The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[Dizredux]

Originally Posted by Dizredux

Grady The problem is when you start off with a basis of a lot of incorrect statements it makes it unproductive to go any further.

Posted by Grady in response

I was stating the popular view of science, I never said that was my view.

Why on earth would you post a popular and incorrect version of science in a discussion on science?

In other words how many times have you heard that evolution is a scientific fact. This is technically innacurate to say this statement.

Almost all scientists say this as the statement is correct. The scientific definition of evolution is "changes in population allele frequencies over time". That is a scientific fact as scientists describe the term.

The National Academies define scientific fact as an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples.

By the second definition evolution is clearly a fact beyond any scientific dispute.

the rest of your post is conjecture, and opinion. but thanks for the comment.

Sigh, so you say. I was discussing how our description of science was inaccurate and did not address the rest of your post. How is that conjecture or opinion?



Dizredux

 

[AirPo]

Why on earth would you post a popular and incorrect version of science in a discussion on science?

Especially since "it's not his view!"

 

[Loudmouth]

the Scientific method cannot prove a fact

It also produces theories, which evolution is.

"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

evolution is not a natural law (by anybody), and it is (as we will see) not even a theory.

It is most certainly a theory. It is a testable, scientific explanation for the observed facts.

Why? Due to the fact that evolution from one genus to another is not repeatable it is not open to observation and testing.

Members of two genera evolving from a common ancestor is a hypothesis. In the scientific method, you do not observe the hypothesis. You test the hypothesis. This is done by using the repeatable observations we do have, such as fossils, morphology, and genetics. We use those facts to test our hypothesis that genera share common ancestors. It is entirely scientific.

Creationism is in this same boat, it is not a theory but it is in fact a scientific model.

Then produce a falsifiable and testable creationist model. I have yet to see one.

 

[Loudmouth]

Changing the bars with the Athiests:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist."

above excerpt from:

William Lane Craig's study on atheism
Definition of atheism | Reasonable Faith

Ahh yes, quoting a theist who feels it necessary to define atheism for us. Why debate our actual position when you can hack away at WLC's strawman.

 

[Kylie]

I suppose it would.

If scientists named this vermiform under the same genus as the fruit fly, then I would assume they would conclude microevolution has occurred; but if they give it a new genus, then they can say macroevolution has occurred.

Please. The name that scientists give it is not the way by which we measure whether evolution has occurred or not.

If my cat has kittens and I declare them to be a different genus, does that mean I have seen evolution?

You are so preoccupied with names and labels that you don't actually SEE what is going on.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why are you so frightened of psychology? Why would anything about the way the human mind works threaten your faith? Or is it that you are frightened of the way your own mind works?

Sometimes, my own mind scares me.

 

[createdtoworship]

It also produces theories, which evolution is.

"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994



It is most certainly a theory. It is a testable, scientific explanation for the observed facts.



Members of two genera evolving from a common ancestor is a hypothesis. In the scientific method, you do not observe the hypothesis. You test the hypothesis. This is done by using the repeatable observations we do have, such as fossils, morphology, and genetics. We use those facts to test our hypothesis that genera share common ancestors. It is entirely scientific.



Then produce a falsifiable and testable creationist model. I have yet to see one.

as I already demostrated, evolution is not observable and therefore not able to be tested which according to the scientific method is required to be called a theory. (I mean macro evolution or evolution between genus).

 

[createdtoworship]

the Scientific method cannot prove a fact
In the scientific method

1. you have observation
2. you have the proposal of a question or problem
3. you have a hypothesis (educated guess)
4. you have experimentation (scientific experimentation)
5. you have a theory (basically a hypothesis with a high degree of probability)
6. you have a natural law (theory validated on a universal scale)
7. but you don't see any facts proven, the best you get is a natural law.

what is evolution?

evolution is none of the above, it is technically a scientific model (a way to interpret the evidence).

evolution is not a natural law (by anybody), and it is (as we will see) not even a theory.

Why? Due to the fact that evolution from one genus to another is not repeatable it is not open to observation and testing. It therefore cannot be a theory at all. Creationism is in this same boat, it is not a theory but it is in fact a scientific model. Most miracles in the Bible are not repeatable and not observant. But it is in fact in the same boat evolution is. But what are federal dollars paying for? Not Creationism thats for sure.

This is why we should at least teach the controversy. ID at least has some forensic evidence for origins (which I wont get into completely here). But the fact (2nd law of thermodynamics) that the universe is winding down, It therefore must have been wind up before and must have had a beginning due to the laws of causality. We know these things, it is unprobably due to this natural law that the universe was uncaused or caused by nothign, as nothing results in nothing, never does spontanious generation occur. This is bad science and this is what I was talking about. So we see evolution, abiogenesis and many other naturalisms failing to meet the laws of science here. So again why are my tax dollars paying for this?

the above first 6 items are accumulative, which meaning, they do not progress to the next level until the levels below it are fulfilled.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ahh yes, quoting a theist who feels it necessary to define atheism for us. Why debate our actual position when you can hack away at WLC's strawman.

so under your same pretense, I can toss out any and all evolution concepts because of a quote from gould or dawkins.

 

[createdtoworship]

Exactly correct.....we make a presumption, based on the evidence....or in this case, the absence of evidence...

