Some questions about evolution.

[Dirty Penguin]

Look, it's been explained to you several times: the fuzzy-edged nature of species is not a reflection of biology's inability to resolve them; it's intrinsic to their very nature.

Others have also pointed out that the species concept is a man-made one. In the real world living organisms exist in populations, which differ from each other genetically to varying degrees. As a rough rule of thumb, we say that if the members of two such populations can interbreed, and their offspring are fertile, they are the same species; if they can't, they're not. But the process of divergence from the first state to the second has an infinite number of gradations, and none of these constitutes a sharp boundary.

Well said.... :clap

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Giving a "scientific" definition for the word "theory" doesn't make the theory of evolution a fact.

It sure is especially since it's backed by scientific evidence....

Semantics can't prove what ain't so. And the ToE just ain't so.

But isn't it your opinion that Evolution IS valid but "God did it"? I thought it was you who said this a few times in various threads. If you're not the one then it's me that's mistaken.

 

[Alceste]

Giving a "scientific" definition for the word "theory" doesn't make the theory of evolution a fact. Semantics can't prove what ain't so. And the ToE just ain't so.

I think you'll find it does: In science, a "theory" is defined as a factual claim that is unambiguously supported by all of the evidence under consideration.

For the layman, such as yourself, you might as well interpret "scientific theory" to mean "fact", much like theory of gravity is a fact, and it the theory that the earth revolves around the sun is a fact.

 

[camanintx]

Giving a "scientific" definition for the word "theory" doesn't make the theory of evolution a fact. Semantics can't prove what ain't so. And the ToE just ain't so.

No, the observed changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations makes it a fact.

The "Theory of Evolution" is just the framework that best explains these observed changes of species over time and best predicts the new observations that continue to be made in evolutionary biology and related sciences

 

[Alceste]

There are long published lists of these scientists. Surely you knew that, didn't you?

Do you know what "published research" is? You were asked to find us an example of published research that calls evolution into question. You were not asked for a list of creationists. Yes, we all know lists of creationists exist. The fact that they've been published does not make them "published research".

Are you aware that there is a very clear boundary between what qualifies as "science" and what does not, and are you aware of the criteria by which we can distinguish one from the other? If not, I'd be more than happy to introduce you to these concepts.

 

[tumbleweed41]

A theory is something unproved but at times assumed true for the sake of argument. It has yet to be proved as factual. Nonetheless, sometimes something is declared to be a fact that is only a theory."
​

Here you have shown your ignorance of Scientific Theories by putting forth the colloquial use of the word theory.

Scientific Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

Scientific Theory v. Hypothesis v. Scientific Law - The Scientific Method


There. If you choose to learn from the above, you will no longer be ignorant of what a Scientific Theory is.
If you choose to ignore it, you will be guilty of willful ignorance.

Giving a "scientific" definition for the word "theory" doesn't make the theory of evolution a fact. Semantics can't prove what ain't so. And the ToE just ain't so.

So, you're going for willful ignorance?

 

[Photonic]

So, you're going for willful ignorance?

Some people will confuse Scientific Theory with Scientific Hypothesis.

These people will never accept truth, even if it literally slapped them in the face.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Some people will confuse Scientific Theory with Scientific Hypothesis.

These people will never accept truth, even if it literally slapped them in the face.

Agreed..!

 

[outhouse]

its hard to reverse the cultural brainwashing started at infancy

 

[jarofthoughts]

Giving a "scientific" definition for the word "theory" doesn't make the theory of evolution a fact. Semantics can't prove what ain't so. And the ToE just ain't so.

Dude!
Did you even watch the video I posted? :sarcastic
I mean, I'm not even forcing you to read!
You can just sit back and have it explained to you by actual scientists!!!

 

[Photonic]

Dude!
Did you even watch the video I posted? :sarcastic
I mean, I'm not even forcing you to read!
You can just sit back and have it explained to you by actual scientists!!!

Read my prior post for information on this type of person.

 

[Acim]

Nice, most creationists don’t ask permission before they quote mine someone.

Thank you. It's not everyday that a creationist like yourself says something nice to me.

 

[Acim]

Look, it's been explained to you several times: the fuzzy-edged nature of species is not a reflection of biology's inability to resolve them; it's intrinsic to their very nature.

