Why " JUST" a theory?

[RileyG]

As in not phys sci with reference for stated facts.
I've been asking that forum rules be observed in that regard.

Sorry. I went off topic.

 

[Astrid]

Sorry. I went off topic.

You're fine. No apology needed. We all go off topic.
If there's a thread raider who is only out to disrupt tho,
I feel strongly they should ot be encouraged by responding.

 

[Occams Barber]

We get what we're willing to tolerate from
bratty kids of any age.

I did request that forum rules be respected.


Posts that do not are fair game for anyone to report.

Meanwhile back on topic...

I recently discovered that the use of the word 'evolution' in a biological sense actually predates Darwin. According to the Online Etymological Dictionary it was first used by geologist Charles Lyell back in 1832. Darwin himself only ever used 'evolution' once in print. It occurs in the closing paragraph of The Origin of Species published in 1859.

Darwin's preferred terminology was 'descent with modification'. The popularisation of 'evolution' is attributed to other biologists of the time - possibly because it's less cumbersome than 'descent with modification'. 'Descent with modification' is also more consistent with the modern shorthand definition of evolution - 'changes in the genetic material of a population over time'.

Much to the annoyance (and confusion) of some Creationists, 'evolution' has also crept into the terminology associated with abiogenesis. We now see 'chemical evolution' used to describe the gradual development of the complex, non-living, chemical compounds and processes leading up to the emergence of the first lifeform(s). 'Chemical evolution of life' is effectively an alternate term for 'abiogenesis'.

On the day that the 'chemical evolution of life' transitions from hypothesis to theory I expect we'll be inundated by a new generation of Creationists once again insisting that it's 'just a theory'.

OB

 

[AV1611VET]

I recently discovered that the use of the word 'evolution' in a biological sense actually predates Darwin.

You heard right.

Evolution was debated for years before Darwin came around.

But no one could explain it, and the debates raged on and on.

When Darwin was growing up, he often overheard his father and grandfather discussing it.

Eventually, Darwin invented the "breakthrough technology" that got evolution rolling forward with gusto.

That breakthrough technology was known as "natural selection."

No longer could the naysayers poo-poo evolution on scientific grounds.

 

[Occams Barber]

You heard right.

But you didn't. My post is about the use of the word evolution. Your post is about the concept of evolution.

But I'll give you credit - the concept of evolution was debated well before Darwin wrote Origin of Species in 1859. General usage of the word 'evolution' to describe Darwin's (and Wallace's) findings didn't happen until after Darwin had published Origin.

OB

 

[Mountainmike]

Sooo, Mike.

I opened this thread, as the previous one was
ruined by the usual suspects and mods had to
shut it down.

There is deep ignorance re most basic science among
our posters..

This thread, as per the attached article, is intended to
be educational, that those with doubts, contrary ideas about ToE or other theories can avoid wasting time on basics and get to something with possible content.

Your intent appears to be something entirely different.

If you are not going to post on topic, with facts / data
rather than such as sweeping generalizations about persons unknown, i must ask you to leave.

OT posts with no demonsteable substance are not allowed
in phys sci.
Plz cease this behaviour.
I won't allow it.

Plz cooperate or be gone.

It is time YOU all spoke science or moved on.

I am explaining what a theory is.
it seems the OP on the last thread had no idea.

A Theory in science is a hypothesis sufficiently well defined to allow experimental test, and if confirmed it becomes a theory

There is no single TofE , and certainly darwins thesis is more of an experimental law, ( like ohms law it is certainly not inviolate) and like ohm, is certainly not a theory.



So before decide whether your TofE is “ just a theory”
First define it,
what precisely is the hypothesis you say is verified so is the theory on which you base the thread?

Its a fair question. Answer it.

There is also a conceptual Problem that presenting any TOE as an alternative to creation is comparing applesabd oranges. They do not occupy the same logical space.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is also a conceptual problem that presenting any TOE as an alternative to creation is comparing apples and oranges.

I totally agree.

One has to go.

And guess which one?

(Hint: read my caption.)

They do not occupy the same logical space.

Correct.

One is logical.

The other is theological.

(That is, theo-logical.)

 

[Astrid]

It is time YOU all spoke science or moved on.

I am explaining what a theory is.
it seems the OP on the last thread had no idea.

