What is a 'theory' ?

[outhouse]

The following is something I posted in another thread.
See if it reads the way you might like......as for theory.


....imaginative contemplation of reality...
...an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principals or circumstances.
...as distinguished from applied art or science.
...the coherent set of hypothetical, conceptual, and pragmatic principles forming the general frame for a field of inquiry
...a judgment, preposition, or formula formed by speculation
...a hypothetical entity or structure explaining or relating to an observed set of facts.

...a working of hypothesis given probability by experimental evidence or by factual or conceptual analysis...BUT NOT conclusively established or accepted as law.

...something taken for granted esp. on trivial or inadequate grounds


syn...conjecture...speculation...supposition

Through out the entire definition ...which you can read....in Webster's...
the word 'proof' is not there.

There are many 'facts' that you can fall back on.
And the collection of facts led to theory.

No proof yet.

This is not to say...I don't believe in evolution...I do.

But I also hold God as the Source.
God did it.

im sorry your education level wont let you see the difference between a scientific theory and a theory as defined in webster.

You are wrong in your assumption. :areyoucra

a scientific theory is fact and theory and every known creationist website will tell you to back away from that stance or you will get powned

like now

 

[Copernicus]

Gday,
No.
I have never read that book.

It is directly related to, and supportive of, your thesis in this thread. I thought that you might have read it, because I had just started reading it, and your OP looked like deja vu. In any case, only that first section is really relevant, and I did find an extract that touches on his main argument regarding "theory vs fact": Extract from Chapter I of The Greatest Show on Earth. Unfortunately, it does not contain his lengthy discourse on the two different senses of "theory", which parallel your argument. Dawkins proposed that one should avoid the ambiguous word "theory" in favor of a new expression "theorum" (intentionally spelled differently from "theorem" in order to distinguish it from a mathematical theorem).

Please get my name right next time

Iasion, sorry for getting your name wrong, but lower case "L" and cap "I" are not distinguishable in Microsoft's default Arial font. Many people have handles that begin with lower case letters, so I guessed wrong. Direct your ire at Uncle Bill.

 

[Iasion]

Yes SIR IAsion

Heh

I get that wrong name a lot, maybe I was overly touchy.



I.

 

[Iasion]

Gday sandy,

liason,
There are NO evolutionary gaps.

Please explain exactly what you mean by an
"evolutionary gap".

Everyone knows there is gaps in the fossil record - we will never have EVERY fossil, so there will ALWAYS be gaps there.


K.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

Iasion, sorry for getting your name wrong, but lower case "L" and cap "I" are not distinguishable in Microsoft's default Arial font. Many people have handles that begin with lower case letters, so I guessed wrong. Direct your ire at Uncle Bill.

Thanks, np
it was a easy mistake to make.
I was overly touchy


Iasion

 

[Alceste]

No it won't.

Funnily enough, it would if your "side" would read it. I think it would be impossible for creationists to maintain the foundational fallacies of their arguments if they were to read it. Without a number of key falsehoods (eg. that there is a lack of evidence, that new species have never been observed, that certain bits are 'irreducibly complex', that evolution predicts dogs giving birth to cats, that evolution has an opinion about the origin of life, yada yada yada) creationism hasn't got a leg to stand on.

 

[newhope101]

Gday,



Wrong.
Evolution deniers always try to falsely call evidence 'presumption'.
In fact - evolution is a fact supported by a vast body of evidence.
I think any creationist can plainly see the difference between evidence and hypothesis. I'm not here to prove anything mate.

Obviously someone has something up their nose, as this thread was started. What did you expect????????? Fluffy responses or something.



Specific details DO change.You just can't get that evidence that changes, will only change if it was never evidence at all eg knuckle walking fiasco, LUCA..heaps.
So what?
Please explain why you think it's so important that one point was changed?
One point. I don't think so. Just off the top of my head what about the demise of LUCA, what about the ramblings of bipedalism being solely a Homo trait, what about increase accompanying brain increase, florensienses and so very much more. One point appears to be a huge underestimation.
True Believers think they have the truth which can never be changed. So when science learns something new - they scream "AHA - see? science was wrong all along. Evolution is false! pwned! "
Well, I think you are very presumptious. But yeah..it does make evos look a little silly a little too often than it should.
What a joke.
This change did NOT invalidate evolution - although newhope101 is trying to pretend it does. In fact science learns new things all the time - including learning new details about evolution.
How desperate. Suggesting that much of your evidence for evolution is based on theoretical assumptions is not the same as saying toe is untrue. There may be evidence for evolution. It is just that you have not found it yet.

