Facts To Prove The Theory Of Evolution

[Larniavc]

You don't have one fact to show the theory is right,

What part of change in allele frequency change over time is an insufficient fact for you?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Chesterton, I feel I have to ask:

If anyone did show you evidence for evolution being true, would you accept it as such?

 

[Chesterton]

You've been told time and again that science does not deal in proof but you keep repeating it. Why?

Actually, I've only been told once, but that's a great question. The reason why, is that there's a current thread asking for facts to disprove the TOE. I may be a simpleton, but I figure if something needs to be dis-proven, that must mean that it's proven. Like, I only need to unbutton a shirt when it's already buttoned. Kapeesh?

 

[BCP1928]

Actually, I've only been told once, but that's a great question. The reason why, is that there's a current thread asking for facts to disprove the TOE. I may be a simpleton, but I figure if something needs to be dis-proven, that must mean that it's proven. Like, I only need to unbutton a shirt when it's already buttoned. Kapeesh?

That's been explained to you on multiple occasions as well.

 

[Larniavc]

but I figure if something needs to be dis-proven, that must mean that it's proven.

You figure wrong. Something starts out as a hypothesis that is maybe right and maybe wrong. The evidence will either prove it wrong or support the accuracy of the hypothesis. The hypothesis will never be proved because new evidence may come forwards to prove it wrong and the scientific methodology takes this into account.

So if I have a hypothesis that life only exists on Earth and nowhere else I could easily be proved wrong. But there is no way to every prove I'm right because there might always be a planet that we've not looked at yet.

So basically you can prove a hypothesis is false but you cannot prove it is true. There is always the off chance that new information will come up to prove it wrong.

Does that make sense?

 

[AV1611VET]

They are generally called hypotheses. To be called a theory it has to be reasonably well established.

What's a "law" then?

As in "law of gravity"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What's a "law" then?

As in "law of gravity"?

The description of observed phenomenon.

 

[AV1611VET]

A scientific theory is one that explains and draws together diverse fields of evidence, and it has been tested many times. Modifications can slowly be made to it as enough solid new evidences come about.

What if something is tested for efficacy -- say, for instance, a new drug -- and it passes with flying colors?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What if something is tested for efficacy -- say, for instance, a new drug -- and it passes with flying colors?

Thalidomide and the theory of evolution are not even anywhere close to being the same thing.

Stop being a vulture...

 

[AV1611VET]

Thalidomide and the theory of evolution are not even anywhere close to being the same thing.

Stop being a vulture...

How about Vioxx then?

Or those Rely products that caused over 2000 cases of toxic shock syndrome?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How about Vioxx then?

Or those Rely products that caused over 2000 cases of toxic shock syndrome?

Not even the same thing at all as the testing of the theory of evolution. Nowhere near close.

Again: stop being a vulture.

 

[SelfSim]

You figure wrong. Something starts out as a hypothesis that is maybe right and maybe wrong. The evidence will either prove it wrong or support the accuracy of the hypothesis. The hypothesis will never be proved because new evidence may come forwards to prove it wrong and the scientific methodology takes this into account.

So if I have a hypothesis that life only exists on Earth and nowhere else I could easily be proved wrong. But there is no way to every prove I'm right because there might always be a planet that we've not looked at yet.

So basically you can prove a hypothesis is false but you cannot prove it is true. There is always the off chance that new information will come up to prove it wrong.

Does that make sense?

As an aside:
I fully agree and support the overall point you're making there on the relevant science sub-issue, however, the hypothesis that: 'life might only exist on Earth', is well supported in abundant, (and obvious), evidence. That evidence underpins the affirmative claim on objective reality that: 'life presently only exists within the near vicinity of, and on, planet Earth'.

 

[Astrid]

Actually, I've only been told once, .

Actually here in your thread page one you
are told in posts #2, 6. 10, and 20.

Perhaps reading them would refresh your memory.

 

[Astrid]

Actually, I've only been told once, but that's a great question. The reason why, is that there's a current thread asking for facts to disprove the TOE. I may be a simpleton, but I figure if something needs to be dis-proven, that must mean that it's proven. Like, I only need to unbutton a shirt when it's already buttoned. Kapeesh?

You could have a theory that crows can only be black.
Then you see a white one.
Theory disproved.

 

[AV1611VET]

You could have a theory that crows can only be black.
Then you see a white one.
Theory disproved.

Theories are a dime a dozen, aren't they?

Not to mention myopic.

 

[sfs]

If a God or an alien race intelligently designed life, you could just as likely expect to see the same similarities. It's not proof of anything Darwinian.

Sorry, but the patterns we see in comparative genetics are not expected from a common designer -- the differences show evidence of common descent as much as the similarities.

 

[sfs]

Theories are a dime a dozen, aren't they?

Theories that successfully explain and predict wide ranges of evidence across multiple fields are rare, however.

 

[Astrid]

Sorry, but the patterns we see in comparative genetics are not expected from a common designer -- the differences show evidence of common descent as much as the similarities.

An actually intelligent- and non sadistic-
designer would not have made the trigeminal
nerve.

 

[NxNW]

Theories are a dime a dozen, aren't they?

No, but hypotheses are.

Not to mention myopic.

Not necessarily.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If you want more detail why I don't believe it you can listen to this:

I got about half way through, but Berlinsky is has no better critques than Kent Hovind, he just sounds more educated (because he is). The arrogance of the man oozes through in every minute. At his core, he seem to just believe he is smarter and therefore more informed than actual biologists.