Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Penguin on April 26, 2010, 04:43:13 PM
-
Welcome one, welcome all, to the Penguin vs Gyrene scientific debate! Witness our two minds battle, and feel free to make funny comments!
Rules:
1.) See forum rules
2.) If you want to jump in, feel free, just find someone to be your counterpart so we don't get a 3 on 1 in here
3.) Use your brain and think before you post
4.) Have fun
5.) There is no rule number five!
-Penguin
-
well we need an age and weight category for the Battle in Seattle
-
Compared to him, I'm far younger and lighter,
-Penguin
-
Hypothesis: Due to the characteristic and dynamic forces that will be placed on this thread...giving a .02% variable in the dynamic this thread will lock in post four of page three.
-
ROFL...nice job Penguin... :salute
Should we do the old IN before the lock? Nah...see how long we can run it.
Compared to him, I'm far younger and lighter,
-Penguin
:rofl :lol :rofl :lol Is that your hypothesis?
To get this re-started (and take note, I have a new joystick and I'm itching to work it out)... :joystick
My side is this...big bang theory and evolution (as the laypeople want to believe it) are flawed an as yet unprovable theories. Though useful in attempting to explain in a scientific manner many phenomena and the existence of life and the universe as we now view them...they are still educated guesses that are ever changing with every new discovery and changes in other theories.
This is the basis for my assertion.
Theory:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Fact:
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth
2. something known to exist or to have happened - (read as confirmed observation)
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
-
Well, the parenthetical is an ad populum fallacy. Next, give a better, and more succinct explaination for the universe expanding in all directions.
On the #2 assertion basis, please give me well established matter of fact to compare our "educated guesses" to, so that we may better understand your assertion.
On your defenition of "Fact", 1. is more applicable to a real object than a fact; 2 and 3 are fine though. They are really the same thing if you think about it. You make an observation, and then confirm it with experience.
So Fact should read: Confirmed Observation.
Obviously any assertion relating to the origin of the universe could be viewed as untestable due to the fact that we can't go back and be there when it all started. Evolution, is the change of species over time, which was undeniably proven when our ancestors moved into Europe and developed lighter skin than their African counterparts. The argument that you would have to make, is something like this:
Because of observation x, even unfavorable genes will be passed on; and reach levels of saturation equal to all other traits.
The problem is, that we would all probably have some sort of bizzare ailment like a 3rd arm, leg or lung (you could say that I do, I have 25% more left kidney than the average person of my age :lol).
Natural selection is the process by which the change comes about, and evolution is just the change.
-Penguin
PS: IN!
-
to many big words :O
-
If Darwin was right there is no species of anything, but all creatures are independantly derived.
-
Well, the parenthetical is an ad populum fallacy. Next, give a better, and more succinct explaination for the universe expanding in all directions.
On the #2 assertion basis, please give me well established matter of fact to compare our "educated guesses" to, so that we may better understand your assertion.
On your defenition of "Fact", 1. is more applicable to a real object than a fact; 2 and 3 are fine though. They are really the same thing if you think about it. You make an observation, and then confirm it with experience.
So Fact should read: Confirmed Observation.
Obviously any assertion relating to the origin of the universe could be viewed as untestable due to the fact that we can't go back and be there when it all started. Evolution, is the change of species over time, which was undeniably proven when our ancestors moved into Europe and developed lighter skin than their African counterparts. The argument that you would have to make, is something like this:
Because of observation x, even unfavorable genes will be passed on; and reach levels of saturation equal to all other traits.
The problem is, that we would all probably have some sort of bizzare ailment like a 3rd arm, leg or lung (you could say that I do, I have 25% more left kidney than the average person of my age :lol).
Natural selection is the process by which the change comes about, and evolution is just the change.
-Penguin
PS: IN!
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2726/4556543244_002c6ae202_o.gif)
My regards,
Widewing
-
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2726/4556543244_002c6ae202_o.gif)
My regards,
Widewing
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
umm....the answer is... LEFT!!!! :headscratch:
-
Here's a word for ya: logomachy
:aok
-
Where's the debate?.....
-
Where's the debate?.....
Awaiting response from Gyrene...
There are different species, they all just share the same ancestor.
-Penguin
-
Awaiting response from Gyrene...
There are different species, they all just share the same ancestor.
-Penguin
wouldn't that make all creatures idependant derivatives of the original ancestor refined through natural selection. Just because i am similar to the bloke sitting next to me, why does that make us the same species?
-
Here's a word for ya: logomachy
:aok
Heh, pretty close to it. :lol
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2726/4556543244_002c6ae202_o.gif)
My regards,
Widewing
:rofl
-
Throw me a bone here, what are you guys saying?
-Penguin
-
Throw me a bone here, what are you guys saying?
-Penguin
:rofl i gotta say this is gonna either take so long ill be bored with it or it becomes an in thread in 3 pages :aok
-
Maybe you should agree on the Definition of evolution first. Are there not five differant kinds of evolution? I personally would like to see the specific definition of evolution that is being discussed.
-
I believe a scientist looking at non-scientific things is just as dumb as the next guy.
The first thing you have to get over (Penguin) is fooling yourself and you are the easiest person to fool (by yourself).
- Quotes of Feynman
-
I believe a scientist looking at non-scientific things is just as dumb as the next guy.
The first thing you have to get over (Penguin) is fooling yourself and you are the easiest person to fool (by yourself).
- Quotes of Feynman
Hmm, you may have a good point, but how am I fooling myself? I suppose you are right, by debating him I am lending him credence.
For the record, we are looking at the change of species over time, if you guys want the defenition of evolution.
-Penguin
-
Your debate seems to broad to me... Any way your willing to norrow it down a bit?
Organic Evolution -Origin of life.
Macro Evolution- Changing from one kind into another.
Micro Evolution -Variations within kinds.
-
So is this debate like the Jimmy vs Timmy cripplefight in SouthPark?
-
Sorry Penguin, I'm trying to get used to using my new joystick...as mentioned above. :D
Awaiting response from Gyrene...
There are different species, they all just share the same ancestor.
-Penguin
If you are talking the ancestor being a single cell organism, that is probable if the single cell organism had the ability to change its own genetic structure to evolve into different life forms...but that is where it stops, an invertebrate cannot evolve into a vertbrate of a higher order nor can that ancestor of a higher order change itself to the point of evolving into an even higher life form in a different order...contrary to the popular beliefs by lay evolutionists, otherwise the human genome could be reverse engineered through genetic manipulation and we could all have gills.
Your debate seems to broad to me... Any way your willing to norrow it down a bit?
Organic Evolution -Origin of life.
Macro Evolution- Changing from one kind into another.
Micro Evolution -Variations within kinds.
Of all ideas on evolution the easiest to prove (to a point) is Micro evolution...and to that I offer no argument as I have seen it myself. Organic evolution could be argued as part of the theory of Macro evolution...but I agree with science in that it is separate and though arguable, it is generally agreed that at the lowest common denominator, it is provable to a point. Macro evolution is the theory that seems to be the most popular for those who argue against intelligent design...and has yet to be proven based on the scientific method.
I'll leave it to Penguin to decide which area he wants to try and argue. :D
-
im too drunk for this crap
-
I see people running in circles with their heads pointed toward the ground.
-
I see people running in circles with their heads pointed toward the ground.
You do? I'm betting your hallucinating!
-
wouldn't that make all creatures idependant derivatives of the original ancestor refined through natural selection. Just because i am similar to the bloke sitting next to me, why does that make us the same species?
You can breed with him... OK, you can breed with his sister. You cannot breed with a sheep, no matter how much fun it is to try.
-
(quote)wouldn't that make all creatures idependant derivatives of the original ancestor refined through natural selection. Just because i am similar to the bloke sitting next to me, why does that make us the same species?(quote)
Its interesting when people ask """WHY""" ""Why"" presopposes intelligent design. You need to be asking How.
<S>
-
1 vote for intelligent design.
In my opinion, there are just too many holes in the theory of evolution. :rolleyes:
-
1 vote for intelligent design.
In my opinion, there are just too many holes in the theory of evolution. :rolleyes:
EDIT
I disagree, but feel I'm edging too close to rule 14. Staying out of the religion talk.
-
It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them.
Pierre Beaumarchais (1732 - 1799)
For all concerned parties in this "debate". Neither one of you has even the most simplistic idea of what you are arguing about.
Penguin, go back to reading, and graduate...etc...as you don't yet have a clue what you are talking about. Gyrene will tear you apart, with dictatorial arrogance, with your current stance and weak factual basis. You are so keen to stir the pot on this board, constantly, without even a base understanding of what you debate. The world isn't 8th period biology class.
Can you tell me what Haldane's Rule is and what effect it conveys upon autosomal alleles, and why this is important in genetic variability? Without googling it? No, you can't. Therefore, even entering this debate is suicide for you.
I've told you this in private before. You do considerably more harm to "factual reality" (i.e. Science) in your weak debate than your silence in these matters would. All you do is re-enforce stupidity and ignorance, with these persistent "debates", of which you don't know what you're talking about. As well, even if you win an internet debate, isn't that like being the winner of the Special Olympics decathlon? You pretty much stomped an entire thread that was going just fine until your incredibly well timed entry. (Your Global Warming debauchery and "pollution" stance)
Use your energy to study, it will be more rewarding. You aren't even close to being able to defend your position.
-
Sorry Penguin, I'm trying to get used to using my new joystick...as mentioned above. :D
If you are talking the ancestor being a single cell organism, that is probable if the single cell organism had the ability to change its own genetic structure to evolve into different life forms...but that is where it stops, an invertebrate cannot evolve into a vertbrate of a higher order nor can that ancestor of a higher order change itself to the point of evolving into an even higher life form in a different order...contrary to the popular beliefs by lay evolutionists, otherwise the human genome could be reverse engineered through genetic manipulation and we could all have gills.
Of all ideas on evolution the easiest to prove (to a point) is Micro evolution...and to that I offer no argument as I have seen it myself. Organic evolution could be argued as part of the theory of Macro evolution...but I agree with science in that it is separate and though arguable, it is generally agreed that at the lowest common denominator, it is provable to a point. Macro evolution is the theory that seems to be the most popular for those who argue against intelligent design...and has yet to be proven based on the scientific method.
I'll leave it to Penguin to decide which area he wants to try and argue. :D
Spectacularly wrong, on all counts, and dripping with bias throughout. Well written though. :aok
I know which one is human- Can anyone else tell me?
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o246/evolutionist65/patten_pig_human.jpg)
As well, a picture of atavism, or re-expression of an earlier genetic trait. Coccygeal process, in humans
(http://www.creation-vs-evolution.us/visual-evolution/human-tails/human_tails_10.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_XJHB6bRQ4Cg/SrBpNjszxmI/AAAAAAAAAhw/wzdPwpAVias/s1600-h/babywithtail.jpg)
Atavism in dolphin.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2585/3978577765_f1672175c1_o.jpg)
Expressionary atavism in relation to syndactyly
(http://universe-review.ca/I10-10-syndactyly.jpg)
Atavism in snake
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XJHB6bRQ4Cg/SrBkUpie4NI/AAAAAAAAAho/crOzO4m9Y8M/s400/footed_snake.jpg)
-
So when do we get to start killing and eating people. Do they also taste like pig?
-
LOL...Moray, I now know why you call yourself that...swallow it whole without looking at the contents to see if there is any danger...first Haldane's rule (which does not apply to all life forms), then the pics of dormant genetic traits that rarely show up and supposedly prove prior genetic traits in the species.
The fetus on the left is human. But just because a pig fetus resembles a human fetus at some stage in development, it doesn't mean either fetus could possibly be born a chimp or salmon. Modern science has been trying to tell us we came to our present state from fish...just because of fish fossils were found with what appear to be fingers in their flippers...I can believe the link to salamanders and lizards but, it does not work to homo-sapiens.
My only bias is that I will not swallow everything that is thrown at me and for good reason...magnetism is not witch craft...astrology is not the work of satanic cults...Columbus was not the first European to land on North American soil...the moon is not made of cheese nor is it inhabited...Mars is not full of canals and humanoid inhabitants...Venus is not inhabited by Amazonian women...the world is not flat and Atlas is not holding it up on his shoulders...the earth is older than 6500 years...people who look at what is presented with a critical eye and equally examine all evidence for and against without bias are the ones who can see truth and bring progress to humanity...the ones who swallow whatever is presented without question, become mindless zealots.
I prefer to be more like Galileo, Socrates, Aristotle, Darwin and Einstein.
-
LOL...Moray, I now know why you call yourself that...swallow it whole without looking at the contents to see if there is any danger...first Haldane's rule (which does not apply to all life forms), then the pics of dormant genetic traits that rarely show up and supposedly prove prior genetic traits in the species.
Irony.
-
I think, therefore I am.
I observe and measure and hypothesise, then I statistically test the hypothesis. I then publish my work so that others may test it by replication and debate its veracity by logical argument. I am a scientist.
I often believe in good order and the teachings and experiences of others so that I may do more with my life than pursue obscure knowledge for its own sake. I don't have to ask a bus driver for a look at his driving licence in order to ride on his bus without fear, I have faith that he is fit to get me where I want to go. I am a pragmatist.
I wonder at what I do not know, I imagine, I ramble, I fantasise. I am a dreamer.
I take a drawing, I work from it with my mind and hands to produce an artefact that carries out a useful function. I am an engineer.
I am all of these things, I am a human being, not a god, or a believer in gods.
And I will do my very best to enjoy this phase of existence until my body breaks up and its component molecules whirl off to become - what?
Ah, the great unknown, it's so necessary for stimulating curious ol' cats like me.
I shall follow this debate with interest - cheers!
:cool:
-
You are trying to make a point with big words and pics that look similar to each other. It doesnt make it a fact.
If I lined up all my pots and pans in my kitchen and said hey look they evolved form the little one here. You would call me crazy. It points to a common I/D. So would all animals IF they have a common I/D they would be similar. as they are made from the same "stuff".
Darwin is a dog.
Darwin is a god.
Both have identical letters but two different meanings. But as a writer that is all the "Stuff" i have to work with. So both will have similarities.
