Evolution's Brick Wall

[pitabread]

I'm afraid convincing is a natural part of this.

That's why I suggest re-framing your entire approach. IOW, it doesn't have to be a natural part of this.

Fact is, even if I came out here and astounded you all by learning everything and then told you I still disagree, you would all just find another problem/reason why I don't understand...it never ends.

If you could demonstrate you understood the theory of evolution and the evidence which supports it, even if you ultimately disagreed with it, then I'd be fine with admitting you understood it. I just haven't seen anything from you that suggests you understand it.

Claiming there exists a scientific theory without evidence suggests a lack of understanding of science, the theory and/or the evidence.

 

[inquiring mind]

I think you are having the same problem with science that Inquiring Mind seems to have

He does... it's called common sense. And it's not a problem with science, but with macro evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

As long as no one is claiming evolution is fact, I'm good with it and can move on to something else.

Well, it's pretty much a fact that life has evolved and diversified since it began, but the theory of how that happened is a theory not a fact, and may be wrong.

It's like someone arguing there is no God for all these reasons and you defending God, as long as they aren't saying it, you have no need to disagree/defend it.

There's nothing to defend the theory of evolution from. If it's wrong, then there is no theory of how life got to be the way it is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, you were the one that switched from fossils to genetics.

No. I made a side comment.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I must protest....again.

You act as though because someone has been told multiple times, that makes it true, while it's absolutely/positively untrue. It's another convenient way around proving evolution.

Science proves just about everything physical.

And BTW, being told evolution is a fact "multiple times" is the only reason some believe it, and not because it is actual fact...power of suggestion.

If you are simply going to continue denying that scientific theories are never proven, only supported by evidence, then you simply are going to miss the fact that you are wrong.

Atomic theory
theory of relativity
germ theory of desease
plate tectonic theory
etc.........................

None of these are ever considered "proven". Ever.
Theories can only be supported by evidence or disproven. Never proven.

That's just how science works.

How many times must it be repeated, before it will sink in?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Until you or one of your wonderful scientists are able PROVE macroevolution I will hear none of your BS about it.

Scientific theories can't be proven. Ever. That's just how scientific explanations work. This is the case for evolution, relativity, atoms, germs, plate tectonics,....... and every other theory in science.

I don't know what else to tell you....

Learn how science is done.

You have all the evidence you need to PROVE it beyond a doubt. So why can't you?

We have all the evidence we need to confirm / support the theory. Just like in every other theory. No amount of evidence is able to PROVE a theory.

Learn how science is done.

BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN is the only logical conclusion.

The only logical conclusion here, is that you have no clue on how science works.

Please DO NOT reply to this post unless you have absolute proof.

Science doesn't deal in absolute proof. And I'll reply to any post I feel like replying to, thanks.

I won't waste my time reading outrageous and rather stupid presumptions and assumptions.

Good for you. Perhaps spend your time learning about how science is done instead.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yep "proof", and I agree, it just isn't there. But I know, we are all supposed to just take the word of those who tell us the most silly things as in Science proves nothing so evolution cannot be proven, just believe it because we do. And as I mentioned in one of my recent posts, all while giving us no good reason to take it seriously.

Seriously, learn how science works.

Theories are never proven in science. That's just how it is.
You can either deal with that, or continue being wrong.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This coming from someone who is basically telling us there is no proof for evolution...we should just believe it. Calling me ignorant without explanation is mighty convenient.... I guess you figure you don't have to prove that anymore than you do evolution. I'f I'm ignorant, it's because you all have fallen way short of presenting anything to curb my ignorance.

Yes, you are ignorant. About evolution for one. And also about how science is done.

I can't even count the amount of times it was explained to you that scientific theories are never proven, only supported by evidence.

Yet here you are, continuing to repeat the same falsehoods that have been corrected a thousand times over.

Why do you insist on getting this so wrong?

Show me

We have corrected your mistakes a thousand times over.

Oh that's right, another "perhaps" with no proof it is a fact, or something that means nothing. You really have a bad habit of that, but it fits right in with some of your others that I've already mentioned.

The only "bad habit" here, is you insisting on being wrong about how science is done.

So you are saying I don't have enough info, and you are certain of that?

Yes, I am absolutely certaint that you are scientifically illiterate. The continued nonsense demand for "proof" of scientific theories, proves that. That theories in science are never proven is like the basics of the basics of the basics.

