Why the Theory of Evolution is True. Part 1: What is Science?

[Kenny]

https://www.sciencenews.org/article...-may-have-caused-brightest-supernova-yet-seen

The title alone already has the words "may have" in it.
In the article you'll find plenty of "could have's" and "may's" and alike.

Every science paper on any subject that isn't just listing observations, but is offering explanations, will by default use such language

The difference being the don't hyper-link to "it is a true statement". A BIG difference.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

With Medical specs, it is worth considering.

To call it placebo effect (without evidence or what percentage is placebo effect) - is flat earth thinking.

No, it is the result of actually studying these things. The results are consistent with placebo effects.

Establishing a position before considering evidence.

False. Instead, actually studying the claims and concluding that the results are consistent with placebo effects.

You are digging yourself deeper and deeper - you might fall off the earth shortly

Says the guy who just spews claims without actually looking into them.

The fact that you even required me to give you an example of a non-evolution paper that uses the same "may have", "could be" etc terminology already tells me that you actually have never read a science paper in your life.

Clearly you are talking about things you know nothing about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The difference being the don't hyper-link to "it is a true statement". A BIG difference.

No idea what you are talking about.

Maybe you should, for once, try to actually support your assertions with evidence.

Give me a link to a paper that calls the theory of evolution, a "fact".
And please, make it a paper from an actual science channel. Not from creationist propaganda sites.

Won't be holding my breath.


You people keep on claiming that science says that the THEORY of evolution is a "fact", but you consistently fail to actually demonstrate it. Bare assertions is all you have.

It's actually also kind of funny that on the one hand you keep claiming that the THEORY is presented as a fact, while at the same time you complain that the actual science papers use uncertain language like "may have" and "could be".

 

[Kenny]

No, it is the result of actually studying these things. The results are consistent with placebo effects.



False. Instead, actually studying the claims and concluding that the results are consistent with placebo effects.



Says the guy who just spews claims without actually looking into them.

The fact that you even required me to give you an example of a non-evolution paper that uses the same "may have", "could be" etc terminology already tells me that you actually have never read a science paper in your life.

Clearly you are talking about things you know nothing about.

Ok... we have reached the crux of the matter... you are not going to accept any information because of a flat-earth approach

So we will agree to disagree and not waste any more time.

 

[Kenny]

Give me a link to a paper that calls the theory of evolution, a "fact".

You just supported @Deeje position.

 

[Yerda]

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....?

Hi, Deeje. I'm going to jump in here if that's ok with you. I promise I won't be rude.

Those phrases are perfectly fine in a discussion of scientific ideas and concepts. Especially when the discussion is being kept fairly general. I've taken science courses in several different fields and talk like this comes up a lot.

For example, when doing a microbiology course we carried out a lab experiment where we grew little cultures of bacteria in a growth medium (like a cloudy soup of nutrients for germs) and tested the contents of the medium under different conditions. We found that different concentrations of nutrients "seem to" result in different behaviour. When we added glucose, for instance, we later measured the lactose concentration increased. We "supposed it likely" that the bacteria "could be" expelling lactose because they prefer glucose and had limited space for storage (though that isn't only possibility).

The language used reflected the state of knowledge that the students had and the ideas that the instructors were trying to encourage us to reflect upon.

In astronomy we covered theories of the moon formation and there was a lot of talk about how it "appeared likely" that they moon was formed of the result of a "possible" collision between the Earth and "a hypothesised" smaller body and the evidence was discussed for that idea.

Science is often taught with a lot of hedging language because a given explanation might be wrong or just very general and the nitty gritty is discussed more rigourously in the journals. And sometimes that's just the individual's communication style.

These are examples of "belief".....scientists "believe" things to be true, even when they cannot be proven, more than most people realize...

I would agree with that. But I would also add that when a scientist believes something relevant to the field they work in the can provide evidence or good hypothetical reasons for that belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok... we have reached the crux of the matter... you are not going to accept any information because of a flat-earth approach

No. rather because what you call "information" are just bare assertions that aren't in evidence, and which I know for a fact to be incorrect.