A Theory in science is a hypothesis sufficiently well defined to allow experimental test, and if confirmed it becomes a theory

There is no single TofE , and certainly darwins thesis is more of an experimental law, ( like ohms law it is certainly not inviolate) and like ohm, is certainly not a theory.



So before decide whether your TofE is “ just a theory”
First define it,
what precisely is the hypothesis you say is verified so is the theory on which you base the thread?

Its a fair question. Answer it.

There is also a conceptual Problem that presenting any TOE as an alternative to creation is comparing applesabd oranges. They do not occupy the same logical space.

Mike, you are doing,, have been doing all the things I
requested you refrain from, and adding mote besides.

The topic is, why the use of the word " just"
(when trying to disparage a theory). Just that.

It appears to be a low rhetorical trick used by
certain creationists to disparage science .


Perhaps someone can explain why they do it anyway.

Going o,t. Is going against forum rules

Evolution is not the topic.
It isn't religion.
It isn't any of the things you made up and
falsely attribute to me.
It's not a platform for you to make demands.
It's not a thread intended for quips from usual
suspects who also dont care where they and their efforts to derail every thread about science , are not welcome.

 

[Mountainmike]

Mike, you are doing,, have been doing all the things I
requested you refrain from, and adding mote besides.

The topic is, why the use of the word " just"
(when trying to disparage a theory). Just that.

It appears to be a low rhetorical trick used by
certain creationists to disparage science .


Perhaps someone can explain why they do it anyway.

Going o,t. Is going against forum rules

Evolution is not the topic.
It isn't religion.
It isn't any of the things you made up and
falsely attribute to me.
It's not a platform for you to make demands.
It's not a thread intended for quips from usual
suspects who also dont care where they and their efforts to derail every thread about science , are not welcome.

It is not even a theory in the scientific sense
I am replacing the word "just" with "not even" which is the real question.
The word just on the original OP gave the false impression it was a theory.

That should matter on a science forum. So far from derailing the thread it is bringing it back to science

The thread context is use or misuse or qualification of the phrase "theory of evolution".


It is high time people talked about that from a science perspective, not populist misuse of the phrase..
Dont you care about the scientific view of all this?

 

[Astrid]

It is not even a theory in the scientific sense
I am replacing the word "just" with "not even" which is the real question.
The word just on the original OP gave the false impression it was a theory.

That should matter on a science forum. So far from derailing the thread it is bringing it back to science

The thread context is use or misuse or qualification of the phrase "theory of evolution".


It is high time people talked about that from a science perspective, not populist misuse of the phrase..
Dont you care about the scientific view of all this?

" Not even a theory"

Odd, how while Christians consider humility,
a prime virtue so many display a transcendent level of arrogance.

" not even a theory"

Contained within those few words is the assertion
of infallible knowledge of the existence of a personally
selected God, and of the One True reading of the book
claimed to be about said God.

All other religions, all other Christians' interpretations
are wrong.

MOREOVER, it's a claim to know more than every actual
scientist / rexearcher on earth- a stunning feat accomplished with no study, no effort, no data.

It's a level of pride and arrogance that delves deep into the realm of delusion.

ToE is NOT the thread topic, despite your efforts to
falsely so claim and derail.

We see the same " just a theory" from creationists
about deep time, big bang, any subject that science
addresses in a way that doesn't fit their infallible Knowledge.

Still, theres merit to your post in that you have,
however inadvertently, addressed the " WHY" in the thread title.

ANY theory that doesn't fit with the infallible knowledge
of any creationist is, ipso facto, " just" a theory, or in
extreme cases, not even a theory at all.


You could have saved a lot of words, and calumny,
by " just" saying that in the first place.

Now, again, your post is 99% off topic, and again, please go.

I dont like to resort to reporting but enough is enough.

 

[Chesterton]

Now, again, your post is 99% off topic, and again, please go.

I dont like to resort to reporting but enough is enough.

Your OP is this: Why " JUST" a theory?

It makes no sense. Before you start reporting members for being off-topic, shouldn't you articulate what the topic is?

 

[AV1611VET]

Odd, how while Christians consider humility, a prime virtue ...

Let's set the record straight on this, shall we?

Here are our virtues:

1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

... so many display a transcendent level of arrogance.

