I may have discovered the best evidence for evolution

[Zosimus]

We do not prove anything in science. As we say, proof is for alcohol and mathematics. I would say that the theory of evolution is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, however.

So right after admitting that science doesn't prove things, you're trying to to tell me that evolution is proven.

This is the same standard applied to our justice system. Logical proofs, as I have repeatedly pointed out, do not help us answer questions about the natural world around us, like "what is the explanation for the diversity and distribution of life on earth?" Therefore, logical fallacies, are irrelevant. If we waited for absolute proof of anything we would get no where... and you wouldn't be using a computer right now.

Another statement for which you have zero proof.

The scientific community does find the theory of evolution compelling, even if you do not. As I said above, the theory is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in my opinion.

Opinions are like armpits. Everyone has them, and they all stink.

Nothing in science is proven, or beyond any doubt, of course. I will also say that though it is possible, it is highly unlikely that common descent will be falsified in the future. The evidence is just too strong.

Just like all the evidence in support of Newton's Universal Theory of Gravitation, which had tons of evidence "supporting" it, and is now known to be false.

 

[Zosimus]

Does satisfying Koch's postulates constitute a logical proof, or a logical fallacy?

Satisfying Koch's postulates would not prove that the so-called chicken pox virus caused chicken pox. On the other hand, it is a stringent test that has a strong ability to eliminate false claims that microbe x causes disease y.

Nevertheless, even though the postulates have been watered down twice, there remain a large number of germs that are believed to cause some disease, but yet do not pass Koch's postulates.

 

[Delphiki]

Again, evidence isn't used to prove a theory... A theory is there to explain the evidence. You have it backwards, champ.

 

[Zosimus]

A scientific theory is an explanation of evidence and test results. To say that evidence doesn't support a theory shows a brazen cluelessness regarding the very definition of a scientific theory.

"Theories are meaningful independent of observations; observational statements are not meaningful unless they have been connected with theories..." –Paul Feyerabend

 

[Zosimus]

Again, evidence isn't used to prove a theory... A theory is there to explain the evidence. You have it backwards, champ.

Since evidence isn't used to prove a theory, then what's the point of demanding that evidence be provided every time a theory is mentioned?

 

[Zosimus]

You are talking about a theory in the colloquial sense, not a scientific theory.

What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory

The article is wrong because all facts are theory laden.

 

[Delphiki]

Since evidence isn't used to prove a theory, then what's the point of demanding that evidence be provided every time a theory is mentioned?

Because a theory explains the evidence. People are free to ask for an example. I'm not sure what your problem with that is.

Are you familair at all with the scientific method? You know the first step isn't "make an assertion", right? It's "Ask a question".

 

[Split Rock]

So right after admitting that science doesn't prove things, you're trying to to tell me that evolution is proven.

I said nothing is proven... in an absolute sense. Are you not familiar with the legal concept of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt?"

Another statement for which you have zero proof.

Which one? Do you really think you would be operating a computer right now if we didn't use science to understand things like electricity? All the while engaging in logical fallacies, of course.

Opinions are like armpits. Everyone has them, and they all stink.

I guess I should have said, professional opinion. It is also the professional opinion of the scientific community in general. Some opinions carry more weight than others.

Just like all the evidence in support of Newton's Universal Theory of Gravitation, which had tons of evidence "supporting" it, and is now known to be false.

It is not false, when applied to most conditions, now is it? It is still useful in the vast majority or situations in which such calculations are required. It is also a law, not a theory. Laws describe specific effects under the conditions that repeated experiments are carried out. They may not work under other conditions. from Wikipedia:

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated.​

Even Newton recognized that he had no idea where this "gravitational force" came from.
From the second edition of Principia: "I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses... It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies."

As I said, it is possible that the theory of evolution will be falsified, or superseded in the future, just not very likely.

 

[Split Rock]

Satisfying Koch's postulates would not prove that the so-called chicken pox virus caused chicken pox. On the other hand, it is a stringent test that has a strong ability to eliminate false claims that microbe x causes disease y.

