Why " JUST" a theory?

[Astrophile]

"Any scientist" would also know that biological evolution is one phase of cosmic evolution out of seven.

Abiogenesis may not be categorized in the biological phase, but that's because it is cataloged in the chemical phase.

Most scientists would also know that biological evolution is quite different from the other six phases of cosmic evolution. Biological evolution occurs because living things both reproduce themselves and have a genetic code that they pass on (with small changes) to their descendants. Stellar evolution, for example, is quite different; stars do not reproduce themselves and they have nothing corresponding to a genetic code.

It is unfortunate that the same word is used to describe such different processes as biological evolution and stellar evolution. It is a great mistake to treat the seven phases of cosmic evolution as equivalent because the same word is used to describe all of them.

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree with you that before 1992 it was reasonable to call Pluto a planet. The discovery, from 1992 onwards, of large numbers of trans-Neptunian objects, some of them of similar size to Pluto, forced astronomers to re-consider the definition of a planet, and to separate spherical bodies that had not cleared their orbits, such as Pluto, Eris, Haumea, Makemake and Ceres, from planets on the one hand and from asteroids on the other.

"Forced astronomers to re-consider"???

 

[NxNW]

Or the telescope.

With evolution? Do tell.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Or the telescope.

The creationists are very confused people. They habitually reject all sciences that explore the "deep past" like archeology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy. A certain invisible poster seems to be rattling off about various types of "evolution", some of which are definitely examined with telescopes.

 

[AV1611VET]

They habitually reject all sciences that explore the "deep past" ...

"Habitually"?

Or "on principle"?

Do you "habitually" reject Jesus' resurrection?

 

[AV1611VET]

A certain invisible poster seems to be rattling off about various types of "evolution", some of which are definitely examined with telescopes.

I take it then you're agreeing with me about the whole of evolution (aka, cosmic evolution)?

But your telescope reference was injected into a conversation about biological evolution; not cosmic evolution.

 

[Mountainmike]

Abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution is not abiogenesis. The lack of a satisfactory theory of the origin of life cannot falisify Darwin's theory of speciation by natural selection, because it has nothing to do with it.

And it is not part of evolutionary theory.

I never said it was.

It is "anti creationists" who like to oppose creation with evolution.
Which as we both know is a false logical comparison. The classic straw man. Creation vs evolution used as a title for forums even.

However. If you want to pose evolution as any kind of explanation of "all life" you need a trail and pathway that goes back that far.
And yet the simplest known cell is hideously complex.

Darwin did not have a theory. It is a misnomer.
Since he had no mechanism other than noting progressive small change, it is at best describable as an "experimental law" valid only in the context of his own data. A bit like ohm really. Ohms law is certainly not universal. It does not apply to many materials or outsidea narrow range of operating points.

Just as boyles law is not of itself a theory. It is an experimental law.
The kinetic theory of gases is the theory which can validate or "explain" the experimental law.

My entire point on these threads is the appropriate use of terms and language - the much quoted "theory of evolution" does not exist.
The authors of these threads on "just a theory" clearly do not understand what a theory is in scientific terms.

There are theories related to evolution. And hypotheseses. And pure speculation. And like darwin - extrapolation from a present to speculate on history. But that does not promote darwins thesis to theory. Since you cannot define an experiment to test darwins hypothesis if Indeed you can even call it such. Indeed his entire presumption that all life proceeds only by progressive small change is arguable.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I never said it was.

Sure you did. I don't know if you don't understand the difference or what, but the whole of my quote of your post was about conflating abiogenesis and evolution (even with Darwin).

That post read:

If only you would look at the evidence just once ONCE would see the simplest known cell is a massively complex self repairing and self developing chemical factory. How that came to be is 99.9% of the problem of life.
And it is COMPLETELY unknown.
I dont need to falsify anything . There is NOTHING to falsify.

But will say this : there is far more forensic evidence for created life, that falsifies Darwin’s thesis by his own test than there is for life origin in the normally assumed chemical abiogenesis for which there is no evidence , process or structure. However weak you think that evidence is, at least there is some!

