Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not saying that evolution doesn't exist; i'm saying it doesn't explain our origin.
It says a lot about the power of faith. It doesn't say much about the validity of either argument.
[b]The best scientific argument seems to be .. " If you disagree it's because you're to stupid to understand", while the best Creationist argument seems to be ... faith.
If that was our argument (scientists) then this thread would not exist. This thr ...[text shortened]... y "unexplained". The theory of evolution is as conclusive as the theory of gravity.[/b]
Being as the "theory" of evolution can't be established beyond a reasonable doubt .. it too is based on faith.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think i've got the evolution part pretty good .. how things change through mutation and natural selection.
Nearly anyone who is sufficiently interested in the subject should be able to understand most of the basics of evolution. To successfully put up a scientific counter argument they should infact be able to understand it quite thoroughly or they are merely claiming "I dont understand it therefore its wrong" or "I know its wrong for reasons which do not req ...[text shortened]... or by "unexplained". The theory of evolution is as conclusive as the theory of gravity.
It just doesn't explain the origin of the species IMO .. HOW it happened.
.................
If the Theory of Evolution were as conclusive as the LAW of Gravity you'd have me sold.
For someone representing the "scientific" position on this, you may want to look into the difference between a Theory and a Law.
Even someone who flunked 7th grade Biology (me) knows that's bogus.
Originally posted by jammerEvolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. That's for a theory of the origin of life to explain - which we don't have at the moment.
I'm not saying that evolution doesn't exist; i'm saying it doesn't explain our origin.
Being as the "theory" of evolution can't be established beyond a reasonable doubt .. it too is based on faith.
All science is based on faith, but it's a faith who's nature is very different to that of religion. It is collective; it is subject to peer review; it is testable and falsifiable; it is predictive; and so on ... Religion offers none of this.
1 edit
Originally posted by jammerFor someone representing the "scientific" position on this, you may want to look into the difference between a Theory and a Law.
I think i've got the evolution part pretty good .. how things change through mutation and natural selection.
It just doesn't explain the origin of the species IMO .. HOW it happened.
.................
If the Theory of Evolution were as conclusive as the LAW of Gravity you'd have me sold.
For someone representing the "scientific" position on this, yo ...[text shortened]... a Theory and a Law.
Even someone who flunked 7th grade Biology (me) knows that's bogus.
There is no significant difference. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is only an approximation. Einsteins Theory of General Relativity is how modern physics understands gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
Originally posted by amannionBy "us" I believe jammer means Homo sapiens.
Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. That's for a theory of the origin of life to explain - which we don't have at the moment.
All science is based on faith, but it's a faith who's nature is very different to that of religion. It is collective; it is subject to peer review; it is testable and falsifiable; it is predictive; and so on ... Religion offers none of this.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungPerhaps you'd be so good as to explain the insignificant differences between a Theory and a Law in the scientific lexicon ... and if the differences aren't significant, why not just call it The Law of Evolution?
[b]For someone representing the "scientific" position on this, you may want to look into the difference between a Theory and a Law.
There is no significant difference. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is only an approximation. Einsteins Theory of General Relativity is how modern physics understands gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity[/b]
Originally posted by amannionThat's where i've gone wrong then .. somehow I thought that's what "The Origin of Species" meant.
Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life.
So, now we're saying that science can't or doesn't attempt to explain how "life" began. Science has a "theory" of evolution, but no definite starting point or explanation for how life began.
Originally posted by jammerYep, dead wrong.
That's where i've gone wrong then .. somehow I thought that's what "The Origin of Species" meant.
So, now we're saying that science can't or doesn't attempt to explain how "life" began. Science has a "theory" of evolution, but no definite starting point or explanation for how life began.
Darwin was explaining the origin of species NOT life. Perhaps more precisely you could think of his work as explaining (or offering an explanation for) the process of speciation - one species gradually becoming something else.
He assumed that life existed, but did not attempt to explain how that might have come about.
I never said 'science can't or doesn't attempt to explain how life began'. Evolution can't because that's not what it attempts to describe. It'd be like saying the theory of gravity can't explain why cheeseburgers exist. Well, duh!
