Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by iterationzero
False. A theory will never become a law, regardless of how much evidence is gathered to support it. They are two completely different and distinct informational constructs. The fact that you've claimed a theory can become a law twice now betrays a lack of understanding on your part about how those words are used in a scientific context. Laws are descriptive, theories are explanatory. To get away from just using evolution as an example, take gravity -- the law of gravity describes the relationship between the attraction between objects based on their mass, the theory of gravity seeks to explain why this is the case.

You are incorrect, but, just as the creationists you wish to discredit, you refuse to open your eyes and understand. Go ahead and feel the way you feel, it doesn't affect me either way.
Your understanding is very limited. As you progress in studies and understanding, it will make more sense to you. It is much more complex than you are presently able to comprehend, and that's ok. You may get there eventually, you may not, but that won't change what they really are

reply to post by colin42


I am pro-evolution only because this THEORY is more logical than a mystical magical being uttering abracadabra and produced life.

The MAIN problem with the THEORY of evolution is that evolutionists believe that we are made of silly putty - one glob makes all.

Out of a few inorganic elements a single living cell was magically formed; a cell endowed with a massive amount of information. There is no way this information for life just happened naturally. It's impossible! It can't happen!

Then the single cells splits into two cells, then four...then a trillion.

Apparently, the cells got bored with just absorbing energy form the sun and said to one another, "What do you want to do now?"

One cell got this bright idea, and replied, "Hey, I know, let's eat each other!"

Hence, predator and prey was born.

Some cells were shocked (cell shocked, ha!). "Not us!" they cried. "We're going green. We'll grow roots and keep feeding off the sun."

Life from nothing...might as well believe in a god.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by iterationzero
False. A theory will never become a law, regardless of how much evidence is gathered to support it. They are two completely different and distinct informational constructs. The fact that you've claimed a theory can become a law twice now betrays a lack of understanding on your part about how those words are used in a scientific context. Laws are descriptive, theories are explanatory. To get away from just using evolution as an example, take gravity -- the law of gravity describes the relationship between the attraction between objects based on their mass, the theory of gravity seeks to explain why this is the case.

You are incorrect, but, just as the creationists you wish to discredit, you refuse to open your eyes and understand. Go ahead and feel the way you feel, it doesn't affect me either way.
Your understanding is very limited. As you progress in studies and understanding, it will make more sense to you. It is much more complex than you are presently able to comprehend, and that's ok. You may get there eventually, you may not, but that won't change what they really are

How is he incorrect? What is there to understand about creationism? Since creationism accommodates all possibilities, it cannot have any explanatory power there is nothing complex about it.
The problem is creationists will not accept problems with creationism (which are legion) as evidence for evolution.Anything incompatible with the creationists' foregone conclusions is not pursued and infact it discourages legitimate scientific discovery.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

You are incorrect, but, just as the creationists you wish to discredit, you refuse to open your eyes and understand. Go ahead and feel the way you feel, it doesn't affect me either way.

This is easily solved. Present an example of a theory that became a law because of the accumulated evidence behind it.

Your understanding is very limited. As you progress in studies and understanding, it will make more sense to you. It is much more complex than you are presently able to comprehend, and that's ok. You may get there eventually, you may not, but that won't change what they really are

I'm quite clear on the difference between a theory and a law. I have to be given the number of times I've seen people post on these boards whose education about science was deficient in some way and can't seem to get the concepts of facts, laws, hypotheses, and theories straight in a scientific context.

I'll be awaiting your example of a theory that became a law.

Originally posted by iterationzero

I'm quite clear on the difference between a theory and a law. I have to be given the number of times I've seen people post on these boards whose education about science was deficient in some way and can't seem to get the concepts of facts, laws, hypotheses, and theories straight in a scientific context.

I'll be awaiting your example of ...

That's not the context in which it was stated and you know it. You are twisting it around into something it isn't in order to try to make yourself SOUND right. It is your own education about science that has some serious issues. I've looked back over many threads and it has been explained to you time and again. There's not much new to add to the hundreds of descriptions that have been given to you as found by a simple search and your M/O is always the same.
You are going off one statement that was made to someone who had ZERO concept of any of it in order to try to help them at least HALFWAY "get it"

You don't have to agree with other theories that are brought up, and you can put all your support into the one you like best and some theories are better than others, but they are still theories. They may even become "Laws" some day with enough proof, but for now, they're theories, that is, a set of possibilities supported by whatever data is pesented to support them but not proven beyond absolution.