Just because one was born with a tail doesn't prove Prior genentic traits. There are many things that could affect a fetus and make it abnormal. Like pollutants. Babies are born all the time with what would be called abnormal features, and you pick only one to prove your point. That means all other traits that don't prove your point oppose them. If they are both used as evidence there are far more abnormal traits that would suggest something else. Like corrupt genetics.
What we can observe is that species reproduce after thier kind. A sheep always produced a sheep,a pig a pig, a human a human. The simplest organism on the planet still only reproduced itself. So there is no way to go back and claim common ancestor. Empirical evidence teachest us one thing. I am still waiting for any forensic evidence that might prove otherwise.
You leave out the possibility on your pics that those traits could be caused by pollutants or a damaged genetic code. You just presuppose that it must be prior traits.
-
You leave out the possibility on your pics that those traits could be caused by pollutants or a damaged genetic code. You just presuppose that it must be prior traits.
It's actually not supposition. Every single example I showed is proven (and basic, as in the first 50 pages of most texts) genetics, and has zip to do with damage or mutation of the DNA or RNA. Your response, however, was strictly conjectural and based in opinion, and not fact.
-
Every example proves what? That one in billions is different? What happens after the one passes, have the rest changed? I'm not denying changes happen, I'm denying that a change in one of billions brings about glorious new features for all that follow.
-
Is there any information on how many life forms must be produced for one macro evolution to take place... ARe we talking 10,000 life cycles per or 10.billion per or more.?
-
It's actually not supposition. Every single example I showed is proven (and basic, as in the first 50 pages of most texts) genetics, and has zip to do with damage or mutation of the DNA or RNA. Your response, however, was strictly conjectural and based in opinion, and not fact.
Sorry Moray...and by the way...I'm really liking the way this thread is going...good, bad, indifferent... :aok ...just try not to make anything personal guys...this is simply a discussion and blatant personal attacks have no place.
As I was saying, sorry Moray...it has everything to do with damage and or mutation within the genetic code of all species. Without those mutations neither Darwin nor Haldane would be correct since a change of any characteristic is a mutation of the base genetic code...doesn't matter if it is a mistake, environmental damage, space dust or alien DNA.
And I know that is overly simplified but you understand what I'm saying.
Is there any information on how many life forms must be produced for one macro evolution to take place... ARe we talking 10,000 life cycles per or 10.billion per or more.?
Just to keep it simple, it depends on the reproductive rate of the life form and how many times a genetic trait is changed within the population from generation to generation to become dominant. For example to create a new purebred dog using selective breeding, I believe it takes 7 generations.
-
LOL...Moray, I now know why you call yourself that...swallow it whole without looking at the contents to see if there is any danger...
Your above comment isn't Personal? You ask me to not be personal, when I simply point out your position is not based in already understood genetics?
Gyrene, the reasons for atavism are well understood, as is the mechanism for the expression of the genes. I'm sorry you won't accept it as such. I assure you, it is a basic first-semester Genetics tenet.
Interesting paper detailing Coccygeal process in humans.
http://www.jbjs.org.uk/cgi/reprint/62-B/4/508.pdf (http://www.jbjs.org.uk/cgi/reprint/62-B/4/508.pdf)
-
In my view life itself is all quite simple, as far as I can gather this debate began with the discussion on what is fact and what is truth and what is whatever. It has now quite ironically evolved into a debate on evolution.
Now I am not going to attack it the way you all seem to be doing which is attempting to use so called fact's or truth's to argue your position. I am going to discuss the element which no one has touched on. Us ourselves.
Now who devised all these theories in the first place, us. Now fact Gyrene rightly says is a known occurence or process that has been backed up by scientific and mathematical testing and subsequent proof.
However Penguin has his merits as well. The theories he has put forward are generally considered the accepted beginning of the Universe and the beginning and development of life.
Now here is Gyrene's fault, there is no way of testing these two theories conclusively. Evidence however points towards these being true. But don't take that wrong because Penguin is also off, you see posing a scientific hypothosis on these two while they have tonnes of evidence, by technicality you are incorrect because they aren't PROVEN so it cannot be taken as fact.
My point is here, the Human mind is a very curious and in depth organism, it needs to know as much as it can about its enviroment. We compensate for our impossibility of testing these theories by taking what evidence we can gather and applying it into a logical history, or we label it supernatural and then religion comes in in which we use our imaginations to satisfy our needs to know. Saying god did it has been the way of getting out of these tricky questions for ages and that I think is why we still follow them closely even though they are usually untrue, grotesque and grossly outdated.
So our mind adapts to suit itself when it is impossible to explain something thereby making all unproven theories false until confirmed. so we say god or a sacred ghost did it and that it is the universe or a higher power that decides this particular part of the worlds workings.
Now for my personal argument, I am on penguins side. I am a supporter of the evolution theory, it has already been shown that our minds compensate for lack of information or knowledge by creating foundationless theories on how god or L Ron Hubbard created the universe.
So when faced with odds that mean death unless we adapt to an enviroment it seems logical that our bodies can follow suit. Take Africans for example, their continetn is hot and dry, it has been like that for thousands of years. The human race originally inuit and sheet white for living in polar conditions during the Ice Age change their skin pigmentation to resist the sun and heat of a desert climate, why have Asians got exceedingly light build and an exceptional fluid retention capability, because they evolved in a tropical climate, why are europeans white as sheets and put on weight easily, to resist long winteers and blizzards of a european climate. Animals do the same and so do amoeba. The mutations shown by moray prove the existance of genetics and therefore evolution as a whole.
At least that is my take. Ok time to put my hazmat and flame resistant clothes on.
-
Is there any information on how many life forms must be produced for one macro evolution to take place... ARe we talking 10,000 life cycles per or 10.billion per or more.?
That's a slippery slope. It depends upon whether you are talking allopatric or sympatric speciation. Also, there needs to be a reproductive isolating mechanism in place, either prezygotic or postzygotic.
In general, a few thousand generations can conduct a fully separate species, with the right pressures. For humans, figure ~640,000 years based on 8,000 generations(currently). For Fruit Flies, ~657 years, based on 8,000 generations. All of this is contingent upon the right isolation mechanisms in place, as well. (meaning no way to intermingle on a long term scale)
A breed is different from a species, btw Gyrene. All dogs are the same species, Canis lupus familiaris, and can interbreed. A poodle can reproduce with a great dane, though it's not necessarily recommended. To become a new species, barriers to interbreeding and habitat must be put into place for many thousands of generations. 7 generations are not going to make a new species....and without an extreme amount of pressure, won't even make a specific trait recessive or dominant.
-
One night in college during the early 70's, my roommate and I, with the help of Captain Trips, pondered this question all night and came up with the definitive answer to all of these questions.
After having discussed whether we are living on an atom and we may actually be part of another being, we decided that was heading to a bad trip...so we pondered other thought provoking anomalies and finalized our theories to a definitive conclusion.
Sadly, the next day, neither of us could remember what we had decided. So we agreed that life is a mystery and one day we may know if we were correct in our deductions, whatever they may have been. With much shaking of heads and staring off into space trying to recall exactly how we had red paint on our left hands and blue paint on our right hands.. an obvious important scientific experiment had taken place and whatever conclusions we had deduced where probably correct, due to the fact that the paint must have had important significance in our theoretical reasoning. If I ever have a chance to recall the conclusions, some may call that a flashback, I will look up this thread and post it.
This discussion reminded me of that day, lots of thoughts, a little bit of mind numbing facts..for example paint with no obvious definitive answer, and a lot of shaking of the head.
What I got out of this thread so far is: man did I have an interesting college education, and you can mask it anyway you want...but.. if you don't agree with evolution that this thread has already treaded all over Rule 14...
IN summation, I believe the answer will be addressed by Skuzzy's big stick today.
-
Your above comment isn't Personal? You ask me to not be personal, when I simply point out your position is not based in already understood genetics?
Yes Moray, I did say to keep the personal attacks out of it...after you're first rant...in case you don't recall...
For all concerned parties in this "debate". Neither one of you has even the most simplistic idea of what you are arguing about.
Penguin, go back to reading, and graduate...etc...as you don't yet have a clue what you are talking about. Gyrene will tear you apart, with dictatorial arrogance, with your current stance and weak factual basis. You are so keen to stir the pot on this board, constantly, without even a base understanding of what you debate. The world isn't 8th period biology class.
That's a slippery slope. It depends upon whether you are talking allopatric or sympatric speciation. Also, there needs to be a reproductive isolating mechanism in place, either prezygotic or postzygotic.
In general, a few thousand generations can conduct a fully separate species, with the right pressures.
A breed is different from a species, btw Gyrene. All dogs are the same species, Canis lupus familiaris, and can interbreed. A poodle can reproduce with a great dane, though it's not necessarily recommended. To become a new species, barriers to interbreeding and habitat must be put into place for many thousands of generations. 7 generations are not going to make a new species....and without an extreme amount of pressure, won't even make a trait recessive or dominant.
First, it doesn't always take that many generations or "extreme amount of pressure" to create a separate species, or sub-species. Limited population is essential, some hybrid population 1 or 2 generations prior to the isolation is enough, a good number of dormant genetic anomalies, and fast reproductive rates...it can occur in far less. It's been seen in fruit flies and tropical fish.
Speaking of which I know a breed is different from a species and I use dogs to illustrate the ease of rapid genetic mutation within a species...sorry if I worded it incorrectly or used it in the wrong context professor...and not all dogs can interbreed...the Bassett hound cannot breed with a Poodle or Chihuahua and several other breeds.
So when faced with odds that mean death unless we adapt to an enviroment it seems logical that our bodies can follow suit. Take Africans for example, their continetn is hot and dry, it has been like that for thousands of years. The human race originally inuit and sheet white for living in polar conditions during the Ice Age change their skin pigmentation to resist the sun and heat of a desert climate, why have Asians got exceedingly light build and an exceptional fluid retention capability, because they evolved in a tropical climate, why are europeans white as sheets and put on weight easily, to resist long winteers and blizzards of a european climate. Animals do the same and so do amoeba. The mutations shown by moray prove the existance of genetics and therefore evolution as a whole.
At least that is my take. Ok time to put my hazmat and flame resistant clothes on.
LOL...no need for the hazmat or flame resistant clothing...but uh did you just insinuate that the human race originated from Inuits? Please tell me you didn't.
The mutations shown by Moray prove the same thing they have always proven...dormant genetic anomalies that randomly appear through popluations with no pattern...nothing more, think about it this way...if all life on this planet started with a single organism, all life shares the basic genetic code from that organism...in the process of mutation, some traits had to be suppressed in order for the next level of mutation to continue...and not all traits can co-exist if the new mutation is to propagate. That is the reason that although humans are primates and share many genetic traits, we cannot breed with lower order primates. The ultimate question then becomes, what caused the mutations in the first place, if it was environmental, the amount of diversity would not exist...if it was caused by manipulation from other organisms, that would explain the diversity but that eliminates the idea of a single ancestral organism...or it could indicate intelligent design.
-
Penguin, you most probably don't know what I'm talking about, but some participants of this board need more of the Wednesday babe and the thoughts that accompany her.
And yes gentlemen, believe it or not she:
(http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/5494/apr7.jpg)
is related to:
(http://www.exzooberance.com/virtual%20zoo/they%20walk/monkey/Indian%20Monkey%20485096.jpg)
thought evolution.
I thought adding pictures would better explain this difficult concept.
-
Penguin, you most probably don't know what I'm talking about, but some participants of this board need more of the Wednesday babe and the thoughts that accompany her.
And yes gentlemen, believe it or not she:
(http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/5494/apr7.jpg)
is related to:
(http://www.exzooberance.com/virtual%20zoo/they%20walk/monkey/Indian%20Monkey%20485096.jpg)
thought evolution.
I thought adding pictures would better explain this difficult concept.
That's one fine primate.
-
Although similar, these two did NOT evolve from a common ancestor.
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo82/bzavasnik/ts-1.jpg)
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo82/bzavasnik/mouth.jpg)
Just sayin..
-
That's a slippery slope. It depends upon whether you are talking allopatric or sympatric speciation. Also, there needs to be a reproductive isolating mechanism in place, either prezygotic or postzygotic.
In general, a few thousand generations can conduct a fully separate species, with the right pressures. For humans, figure ~640,000 years based on 8,000 generations(currently). For Fruit Flies, ~657 years, based on 8,000 generations. All of this is contingent upon the right isolation mechanisms in place, as well. (meaning no way to intermingle on a long term scale)
A breed is different from a species, btw Gyrene. All dogs are the same species, Canis lupus familiaris, and can interbreed. A poodle can reproduce with a great dane, though it's not necessarily recommended. To become a new species, barriers to interbreeding and habitat must be put into place for many thousands of generations. 7 generations are not going to make a new species....and without an extreme amount of pressure, won't even make a specific trait recessive or dominant.
Im talking going from a fish to the next full life form that came next. or say from an ape to human. Ok i understand 8,000 generations. Is that one family tree for 8,000 gererations? or are we talking 10,000 family trees for 8,000 generations or 8 billion family trees for 8,000 generations.?
Ill be gone foe a few days hope fully this does not get locked ...
-
I didnt mean Inuits as in a literal sense, I am saying that life forms adapt to suit their enviroment, all do like viruses and Amphibians and of course Mammal's. We use physical adaptions like clothing or blankets to resist cold and shade combined with cold fluid to resist heat. So the need for us to evolve is nil. But in the prehistoric ages the need to make biological change for survival was evident.
Now genetics is a known and confirmed FACT. We share DNA with primates and 5% of it is unique to us, the other 95% of our genetics is primate. Does it mean that we evolved from these creatures, Most probably. But it is not established as fact as their is no way to provide, CONCLUSIVE proof without a single experiment lasting thousands of years.
And like I said earlier, when Humans cannot prove existance, they MAKE UP something and use that to explain it. And lo and behold here comes religion.
I will say what I think. Science is right, the big bang happened, matter formed and rebounded etc etc to form the universe, dinosaurs and mammals and all life forms on this earth evolved from amoeba and built up over trillions of years to create the life we have today.
But here is my argument for both sides, who lit the fuze?
-
But here is my argument for both sides, who lit the fuze?
You suggest a defined moment of "beginning". There was no beginning because there was no time before the big bang - or at least any information about what was before (e.g. the pulsating universe option that lost favor in recent decades) was erased, cleared and started from the same condition including time itself.