Certainly in the hands of creationist scientists the hypothesis of the evidence (fossils) would be different as stated in my previous post.
And everyone of those new details SUPPORTS evolution. But deniers pretend that making a tiny change to some detail means the WHOLE THING is wrong. What nonsense.
I don't need to assert that your researchers get everything wrong. They do a good enough job of it for themselves, eg Aves. Would you like me to show you some recent research that has revamped this taxa. I could also show you your bovid, mammal mess and many others. You chose. This would be off topic, but if you deny..I can post.
Essentially the denial argument goes like this :

Science has found out something new;
so this means everything we know is wrong,
so this means Christian dogma is right
No,..it goes like this. Science has found something new that has now put the last lot of irrefuteable evidence, that anyone was called stupid not to swallow at the time, and delegate it to the rubbish bin of delusionary evidence....again.
What a joke - no wodner they never spell the argument out in full - it's a crap argument.

So is your rubbish bin of delusionary evidence.

Bollocks.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Evolution is supported by a vast body of clear evidence. Stop pretending that changing some minor detail invalidates the whole theory - it doesn't.

No, I'm afraid it isn't. The fossils are real. The rest is crap.

Wrong.
Evolution is supported by a vast body of clear evidence.


No sorry,it just isn't. It is supported by theories.


Oh dear -
You're STILL stuck on what 'theory' and 'hypothesis' mean.
Hey..in case you haven't noticed that is the topic of this thread. It is not I that has something stuck up my nose and something to prove.. It appears that some of you feel particularly threatened.
But back in the real world - Too late for you!
Evolution has been confirmed by MILLIONS of tests by THOUSANDS of scientists over more than a century.Too bad they are ALL scaffolded against the presumption of ancestry and change like the wind..very scientific and convincing..NOT.

100.0% of those tests support evolution.
0.0% disagree with it.
I believe the signatories against Toe have reached the thousands now. No actually, many scientists do not agree with toe. The majority do. Too bad they make so many mistakes.
If you had even ONE test or experiment that disagreed - evolution eniers would shout it from the rooftops.
A precambrian human woiukld not get shouted from the rooftops as support for creation. Toe is irrefutable and therefore not science. As you said nothing you find, nor Y chromosome differences nor anything will refute toe, they'll just make up another theory. They are a dime a dozen.
Instead all we get is these lame claims that some minor detail has been changed - pathetic.


I.

Show me your evidence and I'll illustrate the assumptions..no problems it is easy for me now. Thanks to you all. Let's see, I can refute your skulls and genomic evidence based on assumptions...but that is not the topic.

It is a sad fact that many evos can no longer tell the difference between evidence and theory. Or they are too threatened to admit they do.

Deist primate there is no call for that. I am most certianly not here to score points off those that cannot even accept their own science... a shadow walker's opinion means squat to me.

 

[outhouse]

I can refute

to bad its not with logic or reality

Or they are too threatened to admit they do.

its sad really your so lost when it comes to reality



do you know what the definition of insanity is? your post are just like that, a scratched record with one song playing over and over again. the same old tired lies. funny thing is you like the song ;(

 

[Thief]

im sorry your education level wont let you see the difference between a scientific theory and a theory as defined in webster.

You are wrong in your assumption. :areyoucra

a scientific theory is fact and theory and every known creationist website will tell you to back away from that stance or you will get powned

like now

You're soooo stubborn.

And that's about it.

 

[Maury83]

What do the FACTS say about the evolution of the Eye and the Brain?

 

[LuisDantas]

The evolution of the brain is quite gradual, and there is no reason that I can think of to expect it to be unlikely anyway.

As for the eye - Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Maury83]

Ok......

 

[andys]

Lasion, you write
"Everyone knows there is [sic] gaps in the fossil record - we will never have EVERY fossil, so there will ALWAYS be gaps there."

And you ask me to define missing "gaps". Proper protocol dictates that the onus is upon you to provide a definition, since it was you who introduced the term.

