Why 'just a theory'?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then answer the science issue.
you cannot .

what is Your personal “ theory of evolution”. The hypothesis and how you verified it?

Buddy, the onus is not on me to try and support the accepted science. The onus is on you to try and show that the current scientific thinking is wrong and invalid, that the theory of evolution as it currently stands in the scientific community at large is 'just a theory' in the layman's usage of the word.

But you definitely cannot.

 

[Mountainmike]

Buddy, the onus is not on me to try and support the accepted science. The onus is on you to try and show that the current scientific thinking is wrong and invalid, that the theory of evolution as it currently stands in the scientific community at large is 'just a theory' in the layman's usage of the word.

But you definitely cannot.

Then tell me your theory of evolution, you claim is true.

Simple.

the onus is on you to support your views ,particularly when they fly in the face of science - as is the idea of a single wide ranging “ theory of evolution” which does not exist.

If It exists it should be simple for you to quote it. Do you often quote or support stuff you clearly dont understand?

I am a scientist, not an atheist wishful thinker.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then tell me your theory of evolution, you claim is true.

Simple.

the onus is on you to support your views ,particularly when they fly in the face of science - as is the idea of a single wide ranging “ theory of evolution” which does not exist.

If It exists it should be simple for you to quote it. Do you often quote or support stuff you clearly dont understand?

I am a scientist, not an atheist wishful thinker.

Okay, simple:
Evolution - the process by which populations of organisms change via mutations in genetics and DNA in response to external pressures from their environment, aided by the process of natural selection.

And no. I do not believe by a single degree that you are a scientist. Not at all. And I'm not an atheist, I'm a deist.

You are an incredibly rude and arrogant individual.

 

[Mountainmike]

Okay, simple:
Evolution - the process by which populations of organisms change via mutations in genetics and DNA in response to external pressures from their environment, aided by the process of natural selection.

And no. I do not believe by a single degree that you are a scientist. Not at all. And I'm not an atheist, I'm a deist.

You are an incredibly rude and arrogant individual.

spare us the generality.

what precisely is the hypothesis you claim is proven experimentally - so is therefore in your opinion a theory.

comment on the science , not the poster.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

spare us the generality.

what precisely is the hypothesis you claim is proven experimentally - so is therefore in your opinion a theory.

comment on the science , not the poster.

No.

 

[durangodawood]

For me, I just go with the sorts of explanations scientists put forward for lay people, like me, to process. I dont dig into published scientific papers or anything like that.

So far scientists seem to support a long term process of change driven by genetic mutation, natural selection, plus some other factors like kin and sexual selection.

As a lay person I'm not disposed to privilege some extreme minority view point that may exist among scientists.

 

[Mountainmike]

For me, I just go with the sorts of explanations scientists put forward for lay people, like me, to process. I dont dig into published scientific papers or anything like that.

So far scientists seem to support a long term process of change driven by genetic mutation, natural selection, plus some other factors like kin and sexual selection.

As a lay person I'm not disposed to privilege some extreme minority view point that may exist among scientists.

But as a result you are exposed to widely publicised myths and supposition for which actual evidence is lacking.

Like Abiogenesus as a start of life. Nothing but suposition.
or the supposition that the modern cell evolved from something much simpler that could result from just chemistry.
but the simplest cell is incredibly complex, more complex Than any chemical factory . So we know next to nothing about how the cell evolved To the present simplest cell.

Alas atheist belief has taken over the narrative and is now talked up as if it was science.
dawkins has a lot to answer for.

tell me - let’s see what you know - what was Darwin’s conjecture - and did it qualify as a hypothesus or theory?
what did darwin say would falsify his conjecture, and has it happened?

I deal in mainstream science. Not fringe.

you see REAL science - not the stuff talked on forums needs precision.

 

[Mountainmike]

No.

Let’s see if you can answer the question I posed

let’s see what you know - what was Darwin’s conjecture in origin of species - and did it qualify as a hypothesus or theory?
what did darwin say would falsify his conjecture, and has it happened?

Answer with science please.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Let’s see if you can answer the question I posed

let’s see what you know - what was Darwin’s conjecture in origin of species - and did it qualify as a hypothesus or theory?
what did darwin say would falsify his conjecture, and has it happened?

Buddy, I'm not going to play this sort of game with you since I see no reason to indulge your self-deluded fantasy where you think you're better or smarter than anyone in this forum or thread.

You're just a rude and arrogant individual who hijacks any thread they enter into.