Now genetics is a known and confirmed FACT. We share DNA with primates and 5% of it is unique to us, the other 95% of our genetics is primate. Does it mean that we evolved from these creatures, Most probably. But it is not established as fact as their is no way to provide, CONCLUSIVE proof without a single experiment lasting thousands of years.
We didn't evolve from these creatures, we had a common ancestor. There is a big difference. They evolved too since that ancestor.
Conclusive proof rarely exists in science. There is only "highly probable" and "wrong". Wrong is easy to tag, you only need one good prediction of the theory and a good measurement for what is predicted - if they do not match, theory labeled wrong. "Correct" (i.e. highly probable) is a theory that produced many predictions and non could be labeled wrong by a measurement. If no one can come up with a competing theory that also pass all the prediction tests, the one theory becomes the standard in science - and will stay as such until one of its predictions is found to be wrong or that a new theory pops up.
Examples for such theories are indeed the big bang, relativity, the standard-model of elementary particles and evolution.
Even when a theory produces a wrong prediction, it is often easy to adapt to include the new measurements. Such an example is the standard model fo rthe elementary particles. It initially included only 3 quarks. Then new particles were discovered that could not be explained. The same theory was expanded to include 6 quarks. It also produced prediction to what will happen if there were more quarks - until now all were proved wrong and it is not likely that we will find more than the current 6.
The same can be said about evolution. I am no expert on that so the other people here may expand this argument, but the current version of it is a little different from Darwin's original. It evolved you might say. Darwin didn't know anything about DNA and the finer mechanisms at work. He did install the main envelope and driving force in the theory which is the natural selection. Natural selection is not just survival by the way, it is also the ability to reproduce the mutated creature. Even if humans use blankets cloths and medicine we are still subject to natural selection. We are not outside nature.
-
to be honest...How much have we really evolved....
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg234/spkmes/GeneralBacteria.jpg)
sure we are harder to kill off now so some evolution I spose
:lol :lol :lol
-
We didn't evolve from these creatures, we had a common ancestor. There is a big difference. They evolved too since that ancestor.
Someone got it. Others will view this as semantics, but that initial statement is the key to beginning to understand the much broader concept of population genetics. Evolutionary pressure does not allow progenitor species to remain stably fixed for long, in general.... they will continue to split and fragment away within families. The key to cladistics is understanding the first line of your statement, while the true underlying relationships are conveniently tucked away in the familial genome.
Traced through DNA it looks like this.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/116/311587917_2782332352.jpg)
(http://www.utexas.edu/features/graphics/2008/tree/tree3.jpg)
-
Im talking going from a fish to the next full life form that came next. or say from an ape to human. Ok i understand 8,000 generations. Is that one family tree for 8,000 gererations? or are we talking 10,000 family trees for 8,000 generations or 8 billion family trees for 8,000 generations.?
Ill be gone foe a few days hope fully this does not get locked ...
The short answer is kind of like change in human behavior... evolution doesn't happen until it must, just like human behavior doesn't change until it must. There is no systematic, timely procession for evolution; it moves with fits and starts bookended with long periods of relative inactivity.
When the right amount of pressure is exerted, evolution can move rather rapidly. Otherwise, it kind of lazily experiments with mutations each generation, without natural selection conferring any advantage on a single new trait.
I think what you're looking for is a hard and fast rule....."X amount of time for Y to happen." Life doesn't work like that.
I simply used 8,000 generations as a baseline.....each separate species has a host of things that determine evolutionary rate, not the least of which is the average number of cellular replications during the lifespan of one generation of a given species....you get the point,.... it gets very complicated. There is no universal molecular clock determining species birth.
-
The mutations shown by Moray prove the same thing they have always proven...dormant genetic anomalies that randomly appear through popluations with no pattern...nothing more,
You're just not getting it. Atavisms are not genetic anomalies. They ARE NOT mutations. They are expressions of genetic traits that every member of that species carries within their DNA. The difference is that the gene gets turned "on" instead of "off" at some point of development.
AGAIN.... they are a part of every single member of the species' genetic code. They are not mutations. They are NOT anomalies, at least in DNA terms...morphologically they are anomalies, not genetically. Atavisms are simple genes, or clusters of genes, that are switched on that are usually off, resulting in some morphological change.
http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/4849 (http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/4849)
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/whale_leg.jpg)
Complete femur through tarsal, as found protruding from a Humpback whale during necropsy. Non-functional, and attached to the hip girdle. Your position rests in that you think this is completely a chance occurrence, and the fact it looks amazingly like a horse's (the two could possibly share a relative)...
(http://www.ansp.org/museum/jefferson/images/equus_leg-MT.gif)
....is purely a coincidence? Attached to the hip girdle?
I'm sorry, but you are completely incorrect in your position, factually.
-
Can I just say I am having, to quote Adam Savage from mythbusters, a huge "nerdgasm"
this thread rocks. :rock
-
This is one amazing pontification.
-
This thread is quite a collection of INteresting evolution, from one idea to the next. My theory is Skuzzy will lock this today :rofl
Or, it may be like "The Dress", and drag on and on :noid
IN and :bolt:
<S> Oz
-
I didnt mean Inuits as in a literal sense, I am saying that life forms adapt to suit their enviroment, all do like viruses and Amphibians and of course Mammal's. We use physical adaptions like clothing or blankets to resist cold and shade combined with cold fluid to resist heat. So the need for us to evolve is nil. But in the prehistoric ages the need to make biological change for survival was evident.
Now genetics is a known and confirmed FACT. We share DNA with primates and 5% of it is unique to us, the other 95% of our genetics is primate. Does it mean that we evolved from these creatures, Most probably. But it is not established as fact as their is no way to provide, CONCLUSIVE proof without a single experiment lasting thousands of years.
If that were the absolute, then humans that traveled to the cooler northern hemisphere would not have shed all of their body hair like the ones that remained in the more temperate southern hemisphere...and the last ice age lasted long enough that the genetic trait for body hair would be far more evident in humans today than it is. The human adaptations you describe are only behavioral adaptation not physical adaptation through evolution.
I will say what I think. Science is right, the big bang happened, matter formed and rebounded etc etc to form the universe, dinosaurs and mammals and all life forms on this earth evolved from amoeba and built up over trillions of years to create the life we have today.
But here is my argument for both sides, who lit the fuze?
Well considering the fact that science claims the earth formed somewhere in the range of 4.5 billion years ago...it would be difficult for any life to have started on this planet trillions of years in the past. Of course, those numbers have changed throughout known scientific history.
Good question on the fuse by the way...I'm waiting for them to show how a singular mass smaller than the moon could produce a vast amount of debris without other masses and or matter to interact with. The latest "revision" is that something along the lines of a black hole turned itself inside out and expanded rather than contract...which created our universe...but they don't know exactly what it was or what caused it to do what it did. We'll have to wait for the next "revision".
Even when a theory produces a wrong prediction, it is often easy to adapt to include the new measurements.
That's the part I love... :lol ...and people will stand on the highest mountain to shout that it is all indisputable fact...until the next theory arises. But not one of them will admit they were wrong in backing the previous theory...it's like listening to all the doomsday people, but those people are crazies and cultists. :rolleyes:
-
The short answer is kind of like change in human behavior... evolution doesn't happen until it must, just like human behavior doesn't change until it must. There is no systematic, timely procession for evolution; it moves with fits and starts bookended with long periods of relative inactivity.
You surprise me Moray...evolution is constant...although not predictable...humans don't evolve as quickly as other species but we are evolving...but our evolution isn't on the macro scale, it's simple adaptation since we do not have another compatible species to mix with. In nature, evolution occurs faster, bacteria, viruses, invertebrates, reptiles, insects, amphibians, fish and plants for instance...but mammals and many species of bird evolve slower.
You're just not getting it. Atavisms are not genetic anomalies. They ARE NOT mutations. They are expressions of genetic traits that every member of that species carries within their DNA. The difference is that the gene gets turned "on" instead of "off" at some point of development.
AGAIN.... they are a part of every single member of the species' genetic code. They are not mutations. They are NOT anomalies, at least in DNA terms...morphologically they are anomalies, not genetically. Atavisms are simple genes, or clusters of genes, that are switched on that are usually off, resulting in some morphological change.
http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/4849 (http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/4849)
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/whale_leg.jpg)
Complete femur through tarsal, as found protruding from a Humpback whale during necropsy. Non-functional, and attached to the hip girdle. Your position rests in that you think this is completely a chance occurrence, and the fact it looks amazingly like a horse's (the two could possibly share a relative)...
(http://www.ansp.org/museum/jefferson/images/equus_leg-MT.gif)
....is purely a coincidence? Attached to the hip girdle?
I'm sorry, but you are completely incorrect in your position, factually.
You are not getting it Moray...any genetic trait that is turned off through the evolutionary process and reappears in later generations is an anomaly...a mutation...the genetic code says it doesn't belong, hence the reason your precious atavisms usually end up as non-functional and or non-viable progeny...and please, don't tell me that is the entire basis of you belief in the macro evolutionary tripe, it's sure looking that way.
-
You surprise me Moray...evolution is constant...although not predictable...humans don't evolve as quickly as other species but we are evolving...but our evolution isn't on the macro scale, it's simple adaptation since we do not have another compatible species to mix with. In nature, evolution occurs faster, bacteria, viruses, invertebrates, reptiles, insects, amphibians, fish and plants for instance...but mammals and many species of bird evolve slower.
Of course our evolution is on a macro scale, it is beyond silly to think otherwise.
Evolution is not a constant, gyrene. It is pervasive, but not a constant. It sometimes moves fast, sometimes slow. There is no constant. Case in point, sharks (a fish). Haven't changed any major part of their anatomy in 600 million years or so. Meanwhile, the tuatara has the fastest molecular evolution rate measured.
Please stop talking about mutations like you understand them. Atavisms are not mutations of the genetic code, AGAIN. No more than the coding you possess for multiple shades of eye color, passed down your genealogical line . It all depends what gene is turned on.
A mutation is a difference in genetic code between individuals of the same species. Atavisms have no difference in their genetic code, AGAIN. You just don't get it, I'm sorry to see. More like every other debate on here, you show up with predisposed opinion and yell "NANANANNANAN" when facts arrive.
-
Of course our evolution is on a macro scale, it is beyond silly to think otherwise.
Evolution is not a constant, gyrene. It is pervasive, but not a constant. It sometimes moves fast, sometimes slow. There is no constant. Case in point, sharks (a fish). Haven't changed any major part of their anatomy in 600 million years or so. Meanwhile, the tuatara has the fastest molecular evolution rate measured.
I may be wrong but I think Gyrenes point is that evolution whether fast or slow continues always. I think this says "fast or slow all life evolves constantly" I could be wrong and am definitely out of my league :headscratch: Fun reading though :aok
-
Of course our evolution is on a macro scale, it is beyond silly to think otherwise.
Evolution is not a constant, gyrene. It is pervasive, but not a constant. It sometimes moves fast, sometimes slow. There is no constant. Case in point, sharks (a fish). Haven't changed any major part of their anatomy in 600 million years or so. Meanwhile, the tuatara has the fastest molecular evolution rate measured.
Please stop talking about mutations like you understand them. Atavisms are not mutations of the genetic code, AGAIN. No more than the coding you possess for multiple shades of eye color, passed down your genealogical line . It all depends what gene is turned on.
A mutation is a difference in genetic code between individuals of the same species. Atavisms have no difference in their genetic code, AGAIN. You just don't get it, I'm sorry to see. More like every other debate on here, you show up with predisposed opinion and yell "NANANANNANAN" when facts arrive.
You must be god Moray.
Otherwise, you might want to write things such as 'According to this source (insert reference here) ... ' or 'In my opinion.. and this is because .. (add supporting facts with sources here)'.
Now before you hit me with a storm of fancy words which I'm sure are plenty in your grammatical arsenal, try the above and see if you get a more receptive response to your comments. It just might work :aok
Kthnx.
-
Of course our evolution is on a macro scale, it is beyond silly to think otherwise.
Evolution is not a constant, gyrene. It is pervasive, but not a constant. It sometimes moves fast, sometimes slow. There is no constant. Case in point, sharks (a fish). Haven't changed any major part of their anatomy in 600 million years or so. Meanwhile, the tuatara has the fastest molecular evolution rate measured.
Please stop talking about mutations like you understand them. Atavisms are not mutations of the genetic code, AGAIN. No more than the coding you possess for multiple shades of eye color, passed down your genealogical line . It all depends what gene is turned on.
A mutation is a difference in genetic code between individuals of the same species. Atavisms have no difference in their genetic code, AGAIN. You just don't get it, I'm sorry to see. More like every other debate on here, you show up with predisposed opinion and yell "NANANANNANAN" when facts arrive.
Moray, are you not seeing the contradictions of your own words...or are you just parroting someone else? There is not a single known life form on this planet that has reached a point where it cannot evolve any further. Your shark example is off too...there are a large number of shark species...each unique and separate...and none of which is exactly as it was in any previous geologic period. You shouldn't use the Tuatara as an example either...there are only 2 separate species and it's believed they haven't changed in 225 million years...and it was erroneously categorized a lizard, just one of the many mistakes made by science.
But I wouldn't expect someone like yourself to notice or acknowledge scientific mistakes.
I may be wrong but I think Gyrenes point is that evolution whether fast or slow continues always. I think this says "fast or slow all life evolves constantly" I could be wrong and am definitely out of my league :headscratch: Fun reading though :aok
Correct sir...the evolutionary process like the expansion of the universe is a constant...as each generation reproduces, especially when reproduction involves mixed species...it moves one step closer to the next step in its evolution...where the flaw in the theory comes in is when it states that a life form can change from one phylum to another or from one class to another.
-
Anyone been following the whole stem cell issue? It's leading to a whole "what if" scenario...if a single adaptive cell can be turned into any physical part, what if...?
-
Anyone been following the whole stem cell issue? It's leading to a whole "what if" scenario...if a single adaptive cell can be turned into any physical part, what if...?
this already flew out of my head on page one...still trying to figure where this argument will end up
-
If this thread continues to evolve, a black hole will be required to close it. :D
-
If this thread continues to evolve, a black hole will be required to close it. :D
nah just me fat friend sitting on each persons computer simultaneously :lol
-
this already flew out of my head on page one...still trying to figure where this argument will end up
Hopefully with a better understanding of something that may or may not affect anyone living today.
