Science is messy.

[JohnEmmett]

Sorry, John. An hour long vid just doesn't cut it.

“unless we love the truth, we cannot know it.”
― Blaise Pascal

 

[Estrid]

I'm not asking you to discuss evolution. But here's something from Britannica:

'All living creatures are related by descent from common ancestors. Humans and other mammals descend from shrewlike creatures that lived more than 150 million years ago; mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes share as ancestors aquatic worms that lived 600 million years ago; and all plants and animals derive from bacteria-like microorganisms that originated more than 3 billion years ago. Biological evolution is a process of descent with modification. Lineages of organisms change through generations; diversity arises because the lineages that descend from common ancestors diverge through time.'

If you don't agree with that, I don't want to know why. I don't want to to critique it. I want to know what your alternative is.

I think interaction has fizzled.
Like trying to navigate a barge through a cornfield

 

[Estrid]

Sorry, John. An hour long vid just doesn't cut it.

Esp not the most obvious woo,woo.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Esp not the most obvious woo,woo.

Atheists talk of woo woo


Michael Cremo speaks of truth

 

[JohnEmmett]

It’s the same subject


Different perspectives

 

[dlamberth]

A yes or no would have sufficed long ago.

But but never mind, reticence speaks its own language.

Sorry, as you can tell I'm unable to give a yes or no answer as the Cosmos and Life itself isn't a yes or no answer. Maybe at most I can answer with is "all the above".

 

[Estrid]

Sorry, as you can tell I'm unable to give a yes or no answer as the Cosmos and Life itself isn't a yes or no answer. Maybe at most I can answer with is "all the above".

It's not that complicated to say if you think its
legitimate to state an unprovable opinion as fact.

That's all I'm asking.

 

[dlamberth]

As for evolution you still have not defined your term sufficiently .

I'll give it a try:
Evolution is change.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not that complicated to say if you think its legitimate to state an unprovable opinion as fact.

If you're willing to accept the consequences of your opinion being wrong, I'd say YES.

Go ahead and state an unprovable opinion as fact.

 

[Estrid]

I'll give it a try:
Evolution is change.

...in allele frequency

 

[dlamberth]

It's not that complicated to say if you think its
legitimate to state an unprovable opinion as fact.

That's all I'm asking.

Unprovable? Unprovable to whom? If to science, as @Mountainmike has been pointing out, there's a lot of gray area's that science has trouble proving, yet they exist. As an aside, it's more of the experiential aspect way more than opinion from which I'm writing. The same with understanding the inner experiential life that birthed the Hildegard's quote. Which to a lot of others besides myself because we actually dwell to where she was pointing is a proven state of consciousness. What's unpovalbe to you may be very provable to others, depending upon one's perspective. Unprovable is a word I'm having trouble with, as you can see.

 

[dlamberth]

...in allele frequency

That's one kind of change. But would that apply to change in the cosmos, which most certainly has evolved? Or the evolution of the moon, or sun or even the geology of the Earth?

 

[Estrid]

That's one kind of change. But would that apply to change in the cosmos, which most certainly has evolved? Or the evolution of the moon, or sun or even the geology of the Earth?

Let's just call this conversation a never- mind.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's one kind of change. But would that apply to change in the cosmos, which most certainly has evolved? Or the evolution of the moon, or sun or even the geology of the Earth?

Equivocation. Generally that ensures an increasingly agitated debate in which two or more sides argue based on their definition. Context is everything and I thought it clear that @Bradskii and @Estrid were talking about biological evolution. What you state above is true, but it is not relevant to the biological evolution.

Aside: Now it is obviously relevant to biological evolution in that it presented the environment in which evolution took place. But evolutionary mechanisms and products depend on what that enviroment is, not how it got there. It's the same reason that the origin of life is irrelevant. Evolution begins when, as Estrid puts it, we have alleles than can change.

 

[Mountainmike]

I'll give it a try:
Evolution is change.

It was addressed at @Bradskii. He wants to try to tell us that the problem of life is somehow solved by “ evolution”
without defining his term “ evolution” which has many aspects, some of which are undoubtedly true, but there is no single theory , so definition is everything, as is definition of “ life” . Even together they fail to combine to “explain”” life.”

He wants to move the thread from the root “ evidence leads” to what he thinks is safer ground to attack me and / or “creationists “ which equally needs defining (to have an argument based in critical thinking) but the entire “ creation” vs “ evolution” vs “science” vs “ religion” are all false dichotomies.

My comment to him ( and you) is , whatever he thinks , it doesn’t belong on this thread , or even this forum, only a creation/ evolution thread

 

[Mountainmike]

Equivocation. Generally that ensures an increasingly agitated debate in which two or more sides argue based on their definition. Context is everything and I thought it clear that @Bradskii and @Estrid were talking about biological evolution. What you state above is true, but it is not relevant to the biological evolution.

Aside: Now it is obviously relevant to biological evolution in that it presented the environment in which evolution took place. But evolutionary mechanisms and products depend on what that enviroment is, not how it got there. It's the same reason that the origin of life is irrelevant. Evolution begins when, as Estrid puts it, we have alleles than can change.

And in neither case does it belong on my thread, or even this forum . Start an evolution thread, on the evolution forum , preferably defining terms.

So stop derailing, this thread is about scientific process Not evolution

- now check and please acknowledge I am right, in my last comment to you.
you probably have never heard of it, so it is interesting education As follows

Marie Curie found a blue glow In radium solution, the evidence.

Only decades later did Cherenkov hypothesise and demonstrate an explanation for the evidence consistent with scientific model.
that is - Electrons moving faster than speed of light in water Lose energy radiating glow

But Curies evidence stands REGARDLESS of lack of hypothesis . It was evidence that prompted further research by others, even before Cherenkov who “ solved” it . It’s how science works. Messy.

