To disprove evolution...

[ppp]

I don't know... Because are you saying that since baby birds learn how to fly that they're more intelligent than or just as intelligent as humans?

However, you think I'm speaking in an all-or-nothing manner. I'm not. I'm stating that animals may be more intelligent in some ways and less intelligent in other ways. Stop looking at intelligence as a black and white thing. Intelligence can't be measured by a single number. (And no, IQ is not a refutation of that

 

[David Davidovich]

I don't know... However, I believe that I could beat a bird at chess.

 

[ppp]

I don't know... However, I believe that I could beat a bird at chess.

Considering the logistics, it seems unlikely. The best you could hope to do is to not lose.

 

[gnostic]

Would it be possible to disprove portions of the evolution theory through this method?: One would have to prove that self aware consciousness is a unique human trait. Something about man has to be found that is uniquely human. I think it is our consciousness. After proving that no other animal is conscious like us, it would have to be proven that no other animal can develop a consciousness like us.
This wouldn’t disprove parts of evolution like mutations or survival of the fittest. Those things are readily observable. This would call into question the common origin of man with all other species. If something can be found to be uniquely human, that is non attainable by any other animal through the power of evolution, well I think that would be telling.

I am going to talk about any scientific theory in general, it could be in the field of biology, physics, chemistry, Earth science or astronomy.

First off. All scientific theories - including Evolution - can be challenged, questioned and replaced by any alternative theories.

But any such alternative must have not only better explanation than the current scientific theory, it must also have enough evidence to back up the alternative.

Second.

I am sorry if I am repeating myself, but you need to use correct terminology in sciences.

Sciences relied on tests or testings, observations, evidences, experiments.

And the test will either "verify" or "refute" the model/hypothesis/theory.

That's how sciences determine which model or hypothesis or theory is "scientific".

Sciences don't rely on proofs.

Proofs are logical statements or logical models, and the most common forms of proof used in sciences and mathematics are mathematical equations.

So when you use words, like "prove" or "disprove", it would mean you are attempting to solve equations.

Proofs or mathematics equations are not evidence.

Evidence are physical where proofs are logical abstractions.

Evidence are used to determine if the hypothesis or theory is scientifically true; proofs don't do that.

Plus, the explanations and predictions are actually models in the hypothesis or theory, and so are proofs (proofs are logical models), so when you are testing hypothesis or theory, you are also testing the explanations, predictions AND any mathematical equations (or proofs).

Proofs are not true, until they have been tested as true with observed physical evidence.

So the proper terminology is to "verify" or to "refute" or "debunk" Evolution, not to "prove Evolution" or "disprove Evolution".

*****

As to the theory of Evolution..going back to your original questions.

There may be better alternative theory in the future that may replace Evolution, but I really don't think so.

I think it is more likely biologists will -

1. either expand the current theory
   
2. or correct & update the current theory of Evolution

Because the theory is already correct as they are, and there are enough evidence to support all the current mechanisms of Evolution.

If you didn't know already, the mechanisms of Evolution are:

1. Natural Selection
   
2. Mutation
3. Genetic Drift
4. Gene Flow
5. Genetic Hitchhiking

Natural Selection haven't been replaced by other mechanisms, so instead of replacing Natural Selection, they add the new mechanisms to the old theory of Evolution.

What people - non-biologists - don't understand that since Darwin published On Origin of Species (1859), new evidence provide new information, and these evidence/information will either be added to the "Theory of Evolution" or it will correct/amend and update what they already know.

And Evolution have expanded many times over the decades and century after On Origin, including genetics (Mendelian inheritance), mutations, genetic drift, DNA testings, etc.

I highly doubt that they will ever replace Evolution. They will more likely add new information to the current theory, expanding or updating Evolution.

And btw, Xavier Graham.

Understanding Evolution is fundamental part of biology, that explain the biodiversity of species. So what it is learned or taught shouldn't affect religions, because no religions teach biology.

Only ignorant creationists who are weak and insecure in their faith, have trouble with Evolution.

PS

The "survival of the fittest" isn't a name for an evolutionary mechanism; the correct name is Natural Selection.

Personally I think biologists shouldn't use "survival of the fittest", because non-biologist people tends to misunderstand what this term mean.