 

[Mountainmike]

Buddy, I'm not going to play this sort of game with you since I see no reason to indulge your self-deluded fantasy where you think you're better or smarter than anyone in this forum or thread.

You're just a rude and arrogant individual who hijacks any thread they enter into.

Nope. Just an ex scientist who wants to talk science, not atheist wish believe.

So you cannot state darwins conjecture with precision?
how DARE you post on an evolution thread?, if you don’t even know that much?

if you mean by hijack ” introduce science in place of atheist wish believe”. Guilty,

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nope. Just an ex scientist who wants to talk science.

Doubtful.

So you cannot state darwins conjecture with precision?
how DARE you post on an evolution thread?, if you don’t even know that much?

I STARTED THE THREAD! And why do I need to precisely know the minutia of Darwin's original view on evolution, a view which is no longer the view of biological evolution in modern evolutionary science, to understand that the Creationist claim of 'Oh, it's just a theory' is a bogus claim and a copout when it is never applied consistently to other scientific theories?

I do not have to jump through hoops for you like a bloody trained poodle just so you can stroke your inflated ego.

Stick to posting comments about weeping statues and the shroud of Turin. At least those are worth a lark.

 

[durangodawood]

But as a result you are exposed to widely publicised myths and supposition for which actual evidence is lacking.

Like Abiogenesus as a start of life. Nothing but suposition.
or the supposition that the modern cell evolved from something much simpler that could result from just chemistry.
but the simplest cell is incredibly complex, more complex Than any chemical factory . So we know next to nothing about how the cell evolved To the present simplest cell.

Alas atheist belief has taken over the narrative and is now talked up as if it was science.
dawkins has a lot to answer for.

tell me - let’s see what you know - what was Darwin’s conjecture - and did it qualify as a hypothesus or theory?
what did darwin say would falsify his conjecture, and has it happened?

I deal in mainstream science. Not fringe.

you see REAL science - not the stuff talked on forums needs precision.

As I said, when its scientist vs scientist, I'm going to privilege the 99% over the 1%. I am not personally qualified to adjudicate amongst them.

If your extreme minority view should prevail in reality, you'll have to fight for it.

 

[Mountainmike]

Doubtful.



I STARTED THE THREAD! And why do I need to precisely know the minutia of Darwin's original view on evolution, a view which is no longer the view of biological evolution in modern evolutionary science, to understand that the Creationist claim of 'Oh, it's just a theory' is a bogus claim and a copout when it is never applied consistently to other scientific theories?

I do not have to jump through hoops for you like a bloody trained poodle just so you can stroke your inflated ego.

Stick to posting comments about weeping statues and the shroud of Turin. At least those are worth a lark.

So someone who starts a thread “ just a theory” clearly doesnt see, to know what a theory is!
( In science not atheist wish believe terms )

Worse than that on an evolution thread that you appear to have no idea what darwins thesis was -
the scope and Whether it qualified as hypothesis or theory! Have you ever even read it?

can anyone else on this thread help warden out with the basics!

how can you post about theories until you know what one is? Yet You call me arrogant!

 

[Mountainmike]

As I said, when its scientist vs scientist, I'm going to privilege the 99% over the 1%. I am not personally qualified to adjudicate amongst them.

If your extreme minority view should prevail in reality, you'll have to fight for it.

I don’t have a minority view , unless you mean that those who understand such as Darwin are a minority on forums like this.

I hold the views of science. As a one time director of science companies and institutes its hardly a surprise.
I also know the scope of science. What it can answer - what it cannot.

but then spending time in quantum theory forces you to ask such questions, what is “ real”

please accept the fact, if you will not or cannot study it. Most of “ abiogenesis “ and evolution to present life complexity is pure unsupported conjecture. Most of our supported knowledge is in the last second of the last hour of the day of evolution, if that’s what happened. The rest is speculation. Most of what is posted on forums like this is assumption , not fact, by the illinformed like warden.

And if you want to compare two proposals for the solution to a problem they must have the same scope - ie be alternative solutions to the same problem.but Unless you define evolution in FAR wider terms than science can support as other than conjecture ,( not theory)then the scope of creation and evolution are different and they answer different problems!

 

[durangodawood]

But as a result you are exposed to widely publicised myths and supposition for which actual evidence is lacking.

Like Abiogenesus as a start of life. Nothing but suposition.
or the supposition that the modern cell evolved from something much simpler that could result from just chemistry.
but the simplest cell is incredibly complex, more complex Than any chemical factory . So we know next to nothing about how the cell evolved To the present simplest cell.