In the scientific aspect, it's incorrect, but in the laymen's aspect, for somebody who apparently knows NOTHING about any of it, it was an attempt at helping them comprehend. Notice the quotation marks around "Laws"? They're there for a reason.
The only bad assumption I made was that people on this site would be intelligent and able to comprehend what other people tried to explain to them and I was extremely wrong in that assumption.... also very disappointed in it.
Now, you can go right on trying to pick an argument about semantics and claim that others don't know anything or you can look at what actually went on and try to comprehend it.
When dealing with people who have zero concept, you first have to build a base knowledge and a message board is not an adequate place to do that. ... primarily due to people like you jumping in before the conversation with said party is complete and jumping all over a teeny tiny detail like quotation marks and demanding that absolutism be the strategy instead of a building process. There was an attempt to get them to understand that theories aren't absolute, the "law bridge" can be crossed at a later time. The main topic didn't call for a semantics lesson or basic scientific terminology lessons, it was to clarify one and only one term and YOU are focusing on everything EXCEPT that. Chances are, that is the only knowledge you have, so you have to focus on it at every turn, even when it isn't pertinent to the conversation. As said before, look back at the quotation marks and try to comprehend it, otherwise, there isn't much more than can be done to assist you.
I could go on to say many things about my opinion of you and your experiences in school and how your personality as displayed here made your life difficult in some way, but that would just be feeding into the game you're trying to play and I'm not doing it.
What I have said stands for itself. Anyone capable of comprehension can see what was said and thanks to quotation marks, can see the inflection. If you want to ponder over it for the next three decades, go for it, but don't expect anyone to stay back with you.
Now, go ahead and go on and on and on about it however you want to, but don't expect more replies as I'm not going to play your little game.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

That's not the context in which it was stated and you know it.

Then explain the context in which you made the following statement that makes it correct:

You don't have to agree with other theories that are brought up, and you can put all your support into the one you like best and some theories are better than others, but they are still theories. They may even become "Laws" some day with enough proof, but for now, they're theories, that is, a set of possibilities supported by whatever data is pesented to support them but not proven beyond absolution.

Post.

You are twisting it around into something it isn't in order to try to make yourself SOUND right.

I'm not the one trying to force fit the colloquial meanings of words into the context of a discussion about something scientific. You are.

It is your own education about science that has some serious issues. I've looked back over many threads and it has been explained to you time and again. There's not much new to add to the hundreds of descriptions that have been given to you as found by a simple search and your M/O is always the same.

By all means, show me where it has been explained to me, with evidence to back it up, that a scientific theory can become a scientific law after a certain amount of evidence has been gathered to support it. My only modus operandi is to present evidence for the claims I make. I gave you four links that clearly show that a scientific theory and a scientific law are two totally different things, and at least two of those links explicitly state that a theory cannot become a law.

You are going off one statement that was made to someone who had ZERO concept of any of it in order to try to help them at least HALFWAY "get it"

You made that statement to Barcs, who has displayed an understanding of how science works throughout this thread. You made that statement in an attempt to downplay the importance of a scientific theory as a way to try and reduce it to the colloquial meaning of a hunch or a guess.

In the scientific aspect, it's incorrect, but in the laymen's aspect, for somebody who apparently knows NOTHING about any of it, it was an attempt at helping them comprehend. Notice the quotation marks around "Laws"? They're there for a reason.

Then can you explain how a colloquial theory, meaning a hunch or a guess, can become a colloquial law, meaning a rule or regulation imposed to govern behavior via social institutions? You used the word law in a very specific way -- in the context of a theory becoming a law.

Now, you can go right on trying to pick an argument about semantics and claim that others don't know anything or you can look at what actually went on and try to comprehend it.

I've been involved in this thread for early on and take the time to read each post. You're using words in a scientific context that have very specific definitions, which have been hashed and rehashed here already, and trying to colloquialize them to play the moderate role. It's not semantics.

When dealing with people who have zero concept, you first have to build a base knowledge and a message board is not an adequate place to do that. ... primarily due to people like you jumping in before the conversation with said party is complete and jumping all over a teeny tiny detail like quotation marks and demanding that absolutism be the strategy instead of a building process.