Some people think Natural Selection is about being the strongest, smartest or fastest, when they misuse "survival of the fittest". It isn't. It simply mean being adapted to the changed environment.

Do you think koalas, wombats or butterflies are here today, because they are strongest, fastest or smartest?

People are absolute idiots when they think strength, speed or intelligence lead to survival of the species; this is why I think biologists should drop "survival of the fittest" when teaching biology to student.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am going to talk about any scientific theory in general, it could be in the field of biology, physics, chemistry, Earth science or astronomy.

First off. All scientific theories - including Evolution - can be challenged, questioned and replaced by any alternative theories.

But any such alternative must have not only better explanation than the current scientific theory, it must also have enough evidence to back up the alternative.

Second.

I am sorry if I am repeating myself, but you need to use correct terminology in sciences.

Sciences relied on tests or testings, observations, evidences, experiments.

And the test will either "verify" or "refute" the model/hypothesis/theory.

That's how sciences determine which model or hypothesis or theory is "scientific".

Sciences don't rely on proofs.

Proofs are logical statements or logical models, and the most common forms of proof used in sciences and mathematics are mathematical equations.

So when you use words, like "prove" or "disprove", it would mean you are attempting to solve equations.

Proofs or mathematics equations are not evidence.

Evidence are physical where proofs are logical abstractions.

Evidence are used to determine if the hypothesis or theory is scientifically true; proofs don't do that.

Plus, the explanations and predictions are actually models in the hypothesis or theory, and so are proofs (proofs are logical models), so when you are testing hypothesis or theory, you are also testing the explanations, predictions AND any mathematical equations (or proofs).

Proofs are not true, until they have been tested as true with observed physical evidence.

So the proper terminology is to "verify" or to "refute" or "debunk" Evolution, not to "prove Evolution" or "disprove Evolution".

*****

As to the theory of Evolution..going back to your original questions.

There may be better alternative theory in the future that may replace Evolution, but I really don't think so.

I think it is more likely biologists will -

1. either expand the current theory
   
2. or correct & update the current theory of Evolution

Because the theory is already correct as they are, and there are enough evidence to support all the current mechanisms of Evolution.

If you didn't know already, the mechanisms of Evolution are:

1. Natural Selection
   
2. Mutation
3. Genetic Drift
4. Gene Flow
5. Genetic Hitchhiking

Natural Selection haven't been replaced by other mechanisms, so instead of replacing Natural Selection, they add the new mechanisms to the old theory of Evolution.

What people - non-biologists - don't understand that since Darwin published On Origin of Species (1859), new evidence provide new information, and these evidence/information will either be added to the "Theory of Evolution" or it will correct/amend and update what they already know.

And Evolution have expanded many times over the decades and century after On Origin, including genetics (Mendelian inheritance), mutations, genetic drift, DNA testings, etc.

I highly doubt that they will ever replace Evolution. They will more likely add new information to the current theory, expanding or updating Evolution.

And btw, Xavier Graham.

Understanding Evolution is fundamental part of biology, that explain the biodiversity of species. So what it is learned or taught shouldn't affect religions, because no religions teach biology.

Only ignorant creationists who are weak and insecure in their faith, have trouble with Evolution.

PS

The "survival of the fittest" isn't a name for an evolutionary mechanism; the correct name is Natural Selection.

Personally I think biologists shouldn't use "survival of the fittest", because non-biologist people tends to misunderstand what this term mean.

Some people think Natural Selection is about being the strongest, smartest or fastest, when they misuse "survival of the fittest". It isn't. It simply mean being adapted to the changed environment.

Do you think koalas, wombats or butterflies are here today, because they are strongest, fastest or smartest?

People are absolute idiots when they think strength, speed or intelligence lead to survival of the species; this is why I think biologists should drop "survival of the fittest" when teaching biology to student.

Well, I was taught science has nothing to do with truth, if we are to nitpick words.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I was taught science has nothing to do with truth, if we are to nitpick words.

Oh let's not bring up The Truth™. But yes, science deals with the testable. The confirmable (and that does not make an idea "The Truth") and the falsifiable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh let's not bring up The Truth™. But yes, science deals with the testable. The confirmable (and that does not make an idea "The Truth") and the falsifiable.

