Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Rotation Advertisements



We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.


If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.


Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk


If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
In regards of scientific theories.
Topic Started: Jan 26 2016, 09:19 AM (2,978 Views)
SpeedoTrunks
Default Avatar


Quote:
 
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.


The birth of a theory is the idea, but for this to be accepted into the scientific community, there has to be evidence to back it up.

IE: The Theory of Evolution, started as an idea, but we have come to understand this much much more since 1859, with evidence from all over the world.
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
+ Pointer
Member Avatar
...

SpeedoTrunks
Jan 26 2016, 06:12 PM
Quote:
 
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.


The birth of a theory is the idea, but for this to be accepted into the scientific community, there has to be evidence to back it up.

IE: The Theory of Evolution, started as an idea, but we have come to understand this much much more since 1859, with evidence from all over the world.
Umm, list them, would you?


Show me an evidence of macroevolution :blush:

Evolution theory is still a theory and therefore not a fact, as its name implies :unsure:
Edited by Pointer, Jan 26 2016, 06:16 PM.

Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
FutureProtagonist
Member Avatar
Quwrof Wrlccywrlir

Lord Protector
Jan 26 2016, 06:15 PM
SpeedoTrunks
Jan 26 2016, 06:12 PM
Quote:
 
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.


The birth of a theory is the idea, but for this to be accepted into the scientific community, there has to be evidence to back it up.

IE: The Theory of Evolution, started as an idea, but we have come to understand this much much more since 1859, with evidence from all over the world.
Umm, list them, would you?


Show me an evidence of macroevolution :blush:

Evolution theory is still a theory and therefore not a fact, as its name implies :unsure:
Knock yourself out: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

I like the way they put it: "Words are not the master of science; science is, or should be, the master of its words. But we can inquire how scientists use their words, and whether they use them consistently. And having done that, we can inquire whether others who are not scientists read too much into them, or use them in a totally different way."

Does the bolded sound familiar?

"In summary, there is no barrier to species forming. This may not be enough to show that large-scale macroevolution occurs, though, according to writers like Johnson and Hitching (1982), but the logic here implies some causal force actively preventing change, rather than a problem with change occurring. For if there is enough change to form new species, and each species is slightly different from its ancestor, then simple addition shows that many speciation events can cause large-scale evolution over enough time. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Conversely, many single steps can traverse long distances. There is no evidence of any kind of barriers to large-scale change (Brauer and Brumbaugh 2001), although creationists are free to offer some."

"We can test a particular claim of macroevolution. We can test, for example, if weasels are more closely related to red pandas than bears are (Flynn and Nedbal 1998, Flynn et al. 2000). This is a test of a particular evolutionary tree or scenario. It tests a historical reconstruction. If shown, on the basis of the evidence and the best data, to be wrong, then that history has indeed been falsified. But can we test the idea of common descent? It is not possible to show that something never occurred, but it is very easy to show that where it ought to occur, it either has or it hasn't. Science will not retain a bad idea when it is shown repeatedly not to explain what we have a right to expect it to explain (this is one reason why creationism was dropped from science back in the 1850s). If macroevolution persistently were shown to run counter to the data, then science would drop it and look for another solution."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Skip to section five to see myriad observed instances of speciation.
I love building PCs. If you have any questions about it feel free to ask. I can help you with almost any kind of PC you'd want to build.


Join DBZeta
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
+ Pointer
Member Avatar
...

FutureProtagonist
Jan 26 2016, 06:30 PM
Lord Protector
Jan 26 2016, 06:15 PM
SpeedoTrunks
Jan 26 2016, 06:12 PM
Quote:
 
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.


The birth of a theory is the idea, but for this to be accepted into the scientific community, there has to be evidence to back it up.

IE: The Theory of Evolution, started as an idea, but we have come to understand this much much more since 1859, with evidence from all over the world.
Umm, list them, would you?


Show me an evidence of macroevolution :blush:

Evolution theory is still a theory and therefore not a fact, as its name implies :unsure:
Knock yourself out: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

I like the way they put it: "Words are not the master of science; science is, or should be, the master of its words. But we can inquire how scientists use their words, and whether they use them consistently. And having done that, we can inquire whether others who are not scientists read too much into them, or use them in a totally different way."

Does the bolded sound familiar?

"In summary, there is no barrier to species forming. This may not be enough to show that large-scale macroevolution occurs, though, according to writers like Johnson and Hitching (1982), but the logic here implies some causal force actively preventing change, rather than a problem with change occurring. For if there is enough change to form new species, and each species is slightly different from its ancestor, then simple addition shows that many speciation events can cause large-scale evolution over enough time. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Conversely, many single steps can traverse long distances. There is no evidence of any kind of barriers to large-scale change (Brauer and Brumbaugh 2001), although creationists are free to offer some."

