[Cipher13]

Originally posted by boots:
Um...no. Evolution is the theory that explains the data we have. In that context, it is pretty damned good theory. We still have many holes, and the theory will change to accomodate the new data we can generate. As a theory, it has predictive power, and that has been demonstrated. But it is still a theory. You can't prove a theory, only support it or disprove. If you make a prediction based on the theory, and that prediction fails, then you have disproven the theory. Evolution is not fact. It is theory.

We have made prediction about the fossile record and what it should hold. We have had good success in these predictions. That is why it is a valid theory based on sound data.

I'm sorry, I have to disagree. By your thinking, nothing would ever become fact, on the off chance that one day, in a galaxy far, far away, it was disproven... y'know, just incase.

Evolution is pretty much beyond theory status nowadays.

The mechanisms behind it are theoretical - and those are what you speak of.

Evolution, however, is fact.

We're just not sure how it works yet.

[boots]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
I'm sorry, I have to disagree. By your thinking, nothing would ever become fact, on the off chance that one day, in a galaxy far, far away, it was disproven... y'know, just incase.

Evolution is pretty much beyond theory status nowadays.

The mechanisms behind it are theoretical - and those are what you speak of.

Evolution, however, is fact.

We're just not sure how it works yet.

This is pretty much true. It will never become fact. That science for ya. Unless you have a complete data set, you can't claim fact. And there are very few thing for which we have complete data sets. So, much remains theory. Quantum physics is based on the theory of quantum mechanics. Not a fact, but a theory that unifies the facts. I still think it would have been interesting to see how Max Planck would have dealt with it as opposed to Einstien.

This is one of the hardest things to teach students. You can't prove theory. Only support or disprove. Evolution is no different. Evolution is the theory of mechanism that unifies the data we have. We test the theory by making prediction about what we should find if we assume the theory is valid. Evolution has, so far, held up. But it is far from fact.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by boots:
This is pretty much true. It will never become fact. That science for ya. Unless you have a complete data set, you can't claim fact. And there are very few thing for which we have complete data sets. So, much remains theory. Quantum physics is based on the theory of quantum mechanics. Not a fact, but a theory that unifies the facts. I still think it would have been interesting to see how Max Planck would have dealt with it as opposed to Einstien.

This is one of the hardest things to teach students. You can't prove theory. Only support or disprove. Evolution is no different. Evolution is the theory of mechanism that unifies the data we have. We test the theory by making prediction about what we should find if we assume the theory is valid. Evolution has, so far, held up. But it is far from fact.

When you put it like that, I'm in absolute agreement; but I look at something a little differently.

Nothing can ever be proven byond any doubt. Not even that I'm typing this message right now.

But we have to draw a line somewhere. We will never, in our lifetime, attain absolute truths. So, I personally treat some things that are beyond reasonable doubt as fact.

For example...

My existence
Your existence
This forums existence
Evolution

You get the point.

Ah, Quantum mechanics... quantum theory used to be one of my favourite things. Used to. One day I just had a thought about it... I mean, a thought that had occured often before about it, but one day it was just amazingly strong. It was while listening to a lecture on it. I just thought to myself...

"This guy has no clue, and no faith in what he's saying; and I don't blame him. Quamtum physics is something made BY physicians and mathematicians, FOR physicians and mathematicians. It's a world they've made, and a world they can govern, and in the end, it's all a load of sh!t."

Shame, really, cause I liked Quantum. Oh well... I think it was the comments on "Quantum uncertainty" that really pissed me off.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Oh, get off your goddamn high horse. As if you know the first thing about the motivations for your beliefs. How arrogant of you.

pot, kettle, black.

[boots]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
When you put it like that, I'm in absolute agreement; but I look at something a little differently.

snip

You get the point.

Yes, I get the point. And the way we talk to each other tends to disregard the language accosiated with theory vs fact. Mostly because it is assumed that we know the difference.