No need, Its meaning is widely understood. It evolved (!) from its ancestor, "missing links", which remains a favourite ploy used by creationists to create the false impression that there are sufficiently large enough breaks in the evolutionary line of succession within one or more species (particularly primates) to warrant the conclusion that there is no line of succession in the first place. (That is my understanding of what you mean by "gaps".)

There are two retorts to this argument. Granted, the "missing gaps" argument had some merit during Charles Darwin's lifetime, but today the fossil record is replete with specimens that conclusively demonstrate that species most certainly do (very gradually) change to meet the demands of their environment, even evolving into entirely new species. The "missing links/gaps" argument is an urban myth that refuses to die.

Fortunately, the entire "missing links/gaps" argument is irrelevant.

As Richard Dawkins points out, even if fossils never existed, there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. It can be observed in a test tube, both literally and figuratively speaking.

That we, and our scientists are devoting valuable time "debating" this well established scientific fact, as though it were "controversial", is unfortunate and really quite annoying. It is also a disturbing testament to the remarkable influence that the ill informed and the religious right exercise in our public schools, our legislature and the community.

 

[andys]

Maury83,
The eye is so stupidly constructed that it is often used as an example to argue that no all-knowing god would ever have created such a flawed design. One such flaw, for example is that the retina (the back of the eye containing all the tiny light receptors, rods and cones) is facing backwards! Placing the retina in the opposite direction of the light source is just like pointing a solar panel with its backside toward the sun! So much for "intelligent design".

There are scores of such "design" flaws throughout the entire number of species on Earth.

As for the development of the brain, it simply evolved as did everything else. There is nothing mysterious about it. Our large brain's evolutionary process is very interesting, however. As I recall, it involved a missing gene in our ancestors, (which we are still missing) which eliminated the need for a strong solid skull to support the strain of an enormous jaw muscle. With this burden alleviated, the skull was free to expand, thus accommodating a larger brain. That's the gist, but the details are fascinating. (There was an excellent documentary devoted to the subject, but I can't recall the title.) Isn't is all so amazing!

 

[newhope101]

The evolution of the brain is quite gradual, and there is no reason that I can think of to expect it to be unlikely anyway.

As for the eye - Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lenses evolved independently in a number of lineages. Simple 'pit-eyes' probably developed lenses to improve the amount of light that reached the retina; the focal length of an early lobopod with lens-containing simple eyes focussed the image behind the retina, so while no part of the image could be brought into focus, the intensity of light allowed the organism to inhabit deeper (and therefore darker) waters.[26] A subsequent increase of the lens's refractive index probably resulted in an in-focus image being formed.[26]
The development of the lens in camera-type eyes probably followed a different trajectory. The transparent cells over a pinhole eye's aperture split into two layers, with liquid in between.[citation needed] The liquid originally served as a circulatory fluid for oxygen, nutrients, wastes, and immune functions, allowing greater total thickness and higher mechanical protection. In addition, multiple interfaces between solids and liquids increase optical power, allowing wider viewing angles and greater imaging resolution. Again, the division of layers may have originated with the shedding of skin; intracellular fluid may infill naturally depending on layer depth.[citation needed]
Note that this optical layout has not been found, nor is it expected to be found.[citation needed]Fossilization rarely preserves soft tissues, and even if it did, the new humour would almost certainly close as the remains desiccated, or as sediment overburden forced the layers together, making the fossilized eye resemble the previous layout.[citation needed]

1. ^ David Berlinski, an intelligent design proponent, questioned the basis of the calculations, and the author of the original paper refuted Berlinski's criticism.
   • Berlinski, David (April 2001). Commentary magazine.
   • Nilsson, Dan-E.. Beware of Pseudo-science: a response to David Berlinski's attack on my calculation of how long it takes for an eye to evolve. http://www.talkreason.org/articles/blurred.cfm#lund.
   • "Evolution of the Eye" on PBS
2. ^ The precise number varies from author to author.

Yep, if you are looking to confirm that evolutionary science is based on MAYBE and PROBABLY, this is a good example to site.

 

[PolyHedral]

Yep, if you are looking to confirm that evolutionary science is based on MAYBE and PROBABLY, this is a good example to site.

