Using the Scientific Method on Evolution

[PsychoSarah]

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

I am still waiting on the outcome of the test.

Furthermore, in all scientific endeavors, tests have to be retestable. Your death cannot be repeated. Additionally, the results of those tests have to be communicable to other people. You won't be able to tell us any test results while dead. Thus, your "test" is nonfunctional. I give you credit for making a distinction between the literal word hypothesis and a scientific hypothesis.

 

[Jd34]

So in other words, there is nothing in Science that indicates or eludes to a God creating our world.

How come everytime I look into a microscope I see God written all over it? Am I delusional believing in God. Am I to disregard my personal experiences with God that have been repeated and confirmed..

You guys have really schooled me on the subject of scientific method- believe what you want about me - but time for me to eat crow. :o

Thanks

 

[PsychoSarah]

So in other words, there is nothing in Science that indicates or eludes to a God creating our world.

How come everytime I look into a microscope I see God written all over it? Am I delusional believing in God. Am I to disregard my personal experiences with God that have been repeated and confirmed..

You guys have really schooled me on the subject of scientific method- believe what you want about me - but time for me to eat crow. :o

Thanks

Uh, you see it because you are you? In your personal perspective, the world is too amazing not to be created by a deity. But, that's just your opinion, nothing about what you see truly labels it as originating from a deity, and we have found other testable, and overall just more useful explanations for much of what we see.

And do you really see god in diseases such as Malaria? Do you see a benevolent force behind SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome)? I mean, there is a lot of awful stuff in the world that you can't just claim the fall produced, and to say satan is the cause is to put that being's creative abilities on par with god's.

 

[bhsmte]

I have aspirated, smeared, stained and read bone narrows. You need my license #??

1. Observation- I look around and I see this beautiful world in which we live.

.....,,,I wonder where it came from, how it came to be, hmm?

2. Hypothesis -- I have the idea that it was created by God.

Remember (a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.)

That is as far as we can go with the scientific method.

how do you test your hypothesis?

 

[whois]

Uh, you see it because you are you? In your personal perspective, the world is too amazing not to be created by a deity. But, that's just your opinion, nothing about what you see truly labels it as originating from a deity, and we have found other testable, and overall just more useful explanations for much of what we see.

what on earth leads you to believe "things become alive"?
what experiment has demonstrated that?

what test exists that proves evolution?

the discovery of HOX genes seems to suggest each organism can have a unique origin.

 

[PsychoSarah]

what on earth leads you to believe "things become alive"?
what experiment has demonstrated that?

what test exists that proves evolution?

the discovery of HOX genes seems to suggest each organism can have a unique origin.

-_- evolution doesn't cover the origin of life, and life is a rather arbitrary label in and of itself.

 

[whois]

-_- evolution doesn't cover the origin of life, . . .

it's still a valid question, and i'll repeeat it:
what makes you believe "things become alive"?

and life is a rather arbitrary label in and of itself.

life, the living cell, and everything that comes from it.
are you saying there is no test?
wasn't you up there saying in order to be valid, a theory must be testable?

 

[PsychoSarah]

it's still a valid question, and i'll repeeat it:
what makes you believe "things become alive"?

life, the living cell, and everything that comes from it.
are you saying there is no test?
wasn't you up there saying in order to be valid, a theory must be testable?

I said to be a hypothesis, it has to be testable. And you want abiogenesis for this, not evolution, and I don't think things just "become alive", but rather there are stages to fitting that, again, arbitrary label. After all, simple proteins can reproduce without being considered alive. Nonliving materials can do a whole lot more than you would think. I mean, viruses aren't considered alive (debated still), and they reproduce through the active invasion of living cells. There is a bit of grey area to the whole thing that complicates matters.

Abiogenesis is testable and has been tested a lot.

To be a theory, something has to be tested and reconfirmed to fit a certain pattern to a great extent. Theory is the closest thing to absolute fact science gets, and evolutionary theory is one of the longest standing and most well-supported theories, if not number 1 in that regard.

 

[whois]

And you want abiogenesis for this, not evolution, and I don't think things just "become alive", but rather there are stages to fitting that, again, arbitrary label.

there is nothing arbitrary about the living cell.
there has to be some kind of evidence that leads you to believe what you do.
what evidence do you have for "life from a pond of goo"?