-
what happened to Penguin? did he evolve into Moray?
-
He found the truth, and doesn't care to disappoint.
-
He found the truth, and doesn't care to disappoint.
hopefully
-
Yes Moray, I did say to keep the personal attacks out of it...after you're first rant...in case you don't recall...
First, it doesn't always take that many generations or "extreme amount of pressure" to create a separate species, or sub-species. Limited population is essential, some hybrid population 1 or 2 generations prior to the isolation is enough, a good number of dormant genetic anomalies, and fast reproductive rates...it can occur in far less. It's been seen in fruit flies and tropical fish.
Speaking of which I know a breed is different from a species and I use dogs to illustrate the ease of rapid genetic mutation within a species...sorry if I worded it incorrectly or used it in the wrong context professor...and not all dogs can interbreed...the Bassett hound cannot breed with a Poodle or Chihuahua and several other breeds.
LOL...no need for the hazmat or flame resistant clothing...but uh did you just insinuate that the human race originated from Inuits? Please tell me you didn't.
The mutations shown by Moray prove the same thing they have always proven...dormant genetic anomalies that randomly appear through popluations with no pattern...nothing more, think about it this way...if all life on this planet started with a single organism, all life shares the basic genetic code from that organism...in the process of mutation, some traits had to be suppressed in order for the next level of mutation to continue...and not all traits can co-exist if the new mutation is to propagate. That is the reason that although humans are primates and share many genetic traits, we cannot breed with lower order primates. The ultimate question then becomes, what caused the mutations in the first place, if it was environmental, the amount of diversity would not exist...if it was caused by manipulation from other organisms, that would explain the diversity but that eliminates the idea of a single ancestral organism...or it could indicate intelligent design.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Moray has at least posted a paper with a bibliography. You make these broad, sweeping claims, which could be true, but you provide no proof, just your next inference. Realize that you have just bitten off quite a bit, and I'm waiting for all of the proof for this stuff.
Not to make the "expert fallacy", but Moray has gotten quite a lot of biology, and I'm pretty sure about marine gynecology under his belt. You will need quite a bit of proof to make him take back his words (I've almost never seen that happen!).
One other thing to avoid, for aesthetic and logical reasons, is the argument from ignorance. I've seen this used frequently when big words are brought out. If you want to argue against a point that someone makes, don't say something along the lines of "All of those fancy words are nice but...".
Like Moray said on species, this stuff takes a long time, and many generations. It also requires separation from the other members of the species, otherwise the genetic changes will be lost.
It also seems that you haven't been doing your Social Studies homework, since you forgot to notice that the post was referring to humans after an Ice Age.
-Penguin
-
:furious
-Penguin
The Canadiens beat Washington Caps in the 7th game in Washington coming back from a 1:3 disadvantage!!! :rock
GO HABS GO, GO HABS GO!!!!!
-
Moray, are you not seeing the contradictions of your own words...or are you just parroting someone else? There is not a single known life form on this planet that has reached a point where it cannot evolve any further. Your shark example is off too...there are a large number of shark species...each unique and separate...and none of which is exactly as it was in any previous geologic period. You shouldn't use the Tuatara as an example either...there are only 2 separate species and it's believed they haven't changed in 225 million years...and it was erroneously categorized a lizard, just one of the many mistakes made by science.
But I wouldn't expect someone like yourself to notice or acknowledge scientific mistakes.
Correct sir...the evolutionary process like the expansion of the universe is a constant...as each generation reproduces, especially when reproduction involves mixed species...it moves one step closer to the next step in its evolution...where the flaw in the theory comes in is when it states that a life form can change from one phylum to another or from one class to another.
It's just too easy.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/080326-fastest-tuatara.html (http://www.livescience.com/animals/080326-fastest-tuatara.html)
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2008/03/living-dinosaur-found-to-be-fastest-evolving-creature.ars (http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2008/03/living-dinosaur-found-to-be-fastest-evolving-creature.ars)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23812858/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23812858/)
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Fastest-Evolving-Animal-Tuatara-81348.shtml (http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Fastest-Evolving-Animal-Tuatara-81348.shtml)
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Tuatara_The_Fastest_Evolving_Animal_999.html (http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Tuatara_The_Fastest_Evolving_Animal_999.html)
In a study of New Zealand's "living dinosaur" the tuatara, evolutionary biologist, and ancient DNA expert, Professor David Lambert and his team from the Allan Wilson Centre for Molecular Ecology and Evolution recovered DNA sequences from the bones of ancient tuatara, which are up to 8000 years old.
They found that, although tuatara have remained largely physically unchanged over very long periods of evolution, they are evolving - at a DNA level - faster than any other animal yet examined. The research will be published in the March issue of Trends in Genetics
.
It's as easy as googling it, gyrene. The tuatara is the fastest evolving creature studied. End of story.
AND AGAIN... EVOLUTION IS NOT A PHYSICAL CONSTANT. It has no set value. Where did you get this bunk?
-
Like Moray said on species, this stuff takes a long time, and many generations. It also requires separation from the other members of the species, otherwise the genetic changes will be lost.
No it doesn't...diluted or made dormant maybe, but not lost.
It also seems that you haven't been doing your Social Studies homework, since you forgot to notice that the post was referring to humans after an Ice Age.
-Penguin
No idea what you're referring to there. Just for the record, I never speak from ignorance or limited sources of information...i.e. only one side.
It's just too easy.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/080326-fastest-tuatara.html (http://www.livescience.com/animals/080326-fastest-tuatara.html)
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2008/03/living-dinosaur-found-to-be-fastest-evolving-creature.ars (http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2008/03/living-dinosaur-found-to-be-fastest-evolving-creature.ars)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23812858/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23812858/)
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Fastest-Evolving-Animal-Tuatara-81348.shtml (http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Fastest-Evolving-Animal-Tuatara-81348.shtml)
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Tuatara_The_Fastest_Evolving_Animal_999.html (http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Tuatara_The_Fastest_Evolving_Animal_999.html)
It's as easy as googling it, gyrene. The tuatara is the fastest evolving creature studied. End of story.
AND AGAIN... EVOLUTION IS NOT A PHYSICAL CONSTANT. It has no set value. Where did you get this bunk?
Ok so wait...you say the tuatara is the fastest evolving creature studied, then you say evolution is not a physical constant?
In fact, at the DNA level, they evolve extremely quickly, which supports a hypothesis proposed by the evolutionary biologist Allan Wilson, who suggested that the rate of molecular evolution was uncoupled from the rate of morphological evolution," said Lambert.
Physically on the outside the tuatara hasn't changed, but at the DNA level it's evolving very fast...and as such it is and has been "evolving" during its entire existence...as are all other life forms...which means the process of evolution is constant in all life forms, regardless of how fast it occurs. You don't need a PhD to understand that.
You don't follow John Hawks PhD. do you? He's a paleoanthropologist that says his research shows humans are still evolving in spite of contrary research by Steve Jones PhD. professor of genetics at University College of London...I wonder which one is the crackpot?
Speaking of crackpots, I read this article in original print: Intelligent Design? Natural History Magazine (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html)
I pretty much agree with the people who have the (EVO) behind their names with some minor exceptions...there is some concept of truth in the research of the (ID) proponents but they went off the track.
-
No it doesn't...diluted or made dormant maybe, but not lost.
No idea what you're referring to there. Just for the record, I never speak from ignorance or limited sources of information...i.e. only one side.
Ok so wait...you say the tuatara is the fastest evolving creature studied, then you say evolution is not a physical constant? Physically on the outside the tuatara hasn't changed, but at the DNA level it's evolving very fast...and as such it is and has been "evolving" during its entire existence...as are all other life forms...which means the process of evolution is constant in all life forms, regardless of how fast it occurs. You don't need a PhD to understand that.
You don't follow John Hawks PhD. do you? He's a paleoanthropologist that says his research shows humans are still evolving in spite of contrary research by Steve Jones PhD. professor of genetics at University College of London...I wonder which one is the crackpot?
Speaking of crackpots, I read this article in original print: Intelligent Design? Natural History Magazine (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html)
I pretty much agree with the people who have the (EVO) behind their names with some minor exceptions...there is some concept of truth in the research of the (ID) proponents but they went off the track.
EVOLUTION DOES NOT MOVE AT A CONSTANT PACE. It is not the speed of light. It can stop (dead -end), start, slow down and speed up. Your use of the word "constant" is completely off.
-
Moray I think you are misunderstading my question. I am not asking about time. I am asking(how many?) Does evolution work on the total number of say 'fish' on the planet at what ever the given time is? and .....These have to be random genetic mutations. Is that correct?
-
The answer is.....butterflies living near to a coal industry area in ....19th century England?
-
Well considering the fact that science claims the earth formed somewhere in the range of 4.5 billion years ago...it would be difficult for any life to have started on this planet trillions of years in the past. Of course, those numbers have changed throughout known scientific history.
Good question on the fuse by the way...I'm waiting for them to show how a singular mass smaller than the moon could produce a vast amount of debris without other masses and or matter to interact with. The latest "revision" is that something along the lines of a black hole turned itself inside out and expanded rather than contract...which created our universe...but they don't know exactly what it was or what caused it to do what it did. We'll have to wait for the next "revision".
About the fuse I answered this in the previous page. I have no idea what moon you are talking about or where you picked up the inverted black hole thing.
The big bang before the nucleosynthesis started is still in the realm of wild theories. By that I mean theories that cannot be proven of disproved in the scientific sense (as opposed to the mathematical sense). A theory that explain what we already know is a good speculation, but if this theory predict something new and we are able to measure it, then the theory becomes credible as scientific "truth". The over hyped string theory showed a lot of promise by being able to explain many known things, but so far failed to produce any new prediction that was verified.
The cosmological model has a few gaping holes in it. Not all details are known, exactly like Darwin did not know about DNA when he thought about evolution - that hole was plugged much later, but the basis of the theory remained. However, the cosmological model was able not only explain all previous observations within the other standard theories of relativity and quantum fields, but also produce predictions that were measured later. The statistics of the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background were predicted as well as the existence of the background itself. There are more.
That's the part I love... :lol ...and people will stand on the highest mountain to shout that it is all indisputable fact...until the next theory arises. But not one of them will admit they were wrong in backing the previous theory...it's like listening to all the doomsday people, but those people are crazies and cultists. :rolleyes:
So answer me this: is Newton's mechanic wrong?
Technically it is wrong. We now have relativistic mechanics and quantum mechanics, yet designers of planes and even spaceships still insist on using Newtonian mechanics for some reason. Scientifically it is a valid theory - it gives excellent predictions if one limits himself to the appropriate parameter space and required accuracy.
-
So answer me this: is Newton's mechanic wrong?
Technically it is wrong. We now have relativistic mechanics and quantum mechanics, yet designers of planes and even spaceships still insist on using Newtonian mechanics for some reason. Scientifically it is a valid theory - it gives excellent predictions if one limits himself to the appropriate parameter space and required accuracy.
this guy gets science :aok
I'm uncomfortable with people using the concept of proof, its appropriate for formal logic or mathematics but is an impossible goal for empirical science. scientific theories arent either true or false (they would be theroems if they could be proved,) they are merely tools we can use to predict or explain observed phenomena. as such they arent either true or false, but they are on a sliding scale of usefulness depending on their application.
-
EVOLUTION DOES NOT MOVE AT A CONSTANT PACE. It is not the speed of light. It can stop (dead -end), start, slow down and speed up. Your use of the word "constant" is completely off.
Come on Moray...you can't be serious...grammatical semantics? OK, to ease your mind, let's use the word continuous...the process of evolution is "continuous" in all life forms on the planet earth. You previously claimed evolution occurs when it must...you also claim it is not continuous...science is showing the only time a life form stops evolving is when it goes extinct...the process is continuously occurring at the microbiological level...think immune system.
About the fuse I answered this in the previous page. I have no idea what moon you are talking about or where you picked up the inverted black hole thing.
You mean this?
You suggest a defined moment of "beginning". There was no beginning because there was no time before the big bang - or at least any information about what was before (e.g. the pulsating universe option that lost favor in recent decades) was erased, cleared and started from the same condition including time itself.
According to some current theories, there was a single moment...somewhere between 12 and 15 billion years in the past (depending on who posted the theory)...of course there are a thousand different interpretations of the theory, and it is being revised as new discoveries are examined...but the one thing that hasn't changed is the beginning event, an explosion...Stephen Hawking is thinking that the answer lies within black holes (who incidentally is the first scientist I have ever heard of to admit one of his theories was wrong)...the theory posted on NASA's site claims an object just a few millimeters across held all the mass within the visible universe.
And the beat goes on...
The big bang before the nucleosynthesis started is still in the realm of wild theories. By that I mean theories that cannot be proven of disproved in the scientific sense (as opposed to the mathematical sense). A theory that explain what we already know is a good speculation, but if this theory predict something new and we are able to measure it, then the theory becomes credible as scientific "truth". The over hyped string theory showed a lot of promise by being able to explain many known things, but so far failed to produce any new prediction that was verified.
The cosmological model has a few gaping holes in it. Not all details are known, exactly like Darwin did not know about DNA when he thought about evolution - that hole was plugged much later, but the basis of the theory remained. However, the cosmological model was able not only explain all previous observations within the other standard theories of relativity and quantum fields, but also produce predictions that were measured later. The statistics of the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background were predicted as well as the existence of the background itself. There are more.
Can't argue with that.
So answer me this: is Newton's mechanic wrong?
Technically it is wrong. We now have relativistic mechanics and quantum mechanics, yet designers of planes and even spaceships still insist on using Newtonian mechanics for some reason. Scientifically it is a valid theory - it gives excellent predictions if one limits himself to the appropriate parameter space and required accuracy.
You must be talking about classical mechanics which is derived from Newton's laws...I understood it to be predictive physics theory...not sure about relativistic mechanics but quantum mechanics is a purely theoretical science that looks at things on the atomic level.
-
I was not joking about the butterflies....a species of them became easy prey for their enemies in industrial 19th century England, since their habitat was on tree-trunks in the same colour as the butterflies themselves.
Anyway, coal and soot made the trunks black, so the butterflies were easily spotted...