Nevertheless, even though the postulates have been watered down twice, there remain a large number of germs that are believed to cause some disease, but yet do not pass Koch's postulates.

So, do you think the application of logical proofs is useful in determining the cause of diseases like chicken pox?

 

[Dizredux]

Different logicians use different terms and approaches.

All inductive arguments are invalid. That's why the word "valid" is rarely applied to inductive arguments. They are generally classified as strong or weak. That does not make them suddenly valid, nor does that exempt them from the requirement of validity.

So we ignore Copi and accept your ideas. So what are your credentials in Logic? Since you are setting yourself up as the expert, it is relevant.

Dizredux

 

[DogmaHunter]

The theory common genes has to be the result of common ancestor has been falsified by the evidence.

Tell that to the judge next time you are being sued with a paternity test.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are believing an unscientific assumption then.

True, the fossil record does not support evolution at all. In fact it is evidence against it. You have been brainwashed by the system.

Out of curiosity, how is it evidence against evolution? And be specific.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It wouldn't matter, would it?

Don't they already claim that, even without the fossil record the Theory of Evolution would still stand?

Fossils support common ancestry.
Genetics prove common ancestry.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Which means nothing.

To you maybe. To rational people, it means everything.

NASCAR and the Daytona 500 have patterns that are more similiar than different; yet they are both two different entities altogether.

The post you replied to explicitly stated that it's not about merely being similar. It's about the pattern in which the similarities occur.

But you have to make a "jump" to that common ancestor, since evolution cannot be daisy-chained, except on paper.

Tell it to the people who don't need any record or observation of your parents whatsoever, yet they are still able to determine that you and your sister are actually biological brother and sister. And thus share parents.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not a big fan of just saying GOD DID IT to everything.

The words under your username and the words in your signature, suggest otherwise.

 

[DogmaHunter]

P.S. It's the LAW of gravity, not the THEORY of gravity.

Theories explain laws.

Laws are not explanatory. Theories are.

 

[Split Rock]

The point of evidence is that when you have two theories, one of which predicts A, while the other predicts B, then a proper test can eliminate one or the other of the theories from consideration. It does not, however, indicate that the theory that has been corroborated is correct.

In the case of a criminal cases, there are two types of evidence that are used. They are classified as direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. If, for example, a man witnessed a murder and picked the murderer out of a line-up, then that is direct evidence and is conclusive on its own.

On the other hand, there is circumstantial evidence. One example might be fingerprints on the toilet handle in a murdered victim's house that are believed to match the fingerprints of a suspect. As I have already pointed out, fingerprint evidence is usually quite unreliable, but for the sake of argument let's say that fingerprint evidence could be elevated to a science and the expert was able to say that the print matched the suspect's print in 17 points and that there are only, statistically speaking, 2 other people in a city the size of Los Angeles who would have a 17-point match with the fingerprint in question.

Even so this information is not conclusive in itself. If the suspect denied going into the victim's house at any point in the past, that would raise the suspicion that the suspect is lying and therefore has something to hide. If, however, the suspect merely remained silent and let his lawyer do the talking, then the print would not be enough evidence to determine that the person was guilty of the crime. There are many possible explanations for prints on a toilet handle in someone's house.

The direct evidence in your example, witness identification, is actually quit unreliable.
The Innocence Project - Understand the Causes: Eyewitness Misidentification

 

[PsychoSarah]

Since evidence isn't used to prove a theory, then what's the point of demanding that evidence be provided every time a theory is mentioned?

Usually, it is a semantics mistake more than anything else.

 

[Dizredux]

Zosimus

Since evidence isn't used to prove a theory, then what's the point of demanding that evidence be provided every time a theory is mentioned?

Usually either to show there is support for a theory or in the case of forums, to show that the poster is just not pulling stuff out of their neither regions as is often the case.


Dizredux

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell it to the people who don't need any record or observation of your parents whatsoever, yet they are still able to determine that you and your sister are actually biological brother and sister. And thus share parents.

And I'm going to say this again:

Don't tell me that just because genetics can show my sister and I to be related, that I should believe my sister and I should be related to chimpanzees.