After all, simple proteins can reproduce without being considered alive.

surely replicating molecules isn't proof is it?
we are talking the living cell, not spores or viruses.
I mean, viruses aren't considered alive (debated still), and they reproduce through the active invasion of living cells. There is a bit of grey area to the whole thing that complicates matters. [/QUOTE]
viruses cannot maintain themselves.

Abiogenesis is testable and has been tested a lot.

yes, and every one of those tests have failed.

To be a theory, something has to be tested and reconfirmed to fit a certain pattern to a great extent. Theory is the closest thing to absolute fact science gets, and evolutionary theory is one of the longest standing and most well-supported theories, if not number 1 in that regard.

what lab test proves a plant can turn into an animal?
what lab test proves it takes a certain amount of time?
both of the above are assumptions.
the fossil record does not prove gradual change.
transposons seems to suggest organisms can "change" in a matter of few generations.
HOX genes seem to prove a unique origin for each organism.

no, evolution is a hypothesis, although it "explains" things the proof has not been forthcoming.

 

[bhsmte]

hypothesis is an educated guess or proposition that attempts to explain a set of facts or natural phenomenon.

Formalating a hypothesis comes first.. Then comes testing it.

Still waiting on the outcome of the test as far as Special creation goes.

I didn't know a test had been completed or was in progress regarding special creation?

How would you go about testing the hypothesis of special creation?

 

[PsychoSarah]

there is nothing arbitrary about the living cell.
there has to be some kind of evidence that leads you to believe what you do.
what evidence do you have for "life from a pond of goo"?

surely replicating molecules isn't proof is it?
we are talking the living cell, not spores or viruses.

viruses cannot maintain themselves.

yes, and every one of those tests have failed.

what lab test proves a plant can turn into an animal?
what lab test proves it takes a certain amount of time?
both of the above are assumptions.
the fossil record does not prove gradual change.
transposons seems to suggest organisms can "change" in a matter of few generations.
HOX genes seem to prove a unique origin for each organism.

no, evolution is a hypothesis, although it "explains" things the proof has not been forthcoming.

-_- it wasn't necessarily a pond of goo, and any mention of the word "goo" is a sign that you need to read more about abiogenesis. And the life label is really arbiturary and debated a lot. If you want to say I am wrong in saying that, then defend your position with sources or some other such logical arguement, just don't say my position is wrong and nothing else.

-_- spores are living cells, which can be bacteria or fungi and maybe some protists. They are just a dormant, durable state.

replicating molecules is all you need, really. Life is not as complex as diagrams make it look like. And who says said molecules would have to initially maintain themselves, especially in an environment that lets them form?

Abiogenesis tests have not failed, they produced proteins that could replicate on their own. Just because it didn't become life in a decade, a miniscule amount of time, doesn't make it a failure. The fact that this much happened in such a short period of time is nothing short of mind blowing.

No lab tests prove plants can become animals, because that isn't what happened. However, the protists who photosynthesize and can consume other microbes will be happy to show you that physical traits of both can exist in a eukaryotic cell.

Both of the above certainly aren't assumptions made by professionals in biology.

The fossil record practically produces a flip book from boney fish to modern humans; we found a lot of fossils my friend, more than Darwin could ever dream of.

So? Evolution has no standard speed; it is variable from species to species, as well as selective pressures.

Evolution is a theory, whether you like it or not, it is a stronger and better supported theory than gravity.

 

[bhsmte]

there is nothing arbitrary about the living cell.
there has to be some kind of evidence that leads you to believe what you do.
what evidence do you have for "life from a pond of goo"?

surely replicating molecules isn't proof is it?
we are talking the living cell, not spores or viruses.
I mean, viruses aren't considered alive (debated still), and they reproduce through the active invasion of living cells. There is a bit of grey area to the whole thing that complicates matters.

yes, and every one of those tests have failed.

what lab test proves a plant can turn into an animal?
what lab test proves it takes a certain amount of time?
both of the above are assumptions.
the fossil record does not prove gradual change.
transposons seems to suggest organisms can "change" in a matter of few generations.
HOX genes seem to prove a unique origin for each organism.

no, evolution is a hypothesis, although it "explains" things the proof has not been forthcoming.