The glow doesn’t disappear for lack of hypothesis .
Nobody would investigate a glow they didn’t know existed!

so your philosopher friend has his philosophical cart squarely in front of his philosophical horse.
( except for track 2 where the model says something might exist like gravity waves)

Galaxies don’t change shape to the one that mass gravity model says they should be,
before there is a hypothesis consistent with the actual evidenced shape.

The evidence of so called Eucharistic miracles stands, and verifiable out of body consciousness , however much materialists hate it. (And even try to suppress it)

Because - in science - evidence is king.
The model is only a man made creation. It has changed and will change again.

 

[Bradskii]

It was addressed at @Bradskii. He wants to try to tell us that the problem of life is somehow solved by “ evolution”...

No. Bradskii wants you to tell us how the problem is solved without evolution.

 

[Ophiolite]

- now check and please acknowledge I am right, in my last comment to you.
you probably have never heard of it, so it is interesting education

I am unable to acknowledge you are right, as that is not the case.
I was familiar with the work of the Curies six decades ago, but the first time I can recall being aware of Chernekov radiation would be about three decades ago. Your constant stream of insults is tiresome.

Marie Curie found a blue glow In radium solution, the evidence.

No, the observation. An observation without an explanation.

Only decades later did Cherenkov hypothesise and demonstrate an explanation for the evidence consistent with scientific model.
that is - Electrons moving faster than speed of light in water Lose energy radiating glow

He demonstrated an explanation (in the form of a hypothesis) for the observation. The observation became part of the evidence for that hypothesis.

But Curies evidence stands REGARDLESS of lack of hypothesis . It was evidence that prompted further research by others, even before Cherenkov who “ solved” it . It’s how science works. Messy.

The Curies' observation stood regardless of the lack of a hypothesis. It was the observation that prompted further research by others. They were searching for a hypothesis to account for the observation. Chernekov produced a plausible hypothesis and the observation was part of the evidence for the validity of the hypothesis. I am not sure why you think that process is messy.

The glow doesn’t disappear for lack of hypothesis .
Nobody would investigate a glow they didn’t know existed!

The observation doesn't disappear for lack of a hypothesis. Rather it inspires the desire to find a plausible hypothesis.

The forensic detective doesn't say "Bag that dirty sock on the floor, it's evidence (of the crime)", but "Bag that dirty sock on the floor it might be evidence (of the crime)". Later it may be determined that the sock had nothing to do with the crime, but you still insist it's evidence. Weird!

 

[Estrid]

I am unable to acknowledge you are right, as that is not the case.
I was familiar with the work of the Curies six decades ago, but the first time I can recall being aware of Chernekov radiation would be about three decades ago. Your constant stream of insults is tiresome.

No, the observation. An observation without an explanation.

He demonstrated an explanation (in the form of a hypothesis) for the observation. The observation became part of the evidence for that hypothesis.

The Curies' observation stood regardless of the lack of a hypothesis. It was the observation that prompted further research by others. They were searching for a hypothesis to account for the observation. Chernekov produced a plausible hypothesis and the observation was part of the evidence for the validity of the hypothesis. I am not sure why you think that process is messy.

The observation doesn't disappear for lack of a hypothesis. Rather it inspires the desire to find a plausible hypothesis.

The forensic detective doesn't say "Bag that dirty sock on the floor, it's evidence (of the crime)", but "Bag that dirty sock on the floor it might be evidence (of the crime)". Later it may be determined that the sock had nothing to do with the crime, but you still insist it's evidence. Weird!

Once a creationist has committed to
a position it's impossible for them to
admit it's wrong. Least of all to a - shudder-
atheist.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am unable to acknowledge you are right, as that is not the case.
I was familiar with the work of the Curies six decades ago, but the first time I can recall being aware of Chernekov radiation would be about three decades ago. Your constant stream of insults is tiresome.

No, the observation. An observation without an explanation.

He demonstrated an explanation (in the form of a hypothesis) for the observation. The observation became part of the evidence for that hypothesis.

The Curies' observation stood regardless of the lack of a hypothesis. It was the observation that prompted further research by others. They were searching for a hypothesis to account for the observation. Chernekov produced a plausible hypothesis and the observation was part of the evidence for the validity of the hypothesis. I am not sure why you think that process is messy.

“The observation doesn't disappear for lack of a hypothesis. Rather it inspires the desire to find a plausible hypothesis.”

The forensic detective doesn't say "Bag that dirty sock on the floor, it's evidence (of the crime)", but "Bag that dirty sock on the floor it might be evidence (of the crime)". Later it may be determined that the sock had nothing to do with the crime, but you still insist it's evidence. Weird!

“ The observation doesn't disappear for lack of a hypothesis. Rather it inspires the desire to find a plausible hypothesis.”
Eureka We agree. But the plausible hypothesis is only after refining evidence. Discovering what affects the observations.

I’m giving you a description of science practice.
Someone notices, that is evidence.

What shape are galaxies? “That shape. Here is the evidence they are that shape.”

Do they match mass/ gravity prediction? No. Not by a long way.

The evidence of what shape they are stands Regardless of not matching prediction.
Whether or not anyone ever comes up with a hypothesis for the discrepancy.

The effort to research the pattern is science , just as much as the attempt to find a hypothesis
. Indeed refining the evidence is much of the problem long before there is a hypothesis.

Experimental laws ( eg Boyle, Charles ) even are JUST a pattern, not a hypothesis of why the pattern exists,
science can get all the way to laws without a hypothesis!

in that case refining the model to include the “kinetic theory of gases “ was the hypothesis, then theory compatible with the experimental laws.