theory and prediction

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's the thing though. I'm not yet convinced the TOE has gone through any rigorous proofs.

Here's a quote from one of the websites you listed:

[b]...to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones. For instance, suppose you see the Sun rise. This is an existing observation which i ...[text shortened]... ll me honestly that the TOE can predict things 200 years in the future with this kind of detail?

the difference between "theory" and "law".

Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, Newton's Laws of Motion. and the modified Newton's Law of Gravitation are all a step higher in degree of certainty than biology , because of their mathematical nature which allows precise predictions.

Using any point on the time line of life on earth as a starting point the data is consistent with the TOE,, so,, Yes, it has made predictions!

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's the thing though. I'm not yet convinced the TOE has gone through any rigorous proofs.

Here's a quote from one of the websites you listed:

to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observat ...[text shortened]... E can predict things 200 years in the future with this kind of detail?

here's an interesting reference:

Reductive genome evolution in Buchnera aphidicola.

We have sequenced the genome of the intracellular symbiont Buchnera aphidicola from the aphid Baizongia pistacea. This strain diverged 80-150 million years ago from the common ancestor of two previously sequenced Buchnera strains. Here, a field-collected, nonclonal sample of insects was used as source material for laboratory procedures. As a consequence, the genome assembly unveiled intrapopulational variation, consisting of approximately 1,200 polymorphic sites. Comparison of the 618-kb (kbp) genome with the two other Buchnera genomes revealed a nearly perfect gene-order conservation, indicating that the onset of genomic stasis coincided closely with establishment of the symbiosis with aphids, approximately 200 million years ago. Extensive genome reduction also predates the synchronous diversification of Buchnera and its host; but, at a slower rate, gene loss continues among the extant lineages. A computational study of protein folding predicts that proteins in Buchnera, as well as proteins of other intracellular bacteria, are generally characterized by smaller folding efficiency compared with proteins of free living bacteria. These and other degenerative genomic features are discussed in light of compensatory processes and theoretical predictions on the long-term evolutionary fate of symbionts like Buchnera.

van Ham RC, Kamerbeek J, Palacios C, Rausell C, Abascal F, Bastolla U, Fernandez JM, Jimenez L, Postigo M, Silva FJ, Tamames J, Viguera E, Latorre A, Valencia A, Moran F, Moya A.

Centro de Astrobiologia, Instituto Nacional de Tecnica Aeroespacial-Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Carretera de Ajalvir kilometro 4, 28850 Torrejon de Ardoz, Madrid, Spain.

Originally posted by frogstomp
the difference between "theory" and "law".

Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, Newton's Laws of Motion. and the modified Newton's Law of Gravitation are all a step higher in degree of certainty than biology , because of the ...[text shortened]... is consistent with the TOE,, so,, Yes, it has made predictions!

Any point on the time line of the Earth is consistent with God conjuring life forms at various times in the history of the Earth. Why is MacE better than this version of Creationism?

Well, I will answer that I guess. MacE gives more detail on the mechanism.

How come the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Theory are not also Laws? I will tell you what I've heard; once Einstein showed Newton's Laws were not totally correct, scientists became concerned about labelling models as 'Laws' because the term suggests perfection. So the modern models are called Theories instead. The difference is that scientists are less confident about the utter and complete correctness of these models than past scientsists were confident about the perfection of Newton's Laws.

EDIT - Modified Newton's Law? Isn't it more correct to call it Einstein's Theory?

Originally posted by frogstomp
here's an interesting reference:

Reductive genome evolution in Buchnera aphidicola.

We have sequenced the genome of the intracellular symbiont Buchnera aphidicola from the aphid Baizongia pistacea. This strain diverged 80-150 million years ago from the common ancestor of two previously sequenced Buchnera strains. Here, a field-collected, nonclonal s ...[text shortened]... s Cientificas, Carretera de Ajalvir kilometro 4, 28850 Torrejon de Ardoz, Madrid, Spain.

These and other degenerative genomic features are discussed in light of compensatory processes and theoretical predictions on the long-term evolutionary fate of symbionts like Buchnera.

Interesting. I should look up this paper.

So what would be the consequence to MacE if these peoples' predictions turned out to be wrong? I submit that scientists would find some way to explain why the different outcome really fit in with MacE after all. Because of this, the prediction is not valuable as a support for the theory.

a reply to ATY

one reason for starters : there's no way to test the God hypothesis

Be careful about special theory of relativity its based on there not being an Ether..aint really looked yet but the Higgs field sounds a bit like it. the general theory has its own problems with quantum theory

nothing is really settled, but a feather still falls at the same rate as a ton of bricks. in all frames of reference


2nd edit for some reason I couldn't reply to ATY directly

still cant reply directly

If wrong ,,so what? thats how science works , ruling things out is as valuable as validating others.

Originally posted by frogstomp
one reason for starters : there's no way to test the God hypothesis

Be careful about special theory of relativity its based on there not being an Ether..aint really looked yet but the Higgs field sounds a bit like it. the general theory has its own problems with quantum theory

nothing is really settled, but a feather still fa ...[text shortened]... mes of reference


2nd edit for some reason I couldn't reply to ATY directly

Is there a way to test MacE?

If wrong ,,so what?