None of the start points for a Valid hypothesis on Abiogenesis exist, so it is pure speculation and therefore belief.

Where life came from is an opinion.

It's quite plain to anyone who knows what evolution and abiogensis are.

It is "anti creationists" who like to oppose creation with evolution.
Which as we both know is a false logical comparison. The classic straw man. Creation vs evolution used as a title for forums even.

I am an "anti-creationst" because I oppose their doctrine, which is not science or scientific and has no place in the practice or teaching of science. Evolution is about species forming from other species.

However. If you want to pose evolution as any kind of explanation of "all life" you need a trail and pathway that goes back that far.

The *DIVERSITY* of all life, not the origin.

And yet the simplest known cell is hideously complex.

A cell that has been evolving for 3.5 billion years.

Darwin did not have a theory. It is a misnomer.
Since he had no mechanism other than noting progressive small change, it is at best describable as an "experimental law" valid only in the context of his own data. A bit like ohm really. Ohms law is certainly not universal. It does not apply to many materials or outsidea narrow range of operating points.

Just as boyles law is not of itself a theory. It is an experimental law.
The kinetic theory of gases is the theory which can validate or "explain" the experimental law.

My entire point on these threads is the appropriate use of terms and language - the much quoted "theory of evolution" does not exist.
The authors of these threads on "just a theory" clearly do not understand what a theory is in scientific terms.

There are theories related to evolution. And hypotheseses. And pure speculation. And like darwin - extrapolation from a present to speculate on history. But that does not promote darwins thesis to theory. Since you cannot define an experiment to test darwins hypothesis if Indeed you can even call it such. Indeed his entire presumption that all life proceeds only by progressive small change is arguable.

Repeating it does not make it so.

 

[Astrid]

Most scientists would also know that biological evolution is quite different from the other six phases of cosmic evolution. Biological evolution occurs because living things both reproduce themselves and have a genetic code that they pass on (with small changes) to their descendants. Stellar evolution, for example, is quite different; stars do not reproduce themselves and they have nothing corresponding to a genetic code.

It is unfortunate that the same word is used to describe such different processes as biological evolution and stellar evolution. It is a great mistake to treat the seven phases of cosmic evolution as equivalent because the same word is used to describe all of them.

What would those w no actual argument do w/o
equivocation?

 

[AV1611VET]

What would those w no actual argument do w/o equivocation?

Claim the Bible says Pi = 3.0

 

[The Barbarian]

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

Theories are considered true when evidence repeatedly confirms their predictions.

You mean the mixture of theories, hypothesis and speculation that reside under the colloquial misnomer umbrella “ theory of evolution”

You seem to have no idea what evolutionary theory is. The mishmash of science and speculation you've mentioned is what most creationists suppose evolutionary theory to be.

Darwin's theory has four main points:
1. More are born than can survive long enough to reproduce.
2. Every organisms is slightly different than its parents.
3. Some of these differences increase or decrease chances of survival.
4. The useful ones tend to increase in a population, and the harmful ones tend to be lost. This explains the evolution of new species.

“ theory of evolution” is not - and never was a single theory. Nor is the most celebrated part of it - Darwin - is not even a theory.

That's very wrong. As you see, his predictions have been repeatedly verified by evidence. Even most creationists now admit the fact of speciation and new genera. Scientific claims that have been repeatedly verified by evidence are theories.

As for personal beliefs we all have them : you seem to believe as unsubstantiated belief that life is essentially explicable by known or assumed evolutionary process.

No, that's wrong too. Here, you have assumed that evolutionary theory explains life itself. The theory assumes life began and describes how it changes over time. Your many misconceptions are causing you a great deal of difficulty here.

If only you would look at the evidence just once ONCE would see the simplest known cell is a massively complex self repairing and self developing chemical factory. How that came to be is 99.9% of the problem of life.

That's not part of evolutionary theory. However there is a great deal of evidence for the way life was brought forth from the Earth, as God says it was. Perhaps you could start another thread on that topic.