You're not building anything, you're lying to people. You're making the claim that a theory can become a law when enough evidence is gathered to support it. This is wrong. It's not a building tool, it's not a simplification for the sake of clarity, it's not a semantic argument. If you knew it was wrong, it's a lie. If you didn't, then you're not qualified to be explaining anything about science to anyone. Take your pick.

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

-- Abraham Lincoln

Now, go ahead and go on and on and on about it however you want to, but don't expect more replies as I'm not going to play your little game.

I'll just add it to the list of substantive questions about your posts that you won't answer:

1. Can you explain what you meant when you said that evolution doesn't occur "to the extent that Darwin claimed way back then"?
2. Are you aware of the overwhelming evidence that the "Darwin recanted on his death bed" tale is a fraud spun out of whole cloth?
3. Can you give an example of a scientific theory that became a scientific law?

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

That's not the context in which it was stated and you know it.

Then explain the context in which you made the following statement that makes it correct:

You don't have to agree with other theories that are brought up, and you can put all your support into the one you like best and some theories are better than others, but they are still theories. They may even become "Laws" some day with enough proof, but for now, they're theories, that is, a set of possibilities supported by whatever data is pesented to support them but not proven beyond absolution.

Post.

I DID give you the context and I gave you the quote!!!
look at the post above and stop pretending like you did copy it directly from there. This is getting really old really fast. Go ahead and try to "save face" if that's what you have to do, but anyone who matters can clearly see and anyone who can't clearly see doens't really matter at this point.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

Now, go ahead and go on and on and on about it however you want to, but don't expect more replies as I'm not going to play your little game.

Seems like you're still playing.

I DID give you the context and I gave you the quote!!! DUHHHH

No, you claimed the context was a colloquial one. I would like you to explain, explicitly, how a colloquial theory, meaning a hunch or a guess, can become a colloquial law, meaning a rule or regulation imposed to govern behavior via social institutions.

Unless you want to change your story and say that you made the statement in a scientific context. In which case I would like you to provide an example of where a scientific theory became a scientific law because a certain amount of evidence had been gathered to support it.

look at the post above and stop pretending like you did copy it directly from there.

I did copy it directly from one of your posts. Specifically, this post. Please note the link, as you and everyone else can read the original post and see that I copied and pasted your quote directly from that post. Here it is again, just in case there's any ambiguity, with the portion that you have yet to provide context for or an example of:

You don't have to agree with other theories that are brought up, and you can put all your support into the one you like best and some theories are better than others, but they are still theories. They may even become "Laws" some day with enough proof, but for now, they're theories, that is, a set of possibilities supported by whatever data is pesented to support them but not proven beyond absolution.

This is getting really old really fast.

Apparently not fast enough for you, since you're still not answering any of the questions posed to you about your statements.

Go ahead and try to "save face" if that's what you have to do, but anyone who matters can clearly see and anyone who can't clearly see doens't really matter at this point.

I'm not trying to save face. Specifically I'm asking you to define, explicitly, whether you meant it in a scientific or colloquial context and then to provide an example of where this has taken place i.e. where a theory has become a law.

Back to the list:

1. Can you explain what you meant when you said that evolution doesn't occur "to the extent that Darwin claimed way back then"?
2. Are you aware of the overwhelming evidence that the "Darwin recanted on his death bed" tale is a fraud spun out of whole cloth?
3. Can you give an example of a scientific theory that became a scientific law or a colloquial theory that became a colloquial law?

reply to post by iterationzero


I don't know why you don't just reply to me if your going to quote me.

We just don't fit in here. Even though we can eat every plant and animal on Earth. And can use the organs of other species of animals in place of our own. And take diseases that obviously only exist in humans, even though we observe them in other species, inject them into other animals, and the extract the antibodies from those animals, and use them to prepare vaccines for us. And viruses are the planet's immune system to kill things that don't belong here, so no other species of animal ever get's viral infections. Ever.

I never said no other animals get viral infections, they don't however get them as easialy and as often as we do.

So when you ignore all of the evidence and just get depressed and subjective about it, you'll clearly see that we don't belong here because everything else hates us and just wants to take our ice cream. Even though we invented ice cream to redundantly adapt to something or other from back when we were on our homeworld.

Now we get to the bottom of your gross missunderstanding. You see viruses and bacteria don't have feelings required to hate. So then the question becomes why does it appear as though they hate us. I'll let you figure it out.

As far a taking our ice cream and hating us, its a gross underestimation.