Science does attempt to explain the origin of life, with origin of life theories. They're just not terribly coherent or successful at this stage - not surprising really for a number of obvious reasons.
Not sure why you're hung up on the 'theory' word - well, I am sure, but just annoyed that you creation people can't get past it. A scientific theory is an explanation for something. My theory of cheeseburgers might be an explanation for the existence of cheeseburgers. My theory of cheeseburger making might be an explanation for how cheeseburgers are made. The theory of evolution is an explanation for how the diversity of life has come to be.
Note we don't say THE explanation, because science doesn't work that way. It's always contingent on there not being any better explanations.
Do you have a better explanation?
1 edit
Originally posted by jammerA law is usually a mathematical formulation. The law of conservation of momentum for example is essentially a mathematical formula that can be used in very specific situations. Newton's laws of motion and universal law of gravity; the laws of thermodynamics; kepler's laws of orbits; coulomb's, ampere's, ohm's and gauss's laws; and so on. Many of these can be described true, but most of them can also be formulated mathematically.
Perhaps you'd be so good as to explain the insignificant differences between a Theory and a Law in the scientific lexicon ... and if the differences aren't significant, why not just call it The Law of Evolution?
A theory is an explanation for something.
Look at gravity for example.
Newton's universal law of gravity is a mathematical formulation that will allow you to calculate the effects of gravitational interaction between two objects.
But it doesn't tell you why that gravitational interaction occurs or how it happens.
A theory of gravity does (or tries to anyway.)
Why not call it the law of evolution? Because there is no mathematical formulation and because it is an explanation for something, hence theory is more appropriate.
Thanks amannion for taking the time to try to explain it to me.
I'll admit (as if you couldn't tell) i'm thick when it comes to science.
I'm still having trouble understanding how a tadpole can become a man though. This concept of "speciation - one species gradually becoming something else" is hard to grasp.
If "Science does attempt to explain the origin of life, with origin of life theories. They're just not terribly coherent or successful at this stage - not surprising really for a number of obvious reasons.", then how is this "theory" anymore or less valid than the theory of evolution?
Is there a Law of Speciation?
Is a theory just an idea or concept that many many scientests agree on? .. and does it then become a "law" when it can be repeated?
You say " A scientific theory is an explanation for something.", but you don't say it's proof of anything so I assume that when a theory is proven, it becomes a scientific law .. am I right?
Proof of a Law seems significant to me as opposed to a Theory that is simply an attempt to explain. I see quite a distinction between the two .. a Law you can actually show me how it works .. a Theory, I have to take your word for .. am I right?
...........................
"Do you have a better explanation?"
No.
I love cheeseburgers though ..
and your explanations have helped me to better understand the distinction between evolution and the origin of mankind.
I won't argue against evolution anymore, but that idea of speciation I can't understand at all. I can see how a dog can evolve into a bigger, stronger, smarter dog .. but primoral soup to man is to far a streach for me. To many missing links unexplained.
Thanks again for your attempt to enlighten me. I would like to hear more of the theories that science has for how man became man.
I don't really believe these questions can be answered, but it's interesting to try.
Originally posted by jammerTadpole to man? I'll come back to that one in a minute.
Thanks amannion for taking the time to try to explain it to me.
I'll admit (as if you couldn't tell) i'm thick when it comes to science.
I'm still having trouble understanding how a tadpole can become a man though. This concept of "speciation - one species gradually becoming something else" is hard to grasp.
If "Science does attempt to explain the origi ...[text shortened]... lly believe these questions can be answered, but it's interesting to try.
Any theory about the origin of life is more valid than evolutionary theory if your test of validity is 'does this theory explain the origin of life?'. Evolutionary theory is more valid than any origin of life theory if your test of validity is 'does this theory explain the diversity of life on earth?'
They each attempt to explain different things so to attempt to compare them is pointless.
No, there isn't a law of speciation.
Although there are mathematical models of evolution in populations of species.
Yes, a theory is something that many or most scientists agree upon - this is one of the hallmarks of scientific theories. It's not to say that this means they're always right - sometimes, probably many times theories are revised or even supplanted by other, better theories.