...snip...
"This guy has no clue, and no faith in what he's saying; and I don't blame him. Quamtum physics is something made BY physicians and mathematicians, FOR physicians and mathematicians. It's a world they've made, and a world they can govern, and in the end, it's all a load of sh!t."

Shame, really, cause I liked Quantum. Oh well... I think it was the comments on "Quantum uncertainty" that really pissed me off.

I see you can't deal with uncertaintly very well. Unfortunately for you, it is a reality. We really can't know the position and momentum simultaneously.

Some find this disheartening. Others find it liberating.

When Newtonian Mechanics ruled the world, many religious sect used it to "prove" predestination. If we knew all where all the matter in the universe was (theoretically possible) and where it was going (again, theoretically possible) then everything should be ruled by the laws of Newtonian physics. Everything, and I mean everything, could be predicted, if one "simply" did the math.

Quantum Mechanical theory came along and showed that is is untrue. It literally shook the world when this was figured out. It again allowed for the possibility of free will.

And Quantum theory is also a very sound theory. Nearly all of the predictions that we have been able to verify have been true. So it can't be dismissed out of hand. Just like evolution.

I make the distinction about the language of theory vs fact because it is obvious that many on the forum don't understand the difference. So, for this group, one cannot assume we know the difference as it is misleading. I think we often forget that. And it simply serves to make scientists look like pompus demi-gods that know all and disregard the "little people." It is something I think we, as a scientific community, need to fight. There is a reason the average person is skeptical about science as a whole, and the people who conduct science in particular.

[mo]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
... they're polly theistic and have have more logic and historical holes in their book than windows has security flaws

Hey, who is this "Polly" person they worship? I'm in the market for a new deity. ...

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


pot, kettle, black. [/B]

Sorry, major typo.

In teh sentence you quoted, instead of "your" beliefs, it should read "my" beliefs.

But either way, after all that, thats all you've got to say?

Geez, Zim, I'm disappointed. That's not all you've got, is it?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
[B]Didn't say anything of the sort, now stop avoiding the question and ****ing answer it.

[/b[ Gee there was a question there? I believe that was a statement. You are getting your panties in a knot, and it is making you confused. I asked if that is what you are saying. I never said THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID.

Well - the thing is - it isn't as much a "story" as it is a "fact", you see. Sure, the two aren't mutually exclusive; as in this case, it's a fact.

You seem to have trouble knowing the difference between fact and theory. I suggest you relearn it. Has man evolved slightly over the years? Sure I Could by that as fact. Has man evolved from a single celled organism over a long period of time? No proof of that at all. That is just a guess.

As opposed to Genesis, which is a fairy tale to make people like you feel better about their ignorance.

Ah the irony of that statement. And you are again having problems telling the difference between fact and opinion. Also the silly pretentious chest pounding still doesn't work on me.

Show me the "giants" passage. I want references.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Gen 6:4

Oh, and I never, at any stage, said that dinosaur remains = proof of hominid evolution. Don't put words into my mouth to try and discredit my argument

Well it's a good thing I wasn't doing that. See you didn't specify what you was responding to, and since that was my next point, I assumed that is what you was talking about. And since I never brought up dinosaurs.. I really don't know why you even mentioned them. Rambling?

And, as I said, there is fossil evidence. Your education level simply doesn't alert you to its existence. Part-man, part-ape - hows that? Guess what - we HAVE them!!! We have man, apes, and we have inbetweens. Shall I list them?

No we THINK those fossils are part man part ape. That is a guess. We really don't know for a 100% fact. That is why.. class.. it's still a theory. And yes please show me some half man half fish remains. How come you don't know of this "missing link" or "hole" in the evolutionary theory, and everyone else does? Does it simply not exist in your world?

Lemme see... off the top of my head in no particular order: Cro-Magnon, Homo sapiens neanderthalis, Homo sapiens sapiens (us), Astralopithecus afarensis, Astralopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo anteccessor, err... you get the point. I can find you a list if you really want one. Even skeletal comparisons. How about that?