We just don't fit in here. Even though we can eat every plant and animal on Earth. And can use the organs of other species of animals in place of our own. And take diseases that obviously only exist in humans, even though we observe them in other species, inject them into other animals, and the extract the antibodies from those animals, and use them to prepare vaccines for us. And viruses are the planet's immune system to kill things that don't belong here, so no other species of animal ever get's viral infections. Ever.

Thats right, but remember we can eat just about anything, its not proof that it was intended as food for us however. It sounds more like your going with the train of thought that if it could be possible than it must be correct. We can eat toilet paper (unused of course) but that doesn't mean it was meant to be food for us. We can also eat toothpaste, but I'm sure its not good for you.

Why can't you see that we're just hanging on by the skin of our itsthetooth here with antibiotics? There's just no way our population could be growing exponentially. Even though all of the data says it is. Because we're doing so poorly and need antibiotics to survive. Even though antibiotics weren't discovered until the late 1800's. Back when our species was doing so poorly that it had only reached a measly population of about 1.5B people.

So we should have reached a higher number.

The only plausible answer is that we're not from here. And because we're not from here, we're forced to adapt. And by adapt, I mean evolve. Which means no other animal has evolved. Ever. Because they're from here. Only us. Even though I deny that evolution takes place in human beings. Just disregard the fossil evidence, the genetic evidence, the morphological evidence, IGNORE ALL THE EVIDENCES! Because they can't be right and they are totally inconclusive.

Again I find myself repeating this over and over, but I never found anything that claims any of this to occur in humans, I did however find specifics that claim it to happen in some aquatic life, some bacteria, and some viruses. Are assumptions being made here?

It's obvious that we dont' fit in here! Why can't you just see it? Apes fit in better than we do, they just never got around to being the only species on Earth to populate the entire planet. Oh, and by the way, I coined the term "de-evolved", even though a bunch of scientists who lived two hundred and fifty years go described the process and it was used in the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. And then that band started calling themselves Devo. Bunch of biters...

Good then people on here should stop telling me there is no such thing.

reply to post by iterationzero

Let's just assume for a moment that you're correct, because you (and others in this thread) have posted links to objective evidence that's both peer-reviewed and reproducible that supports evolution and all I can seem to drag out is the same batch of regurgitated subjective arguments that I started with and always retreat to when the going gets tough. Never mind that I can't seem to accurately explain the information in my own links or that my confusion over basic scientific concepts in no way jibes with my claims of being in an MS level student at some point in my life. Or that my arguments are usually nonlinear incoherent babble, so I probably typed this thing out in Word or Notepad or something and had someone proofread it for me before posting.

First of all I NEVER retreat, and in fact this has been the argument from Colin. He's upset because I won't retreat and he wants me to.

Nothing you have said here even slightly applies to me. I have not found any evidence that supports the deluded theorys that are presented on this thread. What I did find was a different version that doesn't even come close to it. Even if I did regurgitate the same ideas over and over, that by no means is any proof that its not correct or true. Documentation with the bible does actually match my claims, as does Pyes findings, Von danikens, Sitchen.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

Could you explain one thing to me. How is it that your telling me that evolution happens to slow to be witnessed in humans, yet your trying to tell me it has been observed in humans.

Which is it.

And how can it be observed if it happens to slow.

We can witness evolution, not speciation. Pay attention.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
No, a Theory is a possiblility that is accepted at the time. It is not absolute fact.

That is a hypothesis. Every theory starts as a hypothesis, or with multiple hypotheses. As enough data is gathered to verify it, it becomes a theory. You don't have scientific theories based on guesses. We know evolution exists, but need to learn more about it.

en.wikipedia.org...

There was once a theory that the earth was flat, that theory was proven wrong.

That wasn't a scientific theory, you need to understand the difference. People guessed that the earth was flat because they couldn't comprehend the concept of planets revolving around a sun at the time and based their very little understanding on the bible. If you went against that, you were shunned or worse. It wasn't based on science in the least, and it wasn't every culture that believed that.

There was once a theory that the universe was Geocentric, that theory was proven wrong. You're thinking of "Law", not "Theory".

A Law is a measurement or fomula that shows how something works. The theory of gravity and the law of gravity are 2 completely different things, although obviously the law is included in the theory. You just need to do a little reading on the scientific method and experiments and how they work. You are confusing terminology.

A regular theory = someone's guess, nothing more

A scientific theory = a gathering of facts on a subject based on experiments that are testable, repeatable and falsifiable.