Anyone who insists that it is not the case, is scientifically illiterate by definition.

Even after my mention of some of the info that has been said to prove evolution that in reality is nonsense?

Evolution is a theory. Theories are never proven.

See, and I am repeating myself, but once the evolutionist harps on the fossil record and virus evolution for instance, and touts them as major players/evidence, then when one looks closely at those things, they turn out to not mean diddly.... how many times am I/we to look at major evidence, and see it's worthless before we say I've seen enough to draw conclusion?

As many times as it takes, until you succeed in being intellectually honest.

I have little hope, though.

 

[Jimmy D]

As long as no one is claiming evolution is fact, I'm good with it and can move on to something else. It's like someone arguing there is no God for all these reasons and you defending God, as long as they aren't saying it, you have no need to disagree/defend it.

A) It is a fact that evolution occurs, even creationists accept it, although they have to pretend it's only "variation". If you are referring to the Theory of Evolution I suggest using the correct terminology.

B) You, Inquiring Mind and your ilk can think what you like. Posters may engage you on these forums because they enjoy discussing the subject but in the real world who cares? Whilst you're complaining that you don't accept this or that, scientific enquiry will carry one regardless, increasing our understanding of the world and improving our lives through practical application of that knowledge.


Your views are anachronistic and irrelevant.

 

[pitabread]

A) It is a fact that evolution occurs, even creationists accept it, although they have to pretend it's only "variation". If you are referring to the Theory of Evolution I suggest using the correct terminology.

Kenny keeps complaining that the rest of us think he doesn't understand the theory of evolution, but then such posts only reinforce a lack of understanding.

If creationists want to be taken more seriously, demonstrating a basic understanding of the subject matter would go a long way.

 

[DavidFirth]

Scientific theories can't be proven. Ever. That's just how scientific explanations work. This is the case for evolution, relativity, atoms, germs, plate tectonics,....... and every other theory in science.

I don't know what else to tell you....

Learn how science is done.



We have all the evidence we need to confirm / support the theory. Just like in every other theory. No amount of evidence is able to PROVE a theory.

Learn how science is done.



The only logical conclusion here, is that you have no clue on how science works.



Science doesn't deal in absolute proof. And I'll reply to any post I feel like replying to, thanks.



Good for you. Perhaps spend your time learning about how science is done instead.

Don't be willingly ignorant. Gravity has been proven. The speed of light in a vacuum - proven. The sun is a star? Proven. The Earth orbits the sun? Proven.

Also, don't waste my time telling me that 'scientific theories cannot be proven' and that science isn't about proving things. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact. It is quite stupid to hide behind a false misnomer.

Now PROVE it or don't talk to me about it. I've had enough empty reading time on it today as it is. You've got all the DNA evidence you need to PROVE it yet you can't. So please just shut up about it.

 

[Jimmy D]

Also, don't waste my time telling me that 'scientific theories cannot be proven'

I've posted this once for Kenny'sID, not that it did any good as we can see from his recent posts....

.....................................

"The hardest part about understanding scientific theories and hypotheses seems to be this: a hypothesis is never proven correct, nor is a theory ever proven to be true. Words like prove, correct, and true should be removed from our vocabulary completely and immediately."

"One source of confusion about the status of the science or theory of evolution stems from the difference between the "everyday" meaning of the word "theory" and the scientific meaning the word.

Below we list some common misconceptions about the term "theory" and describe a classroom activity that can help students rethink their understanding of this term.

NSTA News

(The National Science Teachers Association)

.................................


Misconception 1 "Evolution is 'just a theory'".

Misconception 2 "Theories become facts when they are well supported and/or proven."

There are three important misconceptions propagated in the above statements. The first statement implies that a theory should be interpreted as just a guess or a hunch, whereas in science, the term theory is used very differently. The second statement implies that theories become facts, in some sort of linear progression. In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts. The third misconception is that scientific research provides proof in the sense of attaining the absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision should new evidence come to light."

https://ncse.com/library-resource/theory-

(National Centre for Science Education)

......................................

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

......................................

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Albert Einstein

......................................

Karl Popper -

"In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory".

......................................

