proving evolution as just a "theory"

[rjs330]

That would be pointless. You already demonstrated that you do not understand the basics of science.

Oh I do. Science basics is fundamental observation and testing to show that the theory is supported. Evolution from a common ancestor is not observed and has never been tested.

 

[Jimmy D]

You assume a bird evolved from a lizard or whatever with out any observation or testable theory that can show it's possible.

Mmmm, if only there was something in the make up of our bodies that we could test and compare.

 

[lesliedellow]

All your branching tree stuff is assumption. You cannot branch tree backwards to a common ancestor because there never has been any observation of anything becoming something it was not originally.

Then how did linquists manage to construct this tree:

family tree of european languages - Google Search:

 

[Jimmy D]

Then how did linquists manage to construct this tree:

family tree of european languages - Google Search:

Errr, assumptions, keep up Leslie!

 

[Living Soul]

Scientists are not allowed to make assumptions, that is what creationists do.
I think that we need to go over the scientific method first.

Scientific Method:
Step 1 - Define the problem
Step 2 - Form a hypothesis (assumption)
Step 3 - Research and Collect Data
Step 4 - Experiment
Step 5 - Restate the hypothesis and provide experimental data

Neo-Darwinism just like old-Darwinism dies at Step 2. Using projected ignorance about something that's taught to everyone at a fifth grade level as your main argument is a lousy way to feign intellectual dominance. You can apply that to your theories about the formation of the universe and the Earth as well.

 

[TBDude65]

iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.

any things i could say to prove him wrong?

love
camila smith <3

"any things i could say to prove him wrong?"

Assuming he believes evolution and dinosaurs are true, then no. You can't prove him wrong. You can tell him you think he is wrong, but the evidence is on his side.

 

[lesliedellow]

Scientific Method:
Step 1 - Define the problem
Step 2 - Form a hypothesis (assumption)
Step 3 - Research and Collect Data
Step 4 - Experiment
Step 5 - Restate the hypothesis and provide experimental data

Neo-Darwinism just like old-Darwinism dies at Step 2. Using projected ignorance about something that's taught to everyone at a fifth grade level as your main argument is a lousy way to feign intellectual dominance. You can apply that to your theories about the formation of the universe and the Earth as well.

Scientific method:
Step 1 - Define the problem
Step 2 - Form a hypothesis
Step 3 - Use hypotheis to make a prediction
Step 4 - Perform an experiment or make observations
Step 5a - If observation does not agree with prediction, abandon or modify hypothesis
Step 5b - If observation does agree with prediction, confidence in correctness of theory grows.

Repeat steps 3-5 ad infinitum, or until anomolous data flags the need for a new theory.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Scientific Method:

Step 2 - Form a hypothesis (assumption)

Neo-Darwinism just like old-Darwinism dies at Step 2.

No, it's just getting started. I will overlook your shabby trick in equating a hypothesis to an assumption. But the rest of that process is about testing the hypothesis. If a hypothesis fails clearly enough, it is discarded. The hypotheses underlying evolution have not failed. They have only become stronger over the passage of 150 years of continuous testing and research.

 

[Jimmy D]

Neo-Darwinism just like old-Darwinism dies at Step 2.

How so?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yes, answer those questions, or any of the other questions about genetic data that evolution answers.

No, I mean provide the explanation that creationists constantly claim they have for the real data from biology. I've listed a few areas of real data. So where's the explanation?

You're not going to evade the questions because answering them would be a waste of time; you're going to evade them because you are utterly incapable of answering them. I know you can't answer them. You know you can't answer them. Everyone reading this knows you can't answer them. Why not just say so?

The test -- the "proof", if you like -- of any model is how well it explains and predicts data. Evolution does that with the data from biology. As you've just demonstrated, you can't do that. So why are you wasting everyone's time?

Since you were forced to evade question on proof (no, your so called test is not proof, just because someone says it is.) of evolution, I suppose we are even.

Call it what you like but I'll not waste my time on nonsense, I want to see proof of evolution. I've played your way several times, and it produces nothing so I'll not keep doing the same thing and expectation a different outcome.

And BTW, evolution "does" nothing, people do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All your branching tree stuff is assumption. You cannot branch tree backwards to a common ancestor because there never has been any observation of anything becoming something it was not originally. You assume a bird evolved from a lizard or whatever with out any observation or testable theory that can show it's possible. The branches are all assumed to branch the way evolution says. All you can really say is that somethings have some genes or genomes in common. You assume that means common ancestor. The truth is it doesn't mean any such thing. What it means is that some things have some genes in common. That's all.

And your formation idea further illustrates my point. We didn't see our solar system form. We can't verify what we think happened. So once again it's unverified assumptive theory.