Sure thing, I will be waiting.

The "missing link"... ahh... a weapon of the mass media, implanted in your skull. There are, indeed, missing links, such as Archeopteryx; but the point is moot, given the evidence we already have.

FUD, simply FUD. You wont admit because then there lays doubt. And you are too insecure it seems to admit there is doubt.

Yes... yes I did. How about that.

Only in your mind Cipher, only in your mind.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Delusions of grandeur? No, not at all. Resorting to personal attacks now, Zim? Ad hominem?

So it's ok for you to do it, but not me? I see.

Prove to you he doesn't exist; I will. As soon as you define "God". Like I said before - I can't disprove the existence of something that hasn't been defined.

REad the bible, it defines him pretty well. I find it funny that someone can denounce the Bible, but obviously don't know whats in it.

Hell, I could give you all the evidence in the world for it, and you'd turn around and say "God, by nature, seems non-existant" - which would be a pathetic way out, and something I could easily see you doing.

He has no point.

Fact is you can't give me any evidence. This is just verbal masturbation. You pounding your chest.

You say my "rationalisations don't add up" - really?

Well, don't just tell me they don't add up - tell me WHY they don't add up.

They don't add up because you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. You again failed to. This post was nothing but you ranting,

Come on, Zimpy... you can do better than this. You're hanging by a thread here...

I believe you are projecting.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
I'm sorry, I have to disagree. By your thinking, nothing would ever become fact, on the off chance that one day, in a galaxy far, far away, it was disproven... y'know, just incase.

Evolution is pretty much beyond theory status nowadays.

The mechanisms behind it are theoretical - and those are what you speak of.

Evolution, however, is fact.

We're just not sure how it works yet.

So saith Cipher. Even though the scientific community disagrees.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by boots:
Yes, I get the point. And the way we talk to each other tends to disregard the language accosiated with theory vs fact. Mostly because it is assumed that we know the difference.



I see you can't deal with uncertaintly very well. Unfortunately for you, it is a reality. We really can't know the position and momentum simultaneously.

Some find this disheartening. Others find it liberating.

When Newtonian Mechanics ruled the world, many religious sect used it to "prove" predestination. If we knew all where all the matter in the universe was (theoretically possible) and where it was going (again, theoretically possible) then everything should be ruled by the laws of Newtonian physics. Everything, and I mean everything, could be predicted, if one "simply" did the math.

Quantum Mechanical theory came along and showed that is is untrue. It literally shook the world when this was figured out. It again allowed for the possibility of free will.

And Quantum theory is also a very sound theory. Nearly all of the predictions that we have been able to verify have been true. So it can't be dismissed out of hand. Just like evolution.

I make the distinction about the language of theory vs fact because it is obvious that many on the forum don't understand the difference. So, for this group, one cannot assume we know the difference as it is misleading. I think we often forget that. And it simply serves to make scientists look like pompus demi-gods that know all and disregard the "little people." It is something I think we, as a scientific community, need to fight. There is a reason the average person is skeptical about science as a whole, and the people who conduct science in particular.

I disregard the language involved and the finer aspects regarding the two just naturally - I don't think to make it clearer than I do. Absent mindedness. You're right on that.

Quantum...

Well, I don't have a problem with uncertainty. Not at all. In the end, we're certain of nothing. I'd be in deep **** if I had a problem with uncertainty

I don't so much dismiss the idea of Quantum mechanics so much as I dismiss a lot of what is believed about it. A lot of the time, it just really seems like scientists are grasping at straws, trying to make things work; y'know, jamming the puzzle together even when it isn't supposed to fit.

I still like Quantum mechanics and quantum theory and whatnot, but I'm very iffy on a lot of it.

The concepts you mentioned I don't so much have a problem with (apart from quantum uncertainty with relation to superstring theory. I think that annoyance stems more from my ignorance on the topic than anything else, though).

I need to brush up.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
So saith Cipher. Even though the scientific community disagrees.

