Your belief in a knowable universe isn't really needed.
LOL....so why was it brought into the discussion?
It is only important that you understand that scientists believe in a knowable universe.
But I don't believe that they do know that much about the Universe......they have limited knowledge at present, but compared to what there is still to know....they know very little IMO.
Scientists believe very few things.
On the contrary, I think that scientists "believe" a lot.
Since I am only interested in evolution, I'll stay with it...you can do whatever you wish with the rest of science......it does not relate to the things I am wanting to discuss....
Here is an explanation on "Complexity" from Berkely Ed (for students)....
"Looking at complexity
Life is full of grand complications, such as aerodynamic wings, multi-part organs like eyes, and intricate chemical pathways. When faced with such complexity, both opponents and proponents of evolution, Darwin included, have asked the question: how could it evolve?
Science does not sweep such difficult questions under the rug, but takes them up as interesting areas for research. The difficulty is as follows.
Since many of these complex traits seem to be adaptive, they are likely to have evolved in small steps through natural selection. That is, intermediate forms of the adaptation must have evolved before evolution arrived at a fully-fledged wing, chemical pathway, or eye. But what good is half a wing or only a few of the elements of an eyeball? The intermediate forms of these adaptations may not seem adaptive — so how could they be produced by natural selection?
There are several ways such complex novelties may evolve:
- Advantageous intermediates: It's possible that those intermediate stages actually were advantageous, even if not in an obvious way. What good is "half an eye?" A simple eye with just a few of the components of a complex eye could still sense light and dark, like eyespots on simple flatworms do. This ability might have been advantageous for an organism with no vision at all and could have evolved through natural selection.
- Co-opting: The intermediate stages of a complex feature might have served a different purpose than the fully-fledged adaptation serves. What good is "half a wing?" Even if it's not good for flying, it might be good for something else. The evolution of the very first feathers might have had nothing to do with flight and everything to do with insulation or display. Natural selection is an excellent thief, taking features that evolved in one context and using them for new functions."
Looking at complexity
Count the number of suggestions here.....just on this brief explanation on complexity....
Do these phrases..."seem to be"...or..."likely to have"...or..."must have"...or "may evolve"....or...."might have"...or..."could have"... belong in a serious discussion on any scientific topic? Can you tell me where I might find these phrases used so liberally in other branches of science....?
These are examples of "belief".....scientists "believe" things to be true, even when they cannot be proven, more than most people realize.
The axioms are the basics which can't be proven, all the rest follows.
So you base all your knowledge on things that cannot be proven?
If it can't be proven, its not a fact.....is science then a bunch of unprovable stuff that everyone must “believe” to actually accept it?
Not every theory fits all the data. Sometimes it is just most of the data. That is enough if it can make limited predictions. Sometimes one model only gets favoured because it is easier to handle. E.g. Newtonian mechanics is imprecise near big masses or at high speeds. But it is still good enough to compute a trajectory to Pluto. No need to involve Special Relativity.
If I ever need a trajectory to Pluto I'll keep that in mind....
We are discussing Science. Astronomy is part of science.
Astronomy has nothing whatever to do with evolution. What is your point...that because some science is right that all science must be right? Seriously?
Is that where you imagine that this thread will lead....?
I was talking about science.
I am only interested in evolution of the macro-kind....the rest of science is of no interest to me.
You named the thread...."
Why the Theory of Evolution is True. Part 1: What is Science?"
Please stick to evolution or talk to yourself....
You cannot lead me to accept evolution unless the science is accurate...and we can all see that it is more suggestive than it is provable.
We'll get to the point, maybe in a few weeks. Depends on how well you understand what you have to understand before we can talk about evolution.
Are you kidding me? A few weeks? Why? What can you offer in a few weeks that you cannot offer right now.....
I have tried to talk evolutionary biology with you to no avail. You still don't understand taxonomy (as evidenced in your first answer).
But I do understand taxonomy......here it is representing the red fox....
This is a man made suggestion of course, but we get the gist of the way science likes to group its biological classifications. I find it incredibly misleading TBH.
But calling a four-legged furry land dweller a "whale" because it had a similar earbone to living whales is hardly convincing to the observer. Who placed that little dog-like critter in the whale family? Someone who wanted to infer that whales "must have" evolved from Pakicetus......
You really have to use strong "suggestion" to reach that conclusion....its hardly convincing.
Remember that science is systematic. I'm trying to be systematic here. I'll lead you through all the steps necessary for understanding and from now on, since we managed the axioms, it will all be logical steps.
I don't want to be led anywhere....I am not three years old.....and I know a snow job when I see one.
Not knowing how life originated doesn't affect my skill to explain how it diversified - but that is a discussion to be had later, much later.
I don't think I can hang around that long unless you have something more riveting to share....But evolution must satisfiy a need in you none the less....but it gives you no future and no solid answers to the very human questions about the purpose of life.....why are we here? Why do only humans need those kinds of answers? Is it not the same kind of curiosity that sparks interest in science in the first place?
Where do you see the human race in 100 years? I honestly don't think we can sustain life here under the present circumstances.....we poison everything we touch. The earth is screaming out for help but it never comes.....we just see more of the same abuse of the planet and each other. I am grateful that I have a hope for the future....what do you have?
I'm not at home for a few days and I don't know if I'll have reception where I'm going. So it most likely will be next week for the next part in the series on the scientific method.
I'm not sure I want to to go through what you have in mind....I have way more interesting topics to discuss and I doubt very much that you can provide anything I haven't heard a thousand times before.....