So what? So it means the predictions mean nothing if it doesn't matter if they are wrong or right. The way you support a theory is by making predictions and seeing if you get them right. If it doesn't matter if you get them wrong then there's no way to know which theories work and which don't. For example, Newton's Law of Gravitation predicts that a ton of bricks and a feather fall at the same speed in a vaccuum. What if when this was tested it was shown to not be true? Would you say "so what"? Wouldn't this be evidence against Newton's Law of Gravitation?

Originally posted by frogstomp
one reason for starters : there's no way to test the God hypothesis

Be careful about special theory of relativity its based on there not being an Ether..aint really looked yet but the Higgs field sounds a bit like it. the general theory has its own problems with quantum theory

nothing is really settled, but a feather still fa ...[text shortened]... mes of reference


2nd edit for some reason I couldn't reply to ATY directly

the general theory has its own problems with quantum theory.

And Newton's Laws always had problems with blackbody radiation.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]the general theory has its own problems with quantum theory.

And Newton's Laws always had problems with blackbody radiation.[/b]

as far as I know , every gravititation field we have sent something through Newton's Laws applied.
Even the great Einsteinian "proof" of light bending in a gravitation only showed a slight deviation from Newton's Laws ( which does not predict a straight line for a massless object as was supposed, another LAW applies here the Law of Limits)

so I say " modified"

The following quote shows how the author does not know the difference between a scientific fact and scientific theory:

It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old.
It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old.
It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago.
It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now.
It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans.
No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

That the quote if from a book contrasting Evolution and Creation, and that the quote comes from a site call Talk.Origins (the origins of life being one of those things most proponents of TOE say TOE has nothing to do with - shows that these people are not even attempting to defend MacEvolution as a legitimate theory - but to justify their religious beliefs by calling theories facts. Almost every statement the author declares a fact is scientifically a theory, even the ones that are strongly supported by scientific facts. But his method of persuasion is childish. List a bunch of positive propositions (those most people will think yes), and slip in the statement you'd like accepted as true. If you get you audience saying yes, yes, yes, you might trick them into saying a mindless yes at the critical statement.

In this quote, the critical phrase happens to be the point where the author moves from science to religion. This whole quote is nothing but a religious creedal statement of faith.

Compare this authors religious statements to a true scientific fact: it is a fact that water begins to freeze at 0 degrees Celsius. Notice that not a single fact quoted is a scientific fact at all.

Stupid things evolutionist have said: "In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact." Stephen J. Gould

Originally posted by Coletti
This whole quote is nothing but a religious creedal statement of faith.

This sort of skepticism is extreme and undermines just about any concept
of 'fact' that exists.

A fact is something that can be reasonably conclude from empirical data.
That water has existed on the earth for 3.6 billion years can be extrapolated
from all manner of data which points to a single conclusion.

I have never observed when lead goes from solid to liquid, so do I know it
as a 'fact' that its boiling point is 1740 C or is it a 'creedal' statement?

How about whether Napolean existed? Is that 'faith' or 'fact?'

That macro-evolution occured is suggested by all manner of data, that Creation
occured (or the Flood) is contradicted by all manner of data.

Do we have 'faith' in this data? No, because it can be repeatedly tested and
examined and confirmed. Creedal beliefs cannot. When you say, 'I believe in
the Trinity,' you cannot prove that there is a Trinity. When you say, 'I believe
that Jesus rose bodily from the dead,' you cannot prove this claim.

That water was on the earth starting 3.6 billion years ago can be proven,
repeatedly and consistently.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Coletti
The following quote shows how the author does not know the difference between a scientific fact and scientific theory:
[quote]It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old.
It is a fact that cellular l ...[text shortened]... otice that not a single fact quoted is a scientific fact at all.

It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.


That's NOT a fact????? And where, pray tell, do they come from? Even you have parents, don't you? Your post is a hoot and shows what an utter stubborn, simpleton you are. If everybody thought like you, the human race wouldn't have invented the wheel, forget about computers. Your hostility to and ignorance of the simplest concepts of the scientific method is astounding. And someone who literally believes that every species of animal was marched onto a boat so they could survive a non-existent world wide flood deserves this response every time he tries to expound on science:

LMFAO!!!

Originally posted by Nemesio
A fact is something that can be reasonably conclude from empirical data....

I have never observed when lead goes from solid to liquid, so do I know it
as a 'fact' that its boiling point is 1740 C or is it a 'creedal' statement?

How about whether Napolean existed? Is that 'faith' or 'fact?'

That macro-evolution occured is suggested by all m ...[text shortened]... th starting 3.6 billion years ago can be proven,
repeatedly and consistently.

Nemesio

A scientific FACT is something that can be observed by scientific experimentation.

A scientific THEORY "is something that can be reasonably conclude from empirical data."

So therein is the problem. Mixing facts and theory in science only leads to non-sense and religious type claims.

"I have never observed when lead goes from solid to liquid, so do I know it."

This is not a scientific theory, it is a scientific fact because it is confirmed by direct observation and measurement. Facts can be measured, observed, repeated. Theories can not. Theories are built on facts. They are not one and the same.

Originally posted by Coletti
Facts can be measured, observed, repeated. Theories can not. Theories are built on facts. They are not one and the same.

Work with me here, Coletti.

Is it a fact that the Sun will rise tomorrow (from our perspective,
of course)? If so, in a sentence or two, why is this a fact?

Nemesio