Question for evolutionists

[Into the Night]

What nonsense. The principle of falsification is just one important aspect of the scientific method. One that you obviously don't understand.

Nope. It's the only one. Science isn't a 'method'. It is just a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[Into the Night]

This sounds like something you heard on rightwing teabag radio, rather than your own original thoughts.
Who's thoughts are you parroting?

What has this got to do with any radio station or for that matter any political view???

No one ever witnessed the big bang,

True.

and no one ever witnessed the Chicxulub asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous.

True.

But multiple lines of evidence and the scientific method allow us to infer what happened

Nope. You're guessing. Science isn't a 'method'. It does not use supporting evidence. Religions do that.

with a high degree of scientific confidence

Science isn't a confidence. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

without ever being able to actually "see what happened".

You can't test a theory about a past unobserved event any other way.

Personally, I recommend you should not rely on teabag talk radio for your scientific talking points.

Again, what does politics or any radio station have to do with this conversation???

 

[Into the Night]

prediction is not science.......prediction is hope and belief.....

It is not that either. The power of prediction is only possible in a closed functional system, such as mathematics or logic. It comes with the formal proof.

Hope and belief come from faith.

 

[Into the Night]

I understand that if your "prediction" cannot be falsified, it is not science.........

Science is incapable of prediction. it is an open functional system.

 

[Into the Night]

You display insipid stubbornness...the bottom line is that "life" has to have a point of creation. You can't "synthesize" life....you just make synthetic versions of whatever it is you're trying to copy....note the definition of the word 'synthetic'.

This is essentially the argument of the Theory of Creation. That an intelligence brought life to Earth. That intelligence is life. The Theory of Creation is not falsifiable. It is not science. It is quite possible that life originated on Earth through a series of random unspecified events (the Theory of Abiogenesis). That theory too is not falsifiable. It too is not science.

To synthesize life means to bring life about using non-biological materials as source material. Could that happen naturally? Did it? We simply don't know.

Science explains (or tries to) what already exists.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument. All theories, both scientific ones and nonscientific ones, explain what already exists (or at least is perceived to exist).

Religious creation theories essentially offers another "mystery" to explain what already exists.

True. A theory is an explanatory argument.

When science can't readily find an answer, a theory is developed and believed to be (or will lead to) the answer

Science isn't 'answers'. It is simply a set of falsifiable theories.

Word games non-withstanding.

No word games. The meanings are consistent.

When religion cannot readily offer an answer, the "mystery" of dogma is offered with belief of answers upon death. (a belief in the "after life").

Religions do often offer an 'answer'. These 'answers' are really just another theory.

Bottom line: neither can offer a precise, no uncertain term answer as to how did life begin, how and when did it become homo sapien. Each believe the answers lie at the end of different paths....belief being the key word.

Correct. BOTH the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Abiogenesis are not falsifiable. They BOTH remain circular arguments (the way all theories begin, even scientific ones). They are both arguments of faith. They BOTH require belief.

 

[Into the Night]

Actually many animals survive without blood or a blood circulatory system at all like flatworms. These animals directly transport resources to body parts without any need for blood. The simplest circulatory system is just a single loop that transports resources around the body with just muscles and no heart or lungs, and we see this in earthworms. Blood may have evolved to improve this system or even for some other purpose and then used in that system later. They only partially need it because they get a lot of oxygen through their skin because they are so small.

So you bring up yet more examples of animals without either blood or a circulatory system. So which came first? Blood or the circulatory system?

 

[kudzu]

Teach your tongue to say “I do not know” and you will progress.
— Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon Maimonides

 

[distraff]

So you bring up yet more examples of animals without either blood or a circulatory system. So which came first? Blood or the circulatory system?

Earth worms don't even have much of a circulatory system and only have a simple canal loop blood is pumped through by muscles. As I said, this system may have existed before blood to distribute something else, or blood may have existed before the system for another purpose and then a circulatory system evolved to move blood around.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

There is no change in the meaning of 'theory' in any scientific sense. The meaning of 'theory' remains the same, whether used to describe a scientific theory or any other.

Say what? That's gibberish son. A scientific theory has a specific definition and if you're not using that definition you're not talking science...which you are not. Do you even know what science or the scientific method is? You're grasp on the subject appears to be shaky at best.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Nope. It would only falsify the claimed order of appearance. A new order of appearance would have to be created. You can't falsify a theory by falsifying a different theory.

That's not only bable but it's a circular argument. You've been talking to PiMP haven't you? LOL

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Correct. The Theory of Evolution, states that present day life evolved from more primitive life.

Learn what a 'fact' is. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.
Learn what knowledge is. Knowledge is not a Universal Truth.
Observations are not a proof. They are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
Supporting evidence is not a proof. Literally mountains of it proves nothing. A single piece of conflicting evidence will nullify all of it. Science only uses conflicting evidence.

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science. It is not falsifiable. There is no possible way to test it other than going back in time to see what actually happened.

Oh you are just babbling nonsense. The modern theory of evolution does not state that life evolved from primitive forms. That's your misinterpretation. You're just simply wrong and don't know what you're talking about and it's as simple as that. Evolutionary theory predicts that species living today have common ancestors and the facts, to the best of our knowledge, bear that out.

and while were on the subject of learning, learn what science is. It is not whatever you want to define it as to meet your purposes or world view. Virtually every claim you make is not only not supportable by the facts as we know them, they are arguments from ignorance.