"We can test a particular claim of macroevolution. We can test, for example, if weasels are more closely related to red pandas than bears are (Flynn and Nedbal 1998, Flynn et al. 2000). This is a test of a particular evolutionary tree or scenario. It tests a historical reconstruction. If shown, on the basis of the evidence and the best data, to be wrong, then that history has indeed been falsified. But can we test the idea of common descent? It is not possible to show that something never occurred, but it is very easy to show that where it ought to occur, it either has or it hasn't. Science will not retain a bad idea when it is shown repeatedly not to explain what we have a right to expect it to explain (this is one reason why creationism was dropped from science back in the 1850s). If macroevolution persistently were shown to run counter to the data, then science would drop it and look for another solution."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Skip to section five to see myriad observed instances of speciation.
Yet the lacks of those skeletal ramains what are actually the missing links during the process :blush:



Nice summary though

Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
Buuberries
Member Avatar
No

Evolution is a fact whether you believe it's a fact or not, lol. People have theories on evolution -- i.e., to explain how it works, for example the theory of evolution by natural selection -- but evolution itself is a fact.
¯\(°_o)/¯
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
* Mitas
Member Avatar
It truly was a Shawshank redemption

Lord Protector
Jan 26 2016, 06:15 PM
Evolution theory is still a theory and therefore not a fact, as its name implies :unsure:
The fact that you are still taking the word 'theory' on it's literal definition after a billion posts explaining that the scientific 'theory' works under an altered definition means that there is no point in this topic continuing.
Posted Image
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time."
"Next time?"
"Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
Dankness Lava
Member Avatar
Dankness Forever

Buuberries
Jan 26 2016, 08:10 PM
Evolution is a fact whether you believe it's a fact or not, lol. People have theories on evolution -- i.e., to explain how it works, for example the theory of evolution by natural selection -- but evolution itself is a fact.
I don't care how ignorant i come off as for this, but where's the proof?
I'm expecting mockery but that's okay.
Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
Gearfried
Member Avatar


Then you have some certain science figure heads saying the big bang theory will soon be the big bang law. like its a solid fact.
http://pixiv.me/hajime87 my tumblr page

Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
+ Sandy Shore
Default Avatar


All those fossils not doing it for you? What about all the different races of people alive today, that all have common ancestors? All those breeds of cats and dogs which we designed through selective breeding?

There is a plethora of evidence for organisms changing, and adapting over time due to natural selection and/or selective breeding.

If you can't see the proof, it's only because you don't want to.
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
Dankness Lava
Member Avatar
Dankness Forever

Lazuli
Jan 26 2016, 09:00 PM
All those fossils not doing it for you? What about all the different races of people alive today, that all have common ancestors? All those breeds of cats and dogs which we designed through selective breeding?

There is a plethora of evidence for organisms changing, and adapting over time due to natural selection and/or selective breeding.

If you can't see the proof, it's only because you don't want to.
Ah okay, that's what's being referred to. I believe in natural adaptation, just not the part about starting from a single celled organism.
Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
+ Sandy Shore
Default Avatar


Understanding that organisms can change and adapt over time, why do you have such a hard time with it starting from a single cell?
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
Tinny
Member Avatar


the single celled organism eventually would evolve into multi-celled organisms, and so on until we have stuff like trilobites and other animals that can actually be recognized as such rather than cellular organism.
There was allot of time between then and the time of complex animals.
Edited by Tinny, Jan 26 2016, 09:20 PM.
Posted Image
Above signature created by Graffiti

Posted Image
Member Online View Profile Goto Top
 
Dankness Lava
Member Avatar
Dankness Forever

Lazuli
Jan 26 2016, 09:08 PM
Understanding that organisms can change and adapt over time, why do you have such a hard time with it starting from a single cell?
To answer this and to respond to Tin Man, I don't believe life on earth has existed for millions of years. I however don't wish for this thread to get too off topic, so perhaps another thread can be made regarding this discussion.
Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
* Mitas
Member Avatar
It truly was a Shawshank redemption

So you don't believe in dinosaurs?
Posted Image
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time."
"Next time?"
"Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
Dankness Lava
Member Avatar
Dankness Forever

I do, but I don't see why they necessarily have to be that old. But you guys seem to be more informed on such, so maybe evidence can be brought to the table.
Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
0 users reading this topic
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Theme Designed by McKee91