But will say this : there is far more forensic evidence for created life, that falsifies Darwin’s thesis by his own test than there is for life origin in the normally assumed chemical abiogenesis for which there is no evidence , process or structure.

Again, your erroneous assumption that evolutionary theory is about the origin of life, brings you down. You should probably know that Darwin, in his book, attributed the origin of life to God.

Why not learn what it's all about so that you can make a useful contribution to this discussion?

 

[The Barbarian]

Claim the Bible says Pi = 3.0

You're right, but it's more subtle than that. Hebrews had no way to express decimals other than rather clumsy proportions. Since the precise distance wasn't the point, it's not surprising that they rounded the value up to integers. It's no more "wrong" than elementary school teachers telling students that it's about 3.14.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you really were into the scientific method you would realize that Dawkin's atheism really isn't an issue in this discussion.

And Darwin was a Christian when he wrote On the Origin of Species. The last sentence of that book:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

 

[Fervent]

Often the real crux of arguments over evolution has nothing to do with the science of it, but instead popular imaginations and sloppily taught and even more sloppily remembered notions of what evolutionary theory entails. And a lot of this comes because student's aren't provided a proper philosophical foundation to understand the assumptions involved in modeling the universe in a "scientific" fashion. Nothing in science has anything to do with religious belief, though the few metaphysical commitments that are necessary for scientific modeling to occur occasionally gives the false impression that it does. An impression which atheists are more than happy to exploit by engaging with loud charlatans pretending it's in the interest of science.

 

[Astrid]

You're right, but it's more subtle than that. Hebrews had no way to express decimals other than rather clumsy proportions. Since the precise distance wasn't the point, it's not surprising that they rounded the value up to integers. It's no more "wrong" than elementary school teachers telling students that it's about 3.14.

The actual point of mentioning it is the rather
obvious fact that the numbers are approximations.

As in only approximately correct.

Not inerrant.

 

[The Barbarian]

Since he had no mechanism other than noting progressive small change, it is at best describable as an "experimental law" valid only in the context of his own data.

Natural selection. And subsequent evidence shows that he was right. Again, not knowing what Darwin actually wrote, is causing you a great deal of difficulty.

The actual point of mentioning it is the rather
obvious fact that the numbers are approximations.

As in only approximately correct.

Not inerrant.

It's not a math textbook, after all. If one looks there for lessons in science or math, one will always be disappointed.

 

[Astrid]

Natural selection. And subsequent evidence shows that he was right. Again, not knowing what Darwin actually wrote, is causing you a great deal of difficulty.

It's not a math textbook, after all. If one looks there for lessons in science or math, one will always be disappointed.

That's kinda why I put the thread in phys sci, where
where religious texts have no relevance.

Not that I succeeded, T.U.S. ( the usual suspects)
just have to keep posting about religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're right, but it's more subtle than that. Hebrews had no way to express decimals other than rather clumsy proportions. Since the precise distance wasn't the point, it's not surprising that they rounded the value up to integers. It's no more "wrong" than elementary school teachers telling students that it's about 3.14.

Pi is not mentioned in the Bible per se.

And nothing was "rounded up."

If anything, Pi -- (which wasn't mentioned) -- was "truncated" for obvious reasons.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not that I succeeded, T.U.S. (the usual suspects) just have to keep posting about religion.

That's me!

U.S. to the core!

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

And as far as the Abrahamic Covenant goes:

JERUSALEM !

 

[The Barbarian]

Pi is not mentioned in the Bible per se.

But people in bronze age times knew about the ratio, even if it wasn't mathematically described.

And nothing was "rounded up."

The measurement was clearly rounded up.

If anything, Pi -- (which wasn't mentioned) -- was "truncated" for obvious reasons.

They had no mathematical way to express it. The verses were not literally true,but close enough. This is a problem only for those who insist that the Bible must be inerrant in every word, and that the sky is a dome above a flat Earth with windows in it for rain to fall through.