Are you still stuck on "proof"?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You got confused by his bad quoting bhsmte, some of that I said, some he said. I put life as an arbitrary label.

 

[bhsmte]

You got confused by his bad quoting bhsmte, some of that I said, some he said. I put life as an arbitrary label.

Yea, just caught that. Welcome back!

 

[Queller]

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

I am still waiting on the outcome of the test as far as special creation goes.

It can be tested real easy.

How?

 

[lesliedellow]

How?

How indeed. If it could be easily tested it would have been done by now, and we would know the result. Furthermore, if it succeeding in convincing Christian biologists that Evolution was wrong, there would presumably be no theistic evolutionists by now.

 

[whois]

-_- it wasn't necessarily a pond of goo, and any mention of the word "goo" is a sign that you need to read more about abiogenesis.

irrelevant.
"pond of goo","hydrothermal vent", "from the elements", one and the same.

And the life label is really arbiturary and debated a lot.

actually there is no debate at all about the status of the living cell.
life on earth is made of cells, not viruses.

If you want to say I am wrong in saying that, then defend your position with sources or some other such logical arguement, just don't say my position is wrong and nothing else.

i didn't say you were wrong about anything, i asked why you would believe "things become alive".
all i've gotten so far is . . . you haven't answered the question actually.

-_- spores are living cells, which can be bacteria or fungi and maybe some protists. They are just a dormant, durable state.

i am not talking about spores or viruses, i'm talking about the living cell, a specific, no clouds issue

replicating molecules is all you need, really.

sorry, replicating molecules is not the life we are talking about.

Life is not as complex as diagrams make it look like.

DNA seems to be as complex as any of todays mainframes, and that's just one molecule.

And who says said molecules would have to initially maintain themselves, especially in an environment that lets them form?

nobody said that to my knowledge.

Abiogenesis tests have not failed, they produced proteins that could replicate on their own.

they have?
i'm aware of miller-urey, but their experiment only produced amino acids
replicating molecules is not life, and it's certainly not the life we are discussing.

Just because it didn't become life in a decade, a miniscule amount of time, doesn't make it a failure.

there's that timeline again.
where are these "time figures" coming from, what experiment?

No lab tests prove plants can become animals, because that isn't what happened.

sorry, but evolution says that is EXACTLY what happened.
are you now saying plant life did not occur before animal life?

However, the protists who photosynthesize and can consume other microbes will be happy to show you that physical traits of both can exist in a eukaryotic cell.

i see.
so evolution says both of these (animals and plants) appeared on the planet at the same time, correct?

Both of the above certainly aren't assumptions made by professionals in biology.

without the tests to prove it, that's exactly what they are.
or are you now saying evolution is above the law.

The fossil record practically produces a flip book from boney fish to modern humans; we found a lot of fossils my friend, more than Darwin could ever dream of.

the fossil record has fallen flat on its face in regards to "proving" evolution.
the fossil record, what a joke.
science has no right whatsoever to claim man is descendent from apes.
there is no way they can prove it through the currently known fossils.

So? Evolution has no standard speed; it is variable from species to species, as well as selective pressures.

so, no experiments have been done in this regard either then, correct?
another assumption.

Evolution is a theory, whether you like it or not, it is a stronger and better supported theory than gravity.

i disagree.
although evolution seems to explain things, it hasn't explained anything.

the only thing "valid" about evolution is microevolution, or variation about a mean.
there is no evidence that small changes accumulate, anywhere.
not in the lab, not in the record.

 

[whois]

You got confused by his bad quoting bhsmte, some of that I said, some he said. I put life as an arbitrary label.

yes, my shoddy quoting technique.
it does raise an interesting observation though.
he said EXACTLY what i was going to say.

edit:
that's really dishonest of you Bhsmte to edit out what you said after i posted.
fraud for the course i guess.

 

[And-U-Say]

So in other words, there is nothing in Science that indicates or eludes to a God creating our world.

Exactly! Now you are getting it.

How come everytime I look into a microscope I see God written all over it? Am I delusional believing in God.