And it's not like you are even bothering to support your claims......

So we will agree to disagree and not waste any more time.

I will agree to you having nothing but bare assertions, while I actually support my statements.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You just supported @Deeje position.

I did not.

@Deeje couldn't even properly define evolution if her life dependend on it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hi, Deeje. I'm going to jump in here if that's ok with you. I promise I won't be rude.

Those phrases are perfectly fine in a discussion of scientific ideas and concepts. Especially when the discussion is being kept fairly general. I've taken science courses in several different fields and talk like this comes up a lot.

For example, when doing a microbiology course we carried out a lab experiment where we grew little cultures of bacteria in a growth medium (like a cloudy soup of nutrients for germs) and tested the contents of the medium under different conditions. We found that different concentrations of nutrients "seem to" result in different behaviour. When we added glucose, for instance, we later measured the lactose concentration increased. We "supposed it likely" that the bacteria "could be" expelling lactose because they prefer glucose and had limited space for storage (though that isn't only possibility).

The language used reflected the state of knowledge that the students had and the ideas that the instructors were trying to encourage us to reflect upon.

In astronomy we covered theories of the moon formation and there was a lot of talk about how it "appeared likely" that they moon was formed of the result of a "possible" collision between the Earth and "a hypothesised" smaller body and the evidence was discussed for that idea.

Science is often taught with a lot of hedging language because a given explanation might be wrong or just very general and the nitty gritty is discussed more rigourously in the journals. And sometimes that's just the individual's communication style.

I would agree with that. But I would also add that when a scientist believes something relevant to the field they work in the can provide evidence or good hypothetical reasons for that belief.

People like @Deeje don't realise this (or refuse to realise it) and primarily like to pretend as if such "belief" by scientists is the equivalent of the faith-based "beliefs" of a theist.

They can't / won't comprehend the difference between an evidence-based "belief" and a faith-based "belief".

2 entirely different types of "beliefs" that they like to pretend is the same in terms of merrit, because both use the word "belief".

 

[Deeje]

One on one debates with @Deeje about this subject, is an exercise in futility though.

I think you miss the point of debate Tagliatelli.....if you are trying to convince me....you fail miserably....but debates are not intended to convert the other person to your point of view....it’s for the benefit of those taking on board what is offered from both sides......

I like to bring attention to fact that evolutionary science pretends to be the truth, but most of what it offers is based on biasedly interpreted “evidence” that relies on forcing the evidence to support evolution, rather than evolution being supported by the evidence.

There is way more suggestion involved in science’s conclusions than actual substantiated facts. It’s pretty obvious when you really look at what is on offer......you can read right over the suggestions without realising how much they are used in their explanations.

All you ever do is whine....how is that adding anything to your argument?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think you miss the point of debate Tagliatelli.....if you are trying to convince me....

Nothing and nobody can ever convince you, as you have literally said yourself already. Remember?

I like to bring attention to fact that evolutionary science pretends to be the truth, but most of what it offers is based on biasedly interpreted “evidence” that relies on forcing the evidence to support evolution, rather than evolution being supported by the evidence.

Which is a point on which you have been demonstrated wrong countless of times already.
And once again you are projecting your own flaws on others.

There is way more suggestion involved in science’s conclusions than actual substantiated facts. It’s pretty obvious when you really look at what is on offer......you can read right over the suggestions without realising how much they are used in their explanations.

This also has been explained to you countless times.

All you ever do is whine....how is that adding anything to your argument?

I'm just saying it like it is. You are not actually debating the science. You are just preaching your religious dogma and misrepresenting the science in the process.

There's only so many times that the same misrepresentations and mistakes will be corrected and addressed, after which it is clear that it's an exercise in futility.

Especially when you actually literally acknowledge it to be so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Both "assumptions" and "hypothesising" is supported by massive amounts of evidence in science.
They aren't wild guesses, like in every-day language.