And we do this all the time when behaving rationally. You proceed through a green light, because you presume that the drivers to your right and left will be obeying a red light...

Remember this is NOT making a declarative statement that god/s do not exist, however we proceed on the presumption that they do not.....further evidence could always overturn that presumption...

I fail to see what point you are trying to make, but then, that's not unusual when I read your posts.....

ah but declaring a belief doesn't qualify it AS A BELIEF.

 

[PsychoSarah]

ah but declaring a belief doesn't qualify it AS A BELIEF.

Who said atheism is really a belief? Or that it matters if it is or not?

 

[biggles53]

ah but declaring a belief doesn't qualify it AS A BELIEF.

What...!?? Do you honestly think any of these things through before your fingers start dancin' on the keyboard...!?

The whole concept of a religious belief is something that you hold, despite the absence of any tangible evidence...! You know, that whole "things unseen" crap...? When I talk about a presumption, I'm talking about an understanding reached because of the evidence...!

I really wish we didn't have to waste so much time in educating adults about the things they should have learnt as kids...!

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Sometimes, my own mind scares me.

I'd hazard a guess that your mind frightens you in a different way. I'm guessing that you don't attribute any troubling thoughts you have to the influence of the devil in your mind? Just imagine if every time you had a thought that challenged the beliefs of your religious cult or was otherwise considered by them to be bad (sexual thoughts are notoriously problematic in this regard) you were convinced that it was the devil interfering in your head. Just imagine how you would regard psychology then!

 

[AV1611VET]

What...!?? Do you honestly think any of these things through before your fingers start dancin' on the keyboard...!?

The whole concept of a religious belief is something that you hold, despite the absence of any tangible evidence...! You know, that whole "things unseen" crap...? When I talk about a presumption, I'm talking about an understanding reached because of the evidence...!

I really wish we didn't have to waste so much time in educating adults about the things they should have learnt as kids...!

Colossians 2:21 Touch not; taste not; handle not;

 

[Dizredux]

Originally Posted by gradyll View Post

the Scientific method cannot prove a fact

In the scientific method

you have observation
you have the proposal of a question or problem
you have a hypothesis (educated guess)
you have experimentation (scientific experimentation)
you have a theory (basically a hypothesis with a high degree of probability)
you have a natural law (theory validated on a universal scale)
but you don't see any facts proven, the best you get is a natural law.


what is evolution?

evolution is none of the above, it is technically a scientific model (a way to interpret the evidence).

evolution is not a natural law (by anybody), and it is (as we will see) not even a theory.

Why? Due to the fact that evolution from one genus to another is not repeatable it is not open to observation and testing. It therefore cannot be a theory at all. Creationism is in this same boat, it is not a theory but it is in fact a scientific model. Most miracles in the Bible are not repeatable and not observant. But it is in fact in the same boat evolution is. But what are federal dollars paying for? Not Creationism thats for sure.

This is why we should at least teach the controversy. ID at least has some forensic evidence for origins (which I wont get into completely here). But the fact (2nd law of thermodynamics) that the universe is winding down, It therefore must have been wind up before and must have had a beginning due to the laws of causality. We know these things, it is unprobably due to this natural law that the universe was uncaused or caused by nothign, as nothing results in nothing, never does spontanious generation occur. This is bad science and this is what I was talking about. So we see evolution, abiogenesis and many other naturalisms failing to meet the laws of science here. So again why are my tax dollars paying for this?

It is interesting that you post this again after saying

I was stating the popular view of science, I never said that was my view.

After corrections by several people, you simply repeat the same erroneous post without change.

I will let others decide about the appearance of honesty here. After seeing a number of your previous posts, I suspect that honesty is not a major concern to you but that is just my impression.

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

the above first 6 items are accumulative, which meaning, they do not progress to the next level until the levels below it are fulfilled.

Which step of the scientific method requires you to observe the hypothesis?

 

[Loudmouth]

so under your same pretense, I can toss out any and all evolution concepts because of a quote from gould or dawkins.

You can toss out any and all creationist concepts from Gould and Dawkins, if you want. That would much more comparable.

Don't you think that you should get an atheist's position from the actual atheist, instead of having someone who is not an atheist tell you what the atheist position is? That would seem to be the honest way of doing things, at least to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

as I already demostrated, evolution is not observable . . .

Which step in the scientific method requires you to observe the hypothesis?

 

[createdtoworship]

It is interesting that you post this again after saying After corrections by several people, you simply repeat the same erroneous post without change.

I will let others decide about the appearance of honesty here. After seeing a number of your previous posts, I suspect that honesty is not a major concern to you but that is just my impression.

Dizredux

lol, the scientific method is my view.....the popular view of science is not my view.

 

[createdtoworship]

Which step in the scientific method requires you to observe the hypothesis?

well you don't observe the hypothesis, the hypothesis comes from direct observation which is tested.
the following are accumulative and the prior is a prerequisite for the later.

1. you have observation
2. you have the proposal of a question or problem
3. you have a hypothesis (educated guess)
4. you have experimentation (scientific experimentation)
5. you have a theory (basically a hypothesis with a high degree of probability)
6. you have a natural law (theory validated on a universal scale)
7. but you don't see any facts proven, the best you get is a natural law.

however Evolution is not even a theory because the first step in the scientific method is observation and there is no direct observation of macro evolution (evolution between genra)