The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[McBell]

Then, why should i believe what he said later and dismiss his earlier quote? What makes one more valid than the other? In any case, i still hold my current position in regards to evolution As i have stated before, i always felt the way Karl Popper explain but was never able to put in words the way he did.

So you pick the one you like and ignore the one you dislike.
However, it is rather dishonest to prop up someone as a supporter of your beliefs when said person doe snot support your beliefs.

 

[exchemist]

So you pick the one you like and ignore the one you dislike.
However, it is rather dishonest to prop up someone as a supporter of your beliefs when said person doe snot support your beliefs.

SNAP!

 

[McBell]

While i think you are saying this in a way to disagree with the quote i used, i do however, agree with you in regards to philosophy being used in a way to make the invalid, valid.

Philosophy does not deal with invalid.
It merely offers up validity to everything.

 

[Audie]

That's disputable

Oh, there is a far more serous charge than
just that you dont understand evolution.



you have falsified the quote, he nowhere
says this...Sir Karl Popper has stated, "evolution is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program"

 

[Audie]

Because that was the position Popper came to after thinking about it properly. He realised he had made an error.

It is dishonest of you to quote Popper as an authority for a view he came to see as erroneous. At the very least you ought to point out the earlier view is one he later retracted.

Fake quotes are even more dishonest.

 

[rrobs]

It seems you have no idea of how science works or what a scientific theory is. Science never proves anything to be right (only some things to be wrong, as genesis for example). No scientist claims that the ToE is 100% correct. It is just that no one has proven it to be wrong - despite trying hard for 150 years. So, the ToE is the best model we have today, supported by tons of evidence and no competing hypothesis in sight. It is most likely right.
Name one scientific theory that has been proven wrong in the last 100 years.

You've never seen scientific evidence that precludes evolution? I'm going to guess you never tried, because it's not hard to find.

I've been told by many that I don't know how science works. The only solid "evidence" I could see anybody has for that assertion is that what I say is at odds with the belief of said accusers. I'm just glad that my life is not at stake based upon such flimsy "evidence" (if it could even be considered evidence at all). The fact is you know next to nothing about me, what I know, or what I do.

 

[rrobs]

Science does not deal in proof, so the absence of proof is quite irrelevant. Science deals in explanatory and predictive models, based on observational evidence. Inference is a part of true science, so you are wrong there, too. (There is little excuse for you to be still making these errors about science. These points have been explained to you many times in previous threads. You seem to be just deliberately choosing to ignore them.)

Certainly there are theories that have been shown to be wrong, for example the phlogiston theory or the plum pudding model of the atom. However, more commonly, they are shown to be just poor models and replaced, at least for the relevant purposes, by better ones. An example in this category would be the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, or even Newtonian mechanics.

Evolution is a theory that fits a vast number of observations, is corroborated by several independent fields of science, and makes successful predictions so regularly that we don't even realise any more when we invoke its predictions. For example, we do not look for rabbit fossils in the Cambrian.

Equally important, there is no rival explanatory and predictive theory to account for the observations. So we use evolution for now, just as we use quantum theory, or any other theory of science, for now, until something with superior explanatory power comes along, if it ever does.

What is for sure is that "God did it" has zero explanatory or predictive power and as such is not capable, in any, way of being part of a theory of science.

Well, at least you appear to have an open mind in that you say it is possible for something better to come along.

 

[rrobs]

And it would be somewhat foolish to conclude that we "know" for sure. Scientists have put forth their best models, and they are holding, and new evidence is being gathered all the time that confirms hypotheses or the theory itself, or even slightly modifies certain aspects of it. That's the other thing you don't seem to understand with all this. Science allows for the modifications of its findings. It is not set in stone. No useful methodology should be.

I have said multiple times that it is not at all unlikely that the current idea of evolution may very well go by the wayside. If I don't understand that, you don't understand English.

 

[rrobs]

Individuals don't evolve - populations do, and they only do so in response to environmental pressures. Everything is evolving together, finding new functions and forms, and as they do it makes sense that other populations evolve ways to utilize the functions and forms of other forms.

Population or individuals aside (something which I never averred one way or another), the fact is there has been no observation of one genus evolving into another. A horse has always been a horse. At least as far as we've actually observed.

 

[McBell]

It is sad that Pokemon has had such a terrible impact on what people think evolution is.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I have said multiple times that it is not at all unlikely that the current idea of evolution may very well go by the wayside. If I don't understand that, you don't understand English.

But that's misconstruing the situation quite a bit. It is extremely unlikely that the entire idea/model/etc. will "go by the wayside." That's wishful thinking on your part, I believe. Instead, it will only see modifications, and those very likely only slight, and on the fringes of various aspects, not changes to the core of the theory.

