Evolution's Brick Wall

[46AND2]

Your confusion is completely understandable.

Definition of "theory", simply look it up, use it, and you will be told that is not the definition at all, and that scientists use another definition...so again, of course your confused, and thank you for helping me to make the point of how goofy it is to change definitions without making another dictionary or adding the definition to mainstream dictionaries. And sure, we have been made aware of it, but how can I help not to be suspicious of it's validity for several reasons mentioned as well as the following.

That brings up the question, why has Webster not accepted scientists definition for "theory" after all this time, and added it to the dictionary? Seems to me there is something wrong there, else they would have. Is it unacceptable?

Too many red flags.

Definition of theory

plural theories
1: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

• the wave theory of light

2a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

• her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory

• in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all

3: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

• theory of equations

4: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

• music theory

5: abstract thought : speculation
6: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory (emphasis mine)

It's right there in bold, hero. The FIRST and sixth definitions. 4th one fits, too.

 

[46AND2]

Hundreds of years and Webster never picked up on it? Something bad wrong with that picture. Is it ok to ask you to prove that, or is it also conveniently defined as unprovable?

First, I know the scientific definition, I simply use mainstream dictionaries and always will until you can show me an official dictionary that actually changes these terms. It's the only sensible thing to do. It's one or the other, otherwise, and once again...confusion.

I'd like to say I'm surprised you all can't put that together, but I'm not.

LMAO. Sure, you can use your definition all you want, it is simply irrelevant to the claim that science theories cannot be proven. THAT is what you were arguing against. And your argument is essentially: scientific theories can be proven correct, because colloquial theories can. Sorry, doesn't follow.

Your burning silk analogy is meaningless, cause it addresses a claim that none of us made. Of course, when theory is used colloquially to be equivalent to hypothesis, it can be confirmed. We never said otherwise.

 

[46AND2]

...I simply use mainstream dictionaries and always will until you can show me an official dictionary that actually changes these terms...

So, since you have been shown an official dictionary definition which fits what we are saying, are you now going to accept that definition, as you claim here?

Wonder how many "optimistic" ratings I'll get on this post.

 

[mark kennedy]

Your confusion is completely understandable.

Definition of "theory", simply look it up, use it, and you will be told that is not the definition at all, and that scientists use another definition...so again, of course your confused, and thank you for helping me to make the point of how goofy it is to change definitions without making another dictionary or adding the definition to mainstream dictionaries. And sure, we have been made aware of it, but how can I help not to be suspicious of it's validity for several reasons mentioned as well as the following.

That brings up the question, why has Webster not accepted scientists definition for "theory" after all this time, and added it to the dictionary? Seems to me there is something wrong there, else they would have. Is it unacceptable?

Too many red flags.

Hang on Kenny, I understand some of your frustration but the definition of a theory is not that big of a deal. All theories in science are unified theories because they unify the facts. The problem of definitions is not a scientific one, it's philosophical, the understanding of what a theory is does not require a lot of technical details. What qualifies as a theory might be a little more difficult.

 

[pitabread]

All while you know perfectly well mainstream dictionaries lists the different contexts, and give examples. Can you show me a mainstream dictionary that shows the term in the context in question?

In all honesty, I wouldn't be reaching to a dictionary as a primary source for technical definitions of terms. In the effort to be all-encompassing, dictionary definitions tend to leave something to be desired some times. Your better bet for a scientific definition is a science textbook.

That said, there is a definition per the American Heritage Dictionary which says:

theory
noun

pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

And on the same page, Webster's New World College Dictionary says:

theory
noun
pl. -·ries

4. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree
​

http://www.yourdictionary.com/theory

These are probably the more accurate definitions insofar as dictionaries go of the word "theory" as it used in science. But you'll likely find better definitions and explanations from actual science literature like a proper science textbook.

 

[mark kennedy]

In all honesty, I wouldn't be reaching to a dictionary as a primary source for technical definitions of terms. In the effort to be all-encompassing, dictionary definitions tend to leave something to be desired some times. Your better bet for a scientific definition is a science textbook.

That said, there is a definition per the American Heritage Dictionary which says:

theory
noun

pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/theory

And on the same page, Webster's New World College Dictionary says:

theory
noun
pl. -·ries

4. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree

There you go, at least we got that one out of the way.

 

[pitabread]

There you go, at least we got that one out of the way.

I wouldn't be so sure. I think this is the 4th or 5th time now I've seen the same conversation around the word "theory".

 

[46AND2]

Hundreds of years and Webster never picked up on it? Something bad wrong with that picture. Is it ok to ask you to prove that, or is it also conveniently defined as unprovable?

First, I know the scientific definition, I simply use mainstream dictionaries and always will until you can show me an official dictionary that actually changes these terms. It's the only sensible thing to do. It's one or the other, otherwise, and once again...confusion.

I'd like to say I'm surprised you all can't put that together, but I'm not.

Webster's dictionary from 1828:

Theory

THE'ORY, noun [Latin theoria; Gr. to see or contemplate.]

1. Speculation; a doctrine or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice. It is here taken in an unfavorable sense, as implying something visionary.

