The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[gnostic]

False. Evidence isn't fact.

That’s where you are wrong. You got it all backward, Wildswanderer.

Evidence are facts. Evidence are part of the phenomena.

In sciences, you are testing the models (eg hypotheses, theories). You are using the “evidence” or “experiments” TO TEST the “hypothesis” or “theory”.

You are not testing the evidence. ​

It is the hypothesis or theory that could be (“tested”j wrong. The evidence are used as the “gauge”, to test & to determine if a model is probable or improbable.

There are two possible outcomes for a hypothesis or theory:

1. If the evidence support the model, then the model is probable.
2. If the evidence don’t support the model, then the model is improbable.

Outcome 1, is where the hypothesis plus data (data gained from the evidence) has been verified, and could be a candidate for publication, as a new “scientific theory”, but only if pass Peer Review.

Option 2 is where the hypothesis have been refuted, debunked, so the hypothesis isn’t probable, which mean you shouldn’t even bother to present the hypothesis for Peer Review.

I wrote only “could be a candidate”, in “Option 1”. There could be more than 1 candidate. You could have 2 or more scientists presenting their independent alternative hypotheses for Peer Review. So there be 2 or more alternative hypotheses, competing for same spot.

There is 3rd option, where there are no evidence as in “zero evidence” or “absence of evidence”. In this case, the model is untestable, therefore the model is unfalsifiable, so the concept is pseudoscience.

Option 3 is worse than Option 2, because at least with Option 2 a hypothesis is still falsifiable and testable, even if it ultimately failed the test. Option 3 is worse because the unfalsifiable model cannot be tested, so it’s more than wrong, it is garbage.

Examples of unfalsifiable concepts, Irreducible Complexity, Intelligent Design and Creationism.

The entities, Creator and Intelligent Designer are important or essential parts of Creationism and Intelligent Design, but neither entities can be observed or tested.

Examples of failed “falsifiable” hypotheses: geocentric planetary motion, Static Universe model (Einstein, 1917), Steady State model (Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi & Fred Hoyle, 1948-51).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope not facts... nothing in science is fact. Working hypothesis' are not facts.

What? The number of larvae killed by a fixed amount of toxin in a given time interval is a fact. The estimate of the numbers of a specific tree species in a woodland is a fact. Average tail length in African versus European swallows is a fact. Where did you come up with your no facts in science notion?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

False. Evidence isn't fact.

That is interesting. That you do not understand evidence and facts is a fact.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What? The number of larvae killed by a fixed amount of toxin in a given time interval is a fact. The estimate of the numbers of a specific tree species in a woodland is a fact. Average tail length in African versus European swallows is a fact. Where did you come up with your no facts in science notion?

From scientists.

 

[ppp]

False. Evidence isn't fact.

Evidence is the collection of facts that support a conclusion.

 

[gnostic]

From scientists.

Evidence - observable physical evidence - that determine if the explanatory/predictive models are science or not, it is not determined by scientists.

Scientists provide the models, but it is the evidence that test the models.

Evidence is what provide level objectivity that can be quantified, measured, analyzed, etc.

Models in a hypothesis or in a scientific theory, can be questioned, challenged, and even modified or replaced, because it dependent upon the available evidence.

But any challenges or any changes made to the current models with alternative models, then the alternatives must be tested, rigorously.

Even Evolution have been modified since Darwin’s Natural Selection (1859, On Origin Of Species), where some of his errors were removed, and improved on. There are also other evolutionary mechanisms, beside that of Natural Selection, such as Genetic Drift, Mutations, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking, have demonstrated there other ways for evolution to occur. Every single mechanisms have been tested.

Because of countless evidence that support Evolution, there have been no better alternatives that explain how biodiversity and speciation occur.

Beside, the most obvious evidence, the study of fossils, there other methods of testing, like DNA.

DNA testing, results and analysis, have provided biologists with many information relating to biology, especially in the fields of genetics and Evolution.

You really are confused as how sciences work.

Did you ever work in some fields (or related fields) in sciences, or studied any field or related field) that required testing hypotheses or theories???

I am guessing you haven’t, by the way you making up claims that have nothing to do with the way sciences work.

The only things that don’t provide objectivity and impartiality is religious FAITH in god(s), in miracles, in creation, in scriptures, etc.

FAITH, in the religious contexts, required acceptance of beliefs, that require no evidence, therefore faith cannot be verified in the same way.

Your blanket claim that ...

Nope not facts... nothing in science is fact. Working hypothesis' are not facts.

...or...

First off, science does not ever deal in facts.

If what you said were true, then none of the technology that exist today, which you have use, wouldn’t work, if there were no facts.

If you have study any biological field beyond high school, and never worked as biologists or related fields, then what good are you? What alternative knowledge can you provide better understanding in biology that’s not the Bible?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Did you ever work in some fields (or related fields) in sciences, or studied any field or related field) that required testing hypotheses or theories???

I do it all the time. Working theories about how chemicals react with animal skins for example.. we think we know what they do but there's always more to learn and in some cases unlearn because some things we think should work don't. Science isn't fact it's forever changing theory.

 

[ppp]

I do it all the time. Working theories about how chemicals react with animal skins for example.. we think we know what they do but there's always more to learn and in some cases unlearn because some things we think should work don't. Science isn't fact it's forever changing theory.

Science is nether a fact nor a theory. Science is a methodology by which we investigate the world (facts), draw and test falsifiable conclusions (hypotheses), and create testable models based upon all of the evidence. A well tested model is called a theory. The conclusions of any given theory are, and should be, revised with the discovery of additional evidence. As it should be.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Science is nether a fact nor a theory. Science is a methodology by which we investigate the world (facts), draw and test falsifiable conclusions (hypotheses), and create testable models based upon all of the evidence. A well tested model is called a theory. The conclusions of any given theory are, and should be, revised with the discovery of additional evidence. As it should be.