Well, truth is entangled in some sense entangles in metaphysics/ontology and even a different version of epistemology. If we are to differentiate between proof and truth, I am also going to do it between truth and evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, truth is entangled in some sense entangles in metaphysics/ontology and even a different version of epistemology. If we are to differentiate between proof and truth, I am also going to do it between truth and evidence.

My point is "what is the truth" is a question that may be very if not impossible to answer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My point is "what is the truth" is a question that may be very if not impossible to answer.

Correct and that is connected to methodological naturalism. If you read the fine print, that has nothing to do with truth.

 

[gnostic]

Well, I was taught science has nothing to do with truth, if we are to nitpick words.

I didn’t say the “truth”, I wrote what model can be tested as “true”.

I personally don’t like to use “truth” in science. You brought up the “truth”, not me.

Perhaps, I should I have written “probable” or “likely” for those are tested “true”, and “improbable” or “unlikely” for those tested “not true”.

Would that be better?

Second.

If you or someone is going to argue for or against science, then wouldn’t it be better to learn and use the correct terms that are used in physics, biology or other sciences, to avoid confusion.

Even mathematicians would agree that proof, prove and disprove are terms more in the mathematical domains than in natural sciences.

Evidence and proof are not synonymous in Natural Sciences.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didn’t say the “truth”, I wrote what model can be tested as “true”.

I personally don’t like to use “truth” in science. You brought up the “truth”, not me.

Perhaps, I should I have written “probable” or “likely” for those are tested “true”, and “improbable” or “unlikely” for those tested “not true”.

Would that be better?

Second.

If you or someone is going to argue for or against science, then wouldn’t it be better to learn and use the correct terms that are used in physics, biology or other sciences, to avoid confusion.

Even mathematicians would agree that proof, prove and disprove are terms more in the mathematical domains than in natural sciences.

Evidence and proof are not synonymous in Natural Sciences.

I am not going to argue against science. I have just been around long enough in these debates and read enough scientists to know that at least some would say that science is not true in any sense. You might use true as following the methods in science, but that doesn't make biological evolution true as most people use the word. I avoid true because it confuses some people.

 

[gnostic]

I avoid true because it confuses some people.

And I have avoided using “truth” for exactly that reason.

I preferred evidence-based fact.

It is the evidence that dictated what is probable, factual and scientific, or dictated what isn’t probable, not factual and not science.

The more evidence you have that back a model, the more decisive the decision in reaching the conclusion that the model is probable.

But if the evidence don’t support the model, then it can be concluded that the model or hypothesis is weak or incorrect because it isn’t probable. Meaning the improbable model or hypothesis has been refuted.

The issue I had with Xavier’s OP with his uses of the word disprove.

Science don’t rely on proving or disproving a model, they would test the model using observations of the physical evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't know... Because are you saying that since baby birds learn how to fly that they're more intelligent than or just as intelligent as humans?

It doesn't work like that. It's like asking if a plane is better or worse than a car. They each have their individual strengths. Birds have more skills than us in some areas, but less in others. It's not a simple case of "More" or "Less" intelligent.

 

[Viker]

I had an idea.
Would it be possible to disprove portions of the evolution theory through this method?: One would have to prove that self aware consciousness is a unique human trait. Something about man has to be found that is uniquely human. I think it is our consciousness. After proving that no other animal is conscious like us, it would have to be proven that no other animal can develop a consciousness like us.
This wouldn’t disprove parts of evolution like mutations or survival of the fittest. Those things are readily observable. This would call into question the common origin of man with all other species. If something can be found to be uniquely human, that is non attainable by any other animal through the power of evolution, well I think that would be telling.
Just a thought.

We have a uniqueness for sure. But we have more in common with the rest of the world's critters than can be ignored. There are plenty of animals self aware and conscious.

When I tell people we're just animals they quickly jump to conclusions. This is an automatic thought process in line with our animal instincts. We claim most our thinking is advanced when it's mostly knee jerk responses. What I intend is not to put us as a species down but to bring the rest of our family up to our level.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We claim most our thinking is advanced when it's mostly knee jerk responses.

Indeed.