Jack Fraser, Master's Physics, University of Oxford -

“Proof” implies that there is no room for error — that you can be 100% sure that what you have written down on the piece of paper is 100% representative of what you are talking about."

And quite simply, that doesn’t exist in the real world.

.......................................

National Science Foundation

Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.

.........................................

Lol, I feel like that quote guy in the other thread now, I think I need a bath!

 

[Speedwell]

Don't be willingly ignorant. Gravity has been proven. The speed of light in a vacuum - proven. The sun is a star? Proven. The Earth orbits the sun? Proven.

Also, don't waste my time telling me that 'scientific theories cannot be proven' and that science isn't about proving things. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact. It is quite stupid to hide behind a false misnomer.

Now PROVE it or don't talk to me about it. I've had enough empty reading time on it today as it is. You've got all the DNA evidence you need to PROVE it yet you can't. So please just shut up about it.

Why is this such an issue? You may say that a scientific theory has been "proven" but a scientist would say that it has been "confirmed" and mean exactly the same thing as you do. It's just a matter of conventional usage.

When Einstein's theory of relativity was proposed, it was tested by measuring the orbital precession of the planet Mercury. The measurement agreed with the theory. A scientist would say that the theory was confirmed. He would not used the word proved in that case. Would you?

 

[pitabread]

Don't be willingly ignorant. Gravity has been proven. The speed of light in a vacuum - proven. The sun is a star? Proven. The Earth orbits the sun? Proven.

You appear to be conflating observable phenomena with the explanations (scientific theories) of those phenomena.

In the context of observable phenomena, evolution is also 'proven'. That is to say, we observe biological populations changing over time. Even creationists don't disagree with this.

The Theory of Evolution is the explanation for that observable phenomena.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Don't be willingly ignorant. Gravity has been proven. The speed of light in a vacuum - proven .The sun is a star? Proven The Earth orbits the sun? Proven.

Apparantly, you don't understand the difference between facts/observations on the one hand, and explanatory models of those facts/observations (= theories) on the other.

Again: please learn how science works.

Also, don't waste my time telling me that 'scientific theories cannot be proven' and that science isn't about proving things.

Well, it's the truth.
I'm sorry that you find learning about how science is done "a waste of time".

Now PROVE it or don't talk to me about it. I've had enough empty reading time on it today as it is. You've got all the DNA evidence you need to PROVE it yet you can't. So please just shut up about it.

lol

If you are just going to ignore it when your misunderstandings and mistakes are corrected, then there's really no use in giving you any evidence to support anything that you don't allready agree with - since you seem allergic to learning.[/quote]

 

[inquiring mind]

You appear to be conflating observable phenomena with the explanations (scientific theories) of those phenomena.

In the context of observable phenomena, evolution is also 'proven'. That is to say, we observe biological populations changing over time. Even creationists don't disagree with this.

The Theory of Evolution is the explanation for that observable phenomena.

Now, you're not trying to include macro evolution in this statement are you?

 

[xianghua]

Myoblobin? Hemoglobin ?

Which subunit of hemoglobin - alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon? Which species?

If you can look up a dozen different stylized drawings and diagrams of robot penguins, VW Beetles, flagella, etc., surely you can use the interwebs to actually learn about the things you bring up, probably accidentally, can't you?

added in edit -

15 seconds on Google:

Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2012 Dec; 2(12): a011627.
Evolution of Hemoglobin and Its Genes

realy? so from what the globin evolved from and how many mutations we need to this transition?

 

[pitabread]

Now, you're not trying to include macro evolution in this statement are you?

If by "macro evolution" you are referring to the divergence of populations into reproductively isolated sub-populations (i.e. speciation), this is also an observable phenomenon.

 

[inquiring mind]

If by "macro evolution" you are referring to the divergence of populations into reproductively isolated sub-populations (i.e. speciation), this is also an observable phenomenon.

Translation: If by "macro evolution" you are referring to the ‘separation’ of 'one kind' into ‘a different Kind,’ this is also an observable phenomenon.
Yes, I am; and No, it is not.

 

[Jimmy D]

Translation: If by "macro evolution" you are referring to the ‘separation’ of 'one kind' into ‘a different Kind,’ this is also an observable phenomenon.
Yes, I am; and No, it is not.

Of course not, there’s no such thing as a ‘kind’.

Do you deny that speciation occurs, as described by Pita?