Ok, splitting hairs but close enough.

 

[ppp]

Ok, splitting hairs but close enough.

What hair did I split?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

From scientists.

Can you do more than just claim it? Provide your argument so that it is clear this is not just your biased opinion based on nothing more than your feelings.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, splitting hairs but close enough.

Not splitting hairs. Laying it out just as it is. That it does not fit your personal opinions is not splitting hairs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do it all the time. Working theories about how chemicals react with animal skins for example.. we think we know what they do but there's always more to learn and in some cases unlearn because some things we think should work don't. Science isn't fact it's forever changing theory.

So you are not a scientist.

 

[gnostic]

I do it all the time. Working theories about how chemicals react with animal skins for example.. we think we know what they do but there's always more to learn and in some cases unlearn because some things we think should work don't. Science isn't fact it's forever changing theory.

Of course, sciences have to change, when new evidence are discovered. It is how we learn what physical or natural phenomena are, as well as learn how they work and find possible possible applications. This is how sciences work.

Sometimes, progresses can be slow, like it could take centuries or even thousands of years to understand, and sometimes it may take shorter amount of times, like years or decades.

Sometimes, new theories will replace existing outdated or incorrect, sometimes, they just add new knowledge to existing theories, or correct faulty theories.

But whether we have new theories, or replace theories, or modified existing theories, any additions or changes must be supported by the evidence; meaning scientists must test theories and researches THROUGH evidence and data.

You don’t discover evidence, and then just sit on it, doing nothing.

If sciences don’t change when there are new evidence, then you are not “doing science” at all.

One of the things that have changed substantially is computer technology - and that include software, hardware and networking technologies.

I don’t know old you are, but computers used to be large, inefficient and slow, and you couldn’t store much data.

Plus, you could do programming with keyboard and screen, everything were done with punched cards. Programming using punched cards as input, required stack of cards, and if you make a single error in your codes that stop the entire computer from working, good luck with trying to find this error on hundreds or even tens of thousands of cards.

For instance, mainframe could take up floor or two floors of office space, but since the microcomputer revolution, especially the personal computers (PC) that started in the late 1970s, these computers were small enough to be used in the home. But these PCs during the early stage, were also slow and inefficient, but they became increasingly faster and more power, especially in the last couple of decades.

Plus, then there were the laptops, notebooks and tablets, the processors, not only became more powerful and faster, they also became smaller.

This is all due to sciences and innovative engineering, where now even mobile phones, or more precisely smartphones, are essentially computers in your pockets.

It take time, and sciences need to change, or else it will stagnate.

Sciences have to change, and have to correct their mistakes, to learn. That’s how progress work.

In term of knowledge, sciences and technology have changed, hence sciences are dogma. What is dogma, are ancient scriptures like the Bible and the Quran, that don’t change. If Christianity and Islam don’t change with time, don’t going beyond the verses and teachings, have become stagnated dogma.

Even the concepts of morality from scriptures have stagnated, because the scriptures still condone and even promote slavery, and scriptures cannot change that, it doesn’t allow for changes.

 

[rational experiences]

In any theory I used about the eternal my human mind says human always is exact. Human. A human came from.

Not a human is.

It is only a machine science theist who says you have to give me personal understanding of the eternal that you discuss.

Religious spirit believer.

I want it not as a machine. I want it for the machines reaction.

Hence it has to be somewhere in created creation. In thesis he says I want to understand origin substance from which any type of energy emerged.

Claiming sanity.

Then he has to try to convince you he is sane but human belief and human ceremonies are insane because you are using the church not as the temple of science as it's once origin pyramid science temple was.

Is all that he is angered about in religious stories.

Then he takes that advice to humans who read science thesis portions in the bible and misbehave as destructive humans as science destroys. They think it was instructions.

Not realising it was mans science owned thesis.

Not actually intelligent enough to understand creation portions are science machine relative only. Why men theoried creation.

As earth is still the earth. All the heavens gases are the same only ice is not historical in cooling gases to amass cooling waters presence.

Which he doesn't preach in religion.

None of you describe by science the eternal.

The biggest liar in life ever.

 

[rational experiences]

Substances in space.

Can you brother think feel relate consciously by stepping out of a rocket ship into the bodies you talk about but theorise only?

No.

So you don't know you just pretend you do?

You expect a human is going to tell you what a sun is without waters presence don't you?

How about doing a visit for us to experience the experiment to not tell us anything because you can't.

My brother in the past taught one truth. Space is a mystery and accepted his preaching of that one word.

Your ego also being life attacked fails to even respond like it once did.

Would have made the accusation what a mystery meant then asked how you would explain it otherwise.

Losing your consciousness in nuclear time travel proven. You dont philosophise like you used to in the past mind.

 

[Wildswanderer]

In term of knowledge, sciences and technology have changed, hence sciences are dogma. What is dogma, are ancient scriptures like the Bible and the Quran, that don’t change. If Christianity and Islam don’t change with time, don’t going beyond the verses and teachings, have become stagnated dogma.

Lol, if they do change with the time they are worthless. They always were meant to go beyond teaching and into living.

 

[ppp]

Lol, if they do change with the time they are worthless.

The fact that they don't change makes them worse than worthless. It makes them inimical.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The fact that they don't change makes them worse than worthless. It makes them inimical.

Well, if you want a God who is stylish and changes with human whims you want yourself obviously. And since you cannot control anything, what good is a god like that?

 

[ppp]

Well, if you want a God who is stylish and changes with human whims you want yourself obviously.

I understand that it is merely a defense mechanism to call any position that is younger than the one to which you adhere "stylish", but that is not a justification for your claims. It is merely being snide.