And if you would read the Berkeley post with a spec of attention, you'ld know this. From your own copy paste:

The result of a cladistic analysis is a tree, which represents a supported hypothesis about the relationships among the organisms. However, it is important to keep in mind that the trees that come out of cladistic analyses are only as good as the data that go into them. New and better data could change the outcome of a cladistic analysis, supporting a different hypothesis about the way that the organisms are related.


In other words, the conclusion of these studies are based on DATA. Not on preferences or wants or likes by the one carrying out the study.


Your semantic argument based on ignorance of how science works, fails miserably.

@Deeje You can mark this post as "creative" or anything you want. The fact remains that the very article you are referring to is literally stating that it is DATA that drives this.

In other words, it says the exact opposite of what you are claiming that it says.

 

[McBell]

As I said... "present your articles and I will shoot it full of holes"

And, if your position is "there is no such thing as a spiritual side" - then you have left scientific thinking of considering ALL possibilities and you have drifted into the camp of flat earth thinking.

I have not once said you are wrong.
I said and am saying that you have not shown you are right.

 

[Deeje]

@Deeje You can mark this post as "creative" or anything you want. The fact remains that the very article you are referring to is literally stating that it is DATA that drives this.

In other words, it says the exact opposite of what you are claiming that it says.

LOL... your data is “cooked”.....it is interpreted to fit your theory, not the other way around. That is something you appear to be oblivious to. “None so blind” as they say.

Science is your “religion” and you subscribe to it like I subscribe to mine....you “believe” it. That’s fine.....but don’t present it as if it is based on fact, when it is already admitted that there are no facts.

The “data” is skewed to support evolution. Admitting that the “science” in this branch is totally biased, means that “evidence” cannot be relied on, any more than cladistics can....it’s all hypothetical......but you can’t see past it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But perhaps you need to define “evolution” to begin with?
You see we have no problem with “adaptation”....it’s a demonstrable reality that we see everyday as things such as viruses and bacteria adapt to changed environments (usually due to man’s attempts to destroy them). But adaptation has in no way demonstrated the ability to transform any organism into a completely different creature.

Here it is, the place where you demonstrate the simple thing that you do not and cannot grasp! And it is simply this: one small adaptation, one little change -- yeah, you're right, doesn't transform any organism by much at all.

But do it hundreds, thousands and millions of time -- one change, not on the original, but on the already changed -- adds up to immense change. You can add a grain of sand to an anthill on the sidewalk, and it means squat. Go ahead, do it again -- still nothing. And again -- and then again and again and again and...and when you hit a million or 10 million and more, then compare that pile to the original and it's different by an order of magnitude.

You are exhibiting what I always find on this topic -- a complete failure of imagination, and the ability to distinguish a change here and a change there from continuous, cumulative change. When you learn to do that, you'll be a lot further ahead.

(By the way, that kind of cumulative change is what makes compound interest so very lucrative, for those who use it properly, and what makes the rest of us poorer as a consequence.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I love watching the religious arguing against evolution. On and on and on endlessly, saying the same things over and over, ignoring the same evidence every time it is presented, no matter how it is presented.

You know, it reminds me of the trial of Galileo before the Inquisition, at which he was sentenced to house arrest for life. Of course, what Galileo said -- and what he was punished for -- was perfectly correct, and the Church totally wrong. And it only took them 350 years to admit it and apologize for it. Tragically, our religious contributors won't live that long -- though they will still have been wrong throughout.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think you meant to quote Deeje here, not me. May need to go back and edit the post.

You are quite correct -- not quite sure how I picked up the wrong handle to the right quote.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

LOL... your data is “cooked”.....it is interpreted to fit your theory, not the other way around.

The article you linked to make that point, is saying the exact opposite.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here it is, the place where you demonstrate the simple thing that you do not and cannot grasp! And it is simply this: one small adaptation, one little change -- yeah, you're right, doesn't transform any organism by much at all.