2. An exposition of the general principles of any science; as the theory of music.

3. The science distinguished from the art; as the theory and practice of medicine.

4. The philosophical explanation of phenomena, either physical or moral; as Lavoisier's theory of combustion; Smith's theory of moral sentiments.

Theory is distinguished from hypothesis thus; a theory is founded on inferences drawn from principles which have been established on independent evidence; a hypothesis is a proposition assumed to account for certain phenomena, and has no other evidence of its truth, than that it affords a satisfactory explanation of those phenomena.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Theory (emphasis mine)

 

[inquiring mind]

I wouldn't be so sure. I think this is the 4th or 5th time now I've seen the same conversation around the word "theory".

Let me get this straight... it sounds like you're saying theory is not proof, until someone says it isn't, then you say there's enough evidence there to prove the theory. That must be the science book definition.

 

[46AND2]

Let me get this straight... it sounds like you're saying theory is not proof, until someone says it isn't, then you say there's enough evidence there to prove the theory. That must be the science book definition.

No. That's not what he is saying.

 

[inquiring mind]

No. That's not what he is saying.

Well, that clears it up.

 

[46AND2]

Well, that clears it up.

When we say that evolution is fact, we mean that allele frequency in populations change over time. We observe this.

Evolution, the theory, is the ongoing attempt to explain how evolution works--to describe principles which best explain the current hypotheses and observations we see for the phenomenon, and modify those principles as we gain new observations. As such, the theory is not proven, because we are constantly gaining new information.

Think of the term theory, in this sense, as a dynamic description of the process, or mechanisms by which the allele frequencies change. The fact is that allele frequencies change, the theory explains HOW they change.

 

[inquiring mind]

As such, the theory is not proven, because we are constantly gaining new information.

Okay, so you are saying theory is not proof, until someone argues it is, then you agree with them saying there's enough evidence there to prove the theory. Sorry, that doesn’t make sense either.

 

[46AND2]

Okay, so you are saying theory is not proof, until someone argues it is, then you agree with them saying there's enough evidence there to prove the theory. Sorry, that doesn’t make sense either.

When have I ever agreed with someone saying there is enough evidence to prove the theory? Theories don't get proven, so I would not agree with someone who says that.

I agree that evolution is the best explanation we have to describe the hypotheses and observations we see. No more, no less.

 

[inquiring mind]

I agree that evolution is the best explanation we have to describe the hypotheses and observations we see. No more, no less.

Okay, that's not proving it to you... I got it. But, you guys argue so passionately it's hard to believe you don't consider it proof.

 

[46AND2]

Okay, that's not proving it to you... I got it. But, you guys argue so passionately it's hard to believe you don't consider it proof.

You know the feeling you get when you see an atheist is grossly misinterpreting a Bible passage when using it against you? It's like that when you all try to argue against the science.

 

[Jimmy D]

What a sorry turn this thread has taken.

Creationists attempting to dismiss an entire field of scientific discovery by quibbling over usage of the word theory.

Well played chaps.

I’m sure I can remember something about an imaginary evolutionary “brick wall”. How’s research going with that?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That seems to be the same definition I gave for Created Kinds (w/variations)

In that case, we have observed kinds evolving into other kinds.

by all accounts your altered definition of species is lacking.

I gave you the biological definition. I didn't alter anything.

Now, you're not trying to call me a liar, are you?

Intellectual dishonesty isn't the same as lying, no.

 

[Colter]

Or there were lots of individual, experimental creation events, over hundreds of millions of years until the creator finally got a human.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I didn't know with 100% certainty silk would burn with an average propane blow torch/under same conditions I've seen other things burn, but I had a theory it would because I have seen cotton burn, a similar material, and both used for clothing.. I tried it, it did, theory proven.

No, not proven. Rather confirmed or supported.


Also, if this is what you consider proven, then evolution theory is also proven according to those exact same criteria.

In your "analogy" you predict that it will burn, based on your "theory". And then it burns. So your prediction was accurate.


Well....
Some time ago, paleontologists predicted, since according to evolution theory sea-life evolved into land life in the late devonian, that if go dig in an appropriate site made of devonian rock, they should find fossils of fish with clear tetrapod features.

So they went to such a site, started digging and found Tiktaalik. A fish/tetrapod hybrid. Exactly as predicted.

So there you go... According to your VERY OWN criteria of how to apparantly "prove" a scientific theory, evolution theory has been proven.


ps: this is just one example of how predictions based on evolution theory turned out accurate. There are thousands and thousands of such examples. If not millions.


pps: your "analogy" also kind of shows that you really have no idea what a scientific theory actually is. You don't have a theory in your example. You have an expectation based on previous observation. You have no theory. Theory would answer the how/why question: "why does the silk burn? what is it about silk that's different from a rock, that it burns? Why doesn't it also burn in a vacuum?". A theory would be a model of "burning", which answers those questions, and can then also be used to further predict under what, previously untested conditions, it would also burn (or not). And that's when you have a usefull idea: when you can accurately predict previously untested stuff.

Your "theory" here, does not do that. At all. Because it's not a theory.