Hypothesis = educated guess, to be tested and experimented on

Law = measurement or calculation that does not change. The Law of gravity is our measurement of how fast things are attracted based on mass

Edit: My bad, looks like a few people already explained it to you.

But, until I do know otherwise, I'm going to stick with my present belief system while also entertaining the observations of what happens in the world around me. They aren't in conflict as so many would believe, they are just in conflict of their limited understanding of BOTH concepts.

I agree. That's the only way to be rational about it. Acknowledge science for what it is, while still having faith in god, not a literal translation of a crazy story that we don't know the origin of. They are perfectly compatible, and if anything it should strengthen people's faith in god, not question it. My goal here is by no means to debunk creationism, it's to defend science.

We need to end the war on evolution and science. It's silly.

reply to post by Barcs

We can witness evolution, not speciation. Pay attention.

I have, according to wiki, speciation has been observed in some aquatic life, some bacteria and some viruses. Nothing about humans, and nothing about the larger theory of evolution.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

We can witness evolution, not speciation. Pay attention.

I have, according to wiki, speciation has been observed in some aquatic life, some bacteria and some viruses. Nothing about humans, and nothing about the larger theory of evolution.

You might get to witness the beginning of speciation in humans if some natural disaster happens and the environment suddenly changes.

reply to post by Barcs

You might get to witness the beginning of speciation in humans if some natural disaster happens and the environment suddenly changes.

Or maybe if a purple unicorn flew by.

Had to find a way that would make sense to those with less sense of their own. Perhaps this will do. I refuse to write a 5 page paper explaining it to them.

Theories are formulated using the scientific method of research where a hypothesis is created, tested and the results are examined. If the hypothesis can explain the data, make successful predictions and is not contradicted by reliable evidence we would call it a theory. For example, Newton's theory of gravity was formed to explain what the relationship between mass, distance and gravity is; after much testing and examination, it was found to hold true (at least for speeds not approaching that of light).

Laws are mathematical relationships DERIVED FROM THEORIES. For example, Newton's law of gravity expresses Newton's theory of gravity in a formula using the required variables as Fg = GMm/d2.

This is extremely simplified, but, as I said, I'm not going to write a 5 page paper then have to explain every detail of it to people who didn't bother studying it in the first place.

Earlier in this thread, I used the word "Law" in quotation marks to make it a bit simpler, but, alas, those who don't have the background and understanding and only a rudimentary knowledge of science couldn't handle that. Perhaps this is simple enough and on their level to the point they may be able to understand.
Granted, the theory itself doesn't "become a law" so to speak (hence the quotation marks), but the theory is used to formulate or derive the law.
I've already put more work into explaining something they should already know than I was willing to put in, so don't expect further explanation if you are one of them. You have google on your computer, research it, learn it and try to understand it.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

... but they are still theories. They may even become "Laws" some day with enough proof, but for now, they're theories, ...

Post.

Granted, the theory itself doesn't "become a law" so to speak (hence the quotation marks), but the theory is used to formulate or derive the law.

Post.

1. Can you explain what you meant when you said that evolution doesn't occur "to the extent that Darwin claimed way back then"?
2. Are you aware of the overwhelming evidence that the "Darwin recanted on his death bed" tale is a fraud spun out of whole cloth?
3. Can you give an example of a scientific theory that became a scientific law or a colloquial theory that became a colloquial law? Or are you now reversing your earlier statement?

wow, there really is a shed full of blunt instruments. Who knew?

reply to post by PurpleChiten

wow, there really is a shed full of blunt instruments. Who knew?

You say something that is demonstrably wrong. I point out that's it wrong and provide evidence. First you claim that I just didn't understand the context of what you were saying, then you completely reverse your position. Now you resort to personal attacks in the face of your own words being displayed.

Back to the questions you haven't answered:

1. Can you explain what you meant when you said that evolution doesn't occur "to the extent that Darwin claimed way back then"?
2. Are you aware of the overwhelming evidence that the "Darwin recanted on his death bed" tale is a fraud spun out of whole cloth?
3. Can you give an example of a scientific theory that became a scientific law or a colloquial theory that became a colloquial law? Or are you now reversing your earlier statement?

Nope, you've twisted it and distorted it and I'm not playing with you.
It's been clarified for all those with the sense to comprehend it, for those who don't, well, you're just out of luck sweetie


...and yes, I can, but no, I won't

L8R T8R!