The Theory of Biological evolution one of the most useful and thoroughly test scientific theories and it meets all the criteria of a scientific theory despite your false claims as to other wise.

A scientific theory is defined as;

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. (ref: Wikipedia).

To considered a scientific theory it must;
Model natural phenomena.
Be falsifiable in principle.
Make testable predictions.
Be based on empirically observable fact.
Be independently verifiable.
Be published and peer reviewed.
It must have a high probability of being correct
Can be revised or modified based upon new evidence or discoveries.

The Theory of Biological Evolution by means of natural selection not only easily meets all these criteria of a scientific theory and it is one of the most profoundly useful scientific theories discovered by man with a vast array of applications and uses (a fact you seem to be avoiding).

So no Biologist is looking for absolute truth's, that's what you appear to be doing. We, like any other scientist are looking for what are the facts to the best our our knowledge and how do they explain how living systems work.

 

[kudzu]

Earth worms don't even have much of a circulatory system and only have a simple canal loop blood is pumped through by muscles. As I said, this system may have existed before blood to distribute something else, or blood may have existed before the system for another purpose and then a circulatory system evolved to move blood around.

Same with Jellyfish ......

 

[kudzu]

Oh you are just babbling nonsense. The modern theory of evolution does not state that life evolved from primitive forms. That's your misinterpretation. You're just simply wrong and don't know what you're talking about and it's as simple as that. Evolutionary theory predicts that species living today have common ancestors and the facts, to the best of our knowledge, bear that out.

and while were on the subject of learning, learn what science is. It is not whatever you want to define it as to meet your purposes or world view. Virtually every claim you make is not only not supportable by the facts as we know them, they are arguments from ignorance.

The Theory of Biological evolution one of the most useful and thoroughly test scientific theories and it meets all the criteria of a scientific theory despite your false claims as to other wise.

A scientific theory is defined as;

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. (ref: Wikipedia).

To considered a scientific theory it must;
Model natural phenomena.
Be falsifiable in principle.
Make testable predictions.
Be based on empirically observable fact.
Be independently verifiable.
Be published and peer reviewed.
It must have a high probability of being correct
Can be revised or modified based upon new evidence or discoveries.

The Theory of Biological Evolution by means of natural selection not only easily meets all these criteria of a scientific theory and it is one of the most profoundly useful scientific theories discovered by man with a vast array of applications and uses (a fact you seem to be avoiding).

So no Biologist is looking for absolute truth's, that's what you appear to be doing. We, like any other scientist are looking for what are the facts to the best our our knowledge and how do they explain how living systems work.

Good post... but I think he fled the thread.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Say what? That's gibberish son. A scientific theory has a specific definition and if you're not using that definition you're not talking science...which you are not. Do you even know what science or the scientific method is? You're grasp on the subject appears to be shaky at best.

here mott,
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

now, tell me where "making a prediction which cannot be disproven" came to be included in the scientific method.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

That's not only bable but it's a circular argument. You've been talking to PiMP haven't you? LOL

Mott refuses to discuss evolution with me because he knows more about it than I do, and he's certain he knows more about it than I do because he refuses to discuss it with me........

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Good post... but I think he fled the thread.

Probably because he couldn’t answer my last question on why the theory has produced a vast number uses.

 

[kudzu]

Probably because he couldn’t answer my last question on why the theory has produced a vast number uses.

He's also a bit of a bully IMO.

 

[Taichiliberal]

This is essentially the argument of the Theory of Creation. That an intelligence brought life to Earth. That intelligence is life. The Theory of Creation is not falsifiable. It is not science. It is quite possible that life originated on Earth through a series of random unspecified events (the Theory of Abiogenesis). That theory too is not falsifiable. It too is not science.

To synthesize life means to bring life about using non-biological materials as source material. Could that happen naturally? Did it? We simply don't know.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument. All theories, both scientific ones and nonscientific ones, explain what already exists (or at least is perceived to exist).

True. A theory is an explanatory argument.

Science isn't 'answers'. It is simply a set of falsifiable theories.

No word games. The meanings are consistent.

Religions do often offer an 'answer'. These 'answers' are really just another theory.

Correct. BOTH the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Abiogenesis are not falsifiable. They BOTH remain circular arguments (the way all theories begin, even scientific ones). They are both arguments of faith. They BOTH require belief.

Essentially, we're in agreement. I just simplify the discussion by cutting to the chase. Like I said, the theory of evolution and the creationist theory....never the twain shall meet, but maybe they should give each other a phone call. Couldn't hurt.

 

[Into the Night]

Earth worms don't even have much of a circulatory system and only have a simple canal loop blood is pumped through by muscles. As I said, this system may have existed before blood to distribute something else, or blood may have existed before the system for another purpose and then a circulatory system evolved to move blood around.

Speculation. We are talking about existing examples, not speculation.

 

[Into the Night]

Say what? That's gibberish son. A scientific theory has a specific definition and if you're not using that definition you're not talking science...which you are not. Do you even know what science or the scientific method is? You're grasp on the subject appears to be shaky at best.

There is no change in the meaning of 'theory' in any scientific sense. The meaning of 'theory' remains the same, whether used to describe a scientific theory or any other.

Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.