Untill....they were also black. A little quirk of genetic behaviour made some black ones...probably always so, and all of a sudden their life expectancy went from being a nice food spot on a blond tree-trunk into becoming an invisible creature on a sooted trunk.
C'est la vie....
-
You must be talking about classical mechanics which is derived from Newton's laws...I understood it to be predictive physics theory...not sure about relativistic mechanics but quantum mechanics is a purely theoretical science that looks at things on the atomic level.
classical mechanics (newton) / relativity (einstein) / quantum mechanics (bohr/heisenberg).
3 different paradigms, none proven, all useful.
-
classical mechanics (newton) / relativity (einstein) / quantum mechanics (bohr/heisenberg).
3 different paradigms, none proven, all useful.
Agreed.
I was not joking about the butterflies....a species of them became easy prey for their enemies in industrial 19th century England, since their habitat was on tree-trunks in the same colour as the butterflies themselves.
Anyway, coal and soot made the trunks black, so the butterflies were easily spotted...
Untill....they were also black. A little quirk of genetic behaviour made some black ones...probably always so, and all of a sudden their life expectancy went from being a nice food spot on a blond tree-trunk into becoming an invisible creature on a sooted trunk.
C'est la vie....
That's very interesting Angus...amazing how quickly insects can adapt to environmental change.
-
this guy gets science :aok
I'm uncomfortable with people using the concept of proof, its appropriate for formal logic or mathematics but is an impossible goal for empirical science. scientific theories arent either true or false (they would be theroems if they could be proved,) they are merely tools we can use to predict or explain observed phenomena. as such they arent either true or false, but they are on a sliding scale of usefulness depending on their application.
Which begs the question: If no one has observed anyone else's imaginary friend can we use the sliding scale of usefulness model to explain their potential existence based on how heated the arguments are from each proponent of a particular imaginary friend?
-
this guy gets science :aok
I'm uncomfortable with people using the concept of proof, its appropriate for formal logic or mathematics but is an impossible goal for empirical science. scientific theories arent either true or false (they would be theroems if they could be proved,) they are merely tools we can use to predict or explain observed phenomena. as such they arent either true or false, but they are on a sliding scale of usefulness depending on their application.
I would like an invitation to discuss this with you Holmes. Not really wanting to hijack the thread. Let me know what is appropriate.
<S>
-
I would like an invitation to discuss this with you Holmes. Not really wanting to hijack the thread. Let me know what is appropriate.
<S>
Go ahead and do it here guys...as long as we're all able to discuss things like adults, science is science.
-
Which begs the question: If no one has observed anyone else's imaginary friend can we use the sliding scale of usefulness model to explain their potential existence based on how heated the arguments are from each proponent of a particular imaginary friend?
nope - empirical science requires observable phenomena. this falls squarely under metaphysical speculation (I'm assuming that by imaginary friend you mean the celestial teapot ;))
-
nope - empirical science requires observable phenomena. this falls squarely under metaphysical speculation (I'm assuming that by imaginary friend you mean the celestial teapot ;))
I thought he was talking about this guy...
(http://www.concoxions.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mork.jpg)
-
The answer is.....butterflies living near to a coal industry area in ....19th century England?
I am talking macro evolution not micro evolution.
-
this guy gets science :aok
I'm uncomfortable with people using the concept of proof, its appropriate for formal logic or mathematics but is an impossible goal for empirical science. scientific theories arent either true or false (they would be theroems if they could be proved,) they are merely tools we can use to predict or explain observed phenomena. as such they arent either true or false, but they are on a sliding scale of usefulness depending on their application.
"proof is an impossible goal for empirical science.
Is this a theory of yours or is it a true statment? If you have empirical science and you know you have empirical science. How would you need scientific theories?
<S>
-
According to some current theories, there was a single moment...somewhere between 12 and 15 billion years in the past (depending on who posted the theory)...of course there are a thousand different interpretations of the theory, and it is being revised as new discoveries are examined...but the one thing that hasn't changed is the beginning event, an explosion...Stephen Hawking is thinking that the answer lies within black holes (who incidentally is the first scientist I have ever heard of to admit one of his theories was wrong)...the theory posted on NASA's site claims an object just a few millimeters across held all the mass within the visible universe.
OK, it goes as so: The universe has an age, but no time of creation. Talking of a moment when "suddenly" there was a big bang suggest that time was passing while waiting for this big bang. There was no time, there was not even vacuum (which is very much "something" in quantum field theory). Therefore there was no black hole waiting to go boom or what ever. I get asked a lot "where was the big bang". It make sense that if the universe expanded from a point then you should be able to find that point. The correct answer is: here. I am standing in the exact place where the big bang happened... and so are you. All we space we know is that initial point and all time before the big bang was one point in a not-yet-ticking time.
In addition, the best current estimates are 13.7 billion years and this is not from theory, but observations. The theory interprets measurements (cosmic microwave background and supernova redshift measurements are the dominant) to give this age and the various estimates agree quite well, but nothing in the theory REQUIRES this age.
You must be talking about classical mechanics which is derived from Newton's laws...I understood it to be predictive physics theory...not sure about relativistic mechanics but quantum mechanics is a purely theoretical science that looks at things on the atomic level.
Quantum mechanics purely theoretical?! where do I even begin about that?....
Quantum mechanics treat individual particles, but any macro object is made of these particles. To be "correct" you need to take into account every particle that makes the "object" in classical mechanics. Given that the typical scale for the number of particles in one gram of "object" is 10^23 particles, good luck with calculating the time it takes a ball to fall to the floor. That huge number of particles is what saves Newtonian mechanics: while each particle may do crazy things, the overall mean behavior is extremely predictable. This is why you can even treat a football as a single object with macro properties derived from the most (read: incredibly) likely behavior for the particles ensemble.
-
"proof is an impossible goal for empirical science.
Is this a theory of yours or is it a true statment? If you have empirical science and you know you have empirical science. How would you need scientific theories?
Theory is the generalization of empirical science. You drop a red rubber ball to the ground and measure the time it takes. Now you know the time it will take if you drop it again in the exact same way - this is the empirical side. Theory comes and claim that there is a force called gravity. It says that this force "pulls the ball to the ground" because all masses are attracted in a certain way, in this case: the mass of the ball is attracted to the mass of the earth. The theory also has some new predictions:
- If the ball was yellow it would drop at the same time.
- If you drop it from four times the hight it will take twice the time to reach the floor.
- etc...
(yes yes, in vacuum for all the smart tulips out there)
These are thing you have not empirically tested and could not know the result in advance without the theory. You can test it now and verify the prediction or rule out the theory.
Then I will tell you that theory is wrong because in the "theory of gravity" (aka general relativity) there is no gravitational force. Find me one person that will use general relativity to calculate the time it takes the apple to fall to the ground and I will show you a masochist.
-
nope - empirical science requires observable phenomena. this falls squarely under metaphysical speculation (I'm assuming that by imaginary friend you mean the celestial teapot ;))
Good. That's the argument I've used, despite not being a scientist. I would like to point out though that the psycho-social effects of adoring ones celestial teapot are in fact observable phenomena.
-
Theory is the generalization of empirical science. You drop a red rubber ball to the ground and measure the time it takes. Now you know the time it will take if you drop it again in the exact same way - this is the empirical side. Theory comes and claim that there is a force called gravity. It says that this force "pulls the ball to the ground" because all masses are attracted in a certain way, in this case: the mass of the ball is attracted to the mass of the earth. The theory also has some new predictions:
- If the ball was yellow it would drop at the same time.
- If you drop it from four times the hight it will take twice the time to reach the floor.
- etc...
(yes yes, in vacuum for all the smart tulips out there)
These are thing you have not empirically tested and could not know the result in advance without the theory. You can test it now and verify the prediction or rule out the theory.
/quote]
Sonics Thoughts
Below
srry it won't let me go outside the quote box for some reason.
There are two types of investigative science one is empirical. What we can detect with the five senses in real time.
the other is called forensic science and it is good enough for a court room. This is where you use emperical observation to piece things together.
Since we weren't there when it happened this debate has to use forensic science.
-
Theory is the generalization of empirical science. You drop a red rubber ball to the ground and measure the time it takes. Now you know the time it will take if you drop it again in the exact same way - this is the empirical side. Theory comes and claim that there is a force called gravity. It says that this force "pulls the ball to the ground" because all masses are attracted in a certain way, in this case: the mass of the ball is attracted to the mass of the earth. The theory also has some new predictions:
- If the ball was yellow it would drop at the same time.
- If you drop it from four times the hight it will take twice the time to reach the floor.
- etc...
(yes yes, in vacuum for all the smart tulips out there)
These are thing you have not empirically tested and could not know the result in advance without the theory. You can test it now and verify the prediction or rule out the theory.
Then I will tell you that theory is wrong because in the "theory of gravity" (aka general relativity) there is no gravitational force. Find me one person that will use general relativity to calculate the time it takes the apple to fall to the ground and I will show you a masochist.
You completely miss his point. IT is call the law of non-contratiction. He is stating as fact that "proof is and impossible claim for empirical science"
How does he know this?
It is like saying "All things are relative." that statement comes with an implied claim that there is no absolute truth or you cant know it.
To be a true statement " All things are relative". Must be an aboslute truth. or he is claiming he knows truth. A person would be using the law of absolute truth to make such a statement. Making a violent contradiction.
Same with the statement that "you cant really know anything for sure" again How can you make that statement if you cant know anything.
-
How does adaptation prove evolution?
The examples I see are of adaptation "within" a specises.
I haven't see one example of one species becoming an other one.
Evolutional theory cant explain the first life from with millions of lines worth of code in its dna. and there is no such thing as simple life form.
The so called simplest life form contains within its DNA millions of specific lines of code to be able to survive. It is called specific complexity. IT cannot survive without a specific intelligent order to it.
Here are only five reasons why natural selection can't do the job.
1.Genetic limits
2. Cyclical change
3. Irreducible complexity
4. Non vialbility of transitional form
5. Molecular isolation
-
Theory is the generalization of empirical science. You drop a red rubber ball to the ground and measure the time it takes. Now you know the time it will take if you drop it again in the exact same way - this is the empirical side. Theory comes and claim that there is a force called gravity. It says that this force "pulls the ball to the ground" because all masses are attracted in a certain way, in this case: the mass of the ball is attracted to the mass of the earth. The theory also has some new predictions:
- If the ball was yellow it would drop at the same time.
- If you drop it from four times the hight it will take twice the time to reach the floor.
- etc...
(yes yes, in vacuum for all the smart tulips out there)
These are thing you have not empirically tested and could not know the result in advance without the theory. You can test it now and verify the prediction or rule out the theory.
Then I will tell you that theory is wrong because in the "theory of gravity" (aka general relativity) there is no gravitational force. Find me one person that will use general relativity to calculate the time it takes the apple to fall to the ground and I will show you a masochist.
Your claim of empirical science ends as soon as you change any information and make a new theory. A new theory does not negate previous empirical science.
-
Gyrene: the insects did not exactly "adapt". And yet they did.
A mutilation that probably occurred regularly, - i.e. a black butterfly, - suddenly became a vital factor in survival instead of being either a nuicance or a key to getting killed.
Speaking of those things, I happen to be involved with breeding of cattle and other lifestock. You would be surprised hof much you can also achieve with some 20 generations of breeding. And we do also work with "mutilations" and breed them onwards.
Therefore, I always chuckle at the thought of folks who do not belive in species altering with time. It is basically a total basis in agriculture, so obviously the very simple folks do not come from that part of the human gene pool :devil
-
How does adaptation prove evolution?
The examples I see are of adaptation "within" a specises.
I haven't see one example of one species becoming an other one.
A specie does not become another one, it branches off and eventually become a different specie from the other branch. The thing I don't know is when does the specie become incompatible his ancestor - likely a very large number of generations. I doubt you can find two species living at the same time where one could be identified as the ancestor of the other. There are plenty of examples for common ancestors (i.e. branched species).
-
You completely miss his point. IT is call the law of non-contratiction. He is stating as fact that "proof is and impossible claim for empirical science"
How does he know this?
He knows this because there is no condition/evidence that will be considered a proof in the mathematical sense. In math a proof can be traced back to the base definitions and axioms. If all logical statements from this basis are true, the the final one in the series will be true. There is no such absolute basis for science. It does not enjoy the privilege of math being a made-up world where you get to set all the ground rules. Someone else has set the rules and forgot to tell you what they are.
Science branched of from philosophy for a reason.
-
What, no Gödel?
-
Gyrene: the insects did not exactly "adapt". And yet they did.
A mutilation that probably occurred regularly, - i.e. a black butterfly, - suddenly became a vital factor in survival instead of being either a nuicance or a key to getting killed.
Speaking of those things, I happen to be involved with breeding of cattle and other lifestock. You would be surprised hof much you can also achieve with some 20 generations of breeding. And we do also work with "mutilations" and breed them onwards.
Therefore, I always chuckle at the thought of folks who do not belive in species altering with time. It is basically a total basis in agriculture, so obviously the very simple folks do not come from that part of the human gene pool :devil
I have to read through all the stuff Sonicblu and Bozon posted...then compile my responses but I wanted to hit you first. :D
No offense sir but...LOL...the word is mutation...not mutilation. If you were mutilating the cattle, you would not be able to breed them very effectively due to the high risk of mortality, and those butterflies would cease to exist unless they could adapt to being mutilated.
Just wanted to point that out.
-
Im not sure any one is against species changing with in species.........I going to guess here and say after 20 gererations you still have cattle? Plus your using inteligent design are you not?
-
He knows this because there is no condition/evidence that will be considered a proof in the mathematical sense. In math a proof can be traced back to the base definitions and axioms. If all logical statements from this basis are true, the the final one in the series will be true. There is no such absolute basis for science. It does not enjoy the privilege of math being a made-up world where you get to set all the ground rules. Someone else has set the rules and forgot to tell you what they are.
Science branched of from philosophy for a reason.
So your saying there is no proof for evolution just theory?
How do you KNOW you have empirical science if "there is no condition/evidence that will be considered a proof"?
"Science branched of(f) from philosophy for a reason." When did Science break off from reason?
Do you believe truth can be defined?
-
A specie does not become another one, it branches off and eventually become a different specie from the other branch. The thing I don't know is when does the specie become incompatible his ancestor - likely a very large number of generations. I doubt you can find two species living at the same time where one could be identified as the ancestor of the other. There are plenty of examples for common ancestors (i.e. branched species).