At best you have only demonstrated that you do not have a clue about how the scientific method works.

Why are you so afraid to learn? There is no assumption by scientists, you really should not use words that you do not understand.

 

[lesliedellow]

Since you were forced to evade question on proof (no, your so called test is not proof, just because someone says it is.) of evolution, I suppose we are even.

Call it what you like but I'll not waste my time on nonsense, I want to see proof of evolution. I've played your way several times, and it produces nothing so I'll not keep doing the same thing and expectation a different outcome.

And BTW, evolution "does" nothing, people do.

So you will excuse the rest of us if we do not waste time on your uneducated nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh I do. Science basics is fundamental observation and testing to show that the theory is supported. Evolution from a common ancestor is not observed and has never been tested.

Nope, your posts indicate that you don't. And if you did you would not mind demonstrating that you understand the scientific method. In this post of yours you only demonstrated that you do not understand what observation is. The theory of evolution is based upon observation and testing.

Let's go over the basics so that you do not continually make the same errors.

 

[sfs]

Since you were forced to evade question on proof (no, your so called test is not proof, just because someone says it is.)

No, it's proof(*) because that's how evidence works. You test your theory -- "prove" means "test" -- with data. If common descent is true, we should see certain things in genetic data. We see those things. If creationism is true, we should see other things. We don't see those things. This means that evolution is very probably true and that creationism is very probably false.

This situation is repeated over and over and over again with different kinds of data. Common descent keeps working, and creationism fails. Creationism fails every single time.

You have no response to that failure, no explanation for it and no way to deal with it. So you demand "proof" and when you are given exactly what you asked for, your only response is, "It's not proof just because you say it is."

As our president would say, "Sad".

(*) More accurately, it's strong evidence supporting common descent. But that's what most people actually mean by "proof" usually, so I'm okay with the word.

 

[Jimmy D]

Since you were forced to evade question on proof (no, your so called test is not proof, just because someone says it is.) of evolution, I suppose we are even.

Call it what you like but I'll not waste my time on nonsense, I want to see proof of evolution. I've played your way several times, and it produces nothing so I'll not keep doing the same thing and expectation a different outcome.

And BTW, evolution "does" nothing, people do.

To be fair Kenny your request is nonsensical, this simplistic example or what ever you're looking for to "prove" evolution doesn't exist.

SFS said The test -- the "proof", if you like -- of any model is how well it explains and predicts data. Evolution does that with the data from biology.

Do you understand what this means?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it's proof(*) because that's how evidence works. You test your theory -- "prove" means "test" -- with data. If common descent is true, we should see certain things in genetic data. We see those things. If creationism is true, we should see other things. We don't see those things. This means that evolution is very probably true and that creationism is very probably false.

This situation is repeated over and over and over again with different kinds of data. Common descent keeps working, and creationism fails. Creationism fails every single time.

You have no response to that failure, no explanation for it and no way to deal with it. So you demand "proof" and when you are given exactly what you asked for, your only response is, "It's not proof just because you say it is."

(*) More accurately, it's strong evidence supporting common descent. But that's what most people actually mean by "proof" usually, so I'm okay with the word.

By the legal sense of the word your definition of "proof" is exactly right. In any criminal case the standard of conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is never absolute proof since that is all but impossible. Even with DNA there is a possibility of one in who knows how many trillions of cases that there is your exact match somewhere. But since the human population if only in the billions (and my trillions is probably a gross under estimate) a match is taken as a positive ID and "proof".

The Ostrich Defense is hard to beat. If a person insists on hiding his head in the sand there is no way to convince him. All that will happen is that any sane person looking on will merely look at that behavior and laugh.

 

[Steve Petersen]

There are only 'proofs' in mathematics. In other scientific realms, Theory would be considered the highest level of probability. Someone correct me if I am wrong (like I need to ask! )

 

[sfs]

There are only 'proofs' in mathematics. In other scientific realms, Theory would be considered the highest level of probability.

"Proof" has a clear meaning in math and in formal logic. The word has only various colloquial meanings when applied to science, and scientists usually (but not always) avoid it. They prefer to talk in terms of evidence, support, posterior probability and confidence.

 

[tas8831]

Nope and you can't prove evolution from a common ancestor is either. So I guess we both have the same issue.

No, not really.

We can provide reams of data supporting the hypothesis of common descent.

Here is a simple tutorial on just molecular data.

Here is an expansive website with lots of evidence for common ancestry at multiple levels. Tons of citations and references in support of their conclusions.

Your turn.


But please keep in mind that anecdotes or bible verses are not evidence or data.

Thanks.

 

[sfs]

Someone correct me if I am wrong (like I need to ask! )

"The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer." -- Abraham Lincoln