You must remember that the theory of evolution as a body of investigation and knowledge has actually produced results for people utilizing the principles discovered to underlie life as we know it. Whatever it is you're proposing that you think could replace it has not produced any results, nor would such a thing be likely to happen. You can't use make-believe to achieve results unless you're writing fiction for entertainment. If, however, something you propose is actually a better model for describing things, then various aspects of your model, once understood, should be able to be leveraged or taken advantage of to actually produce results. Short of that... you have nothing compelling.

 

[rrobs]

Why not actually learn and then deal with what science actually says, instead of peddling this nonsense?

You do know there is not an insignificant number of scientists that do not accept evolution? What you really want me to do is "learn" that your version is the correct one and the others don't count. If that is your idea of science, I'd suggest you learn what science actually says.

 

[Heyo]

I think the reason for this was best explained by Karl Popper when he said "There were no human witnesses to the origin of the Universe, the origin of life or the origin of a single living thing. These were unique, unrepeatable events of the past that cannot be observed in nature or repeated in the laboratory. Thus neither creation nor evolution qualifies as a scientific theory and each is equally religious. As the scientific philosopher Sir Karl Popper has stated, evolution is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program." Not testable meaning it can't be falsified, if something can't be falsified its not scientific. I have been saying this for years but never had knew the correct way to say it. This is one of the reason i never believed in abiogensis nor evolution. Thank you, Karl Popper.

Popper may have been right when he said that but he would be wrong today. We can observe the origin of living things from the moment of conception. We have observed speciation. And evolutionary biologists have made predictions that have come true. That is the way to falsify a hypothesis: make a prediction based on your hypothesis, conduct an experiment, see if your prediction comes true. If it doesn't, your hypothesis is falsified. Tiktaalik was predicted, how it would look and where it would be found. The experiment was to go out and dig. And it was there. Hypothesis confirmed.

 

[Audie]

You've never seen scientific evidence that precludes evolution? I'm going to guess you never tried, because it's not hard to find.

I've been told by many that I don't know how science works. The only solid "evidence" I could see anybody has for that assertion is that what I say is at odds with the belief of said accusers. I'm just glad that my life is not at stake based upon such flimsy "evidence" (if it could even be considered evidence at all). The fact is you know next to nothing about me, what I know, or what I do.

Find it so I can apply for the Nobel

 

[Audie]

Well, at least you appear to have an open mind in that you say it is possible for something better to come along.

And your mind is open to the idea that ToE
is valid?

 

[rrobs]

Since being extinct is not all that interesting, things living today are all transitional species, including humans. This means that you will never see a frog become a dog as these are not in the same family branch, one is a mammal and the other an amphibian. Just as you are not going to suddenly see a dog turn into a tree.

First of all, forgive me for answering to a very small part of what you obviously took great pains to write, but as can see, I'm getting numerous replies. There is simply not enough time for me to deal with everything everybody says. In fact, yours will probably the last post to which I reply. Aren't you lucky? Or not!

I do understand that a frog didn't turn into a dog. What I'm saying is that neither turned into any other genus that what it actually is. Nothing ever came from a frog or dog (hey, it rhymes. ), other than another frog or dog, respectively.

Thanks for your reply and please do forgive me for such a terse response to your well written discourse. Take care.

 

[Audie]

You do know there is not an insignificant number of scientists that do not accept evolution? What you really want me to do is "learn" that your version is the correct one and the others don't count. If that is your idea of science, I'd suggest you learn what science actually says.

One or a million is insignificant since not one of them
has even one of them has even one fact contrary to
ToE.

Their deal is simply religious, like the Creo Hero,
Dr K Wise, PhD Paleontology.

I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

And there you have what it takes to be a scientist-crep.
Intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Audie]

First of all, forgive me for answering to a very small part of what you obviously took great pains to write, but as can see, I'm getting numerous replies. There is simply not enough time for me to deal with everything everybody says. In fact, yours will probably the last post to which I reply. Aren't you lucky? Or not!

I do understand that a frog didn't turn into a dog. What I'm saying is that neither turned into any other genus that what it actually is. Nothing ever came from a frog or dog (hey, it rhymes. ), other than another frog or dog respectively.

Thanks for your reply and please do forgive me for such a terse response to your well written discourse. Take care.

And nobody ever remotely suggested otherwise.

Perhaps you have heard of strawman arguments?

And ignorance?

 

[rrobs]

Find it so I can apply for the Nobel

Jesus once said people wouldn't believe him though he rose from the dead. I could be wrong, but I think I'd be fighting the same upwind battle with you.

I doubt I'm mistaken that you are an intelligent person. I really don't accept that you are incapable of finding respected scientists who don't accept evolution.

Take care.

 

[rrobs]

And nobody ever remotely suggested otherwise.

Perhaps you have heard of strawman arguments?

And ignorance?

What a brilliant jurist you are! From the flimsiest of evidence you are somehow able to ascertain the entire situation. You already have the answer before the question arises. Can we say, "preconceived ideas?"

Not judging, just suggesting there is no way to have a meaningful discussion with you. That's OK, I like you anyway.