How can you make this statement as it contradicts itself.
A specie does not become another one. But changes slowly over time and then it does..
So what your saying is:
IF I Kiss a frog and it turns into a prince. < that is a fairy tale
But IF I give the frog millions of years and it slowly becomes a prince than it is science.
If you don't know when this happened or happens how can you KNOW it did happen.
YOU cant find two species living at the same time because it violates so many laws to include the definition of species. And if you did have this kind of evidence you would present it.
-
He knows this because there is no condition/evidence that will be considered a proof in the mathematical sense. In math a proof can be traced back to the base definitions and axioms. If all logical statements from this basis are true, the the final one in the series will be true. There is no such absolute basis for science. It does not enjoy the privilege of math being a made-up world where you get to set all the ground rules. Someone else has set the rules and forgot to tell you what they are.
Science branched of from philosophy for a reason.
Absolute truths are the basis for science. And that is why you must have philosophy with science. Because that is how you establish it.
If there is no absolute truth as a basis for science. You chose the hidden claim ( look at my other post ) " because we cant know it "
If we can't know truth in science then why even have a discussion on science.
This is where I have to use Philosophy because our thoughts and logic are the basis for science. If there is no truth basis for science then all science is false. I think we call those fairytales.
IF logic follows from the premise it is sound. if the premis is wrong then the whole thing is invalid.
So if science does not have a true premise it may be invalid.
Science is a search for causes we only have two kinds, intelligent causes and non intelligent causes.
Math and loigic can't be proven by science because science presupposes them. " Science is therfore a slave to philosophy.
-
So your saying there is no proof for evolution just theory?
How do you KNOW you have empirical science if "there is no condition/evidence that will be considered a proof"?
"Science branched of(f) from philosophy for a reason." When did Science break off from reason?
Do you believe truth can be defined?
Absolute truths are the basis for science. And that is why you must have philosophy with science. Because that is how you establish it.
If there is no absolute truth as a basis for science. You chose the hidden claim ( look at my other post ) " because we cant know it "
If we can't know truth in science then why even have a discussion on science.
This is where I have to use Philosophy because our thoughts and logic are the basis for science. If there is no truth basis for science then all science is false. I think we call those fairytales.
You both are heading the philosophical way, so I can answer you both at once:
For the scientists, philosophy is like masturbation - fun, but pointless.
Philosophers argue and work on the "philosophy of science" and it still is an active field for them (as far as I heard from rumors). In practice, not a single scientist I know read or studied their work seriously beyond coffee discussions. At least not from the past 200 years of it. Science does not pretend to be the absolute "truth". It is nothing more than a representation of the truth. A practical model that is an analogy of reality.
"Proof" for scientist is measured in probability, not in absolute: It is usually accepted as "5-sigma" certainty, which is close to 1 in a million probability of a wrong statement, but it might change a little from field to field. You can still be wrong by pure statistics and you can be wrong by doing wrong statistics. Wrong statistics may be just an error, but it may be because there was something else you did not know about and could not take into account. Running into something that breaks this statistics does not get "oh no! the theory is wrong..." response. It will get a big "YAHOO!" cheers. Destroying someone else's theory or "proving" them wrong (statistically wrong) is what every scientist hope for. Doing an experiment and then reporting "We confirm the results of / theoretical prediction of..." is usually boring.
-
If you stick your hand in a fire and hold it there for 5 minutes. Your saying that you cant define that your hand got burnt as absolute truth. You would honesty say hmmmm its probable that my hand is burnt?
Ya im not buying what your selling. Nice reframe tho.........
"Science does not pretend to be the absolute "truth" " ----------------Your making a Truth claim. --------------------
P.S.. if you are having trouble accepting the fact that the fire is hot enough to absolutely burn your hand. I would be happy to get the fire going for you.
-
AH you are just talking in circles. :O :O :O You havent answered anything, just pontificating.
I already know I have taken a philosophical approach to start, that is the only thing we agree on so far, (I never claimed to present science yet. ) otherwise the science will just go in circles.
We have to establish if truth can be known first otherwise the whole scientific debate will just go in circles. You finally tried to define it
Proof" for scientist is measured in probability, not in absolute: It is usually accepted as "5-sigma" certainty, which is close to 1 in a million probability of a wrong statement
But you want to keep the "you can't know for sure" wiggle room. Just a fancy way to say " we can't know truth for sure" which means you have to use faith to make up the difference. and you are still violating the law of non-contradiction by claiming to know truth, yet your own statement says I really can't know for sure but I want you to believe it anyway.
You went from science is not based on absolute proof to "Science does not pretend to be the absolute "truth". These are two very different statements and thoughts.
Our first discussion was on science is not "based" on proof, and that philosophy and science are seperate. You now have cleverly tried to change the frame of the debate to Science does not pretend to be absolute truth.
I know what forensic science is and what it is and isnt capable of. We are in violent agreement on this point. Science can't pretend to be absolute truth. Only once truth is defined, we can philosophicaly reason if the evidence points to a truthful conclusion or premise. Forensic science is just the gathering of the evidence we still have to use rules and logic to put the pieces togeather.
By the way your original statement on Proof was philisophical and not scientific. Why can you use philosophy but for some reason I should be useing science without philosophy.
Example: The earth is round. How do I know this? because of the forensic evidence presented to me. I have never seen the earth as an empirical observation as a round sphere yet I believe it is round. I have seen pictures which are forensic evidence not empirical evidence. We have forensic evidence that if you walk/swim, or fly in a straight direction you will come back to the same point after about 25,000 miles. again evidence of a sphere. Do I know for 100% certain that the earth is round? NO because I havent seen it for myself.
The ball in front of me is round how do I know this. Because I can see it with my eyes and feel it with my hands. This is empirical science/evidence.
Sounds to simple we both know this. The problem is in a debate is how the evidence is applied to a claim. This is what I question.
This is why I take a phlisophical approach at first. Do the debaters even understand how to debate or is it going to just go in a circle.
-
Gyrene: the insects did not exactly "adapt". And yet they did.
A mutilation that probably occurred regularly, - i.e. a black butterfly, - suddenly became a vital factor in survival instead of being either a nuicance or a key to getting killed.
Speaking of those things, I happen to be involved with breeding of cattle and other lifestock. You would be surprised hof much you can also achieve with some 20 generations of breeding. And we do also work with "mutilations" and breed them onwards.
Therefore, I always chuckle at the thought of folks who do not belive in species altering with time. It is basically a total basis in agriculture, so obviously the very simple folks do not come from that part of the human gene pool :devil
You are claiming empirical observation and evidence. 20 generation of breeding can achieve (what can it achieve ). Then you make a claim that because of this evidence you believe species can alter with time. The hidden claimes are. Your 20 generations of breeding prove it was done with intelligence and that you have to use human inteligence to get the results you want because natural selection has not done it.
I believe you can get adaptation with inteligent intervention but only within the species. Have you made a new species yet?
You have no forensice evidence or empirical evidence to show new species. So how can you make that claim?
Who doesn't believe that a species won't alter with time? Alter how is the quesiton. Adaptaion within a species is proven you proved it.
Evolution on a basis of natural selection is not proved nor has any evidence been supplied for the claim. Natural selection excludes intelligence is random and does not have a goal.
Through a select breeding program you show all intelligent guided process, a goal with aim in view, not a blind process.
So with the statement "folks don't believe the species altering with time", do you mean. Inteligent guided adaptation? or Evolution by natural selection.
These are two different things, and together violate the law of non-contradiction. If it is inteligent guided you cant have natural selection. They exclude each other.
-
ok sonic, now i'm starting to understand where your reams of text are coming from. this discussion is about evolution although it has widened out to discuss science in general. It is not about creationism or even evolution vs creationism, so please dont steer it that way. If you want to discuss creationism, please start a new topic (although I'm not sure how long that will last given the forum rules.)
-
For the scientists, philosophy is like masturbation - fun, but pointless.
Philosophers argue and work on the "philosophy of science" and it still is an active field for them (as far as I heard from rumors). In practice, not a single scientist I know read or studied their work seriously beyond coffee discussions. At least not from the past 200 years of it.
hardly, most of the really important work in the field has been done in the last 100yrs, as you might expect given the areas science has been investigating in this period. eg. Popper, Kuhn. Its important to understand the way science works wrt paradigms etc. and seems to be of interest especially to physicists - certainly in the UK many physicists will have spent some time in their social sciences dept doing a course in epistemology of science.
-
ok sonic, now i'm starting to understand where your reams of text are coming from. this discussion is about evolution although it has widened out to discuss science in general. It is not about creationism or even evolution vs creationism, so please dont steer it that way. If you want to discuss creationism, please start a new topic (although I'm not sure how long that will last given the forum rules.)
Thanks RT,
I know this and have stayed away from the saying creationism. I thought it was the case but the logic is so poor i wasn't sure.
So what you are saying is that both penguin and gyrene are aurguing within evolution?
So they are trying to argue thier view on how evolution happened, not if it happened?
Here is the problem with the logic being used to support evolution. If I say I believe in evolution if make certain obvious and hidden claims.
I am just trying to prove the logic is wrong. They ( all the debaters ) can't have two claims within evolution that claim opposits.
They are making false claims within evolution if that is what they are tying to do.
-
Srryy guys I thought you guys knew how to debate and what you were talking about.
I will bow out of this as the discusion really can't go anywhere. Because you really can't talk about science.
It is either good science vs bad science or bad science vs bad science with very poor logic.
Just one last thought for bozon.
If you don't know what absolute truth is or absolute proof. How do you know your formula is right? one in a million from what?
-
Come on Moray...you can't be serious...grammatical semantics? OK, to ease your mind, let's use the word continuous...the process of evolution is "continuous" in all life forms on the planet earth. You previously claimed evolution occurs when it must...you also claim it is not continuous...science is showing the only time a life form stops evolving is when it goes extinct...the process is continuously occurring at the microbiological level...think immune system.
You mean this?
According to some current theories, there was a single moment...somewhere between 12 and 15 billion years in the past (depending on who posted the theory)...of course there are a thousand different interpretations of the theory, and it is being revised as new discoveries are examined...but the one thing that hasn't changed is the beginning event, an explosion...Stephen Hawking is thinking that the answer lies within black holes (who incidentally is the first scientist I have ever heard of to admit one of his theories was wrong)...the theory posted on NASA's site claims an object just a few millimeters across held all the mass within the visible universe.
And the beat goes on...
Can't argue with that.
You must be talking about classical mechanics which is derived from Newton's laws...I understood it to be predictive physics theory...not sure about relativistic mechanics but quantum mechanics is a purely theoretical science that looks at things on the atomic level.
Maybe I don't have enough vocabulary for this, I am sorry. I'm only going to argue against the first point for now:
Evolution only occurs when it must, therefore, if it doesn't need to, it will not. It can start again, it can stop, it can go at varying paces as well. Take pesticide resistance, that occurs very quickly due to the fact that the pressure is extreme and fast-acting.
-Penguin
P.S. On a more positive (and less serious) note, the average cup size in women has gone from a 34B to 36C over a few thousand years, just goes to show you, the more the merrier! :O
-
I'll let this discussion go back to the evolution.
Two final clarifications:
hardly, most of the really important work in the field has been done in the last 100yrs, as you might expect given the areas science has been investigating in this period. eg. Popper, Kuhn. Its important to understand the way science works wrt paradigms etc. and seems to be of interest especially to physicists - certainly in the UK many physicists will have spent some time in their social sciences dept doing a course in epistemology of science.
Perhaps it is in the UK, but in most other places scientists (I sample mostly physicists) know very little about Popper or Kuhn and don really care beyond the coffee discussion level. Myself included.
Just one last thought for bozon.
If you don't know what absolute truth is or absolute proof. How do you know your formula is right? one in a million from what?
I don't know if the formula is right. I gamble on the highest probability.
-
Maybe I don't have enough vocabulary for this, I am sorry. I'm only going to argue against the first point for now:
It can start again, it can stop, it can go at varying paces as well. Take pesticide resistance, that occurs very quickly due to the fact that the pressure is extreme and fast-acting.
-Penguin
P.S. On a more positive (and less serious) note, the average cup size in women has gone from a 34B to 36C over a few thousand years, just goes to show you, the more the merrier! :O
"Evolution only occurs when it must, therefore, if it doesn't need to, it will not." -------------------
--------------Your implying intelligence. Evolution cannot know life or death. It cannot know pressure. It can not know the correct gene to mutate. It would have too try all possibility's Including all the death possibility's.It cannot know anthing but randomness.
Starting and stopping would have to be random as well.
-
"Evolution only occurs when it must, therefore, if it doesn't need to, it will not." -------------------
--------------Your implying intelligence. Evolution cannot know life or death. It cannot know pressure. It can not know the correct gene to mutate. It would have too try all possibility's Including all the death possibility's.It cannot know anthing but randomness.
Starting and stopping would have to be random as well.
WRONG.
-
"Evolution only occurs when it must, therefore, if it doesn't need to, it will not." -------------------
--------------Your implying intelligence. Evolution cannot know life or death. It cannot know pressure. It can not know the correct gene to mutate. It would have too try all possibility's Including all the death possibility's.It cannot know anthing but randomness.
Starting and stopping would have to be random as well.
WRONG.
In a word: owned.
-Penguin
-
i have to take Gyrene's side on this one........
the big bang theory and the theory of evolution are just that: theories.
is that to say all of science is based off of theories? because it is. what if everything we know about the universe is wrong, because the scientists screwed up their theories?
-
i have to take Gyrene's side on this one........
the big bang theory and the theory of evolution are just that: theories.
is that to say all of science is based off of theories? because it is. what if everything we know about the universe is wrong, because the scientists screwed up their theories?
Theory in everyday speech and theory in science are two different words.
Theory in everyday speech is a guess, a hypothesis.
Theory in science is an explaination of observations and laws, which puts it all in the big picture for us.
And what if your particular explaination is wrong? We could all be wrong, and some other thing could have happened to make the universe. Richard Dawkins makes a good joke on this as well; "Well what if it's the Juju at the Bottom of the Sea?"
You see, you make an argument from fear of being wrong, but your position is much more shaky (unless of course you take the position of "I don't know and I don't care", in which case you can't be right or wrong, logically).