Actually to call a theory right or wrong is probably not really accurate - one theory will be BETTER than another at explaining something. This is what scientists are usually aiming to do, produce better theories - that is, better explanations.
No, a theory doesn't become a law.
Typically laws are very precise parts or features of a theory. So a physical law might allow calculations to be made about a particular aspect of an explanatory theory, but one will not supplant another.
Originally posted by jammerProving something to be true is not really what science does. This is where a legal view of science - proving someone's dna is at the scene of a crime say - differs from what actually is science.
Thanks amannion for taking the time to try to explain it to me.
I'll admit (as if you couldn't tell) i'm thick when it comes to science.
I'm still having trouble understanding how a tadpole can become a man though. This concept of "speciation - one species gradually becoming something else" is hard to grasp.
If "Science does attempt to explain the origi ...[text shortened]... lly believe these questions can be answered, but it's interesting to try.
Science really is about trying to explain the world as best we can.
Sometimes we come up with really good explanations - ones that can be used to predict things that seem to be correct. Our current model of the solar system is a nice example of this. We have an explanation of why the sun and moon and stars seem to move as they do in our sky. It works pretty well and we've even used it to guide robotic probes to other planets.
But is it true?
Most of us would say yes.
Science might say probably, but always leaves the door open for better explanations if we need them. Some discrepancy occurs; some prediction is made that doesn't match our theory, and all of a sudden we need to redevelop our explanation - or come up with a new one.
No, you don't have to take my word for a theory.
If it has experimental or predictive support, that'll do. If I can use a theory to make a prediction that is demonstrated to match observational evidence - then I reckon I've shown that theory to work.
Originally posted by jammerOkay.
Thanks amannion for taking the time to try to explain it to me.
I'll admit (as if you couldn't tell) i'm thick when it comes to science.
I'm still having trouble understanding how a tadpole can become a man though. This concept of "speciation - one species gradually becoming something else" is hard to grasp.
If "Science does attempt to explain the origi ...[text shortened]... lly believe these questions can be answered, but it's interesting to try.
So back to the tadpole to man thing.
I have a couple of thoughts for you on that one.
First, remember we're talking about what is effectively an unimaginable time period over which this process would've taken place. I know, I know we talk in billions all the time now. 4 or 5 billion years you say, yeah so what?
But to really visualise this length of time is well beyond the nature of what we're really capable of.
So we have a long time period.
Second, a tadpole is a currently existing species, as is a man. We both - tadpoles and men - occupy the same time period on Earth. As do chimpanzees and dolphins and gum trees and ants and e coli bacteria.
So, it's meaning less to say that one species evolved from any of the others - we all occupy the same time period and evolution from one to another would be impossible.
But, evolutionary theory suggests that we share common ancestry with other species. That doesn't mean that humans evolved from chimpanzees or that chimpanzees evolved from humans - both of these notions are ridiculous. Instead, evolution suggest that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. What was this ancestor like? Well, clearly something like us and something like chimpanzees. More like chimpanzees or more like us? Not sure. There's debate about that.
Finally, Darwin himself developed a nice model of development of a particular feature of many animals - the eye - which gives I think, a nice model of how evolution of features of species could occur over time. Not, straight from a tadpole to a man, but given enough intermediate steps inbetween, maybe something like that.
You might start with light sensitive cells. The simplest bacteria exhibit these, allowing them to orient themselves towards light or dark.
We might imagine a development over time of these cells arrangig themselves into a slight recess or pit on the surface of the organism. Some marine animals have this feature.
A blob of mucous developing over this pit might produce a simple lensing effect. Snails see with such eyes.
The mucours could harden into a lens.
And so on over long spans of time.
Not overnight. Not over years.
But tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of years.
4 edits
Originally posted by jammerThe concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory. Typically scientific laws are more limited sets of rules for making predictions about the world than scientific theories.
Perhaps you'd be so good as to explain the insignificant differences between a Theory and a Law in the scientific lexicon ... and if the differences aren't significant, why not just call it The Law of Evolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles which can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[3] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Scientific_laws
Apparently I was mistaken. Laws are subsets of Theories.
Edits are because I am stoned and made mistakes.