If you want certainty, go get a catalog of every living creature ever. "Probably" is the best you can do without that.

 

[Alceste]

What do the FACTS say about the evolution of the Eye and the Brain?

They say that the notion of "irreducible complexity" is so outlandish and empirically unsubstantiated it could not be competently argued for in a court of law by its leading proponent. Evolution wins.

 

[LuisDantas]

Damned godless science with its lack of certainty. How _dare_ they not be omniscient from the get-go?

The way it is going, I will end up becoming a True Believer one of these millenia.

 

[newhope101]

Lasion, you write
"Everyone knows there is [sic] gaps in the fossil record - we will never have EVERY fossil, so there will ALWAYS be gaps there."

And you ask me to define missing "gaps". Proper protocol dictates that the onus is upon you to provide a definition, since it was you who introduced the term.

No need, Its meaning is widely understood. It evolved (!) from its ancestor, "missing links", which remains a favourite ploy used by creationists to create the false impression that there are sufficiently large enough breaks in the evolutionary line of succession within one or more species (particularly primates) to warrant the conclusion that there is no line of succession in the first place. (That is my understanding of what you mean by "gaps".)

There are two retorts to this argument. Granted, the "missing gaps" argument had some merit during Charles Darwin's lifetime, but today the fossil record is replete with specimens that conclusively demonstrate that species most certainly do (very gradually) change to meet the demands of their environment, even evolving into entirely new species. The "missing links/gaps" argument is an urban myth that refuses to die.

Fortunately, the entire "missing links/gaps" argument is irrelevant.

As Richard Dawkins points out, even if fossils never existed, there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. It can be observed in a test tube, both literally and figuratively speaking.

That we, and our scientists are devoting valuable time "debating" this well established scientific fact, as though it were "controversial", is unfortunate and really quite annoying. It is also a disturbing testament to the remarkable influence that the ill informed and the religious right exercise in our public schools, our legislature and the community.

Wiki Phylogenetics:
Cladistics is the current method of choice to infer phylogenetic trees. The most commonly-used methods to infer phylogenies include parsimony, maximum likelihood, and MCMC-based Bayesian inference. Phenetics, popular in the mid-20th century but now largely obsolete, uses distance matrix-based methods to construct trees based on overall similarity, which is often assumed to approximate phylogenetic relationships. All methods depend upon an implicit or explicit mathematical model describing the evolution of characters observed in the species included, and are usually used for molecular phylogeny, wherein the characters are aligned nucleotide or amino acid sequences.
　
Because many morphological characters involve embryological or soft-tissue characters that cannot be fossilized, and the interpretation of fossils is more ambiguous than living taxa, it is sometimes difficult to incorporate fossil data into phylogenies. However, despite these limitations, the inclusion of fossils is invaluable, as they can provide information in sparse areas of trees, breaking up long branches and constraining intermediate character states; thus, fossil taxa contribute as much to tree resolution as modern taxa.[14]

Molecular phylogenies can reveal rates of diversification, but in order to track rates of origination, extinction and patterns in diversification, fossil data must be incorporated.[15] Molecular techniques assume a constant rate of diversification, which is rarely likely to be true; in some (but by no means all) cases, the assumptions inherent in interpreting the fossil record (e.g. a complete and unbiased record) are closer to being true than the assumption of a constant rate, making fossil insights more accurate than molecular reconstructions.[15]


So as you can see above molecular phylogenies are based on the fossil record. The fossil record is sparse. The dates of separation continue to be puched back. Fossils are debated and recategorised. More importantly with the discovery of Lluc, homo facial morphology has been proven to arise independently and is not stricktly a homo feature at all. There are other flat faced primates that could have grown, adapted etc. Many traits have been shown to arise independently and not in conection to ancestry.

Go take a look at Wiki and see the status of your phylogenics.

So what I think your researchers actually have is theory grounded on a wish list.

Evidence is what you can see. Evolutionary theory is about how to scew the algorithims to show decent and ancestry with any find researchers BELIEVE is connected.

Evos may not like it. However, it is just the way it is.

 

[newhope101]

If you want certainty, go get a catalog of every living creature ever. "Probably" is the best you can do without that.

Great to hear you are acknowledging that your evo science is based on mythology and hope.