With evolution we have collected a lot of data but are unable to test the theory. Perhaps someday we will be able to test the theory and complete the scientific method. Until then I believe she is right. It is just a play on words but correct.

This is plain false and reveals stubborn ignorance of the evidence that tested and supported the theory.

 

[Autodidact]

I can not find the hypothesis to verify the ability to test. Can you perhaps provide it.

So you don't know what the Theory of Evolution actually says? ok, here goes, please pay attention:

Populations of organisms change over time.
This is a result of descent with modification plus natural selection. (+ genetic drift, population isolation, and some other stuff.)
Over time, this results in the emergence of new species.
That's how we get new species.
That's how we get all the species on earth.
Therefore every species on earth is descended from a single common ancestor, by the process described above.

That's pretty much it.
Which part do you take issue with?

 

[Autodidact]

Exactly, Theory of evolution as based on scientific method does not exist. Yes you can find specific theories or as you say hypothesis that fall under the base theory of evolution. But no one to date has used just the theory of evolution as a hypothesis thereby it has not been tested by the scientific method and to be honest as a theory is not testable..

Your E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an observation. I went to the page, no hypothesis, no result.

I said it was word play. It is a philosophy teacher is it not. Scientific method is a specific procedure. Give me an excepted definition of Theory of Evolution and then show a paper testing that hypothesis.

You can't. Philosophy is phun like that. I can produce words all day and show why Theory of Evolution has not been tested using the scientific method.

Notice I do not say it has not been tested or it does not have data supporting it.

bob: You have no idea what you're talking about. You have never studied evolution or Biology; you haven't even read a book about it. ToE passed the scientific method of scrutiny with flying colors about 100 years ago.

If you want me to review that process, and what the evidence was, I will.

Or you could read a book.

But don't go spouting nonsense about that something doesn't exist, just because you're ignorant of it.

 

[bobhikes]

So you don't know what the Theory of Evolution actually says? ok, here goes, please pay attention:

Populations of organisms change over time.
This is a result of descent with modification plus natural selection. (+ genetic drift, population isolation, and some other stuff.)
Over time, this results in the emergence of new species.
That's how we get new species.
That's how we get all the species on earth.
Therefore every species on earth is descended from a single common ancestor, by the process described above.

That's pretty much it.
Which part do you take issue with?

I take issue with no part,

You people are just to serious. In philosophy facts don't even have to matter. The philosophy professor could have said this just to inspire a reaction. You are just spinning in circles because you can't see what I am saying. I understand exactly your point but your point in only valid in your philosophy.

What I am saying and thank you for the definition is that using the scientific method you could never test the above hypothesis. First you would have to get the common ancestor and then recreate this world exactly an impossiblility.

You can test aspects of the theory. You can collect data showing this possible but the scienctific methods specifically calls for testing the hypothesis.

It is just a word game sorry you don't understand how to play.