Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[Micawber]

Yes it is perceived as a weak force. But what is a force exactly? And how is a gravity a force? We should be able to detect it like we did with, say, EM forces.

The EM forces can be generated, clearly.

Well, we can generate the effect of gravity by harnessing the forces that create it. But I agree, we cannot bottle it and sell it anymore than we can evolution.

On startrek they can! Gravitron pulses and stuff...

 

[Into the Night]

Physics is undoutedly the queen of the sciences.

I can go with that!

But it appears you have been watching too many Jurassic Park movies if you think the science of evolution is limited to some low tech field paleontologists wearing Indiana Jones fedoras.

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science, whether anyone is wearing a fedora or not.

The evolutionary sciences are multidisciplinary invoking genetics, biochemistry, paleontology, biology, geology, etc.

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.

The Mendelian version of Darwinian evolution is supported by multiple lines of evidence -- and evolution by natural selection and gene flow has been observed in real time under both laboratory and field conditions.

Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution. The Greeks did.

On balance, Mendelian-Darwinian evolution is one of the most secure and firmly established theories in science, on a par with general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution. The Greeks did.

 

[Into the Night]

It’s exceedingly difficult to find intact DNA fragments in fossils. In fact, I was always told that DNA is notoriously unstable outside of the cell. How they manage to get even fragments of DNA from fossils is beyond me but supposedly it happens.

But they use our old friend the PCR tests to amplify fragments of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA and conclude this or that. Not saying they’re wrong or right but how many assumptions are entailed *just in that*? How do they know the PCR results weren’t contaminated with human DNA? How do they know the fragment hasn’t been degraded to such an extent it could lead to a faulty conclusion?

We actually all know how unreliable PCR results can be, right?

This is kind of my point: when someone says ‘it’s a fact that man is descended from a less evolved ancestor’ they are seemingly unaware that their ‘fact’ is actually a provisional claim that was arrived at using a few assumptions.

There is NO genealogical information in a fossil. NOTHING connects one fossil to another except one's own imagination that they are somehow 'related'.

 

[Micawber]

I agree in the sense that gravity is not really a force at all, but a geometry imposed on spacetime by matter.

I think the universal theory will be discovered at JPP labs.

 

[AProudLefty]

Well, we can generate the effect of gravity by harnessing the forces that create it. But I agree, we cannot bottle it and sell it anymore than we can evolution.

On startrek they can! Gravitron pulses and stuff...

Actually we can harness the forces of evolution by using the gay fruit flies in a jar.

 

[Into the Night]

No doubt if they were walking in New York and saw a body flattened on the pavement, it would forever be a mystery to them despite the evidence the person fell from a building and the approximate time they fell.

Since you gave no other evidence other than the presence of the body on the pavement, it is unknown how it got there.

Splatter evidence, the drying of blood, the presence of bugs, all the stuff people see on CSI. You know, scientific evidence.

Science isn't evidence. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no such thing as 'scientific' evidence. There is only evidence, or there is not.

All of that would be scorned by those who disavow science.

Nope. It's just evidence. It is not science.

They would throw up their hands and say "It's a mystery!" LOL

It is. YOU are building a speculation out of a manufactured example.

 

[Into the Night]

Dude, we're not talking DNA. How was "Lucy" dated? What, exactly, is your educational background on science?

https://iho.asu.edu/about/lucys-story
How old is Lucy?
The hominid-bearing sediments in the Hadar formation are divided into three members. Lucy was found in the highest of these—the Kada Hadar or KH—member. While fossils cannot be dated directly, the deposits in which they are found sometimes contain volcanic flows and ashes, which can now be dated with the 40Ar/39Ar (Argon-Argon) dating technique. Armed with these dates and bolstered by paleomagnetic, paleontological, and sedimentological studies, researchers can place fossils into a dated framework with accuracy and precision. Lucy is dated to just less than 3.18 million years old.

This dating technique has an unknown accuracy beyond living memory. In other words, it tells us nothing about the age of anything beyond that time.

It is speculation.

 

[Micawber]

Actually we can harness the forces of evolution by using the gay fruit flies in a jar.

That needs some splainin' Drosophila can be gay?

 

[Into the Night]

I would tend to conclude the opposite......I doubt any scientist ever conducted an experiment because he was skeptical that it would be successful.......

The purpose of any experiment is to try to break a theory of science.

 

[AProudLefty]

That needs some splainin' Drosophila can be gay?

Apparently so.

 

[Into the Night]

Great, a century old philosophy of science.

Presentism fallacy. Age does not affect philosophical arguments.

 

[Into the Night]

which remains the philosophy of science and always will......

At least until someone comes up with a better philosophical argument than we have right now!

 

[Into the Night]

No. But you don't know shit. Popper stated it about a century ago. Was not discussed before and is not an accepted theory today.

Presentism fallacy. Age does not affect philosophy. You are free to try to define 'science'. Let's see YOUR philosophical argument.

 

[Micawber]

Apparently so.

Male seahorses rear their young. Did I violate 12(b) again?

 

[Into the Night]

What question did you ask? You don't know anything about science.

Actually, they do.

 

[Into the Night]

As Plato would say, it's good to be good.

Circular argument.

 

[AProudLefty]

Wouldn't it be something when the parrot discovered the ToE?

 

[Micawber]

seriously can you desist, ITN?

 

[Into the Night]

I’m not sure there’s a universally accepted philosophy of science.

Obviously.

No offense to INT.

None taken!

But it explains why there’s a sort of hierarchy in science with physics at the top.

Certainly one way to view it. Since science is a set falsifiable theories, among the oldest are those in physics.

To pick on evolution again lol, the physical sciences have a much higher standard of what’s accepted as theory or even evidence.

No. The only requirement for a theory to be a theory of science is that it MUST be falsifiable. That's it.
As long as a theory can withstand test designed to destroy it, it is automatically part of the body of science. No peer review, no voting bloc, no 'blessing' by anyone, no one has to 'accept' it. It is automatically part of the body of science. It will remain so until it is falsified.

ALL theories must pass what is known as the 'Internal Consistency Check'. This is true for nonscientific theories as well. Basically, the check states that no theory may be based on a fallacy. It must be a valid argument (since all theories are explanatory arguments).

A theory of science must also pass what is known as the 'External Consistency Check'. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. One or both must be falsified.

For example, something like a ‘nested hierarchy’ would never make it through peer review in a chemistry journal.

Since science doesn't use consensus, voting blocs, or anything like that, peer reviews in journals mean nothing. Peer reviews are used by publishers, not by any theory of science. Science isn't even people at all. It's just the theories themselves. They must be falsifiable.

Consequently, nested hierarchies are considerable less ‘fact’ than Boyles Law or whatever.

Boyles law is a theory of science formalized into mathematical form, producing the equation. This equation is known as a 'law'. This particular theory is part of physics. So far, this theory has not yet been falsified. It is still part of the body of science.

It seems such an obvious thing but some people are resistant to it.

Religious believers, particularly fundamentalists, are resistant to anything outside their religion, or to anything that threatens their religion.

Maybe because it’s terrible news for evolutionists and democrats lol.

It is.

The Church of Green is a fundamentalist style religion.
The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion.
The Church of Covid is a fundamentalist style religion.

They all stem from the Church of Karl Marx (also the Church of Plato), which is also a fundamentalist style religion. It's goal is to implement fascism and communism, both forms of socialism.

 

[Darth Omar]

Heh. I guess he is.

They do treat it like a religion lol.