Dang! For a second there I thought we were making progress. Yes, i guess you are being delusional in a sense.

You are no different than the Norseman who looks up into the sky and says "I know there is a god named Thor, look at the lightning! Who makes that lightning? it can only be one creator. Thor!". You are the like the ancient Greek that looks up into the sky and says "Look at that big ball of fire slowly moving across the sky! That's Apollo! The sun is just Apollo's Chariot moving across the sky!" Exactly like them. Exactly.

These people said these things because they didn't know any better, and the ferventness of their belief did not make their statements true. We may chuckle a bit at their lack of knowledge, but the well informed would chuckle at you for your lack of knowledge in decrying a god by looking at marrow in a microscope. you are a couple of orders of magnitude short on the knowledge needed to understand where you are mistaken.

Am I to disregard my personal experiences with God that have been repeated and confirmed..

Absolutely. If we go back 6,000 years to ancient Egypt we could find religions followers who would make precisely your very same claim. Throughout all of recorded time and geography people have made the very same claim as you have regarding their respective religions. What make you right? Indeed, what process would we use to determine that you (or they) are right and all others wrong? They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

You guys have really schooled me on the subject of scientific method

...and you do need that schooling. hope we have been of some assistance, but it will be a long journey.

- believe what you want about me

Oh, we do. We do.

but time for me to eat crow. :o

I would rather you just sat back and did some real thinking.

Thanks

you are welcome!

 

[PsychoSarah]

irrelevant.
"pond of goo","hydrothermal vent", "from the elements", one and the same.
actually there is no debate at all about the status of the living cell.
life on earth is made of cells, not viruses.
i didn't say you were wrong about anything, i asked why you would believe "things become alive".
all i've gotten so far is . . . you haven't answered the question actually.
i am not talking about spores or viruses, i'm talking about the living cell, a specific, no clouds issue
sorry, replicating molecules is not the life we are talking about.
DNA seems to be as complex as any of todays mainframes, and that's just one molecule.
nobody said that to my knowledge.
they have?
i'm aware of miller-urey, but their experiment only produced amino acids
replicating molecules is not life, and it's certainly not the life we are discussing.
there's that timeline again.
where are these "time figures" coming from, what experiment?
sorry, but evolution says that is EXACTLY what happened.
are you now saying plant life did not occur before animal life?
i see.
so evolution says both of these (animals and plants) appeared on the planet at the same time, correct?
without the tests to prove it, that's exactly what they are.
or are you now saying evolution is above the law.
the fossil record has fallen flat on its face in regards to "proving" evolution.
the fossil record, what a joke.
science has no right whatsoever to claim man is descendent from apes.
there is no way they can prove it through the currently known fossils.
so, no experiments have been done in this regard either then, correct?
another assumption.
i disagree.
although evolution seems to explain things, it hasn't explained anything.

the only thing "valid" about evolution is microevolution, or variation about a mean.
there is no evidence that small changes accumulate, anywhere.
not in the lab, not in the record.

Again, this is what I am talking about. I can show you many heated debates about whether or not viruses should be counted as alive, and I will if I have to, but just flat saying I am wrong about it without backing it up is unacceptable.
Are Viruses Alive?
and a direct quote from it: "There is no precise definition of what separates the living from the non-living.One definition might be the point at which an entity becomes self-aware. In this sense, someone who has had severe head trauma may be classified as brain dead. In this case, the body and brain are still functioning on a base level and there is definitely metabolic activity in all of the cells that make up the larger organism, but it is presumed that there is no self-awareness so the person is classified as brain dead. On the other end of the spectrum, a different criterion for defining life would be the ability to move a genetic blueprint into future generations, thereby regenerating your likeness. In the second, more simplistic definition, viruses are definitely alive. They are undeniably the most efficient entities on this planet at propagating their genetic information.

Although there is no definitive resolution to the question of whether viruses can be considered living entities, their ability to pass on genetic information to future generations makes them major players in an evolutionary sense."

I did answer your question, things don't just "become alive", it is a gradual process from proteins that can replicate themselves to things that are debateably alive to things that are definitely alive. There are nonliving entities with varying degrees of life-like traits.