In truth, the objective difference in cognitive faculties required between a chimp manipulating a stick into a termite catching device to be used a later time in another location on the one hand and building the Hubble Space Telescope on the other, is far smaller then most people realize.

In fact, consider how far we've come in just a few millenia.
Early Homo Sapiens wasn't that much more "advanced" then your average chimp colony.

Early Homo Sapiens barely understood how to make fire. And their tools were not that much more advanced then a chimp's "termite catching sticks".

And that very same species today is creating things like the hubble space telescope.
We aren't really more intelligent today then our ancestors were back then though...
We are just smarter. ie: we have millennia of accumulated knowledge to borrow from.

If we could go back in time to Sapiens early days, steal a baby and have it grow up in today's society - likely nobody would notice it.

 

[David Davidovich]

Considering the logistics, it seems unlikely. The best you could hope to do is to not lose.

Speak for yourself.

 

[David Davidovich]

It doesn't work like that. It's like asking if a plane is better or worse than a car. They each have their individual strengths. Birds have more skills than us in some areas, but less in others. It's not a simple case of "More" or "Less" intelligent.

But there's a difference between skills and intelligence. Also, I would still say that animals do things more because of instinct, and that would include baby birds learning how to fly because they aren't reasoning on aerodynamics:

Learning to fly is a process, and it often involves a little trial and error for the young birds because it relies not only on instinct but also some practice. Similar to how a baby's first steps are interrupted with frequent stumbles and falls, birds don't learn to fly in a day, the Toronto Wildlife Centre reports.​

click here: Nature Curiosity: How Do Birds Learn To Fly? - Forest Preserve District of Will County (reconnectwithnature.org)

Birds learn how to fly much like a human toddler learns to walk: a combination of instinct and practice. Not all birds are instinctive flyers, however. Flightless birds, such as penguins and ostriches, no longer have the instinct to imitate their airborne cousins. Newborns of bird species that do fly, such as pigeons or hummingbirds, have an innate sense that it is a natural act. Compare this to a human baby who instinctively understands that standing upright is a natural goal to achieve.​

click here: How do Birds Learn How to Fly? (with pictures) (allthingsnature.org)

 

[Tiberius]

But there's a difference between skills and intelligence. Also, I would still say that animals do things more because of instinct, and that would include baby birds learning how to fly because they aren't reasoning on aerodynamics:

Learning to fly is a process, and it often involves a little trial and error for the young birds because it relies not only on instinct but also some practice. Similar to how a baby's first steps are interrupted with frequent stumbles and falls, birds don't learn to fly in a day, the Toronto Wildlife Centre reports.​

click here: Nature Curiosity: How Do Birds Learn To Fly? - Forest Preserve District of Will County (reconnectwithnature.org)

Birds learn how to fly much like a human toddler learns to walk: a combination of instinct and practice. Not all birds are instinctive flyers, however. Flightless birds, such as penguins and ostriches, no longer have the instinct to imitate their airborne cousins. Newborns of bird species that do fly, such as pigeons or hummingbirds, have an innate sense that it is a natural act. Compare this to a human baby who instinctively understands that standing upright is a natural goal to achieve.​

click here: How do Birds Learn How to Fly? (with pictures) (allthingsnature.org)

And how do you know that a thing that you take to be intelligence isn't just a skill? What if the human ability to understand how things might look from another person's point of view is just a skill Humans happen to be good at?

 

[ppp]

Speak for yourself.

I take it back. You don't understand what constitutes winning in a standard game of chess. Which gives the bird parity..

 

[We Never Know]

I had an idea.
Would it be possible to disprove portions of the evolution theory through this method?: One would have to prove that self aware consciousness is a unique human trait. Something about man has to be found that is uniquely human. I think it is our consciousness. After proving that no other animal is conscious like us, it would have to be proven that no other animal can develop a consciousness like us.
This wouldn’t disprove parts of evolution like mutations or survival of the fittest. Those things are readily observable. This would call into question the common origin of man with all other species. If something can be found to be uniquely human, that is non attainable by any other animal through the power of evolution, well I think that would be telling.
Just a thought.

"Something about man has to be found that is uniquely human"

We are human. There is no other like us. We are unique. There ya go. You're welcome