It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 385
31
share:

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:05 AM

Originally posted by iterationzero
I'll be awaiting your example of a theory that became a law.

In science, theory is greater than a law.

Law: A statement of an order or relation of phenomena which is (so far as is known) invariable under given conditions.
• Example: Newton’s law of gravity.
• We don’t know how it works but we know that it works.

Theory: a conception, proposition or formula relating to the nature, action, cause or origin of a phenomenon,
• formed by deduction and generalisation from a set of facts.
• Thus is a fact-based, mechanistic explanation for the observed phenomenon.
• Not just an idea, notion or hypothesis.

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:08 AM

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by iterationzero
I'll be awaiting your example of a theory that became a law.

In science, theory is greater than a law.

Law: A statement of an order or relation of phenomena which is (so far as is known) invariable under given conditions.
• Example: Newton’s law of gravity.
• We don’t know how it works but we know that it works.

Theory: a conception, proposition or formula relating to the nature, action, cause or origin of a phenomenon,
• formed by deduction and generalisation from a set of facts.
• Thus is a fact-based, mechanistic explanation for the observed phenomenon.
• Not just an idea, notion or hypothesis.

He doesn't want to understand it, he just wants to argue. It's easier to treat obnoxious children as obnoxious children then to try to reason with them

When he attacks you for trying to simplify it for him, especially the part about not knowing how it works for the laws (mathematically proven), you'll see. It's easier to just shut him down and move on.
I had to learn the hard way, but it doesn't mean everyone has to

edit on 14-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:50 AM

Originally posted by itsthetooth

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.

Yeah totally. The possibility of natural disaster is just as unrealistic as a purple unicorn.

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:58 AM

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by iterationzero
I'll be awaiting your example of a theory that became a law.

In science, theory is greater than a law.

Law: A statement of an order or relation of phenomena which is (so far as is known) invariable under given conditions.
• Example: Newton’s law of gravity.
• We don’t know how it works but we know that it works.

Theory: a conception, proposition or formula relating to the nature, action, cause or origin of a phenomenon,
• formed by deduction and generalisation from a set of facts.
• Thus is a fact-based, mechanistic explanation for the observed phenomenon.
• Not just an idea, notion or hypothesis.

He doesn't want to understand it, he just wants to argue. It's easier to treat obnoxious children as obnoxious children then to try to reason with them

When he attacks you for trying to simplify it for him, especially the part about not knowing how it works for the laws (mathematically proven), you'll see. It's easier to just shut him down and move on.
I had to learn the hard way, but it doesn't mean everyone has to

No offense, but you were confusing scientific terminology in your posts. Then when it was corrected, instead of just admitted you made a mistake, you acted like you knew that all along and that you were telling us something we don't know. Most of the scientific heads on here are pretty technical about things like that, and have been dealing with Tooth for the past 200 pages, which is why you got piled on.
edit on 14-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by iterationzero
I'll be awaiting your example of a theory that became a law.

In science, theory is greater than a law.

Law: A statement of an order or relation of phenomena which is (so far as is known) invariable under given conditions.
• Example: Newton’s law of gravity.
• We don’t know how it works but we know that it works.

Theory: a conception, proposition or formula relating to the nature, action, cause or origin of a phenomenon,
• formed by deduction and generalisation from a set of facts.
• Thus is a fact-based, mechanistic explanation for the observed phenomenon.
• Not just an idea, notion or hypothesis.

He doesn't want to understand it, he just wants to argue. It's easier to treat obnoxious children as obnoxious children then to try to reason with them

When he attacks you for trying to simplify it for him, especially the part about not knowing how it works for the laws (mathematically proven), you'll see. It's easier to just shut him down and move on.
I had to learn the hard way, but it doesn't mean everyone has to

No offense, but you were confusing scientific terminology in your posts, then when it was corrected, you acted like you knew that all along and that you were telling us something we don't know. Most of the scientific heads on here are pretty technical about things like that, and have been dealing with Tooth for the past 200 pages, which is why you got piled on.
edit on 14-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

I was trying to simplify it for someone who didn't appear to know much, then got slammed out of the blue is what happened... I've learned to not over simply anything without clearly stating that I'm doing so. Apparently quotation marks aren't enough :/

All it has done is show me it's better to be a smart-a\$\$ that to be helpful and caring, no biggie, I can do that.
edit on 14-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:12 AM

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
I was trying to simplify it for someone who didn't appear to know much, then got slammed out of the blue is what happened... I've learned to not over simply anything without clearly stating that I'm doing so. Apparently quotation marks aren't enough :/

I think you'd understand the reaction if you read the last 10 pages or so of Tooth's posts. Yeah, generalizations probably aren't the best thing to make when describing science. People make a lot of topics here using catch phrases like "blind chance events" and all kinds of things that generalize and misunderstand science to the point its ridiculous. Science is very specific, so when explaining it, it's best to be specific unless you're trying to teach children.

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
I was trying to simplify it for someone who didn't appear to know much, then got slammed out of the blue is what happened... I've learned to not over simply anything without clearly stating that I'm doing so. Apparently quotation marks aren't enough :/

I think you'd understand the reaction if you read the last 10 pages or so of Tooth's posts. Yeah, generalizations probably aren't the best thing to make when describing science. People make a lot of topics here using catch phrases like "blind chance events" and all kinds of things that generalize and misunderstand science to the point its ridiculous. Science is very specific, so when explaining it, it's best to be specific unless you're trying to teach children.