But you'll argue down anyone -- (such as myself) -- who exhibits faith, won't you?

Even to the point of putting them on ignore.

Then you'll go and complain they don't show enough charity.

Even when I mention the Bible refers to the Rapture as our "blessed hope," academians want to argue it down; while at the same time complaining we don't show enough charity.

So faith and hope can take a hike, but not charity ... right?

You are one messed up theologian.

But an excellent spokesman for academia.

I'll give you that much.

 

[AV1611VET]

Contained within those few words is the assertion of infallible knowledge of the existence of a personally selected God, and of the One True reading of the book claimed to be about said God.

At least he's got one.

What's your excuse?

All other religions, all other Christians' interpretations are wrong.

As was science's interpretation of our solar system for 76 years.

Anyone -- anyone -- who would have dared say Pluto wasn't a planet during those years, would have been "corrected".

MOREOVER, it's a claim to know more than every actual scientist / rexearcher on earth- a stunning feat accomplished with no study, no effort, no data.

How stunned were you, when your cohort said this:

Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.

SOURCE

And your other cohorts wrote this:

Theories of Everything, by John Barrow (1991)
The Mind of God, by Paul Davies (1992)
Dreams of a Final Theory, by Steven Weinberg

It's a level of pride and arrogance that delves deep into the realm of delusion.

Unless that "pride and arrogance" comes from your own prophets.

Then it's "science," isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

ANY theory that doesn't fit with the infallible knowledge of any creationist is, ipso facto, "just" a theory, or in
extreme cases, not even a theory at all.

Maybe we don't like science, which runs on fallibility by replacing one wrong theory with another wrong theory and calls it "progress" -- maybe we don't like them telling us the Bible is wrong.

You can, on principle, call your own craft "fallible" if you want to.

But don't project your fallibility on to us and expect us to agree.

You're still "progressing."

We're just standing around, waiting for you guys to catch up.

 

[The Barbarian]

Having established the posters on the other thread don’t understand the SCIENTIFIC meaning of the word theory, and the posters all seem to believe in a non existent single theory of evolution that somehow explains life, what’s the point in this thread?

Evolutionary theory doesn't explain life. It merely explains how living populations change over time.

Aren't theories rated by strength?

No. They are considered true when evidence repeatedly confirms their predictions.

 

[The Barbarian]

Surely people have tried to. But I dont actually know.

Evolution, like gravity, is something we directly observe happening. Evolution is somewhat more certain than gravity.

We know why evolution works, but we still aren't completely sure why gravity works.

 

[Astrid]

Evolutionary theory doesn't explain life. It merely explains how living populations change over time.


No. They are considered true when evidence repeatedly confirms their predictions.

Some people will never learn-
that arguing against things they make
up is so totally lame. But it's sort of cute,
they naive way they unconsciously admit
they've no idea what they're talking about and
have no argument except against their own
nonsense.

 

[Astrophile]

I recently discovered that the use of the word 'evolution' in a biological sense actually predates Darwin. According to the Online Etymological Dictionary it was first used by geologist Charles Lyell back in 1832. Darwin himself only ever used 'evolution' once in print. It occurs in the closing paragraph of The Origin of Species published in 1859.

Did Lamarck ever use the word evolution, or its French equivalent?

 

[Astrophile]

Anyone -- anyone -- who would have dared say Pluto wasn't a planet during those years, would have been "corrected".

I suppose that by the modern definition of a planet, Pluto was a planet from 1930 to about 1992. It is in orbit around the Sun and it is large enough and massive enough to be spherical. Before 1992 nobody knew that there were other 'planetary' bodies in the same region of the solar system, so Pluto's region of space was supposed to be empty. It was only when large numbers of objects were found in the trans-Neptunian region that it became clear that Pluto has not cleared its orbit and that it is therefore a dwarf planet.

 

[Occams Barber]

Did Lamarck ever use the word evolution, or its French equivalent?

According to my AI (Copilot), Lamarck didn't use the term evolution or a French equivalent. While the current French word for evolution is évolution it appears, Lamarck didn't reduce his ideas, now known as Lamarckism, to a single term.

Co-incidentally, Charlie Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, appears to have favoured something like Lamarckism as an explanation for biological change over time. Evolutionary thinking appears to have been in the Darwin genes .

OB