-Penguin
-
WRONG.
Im curious what is WRONG?
Is it intellegent or not?
How does it know when to evolve.
How do you know this? Where is the science? or evidence?
-
I have to read through all the stuff Sonicblu and Bozon posted...then compile my responses but I wanted to hit you first. :D
No offense sir but...LOL...the word is mutation...not mutilation. If you were mutilating the cattle, you would not be able to breed them very effectively due to the high risk of mortality, and those butterflies would cease to exist unless they could adapt to being mutilated.
Just wanted to point that out.
Awww, spelling! Mutation, like in "mutant" it is.
Anyway, a famous example of a harmless mutation is the musculature of the finest beef cattle. Basically they have so much muscle on their hind quarters to be born normally. So, there we humans are altering the species, except not quite the way darwin's theory would...
-
Im curious what is WRONG?
Is it intellegent or not?
How does it know when to evolve.
How do you know this? Where is the science? or evidence?
Evolution is not "intelligent". The genetic code does not know what exact way to configure itself to be best adapted to current parameters. Current parameters put selective pressure upon an species, and trait adaptation is built into that. A certain percentage of that species will ALWAYS be better equipped for the environment they live in, by simple genetic drift. Exterior pressure selects these genotypic and phenotypic traits as superior. Superior members of any species will carry their bloodlines with higher reproductive success, as nearly all species (besides our own) select a mate based solely upon genetic fitness. Traits therefore move through any population in this way.
Saying there is no pressure or selection is complete bunk. It is the cornerstone of the science.
-
Never said that.!!!!! I said Evolution can not know pressure. To know would imply intelligence.
Language is a representational system ie.(math) Penguin implied knowledge which does imply intelligence. He represented science with language... The way he did it implies intelligence. If something is not intelegant it MUST me random. The answer must be one that has an explanation that includes randomness. Or it is the wrong conclusion.\
Penguin how do you feel the need to personally attack me. This discussion is about science not about me.
Moray replied to something other than what I did say.
<S>
-
Theory in everyday speech and theory in science are two different words.
Theory in everyday speech is a guess, a hypothesis.
Theory in science is an explaination of observations and laws, which puts it all in the big picture for us.
And what if your particular explaination is wrong? We could all be wrong, and some other thing could have happened to make the universe. Richard Dawkins makes a good joke on this as well; "Well what if it's the Juju at the Bottom of the Sea?"
You see, you make an argument from fear of being wrong, but your position is much more shaky (unless of course you take the position of "I don't know and I don't care", in which case you can't be right or wrong, logically).
-Penguin
How do you geta theory with out a hypothesis first?
-
How do you geta theory with out a hypothesis first?
You don't, a theory is a hypothesis, usually more of a group of hypotheses, that have been proven to explain a broad range of observations.
-Penguin
-
YOu have no idea what your talking about!!!! Do you know what a contradiction is? How are theory in every dayspeech and theory in science two differant words? You must use laungage (speech is the auditory of lauguage) You just used eveyday "speech".....
A Group would have to come first...
I dont have time for the rest maybe later//
-
Evolution is not "intelligent". The genetic code does not know what exact way to configure itself to be best adapted to current parameters. Current parameters put selective pressure upon an species, and trait adaptation is built into that. A certain percentage of that species will ALWAYS be better equipped for the environment they live in, by simple genetic drift. Exterior pressure selects these genotypic and phenotypic traits as superior. Superior members of any species will carry their bloodlines with higher reproductive success, as nearly all species (besides our own) select a mate based solely upon genetic fitness. Traits therefore move through any population in this way.
Saying there is no pressure or selection is complete bunk. It is the cornerstone of the science.
How are you using the word Evolution in this statement? It appears that we are talking about adaptation within a species. Or to put it another way evolutin within a species. Is this correct?
-
"Absolute truths are the basis for science."
There are no absolute truths in science, just probabilities. Good science is a methodology for investigation, no more, no less. Observe, measure, collate and test the resulting data, hypothesize, test the hypothesis, publish the results - and criticize openly as and if necessary.
:cool:
-
Theory in everyday speech and theory in science are two different words.
Theory in everyday speech is a guess, a hypothesis.
Theory in science is an explaination of observations and laws, which puts it all in the big picture for us.
same word, same meaning.
YOu have no idea what your talking about!!!!
on this point I have to agree. Penguin try using the "Preview" button, then read through it a few times before you hit the "Post" button...
-
"Absolute truths are the basis for science."
There are no absolute truths in science, just probabilities. Good science is a methodology for investigation, no more, no less. Observe, measure, collate and test the resulting data, hypothesize, test the hypothesis, publish the results - and criticize openly as and if necessary.
:cool:
Ok truth is absolute truth. Are we redefining what truth is? We dont need to add absolute do we?
How do you know the probabilities with out truth? 1 out of one million. You would have to know truth 999,999 times out of a million. Do you not realize your not making a probability claim ,when you say you KNOW what the probability's are, you are making a truth claim!
If you do not have the truth then there is no way you can claim any probability.
Your defining your faith you just dont know it .
Where do you get 1 out of 1million any ways? That cant be anywere close. No where on plant earth are we seeing 1 out of a million apples fall UP.
-
"Absolute truths are the basis for science."
There are no absolute truths in science, just probabilities. Good science is a methodology for investigation, no more, no less. Observe, measure, collate and test the resulting data, hypothesize, test the hypothesis, publish the results - and criticize openly as and if necessary.
:cool:
Hmm, YOU just made a truth claim. " there are no absolute truths in science" if this isnt the truth what would you guess the probablilities are that it is the truth.
There is a huge difference between "basis" for science and "IN" science.
Are you talkin fornesic science or empirical science. YOu are right with forensice science when you say "in" science. the earth is round is has a high probability of being true.
IF you are talking empirical observations in science you are wrong. the ball in front of me is round. I am 100% sure that is a truth.
My claim is you have to have truth as a basis for science.
The methodology has to have a absolute truth to make good science.
-
FireDrgn and Sonic - truth and absolute truth are actually fairly ambiguous phrases, but I think I understand what you are both getting at.
As simba said, science is a methodology for investigation. If it works you end up with a theory which explains and predicts your observations. This theory will contain a mixture of a priori propositions (which rely on experience) and a posteriori propositions (which do not). the a posteriori propositions might be described as truths in this context. however, the theory relies on all of its propositions working together, so the net result is a priori because part of it does rely on observation/experience.
so although the theory might contain elements of what you describe as truth, it ultimately relies on observation, so overall cannot ever be the absolute truth.
btw Sonic - you are making a distinction between forensic science and empirical science which isnt relevant here. forensic science is just empirical science used in a legal context.
-
This is the original stament.
"I'm uncomfortable with people using the concept of proof, its appropriate for formal logic or mathematics but is an impossible goal for empirical science. scientific theories arent either true or false (they would be theroems if they could be proved,) they are merely tools we can use to predict or explain observed phenomena. as such they arent either true or false, but they are on a sliding scale of usefulness depending on their application. "
I agree with "concept of proof is appropriate for formal logic or mathematics" Clearly this is implyed as true at the least proof by bozon and simba neither have offered a counter claim to this. ITs a contradiction with the science they have offered. Claiming no truth using probability that requires a truth claim.
The biggest contradiction is They are USING MATH.. something they have allready agreed to "concept of proof is appropriate for formal logic or mathematics" Then they claim i cant ask for proof or truth. When they just offerd PROOF yet claim they dont have it...
All im seeing here is 3 rings. <S>
-
The biggest contradiction is They are USING MATH.. something they have allready agreed to "concept of proof is appropriate for formal logic or mathematics" Then they claim i cant ask for proof or truth. When they just offerd PROOF yet claim they dont have it...
no contradiction there, like I explained above a theory in empirical science will require a mixture of propositions which depend on observation, and those that dont (ie. maths). if any part of the theory depends on observations, the theory overall cannot be proved or absolutely true.
-
What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth."
It would be my guess that we are actually discusing several different things.
I thought that we were discussing the basis of science containing absolute truths. i.e logic math empirical observations. and my position that science has not branch off from philosophy because it can't.
With clever wording it has change to "in" science and now scientific theories
are not truth, just probabilities. Which i Agree with.
I think probability is just a fancy way of saying ah we have to use faith to make up the difference, or if not faith some kind of magic. Faith being defined as "belief in something base on evidence of things not seen."
That is why in a court of law they call it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I just don't like people presenting something as fact ( absolute truth ) when if fact it is probable or more likely less than probable.
So I think we are in agreement. All the science presented so far is just probable not FACT.
-
Even so, it's the most probable thing we can come up with. I'd like to see you or anyone else on this board do better.
The problem with all of your arguments is that you are saying that we cannot rely on science because we can't post a 100% probability sticker on it. However, the kind of science we rely on every day would seem arcane to the very edges of what is being done right now.
Take this analogy for example:
A mathematician, an engineer, and an scientist are standing in a dance hall. All of the men in the room are on one side, while all of the women are on the other. The men and women will advance exactly half of the distance to each other every three seconds. The question is posed to the three, when will the dancers meet?
Mathematician: Never, the sequence is infinite
Engineer: My model won't let them touch
Physicist: In a few minutes they'll be close enough
As you can see, the parameters define the theory, as they can always be changed, and at a certain point they have been changed so much that the theory is out of place. For instance, Newtonian physics has speed limits, and at those limits, Relativity takes over. This doesn't mean, that within Newtonian physics parameters, that it won't work at all. It just means that when you change the parameters of the system enough, you will eventually need a new understanding of it in the places where the parameters have been changed.
So unless your kids play brick factory with a supercollider in the backyard, or you zip through the sun on your way to work, much of the new science we have will not be applicable for a while. As you can see, we could also go to your hypotheses and change the parameters with the express purpose of testing their limits and then using our results to make them useless.
It's like the constant Pi, how many digits do you want?
-Penguin
-
2 + 2 = 4
A2 + b2 = c2
Used to be called science, and is now....somewhat....beyond debate :devil
-
Hmm, YOU just made a truth claim. " there are no absolute truths in science" if this isnt the truth what would you guess the probablilities are that it is the truth.
There is a huge difference between "basis" for science and "IN" science.
Are you talkin fornesic science or empirical science. YOu are right with forensice science when you say "in" science. the earth is round is has a high probability of being true.
IF you are talking empirical observations in science you are wrong. the ball in front of me is round. I am 100% sure that is a truth.
Yet we know that the Earth isn't truly round. Nor is the ball in front of you.
-
Yet we know that the Earth isn't truly round. Nor is the ball in front of you.
Again, it depends on how you shift the parameters. Round, however, does not mean spherical, round means that the object is curved, spherical means that the object is a perfect sphere.
-Penguin
-
...
Mathematician: Never, the sequence is infinite
Engineer: My model won't let them touch
Physicist: In a few minutes they'll be close enough
In the version I know they go to a "woman of questionable morals" (for the pious word filter) and the pimp only allows them to get closer to half the distance with each step.
-
To each his own! :lol
-Penguin
-
no contradiction there, like I explained above a theory in empirical science will require a mixture of propositions which depend on observation, and those that dont (ie. maths). if any part of the theory depends on observations, the theory overall cannot be proved or absolutely true.
Im having trouble here Rthomes. So you r saying they are not offering proof of probability?
You claim there is NO truth or false> Yet in order to prove your point Bozon Simba claim there is false and there is Truth. How is that not a contradiction?
<S>
-
You gotta learn to:
(http://kimchiicecream.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/photo_moviematrix-quotespoon.jpg)
-
You claim there is NO truth or false> Yet in order to prove your point Bozon Simba claim there is false and there is Truth. How is that not a contradiction?
I'm not claiming that at all. in my example the parts of the theory that use maths can be proved, they are either true or false. The parts of the theory that rely on observation or measurement cannot be proved, they are best guesses at the properties of reality that we are trying to model.
If any parts of the theory cannot be proved, the entire theory cannot be proved.
Because all empirical science relies to some degree on observation or measurement, its theories cannot therefore be proved.
-
I'm not claiming that at all. in my example the parts of the theory that use maths can be proved, they are either true or false. The parts of the theory that rely on observation or measurement cannot be proved, they are best guesses at the properties of reality that we are trying to model.
If any parts of the theory cannot be proved, the entire theory cannot be proved.
Because all empirical science relies to some degree on observation or measurement, its theories cannot therefore be proved.
Again, it depends on the parameters given.
If you give me more and more useful information, I can give you a better theory. However, if you tell me to do what Kirk told Spock to do: "Build an interstellar transmitter out of bear skin and sticks", I'll probably end up giving you something that looks like a pipe-dream gone wild.
Also, the amount of information that we have already is so large that the ratio of possibilities from a physicist's point of view to the amount of possibilities for the person running the program is absurd. Sure, you could, given enough energy (in this case provided by anti-matter annihalation), you could get to Mars in a matter of weeks. However, just producing just a tablespoon of anti-matter would bankrupt the United States of America.
As you can see, it's all about the parameters, they control the outcome. Thus, scientists try to control the parameters as much as they can; but they aren't all-powerful (which oddly enough, by its very defenition, is impossible), they're just average joes like you and me with a job that might actually pay very little at all.
-Penguin
-
Again, it depends on the parameters given.
no it doesnt.
-
Yes it does. Here's a perfect example, we can only go slightly slower than the local speed of light due the fact as you approach it, your mass becomes infinitely great. Let's say that we are in a place where the speed of light is lower, therefore our maximum speed is lower as well. Interestingly enough, one could argue that there's a maximum temperature as well, since all heat is is vibrating (and therefore moving) particles.
As you can see, parameter's change the results.
-Penguin
-
no it doesnt.
empirical science by definition requires observation and measurement. therefore theories in empirical science cannot ever be formally proved.
what "parameters" can you apply to refute the above hypothesis?
-
no it doesnt.
empirical science by definition requires observation and measurement. therefore theories in empirical science cannot ever be formally proved.
what "parameters" can you apply to refute the above hypothesis?
That's not even an experiment. And yes, if I gave you infinite time, money and data (along with the methods to interpret it), you could make theories into theorums.
-Penguin
-
RTHomes Thank you. Now I understand what your saying.
I still think there is a disconnect tho. Are we limited by language?