Thanks for taking the time and being civil and further explaining. It's actually very helpful. I only joined on the 8th, so I'm a bit new... and I spent a great deal of time teaching children so that's probably one of the reasons

* children from 15 to 30ish in age, but children nonetheless
edit on 14-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 12:43 PM

Good point Barc. Here is a specific you should try to explain. In our DNA scientists have discovered a chain of DNA that doens't match with anything else they have ever seen before. In other words we are the only ones here on earth that got this strand. It's called HAR1. They are also saying there is no way we could have evolved into having this as no one else here has it. Any clues?

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 12:46 PM

In science, theory is greater than a law.

Law: A statement of an order or relation of phenomena which is (so far as is known) invariable under given conditions.
• Example: Newton’s law of gravity.
• We don’t know how it works but we know that it works.

Theory: a conception, proposition or formula relating to the nature, action, cause or origin of a phenomenon,
• formed by deduction and generalisation from a set of facts.
• Thus is a fact-based, mechanistic explanation for the observed phenomenon.
• Not just an idea, notion or hypothesis.
Ya but does theory mean that all the connecting parts to a theory are fact or does it mean that it could contain factual parts?

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 02:03 PM
^It is mostly facts, but there are hypotheses that are still being tested.

Originally posted by itsthetooth

Good point Barc. Here is a specific you should try to explain. In our DNA scientists have discovered a chain of DNA that doens't match with anything else they have ever seen before. In other words we are the only ones here on earth that got this strand. It's called HAR1. They are also saying there is no way we could have evolved into having this as no one else here has it. Any clues?

You're going to have to give me a source on this one. I know you don't like backing up what you claim, but please link me to the scientific experiments that show this and that say there is no way we could have evolved since nobody has it???

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 02:18 PM

Its on the first episode of ancient aliens.

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 04:12 PM

Nope, you've twisted it and distorted it and I'm not playing with you.

How can I be twisting and distorting when I'm quoting your exact words back at you? I've asked you to explain how you could have meant it that would make it a correct statement and instead you engage in character attacks.

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 04:15 PM

Rhino, I absolutely concur with the definitions you posted. My issue is that PurpleChiten made the following claim:

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'm still waiting for him/her to give an example of a theory that became a law or to explain the context he/she was using those words in that somehow would have made that a correct statement.
edit on 14/5/2012 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 04:36 PM

edit on 14-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: not worth it

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 04:46 PM

edit on 14-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: not worth it

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 05:58 PM

No, you did twist and turn and you have been extremely obnoxious, childish, quarrelsome, belligerent and unwilling to listen to any explanation other than what you already have your mind set on. You are an egotistical child who just wants to argue, not discuss, not debate, not learn, not teach, just downright argue and I find you extremely offensive and irritating.

Zero substance, all character attack. You're displaying a pattern here.

I've worked with people like you before and know there is no satiating your ego or your attitude.

You said something wrong. I made the extreme and apparently mortal insult of pointing it out. I'm not even the only one that pointed out. Instead of just admitting that you were wrong, you backpedaled with your "I was just simplifying it for others" explanation. I realize you haven't been on these boards in general or this thread in particular for very long, but oversimplification is probably at the heart of the matter when it comes to the difficulties in educating the public at large on modern evolutionary synthesis. Oversimplification is what leads to:

People thinking that evolution is "just a theory".

People thinking that, if we evolved from monkeys, there shouldn't still be monkeys.

People thinking that evolution is something that takes place in individual organisms.

People thinking that abiogenesis and the Big Bang are the same thing as biological evolution.

People thinking that evolution and atheism are the same thing.

And so many, many more. We need less simplification about matters of science, not more. Especially in the area of education about science. Go back through the threads in just the O&C forums here and see how many people don't understand the difference between a fact, a law, a hypothesis, and a theory. It's absolutely no wonder that the only reason the United States hasn't seen a complete collapse of its scientific endeavors is because we import minds that were given their primary and secondary educations by people who don't believe that reducing everything to a soundbite is a valid way to teach.

I can guarantee you have a million "horror stories" of how you were soooo mistreated in school by your "evil teachers" for not giving in to your tunnel visioned whims and allowing you to monopolize all of the classtime available to satisfy your desire to hear your own voice instead of sitting down and listening for 5 minutes instead of talking.

Meh. Chalk that up on the growing list of things you're wrong about. I've been fortunate enough to have great teachers through just about all of my academic career. Seriously, less intarwebz sykologist, more real substance to your posts.

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 06:00 PM

Great, so we agree -- scientific theories never become scientific laws because they've accumulated a particular degree of evidence. You were wrong to make that statement and you've since reversed ... oops, sorry ... corrected yourself. Glad we could get past that. I'm looking forward to your more substantive posts in this thread!

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 06:02 PM
I think the question in this thread without reading through it should be "can you prove evolution right?" Of course you can't..

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 06:05 PM

The mods changed the title of the thread to something that doesn't really reflect the question in the OP, which is more along the lines of, "Assuming the theory of evolution is false, how do you explain biodiversity?"

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 06:10 PM

Originally posted by iterationzero

Great, so we agree -- scientific theories never become scientific laws because they've accumulated a particular degree of evidence. You were wrong to make that statement and you've since reversed ... oops, sorry ... corrected yourself. Glad we could get past that. I'm looking forward to your more substantive posts in this thread!

No darlin, theories are used in the formulation of laws. I don't care if you like it, I don't care if you you want to cover your backside, that's the way it is whether you like it or not.

new topics

top topics

31