But do it hundreds, thousands and millions of time -- one change, not on the original, but on the already changed -- adds up to immense change. You can add a grain of sand to an anthill on the sidewalk, and it means squat. Go ahead, do it again -- still nothing. And again -- and then again and again and again and...and when you hit a million or 10 million and more, then compare that pile to the original and it's different by an order of magnitude.

You are exhibiting what I always find on this topic -- a complete failure of imagination, and the ability to distinguish a change here and a change there from continuous, cumulative change. When you learn to do that, you'll be a lot further ahead.

(By the way, that kind of cumulative change is what makes compound interest so very lucrative, for those who use it properly, and what makes the rest of us poorer as a consequence.)

Indeed. The inevitable result of continued accumulation of small changes is a concept that evolution deniers simply can not seem to, and don't want to, grasp.

 

[Deeje]

Hi, Deeje. I'm going to jump in here if that's ok with you. I promise I won't be rude.

Thank you for your kindly manner....it is refreshing.

Those phrases are perfectly fine in a discussion of scientific ideas and concepts. Especially when the discussion is being kept fairly general. I've taken science courses in several different fields and talk like this comes up a lot.

As they should....

For example, when doing a microbiology course we carried out a lab experiment where we grew little cultures of bacteria in a growth medium (like a cloudy soup of nutrients for germs) and tested the contents of the medium under different conditions. We found that different concentrations of nutrients "seem to" result in different behaviour. When we added glucose, for instance, we later measured the lactose concentration increased. We "supposed it likely" that the bacteria "could be" expelling lactose because they prefer glucose and had limited space for storage (though that isn't only possibility).

The language used reflected the state of knowledge that the students had and the ideas that the instructors were trying to encourage us to reflect upon.

And I understand that the learning process is just that. Experiments are useful in providing data in a “hands on” manner.

I have no problem with this. I am all for experimentation because the conclusions are important....but where it comes undone IMO, is when conclusions are forced to fit a theory rather than to allow the results to speak for themselves. Bias encourages nothing but brainwashing. Leading people to conclude things that may not be true accomplishes what? How is science trustworthy when it could all change tomorrow?

In astronomy we covered theories of the moon formation and there was a lot of talk about how it "appeared likely" that they moon was formed of the result of a "possible" collision between the Earth and "a hypothesised" smaller body and the evidence was discussed for that idea.

Other branches of science do not impact on human behavior more strongly than the theory of evolution. This area of science alone is under challenge here because we can see in the world that eliminating a “need” for an Intelligent Designer”, eliminates accountability and removes morality from the world. An immoral world is not a nice place to live......but a world filled with hypocritical religion isn’t either. Both are destructive.

Science is often taught with a lot of hedging language because a given explanation might be wrong or just very general and the nitty gritty is discussed more rigourously in the journals. And sometimes that's just the individual's communication style.

And I have no problem with that either, provided that young and impressionable minds are not led to believe that something is absolute truth, when it isn’t. No one wants to be a “sheeple” where thinking is done for them and conclusions are reached and preached that cannot be substantiated, yet there is pressure for acceptance.

I would agree with that. But I would also add that when a scientist believes something relevant to the field they work in the can provide evidence or good hypothetical reasons for that belief.

I would argue that when a scientist has his own views clouded by an all invasive theory, which remains unproven to this day, then popular opinion overrides anything science can actually prove.

All experimentation is conducted to see how closely it fits with conditioned expectations. They are actually looking for anything that will perpetuate their theory. What doesn’t is often dismissed. That will then stifle any conclusions that fall outside of that ‘box’.

All I ask is an honest approach. Science in this branch is not honest IMO. What is said, compared to what is “believed” seems to be poles apart.

We can see how aggressively some argue for evolution as if their life depends on it.....I can only wonder why it offends them so much when their precious theory is threatened......it’s almost like we have attacked their mother.

But they have attacked my Father.....