Empirical science requires observation and measurement. How is basic math not empirical science?
<S>
-
RTHomes Thank you. Now I understand what your saying.
good :) and thanks for sticking at it trying to understand :aok
And yes, if I gave you infinite time, money and data (along with the methods to interpret it), you could make theories into theorums.
for the science that we do, that certainly isnt an option so my hypothesis still stands. in order for this to be possible it would require a perfect model of reality. I havent seen any reasonable arguments that suggest this is possible, and a wide range of arguments that suggest it would be impossible. if you want to look into it further its a problem of determination, but be warned, as philosophy goes its a fairly wide and extremely deep problem. you're going to need a very long reading list to get your head around it :)
-
good :) and thanks for sticking at it trying to understand :aok
for the science that we do, that certainly isnt an option so my hypothesis still stands. in order for this to be possible it would require a perfect model of reality. I havent seen any reasonable arguments that suggest this is possible, and a wide range of arguments that suggest it would be impossible. if you want to look into it further its a problem of determination, but be warned, as philosophy goes its a fairly wide and extremely deep problem. you're going to need a very long reading list to get your head around it :)
I would gladly like to learn about this determination you speak of, but I was illustrating that impossible problems can only be solved by even more impossible solutions. Realize that it's all about the data we have and the parameters for accuracy and focus we set.
-Penguin
-
Only a true theory can be proven true. A false theory can NEVER be proven true. A false theory can only be proven false. A theorem presupposes a already true theory.
-
If humans are not perfect, then why are our sciences perfect?
If humans are not perfect, why are our mathematics perfect?
We invented both methods for discovering and solving problems. Therefore, by definition of imperfection, our works will also be imperfect.
-
Oops, I concede that forgot to mention that. Here it is, fixed:
If I gave you all of the data you could need, and the methods to put it together, and infinite time and resources, you could make all of our true theories into theorums. However, we have already established that our theories are very close to what is real. So right now we're in the buisness of new theories on new things and tuning up the old ones.
If humans are not perfect, then why are our sciences perfect?
If humans are not perfect, why are our mathematics perfect?
We invented both methods for discovering and solving problems. Therefore, by definition of imperfection, our works will also be imperfect.
Nope, the constants of e and pi would exist one way or another, the only thing that we really defined was doing it all in the base ten (hint, number of fingers).
-Penguin
-
I never said the constants don't exist, I said our analysis of these constants (such as our origins) will always be flawed. Unless you're perfect (which you yourself know you're not), your theories, ideas, and calculations will be flawed.
-
I never said the constants don't exist, I said our analysis of these constants (such as our origins) will always be flawed. Unless you're perfect (which you yourself know you're not), your theories, ideas, and calculations will be flawed.
I would like to see you argue with an atomic bomb; e=mc2 in action. I would like you to find a triangle in which all of the angles do not add up to 180 degrees, and calculate the growth of bacteria in a dish without using e. Furthermore, prove to me that the ratio of the circumfrence of a circle in relation to it's diameter is not equal to Pi. There's no interpretation of ei (pi symbol)= -1, it's there, it exists, and we have the proof to back it up.
-Penguin
-
Yes it does. Here's a perfect example, we can only go slightly slower than the local speed of light due the fact as you approach it, your mass becomes infinitely great. Let's say that we are in a place where the speed of light is lower, therefore our maximum speed is lower as well. Interestingly enough, one could argue that there's a maximum temperature as well, since all heat is is vibrating (and therefore moving) particles.
If I understand you meaning, both examples are physically wrong:
1. A massive particle cannot go faster than the speed described as the speed of light in vacuum. The speed of light in matter does not matter (haha pun intended).
2. Temperature is a measure of energy. The speed of light does not limit maximum energy. The kinetic energy keeps increasing without limit even though the speed in length/time units asymptotically approach the speed of light. There are many places in the universe where thermal particles are moving and colliding at speeds that are over 99% the speed of light. There is no theoretical maximum though practically, at some point it would hard to avoid loosing energy to the production of new massive particles in every interaction.
-
I never said the constants don't exist, I said our analysis of these constants (such as our origins) will always be flawed. Unless you're perfect (which you yourself know you're not), your theories, ideas, and calculations will be flawed.
How do you know constants exsist if your always flawed?
Not perfect how? What is your criteria for perfect? YOU WOULD HAVE TO KNOW WHAT PERFECT IS TO CLAIM THAT!!!
If your statment is true. and your caclculations are always flawed you can not know what perfect is...
<S>
We did not invent anything. We can only discover what is already here.
-
Unless you're perfect (which you yourself know you're not), your theories, ideas, and calculations will be flawed.
That is incorrect and sounds like theology, not logic. If one is imperfect (in what way? forgetting my anniversary?) it does not necessarily means that his idea or calculation will be flawed.
-
That is incorrect and sounds like theology, not logic. If one is imperfect (in what way? forgetting my anniversary?) it does not necessarily means that his idea or calculation will be flawed.
Correct, Denholm, you are contradicting yourself:
First you say that man is imperfect and therefore cannot truly comprehend universal constants, which are "perfect" in that they are always correct. Next, you say that man cannot invent anything because he can only discover what is already there. Both of those statements could be true, but they are contradictory.
Next to disproving both points, even if man is "imperfect", he still managed to survive at least one Ice Age, and the thaw afterward. Therefore, the margin of error is small enough to be negligible, even if it still exists. Second, shoes didn't come from the big bang, they came from our need to cover our feet to prevent nasty cuts, and sometimes gangrene and botulism. Shoelaces came about to ease the keeping of the shoes on our feet. Now you see that we created a solution to a problem, which had a flaw, and then we invented a solution to that flaw.
Your points are both incorrect and contradictory, try again.
-Penguin
-
Next, you say that man cannot invent anything because he can only discover what is already there.
He did not say that I did. Your running post together.
Both statements can be WRONG if they contradict they can not both be RIGHT.
-
I would like you to find a triangle in which all of the angles do not add up to 180 degrees
All hyperbolic triangles :uhoh
-
I was refering to a triangle in a 2 dimensional plane, sorry if I wasn't clear about that! :eek:
-Penguin
PS Good one, I didn't see it coming
-
You guys are still at this? Don't you get it? There is no right or wrong answer to the theories as far as science is concerned. What can be proven has been proven, what can't be proven is being postulated using available technology to examine what data there is to be had.
-
Wow. Delivered with such authority, yet so wide of the mark that it astounds.
-
You guys are still at this? Don't you get it? There is no right or wrong answer to the theories as far as science is concerned. What can be proven has been proven, what can't be proven is being postulated using available technology to examine what data there is to be had.
Ok you sucked me back in.... :devil
How do YOU KNOW that there are no right or wrong anwers?
When you have a contradiction you have at least one wrong answer.
-
Ok you sucked me back in.... :devil
How do YOU KNOW that there are no right or wrong anwers?
When you have a contradiction you have at least one wrong answer.
Just look at all of the theories over the past 100 years, the "answers" change, and they will change again as new information is found through research. The only real contradictions occur between ideologies, otherwise there are "revised theories". They all have merits within their circles and only the most readily accept become the most publicized. Hell, even Hawkings has admitted one of his theories was wrong and is in the process of revising it, hopefully before he dies. I've even seen one theory that was once considered "the best" on the subject at one time only to be proven as bunk years after it's publication.
Discussions like this are like talking politics, basing one's ideology on the merits of work from complete strangers trusting that what is read is true.
-
You claim there is no right or wrong answers . Then as Proof for your claim. You state that Hawkings admitted his theory was WRONG So you must have right and wrong.
What your explaining is to NOT knowing something for sure. Which is exactly what the last 12 pages were about.
Answers change because people are wrong .
Are you suggesting that the evidence keeps changing?
......"They all have merits within their circles and only the most readily accept become the most publicized"...........quote
Your describing a faith based system you might want to be carefull there.
-
You're trying to drag me back in this aren't you? :lol evil man.
In science, answers change when new evidence is found, whether it proves an existing theory to be erroneous in some way or reinforces the theory in some way, it's not considered wrong unless it's shown to be based on false claims. Hence the continuing efforts in researching existing theories and developing new theories.
Just because Hawkings said one of his theories is wrong, doesn't mean it is wrong in the manner you're speaking.
Just to illustrate, the infamous Iguanodon. At one point it was theorized to be a single species of bipedal dinosaur, it's now known to be a genus of both bipedal and quadripedal dinosaurs. That doesn't mean the original theory was wrong, there just wasn't as much information as there is now.
The best description of what I'm saying regarding the Iguanodon from an encyclopedia:
Scientific understanding of Iguanodon has evolved over time as new information has been obtained from the fossils. The numerous specimens of this genus, including nearly complete skeletons from two well-known bonebeds have allowed researchers to make informed hypthoses regarding many aspects of the living animal, including feeding, movement, and social behaviour. As one of the first scientifically well-known dinosaurs, Iguanodon has occupied a small but notable place in the public's perception of dinosaurs, its artistic representation changing significantly in response to new interpretations of its remains.
-
What manner am i speaking?
"""it's not considered wrong unless it's shown to be based on false claims"""
SO THERE IS WRONG and there is False.
What makes you think you can use these terms if they dont exist?
-
SO THERE IS WRONG and there is False.
There are all kinds of "wrong" theories in science. Some are just found to be inaccurate or incomplete - such as Newton's mechanics. Others are found to produce correct predictions, even though they are based on wrong arguments - like Bohr's hydrogen model. Other are found to be completely wrong - like the ether universe. All these theories have been replaced by other theories that look to be correct so far. They are not 100% certain to be correct, but they are certainly "more correct" than the previous ones.
A "wrong" theory often survive even after a better one was found. As long as the user is aware of the accuracy and applicability limits of the theory it can be used. The first two examples I gave: Newton's mechanics and Bohr's hydrogen model are still being used, because for most applications they are good enough and much easier to handle than the superseding theories.
If you insist on the absolute terms of true and false, then science can only prove false because all it takes is finding one contradicting example/measurement.
-
A lot of people here have the right idea. But many also are using the wrong terms.
Semantics? Yes. But if you want to make a statement which others can understand, you better use the correct terms, otherwise none of us can ever be sure what you really mean. Thus all the logical and verbal bickering. Because it does matter.
This mainly goes for you gyrene (not a personal attack, but just an observation) - it is up to you to ensure we get the proper meaning of your statements. This requires a precise application of language and specialized terms. You actually have a better idea of what science is about than many people, but your articulation of it is rather lacking.
There is a lot of nuance as to the nature of "truth" and "falsehood", "right" and "wrong", etc when it comes to science.
As others have stated, science as it is currently practiced is not about proving things. That is because science as we use it deals with generalizations.
Sure you can prove many specific statements about the physical world, but they are typically not interesting because they have no applicability to other situations. E.g., you can prove that I ate food today. But does this mean I will eat food tomorrow? Does this mean that everybody eats food? Scientists actually grapple with this sort of dilemma! The more precise/rigid you make the theory, the less predictive power it has, and the less useful it is.
As a practical matter, generalizations about the physical world are impossible to prove. Quite simply, we will never have a complete data set of our universe. We will never be able to observe every cell, every atom, every person. Even if we had a complete (and to infinite precision) data set of all possible physical parameters at all points in space-time within our universe, we cannot possibly test every possible combination of these parameters.
So the idea of proving things is not useful to science. What about disproving? Sure it's comparatively easy, it only takes one counterexample, but disproofs do not a scientific theory make as they have no predictive value. Which brings me to another point.
Science constructs models of the physical world and the aim of the model is to provide us with true statements as much as possible, especially statements about events we have not yet observed. Predictive power is important since that is the "upshot" of all this science. If we can't use our knowledge, then what good is it?
Not to say disproofs aren't useful - they tell us our models are incomplete, they point us in the right direction for further research, and a whole host of other things.
Given the impossibility of proving scientific models, what are we left with? What's the point if we can't "know for sure"?
Would you take 1000:1 odds in your favor on a bet? What about 1 million:1? That is what is ACTUALLY behind those statements you see in the news about scientists "proving" something or the other (assuming the research was sound in the first place). For instance, the odds involved in claiming discovery of a new particle are roughly 1.7 million:1.
Finally, I want to touch on a point that is especially relevant to the whole evolution debate - the simplicity of a theory. A good theory is as simple as possible but not simpler. Why is this important? Because the more crap you need to explain something, the more questions that must be answered to give you those good odds. This is where every theory involving the supernatural goes way off base.
I'll use God as an example, since He's quite popular when it comes to this type of thing. When it comes to evolution - if God designed all the species to be a certain way, WHY did he chose these specific traits? Why not do it some other way? Why design species that function on the planet Earth? Why not design species that will function on say... Jupiter? From a practical standpoint, does this theory give us anything useful (predictive power)? If you have an answer to these questions, what scientific evidence do you have to back it up? And the biggest question/loophole of all - how do you know that God even exists?
It's possible. But is there an explanation which is based on a system we already understand and is reasonably well tested (i.e., it has good odds)? Yes indeed - genetics, probability, and mutation; in other words the theory of macro-evolution (as gyrene puts it, not a bad term).
True, neither explanation is testable, but which is a better explanation? Which is simpler? Which is based on a system which is already well tested? Which has less logical loopholes?
That in the end is why no well-accepted scientific theory involves God or any other supernatural phenomena - they just makes things more complicated without being at all useful.
To close, let me just say there's no reason you can't believe in God just as there's no reason religion and science can't get along. It's just that there's way too many reasons to NOT use God as an explanation in science. And I wouldn't put any bets on it...
BUT, as long as you do not mix the two, I'd say you're fine.
-
""If you insist on the absolute terms of true and false, then science can only prove false because all it takes is finding one contradicting example/measurement. ""
I am not insisting on absolute truths in science. I'm insisting that absolute truth must exist . Absolute truth is only limited by us the observers.
Boomerlu has some good points. Right and wrong are both generalizations and they can be ambiguous. Contradictions are one of the most powerfull tools in life and science. Knowing when your wrong and to what degree is also very empowering.
To tell me there is no right and wrong because you dont understand the representational system your using is just sloppy at best.
Language is a representational system ...ie math..... Any thing you can do with math you can do with language. .0000000003043040923434 its called getting specific.
We ALL think the same way we talk. ( in this case type) Its called internal dialogue.