Alas atheist belief has taken over the narrative and is now talked up as if it was science.
dawkins has a lot to answer for.

tell me - let’s see what you know - what was Darwin’s conjecture - and did it qualify as a hypothesus or theory?
what did darwin say would falsify his conjecture, and has it happened?

I deal in mainstream science. Not fringe.

you see REAL science - not the stuff talked on forums needs precision.

I did not intend to discuss abiogenesis. It wasnt mentioned in the OP. When we get back the formation of cells, thats a bit of a challenge to the intuition. But I do not expect reality to conform to my intuition, which is a sense suitable only to human scales of size and time. I'm interested to see what we discover there.

As for long term evolution, it seems really well supported and also makes terrific intuitive sense.

Also, I dont think scientists are generally so disingenuous as to support a myth, over a long term, in the face of countervailing evidence. Thats just too dim a view of human nature.

 

[dlamberth]

But as a result you are exposed to widely publicised myths and supposition for which actual evidence is lacking.

Like Abiogenesus as a start of life. Nothing but suposition.
or the supposition that the modern cell evolved from something much simpler that could result from just chemistry.
but the simplest cell is incredibly complex, more complex Than any chemical factory . So we know next to nothing about how the cell evolved To the present simplest cell.

Alas atheist belief has taken over the narrative and is now talked up as if it was science.
dawkins has a lot to answer for.

tell me - let’s see what you know - what was Darwin’s conjecture - and did it qualify as a hypothesus or theory?
what did darwin say would falsify his conjecture, and has it happened?

I deal in mainstream science. Not fringe.

you see REAL science - not the stuff talked on forums needs precision.

I'm in the same boat as is @durangoawood. What I would add is that I'm very much a lover of God. I'm not an atheist. Also, in my readings, there is a lot more proof of evolution than there is of the Creation story of an ancient middle-eastern desert tribe. But I also look beyond the Earth. It's no secret that the cosmos changes and evolves over time. The Earth changes and life changes. None of it is immune from the basic activity of change that every bit of the universe goes through. So I've learn to listen to the scientist and what they have to say about evolution over religious beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

So I've learn to listen to the scientist and what they have to say about evolution over religious beliefs.

And if science gets it wrong, how many billions of people get it wrong too?

 

[Ophiolite]

So you cannot state darwins conjecture with precision?
how DARE you post on an evolution thread?, if you don’t even know that much?

That was directed at @Warden_of_the_Storm . Why would you expect Warden to be able to answer a history question in a thread on biology?

And surely you realise that On the Origin of Species was Darwin's conjecture delivered with precision. It was the precis of what he had intended to write, but never did. So to state Darwin's conjecture with precision I need only point you to the original, (though I hesitate to suggest which edition would be best. Too many subtle differences.) It's almost as if you dared to pose that question because you were unaware that On the Origin of Species was one long argument.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Atheists wrongly use the term as a presumption “all life is explained “ by a process , they claim that is called “the of evolution”. They then falsely claim the imprimatur of science for what is pure belief On their part. Not surprising. That pure speculation is the only game in town for atheists.

Be careful with that match, the strawmen you have built are very flammable.

None of this has anything to do with "atheists". Your problem seems to be with biologists. You clearly ain't one. It is their theories you'd rather replace with the book of genesus.

But Scientists state that whilst there are some limited theories, and hypotheses that explain various aspects of life propagation , there is no audit trail for life outside recent times. So life is unexplained, all else is belief.

Are you sure you know about how science works? This statement doesn't read like someone familiar with the ways of science. It's not even clear what an "audit trail for life" would even be.

If you think there is a ( wide ranging) theory of evolution then tell us your hypothesis for what preceded the simplest cell we know which is hideously complex, and the experimental verification you claim promoted that hypothesis to theory.

Perhaps you should start here:

Amazon.com

 

[Ophiolite]

Are you sure you know about how science works? This statement doesn't read like someone familiar with the ways of science. It's not even clear what an "audit trail for life" would even be.

I differ with you on this point. I think that not only is there a clear "audit trail of life", but - unfortunately for @Mountainmike's argument - there is more than one. We have two audit trails of homologies established via comparative anatomy and developmental biology (including embryology). We have the nested heirarchies of genomes that map on the postulated ancestral relationships between organisms. Then there are is the audit trail established by the immensely rich fossil record, which is being added to all the time. (And if the response to that includes the phrase "missing link" then we have clear evidence of a lack of education in even basic evolutionary theory.) Not to mention the audit trail presented by biogeography. What did I miss?