Fuzzy-edged nature is intrinsic to their very nature.
That would make another nice signature quote.

Others have also pointed out that the species concept is a man-made one.

Really?
Not 'really others have pointed it out.' But 'really, it is a man-made concept? Hmmm, that seems irrational since clearly species are part of (a fuzzy-edged) nature.

In the real world living organisms exist in populations, which differ from each other genetically to varying degrees. As a rough rule of thumb, we say that if the members of two such populations can interbreed, and their offspring are fertile, they are the same species; if they can't, they're not. But the process of divergence from the first state to the second has an infinite number of gradations, and none of these constitutes a sharp boundary.

Because I dislike rough rules of thumb in my science, and because I really like fuzzy-edged sharp boundaries, I am going to completely ignore the above, and continue to proclaim that biologists lack 'a clear-cut understanding of the concept of species', and that this shortfall invalidates their claims about evolution.

A prediction: Acim will completely ignore the above, and continue to proclaim that biologists lack 'a clear-cut understanding of the concept of species', and that this shortfall invalidates their claims about evolution.

Wow, you're like a mind reader and stuff. Must be genetic.

 

[Father Heathen]

Giving a "scientific" definition for the word "theory" doesn't make the theory of evolution a fact. Semantics can't prove what ain't so. And the ToE just ain't so.

Sorry son, but logic and evidence will always trump irrational and unsubstantiated superstition.

 

[johnhanks]

Fuzzy-edged nature is intrinsic to their very nature.
That would make another nice signature quote.

Feel free.

Really?
Not 'really others have pointed it out.' But 'really, it is a man-made concept?

Yes, it really is. Do you think that when a stallion mounts a female donkey and begets a mule it 'knows' it's crossing some kind of sharp-edged real-world boundary?

Because I dislike rough rules of thumb in my science, and because I really like fuzzy-edged sharp boundaries, I am going to completely ignore the above...

As predicted. To re-phrase only slightly: "Because I don't like things the way they really are, I am going to stick with my fantasy version".

 

[rusra02]

It sure is especially since it's backed by scientific evidence....





But isn't it your opinion that Evolution IS valid but "God did it"? I thought it was you who said this a few times in various threads. If you're not the one then it's me that's mistaken.

I disagree with your statement the ToE is backed by scientific evidence.

No, you must be thinking of someone else. I do not believe the ToE is valid.

 

[rusra02]

I think you'll find it does: In science, a "theory" is defined as a factual claim that is unambiguously supported by all of the evidence under consideration.

For the layman, such as yourself, you might as well interpret "scientific theory" to mean "fact", much like theory of gravity is a fact, and it the theory that the earth revolves around the sun is a fact.

You interpret the word as you will, and give me leave to do the same. There are multiple meanings for the word according to the dictionary. I can see why ToE proponents want to define "theory" as "fact" to meet their own agenda. To quote from Merriam-Webster,theory is defined as: "A hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation; an unproved assumption; Conjecture." Calling a sow's ear a silk purse doesn't change what it is.

 

[rusra02]

Do you know what "published research" is? You were asked to find us an example of published research that calls evolution into question. You were not asked for a list of creationists. Yes, we all know lists of creationists exist. The fact that they've been published does not make them "published research".

Are you aware that there is a very clear boundary between what qualifies as "science" and what does not, and are you aware of the criteria by which we can distinguish one from the other? If not, I'd be more than happy to introduce you to these concepts.

What you call "creationists" are scientists who have examined the evidence for themselves and decided the evidence does not support evolution. As to published research, there are great numbers of well-researched papers showing the weaknesses of the ToE. But again, you knew that already, didn't you?

 

[rusra02]

its hard to reverse the cultural brainwashing started at infancy

I agree. That's why the ToE brainwashing starts early.

 

[McBell]

You interpret the word as you will, and give me leave to do the same. There are multiple meanings for the word according to the dictionary. I can see why ToE proponents want to define "theory" as "fact" to meet their own agenda. To quote from Merriam-Webster,theory is defined as: "A hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation; an unproved assumption; Conjecture." Calling a sow's ear a silk purse doesn't change what it is.

Stubbornly clinging to your favourite definition even after being shown that you are just plain flat out wrong does not help your agenda any.