Err... actually, no, they don't...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Err... actually, no, they don't...

They don't agree with you. They realize there are holes. They realize there is a lot that could change. They realize its still a theory. You don't.

[boots]

Originally posted by Cipher13:

I don't so much dismiss the idea of Quantum mechanics so much as I dismiss a lot of what is believed about it. A lot of the time, it just really seems like scientists are grasping at straws, trying to make things work; y'know, jamming the puzzle together even when it isn't supposed to fit.

Many use this same argument against evolution. I think Zimpy is one of them. In terms of the volume of support, QM is much more well supported that macro-evolution. Not to say macro-evolution is wrong, just not as well supported.

But, back the original thread, Any thoughts on the causality of the BB? I really curious, and I don't know many people in the physics community well enought to keep up on the current thinking. I'm sure this report will force a lot of people to reconsider their thoughts on the matter.

[Zimphire]

Hey I am not against evolution, it in no way disproves the Bible. I can admit that I can't prove God exists, it's factual TO ME, but I cannot prove it.

Cipher seems to have problems admitting to such things. I don't know why.

[boots]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Hey I am not against evolution, it in no way disproves the Bible. I can admit that I can't prove God exists, it's factual TO ME, but I cannot prove it.

Cipher seems to have problems admitting to such things. I don't know why.

For the record, I am one of those with one foot in each camp. So I wasn't trying to make a comment on your beliefs. I was simply trying to delimit the relative strengths of theories.

And I think Cipher makes some valid points. But you both seem to be arguing past each other.

On one hand, you have a theory backed by observed data. On the other hand, you have a theory that, as of yet, no one has been able to study in the same way. They are, for the purposes of supporting a scientific theory, not in the same catagory so the arguments used against one to bolster the other are flawed.

You can go round and round, and in the end, you will never reach concensus. You will, however, learn a lot about what drives each other. And that is a fine goal in and of itself. But this method of building understanding tends to be rather prone to flamefests.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
I'm sorry, I have to disagree. By your thinking, nothing would ever become fact, on the off chance that one day, in a galaxy far, far away, it was disproven... y'know, just incase.

Um, no. Once a theory, always a theory. There's a reason for this, because there is a very critical difference between theories and facts, from a scientific standpoint.

Facts are directly-observable data. Theories are interpretations of that data. Until someone gets some kind of ultra-time-lapse camera and a time machine, then evolution will remain a theory, because it has not been directly observed.

A fact is not a theory that's been proven over and over and over again; they're two entirely different things.

As for how I weigh on this: I believed in the Big Bang anyway. I also believe in creation, though not a young-earth creationist (the ones who are big on the "exactly six days" junk because King James said so and blah blah blah). Whether or not the Big Bang has been confirmed doesn't affect my beliefs in the slightest; it doesn't disprove anything. On the contrary, it would confirm a part of my beliefs. I do not believe that the universe is some 4,000 years old, but I do find it amusing that every time we find a piece of evidence, it seems as though the universe is younger than previously thought.

By the way, how many studies of this exact nature have been done? No self-respecting scientist accepts the results of a study until it's been repeated several times and gotten the same results. The media are another matter, but real science isn't: one study is not enough. One of the cornerstones of modern science is duplication; has this fallen out of favor?

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Um, no. Once a theory, always a theory. There's a reason for this, because there is a very critical difference between theories and facts, from a scientific standpoint.

Facts are directly-observable data. Theories are interpretations of that data. Until someone gets some kind of ultra-time-lapse camera and a time machine, then evolution will remain a theory, because it has not been directly observed.

A fact is not a theory that's been proven over and over and over again; they're two entirely different things.

As for how I weigh on this: I believed in the Big Bang anyway. I also believe in creation, though not a young-earth creationist (the ones who are big on the "exactly six days" junk because King James said so and blah blah blah). Whether or not the Big Bang has been confirmed doesn't affect my beliefs in the slightest; it doesn't disprove anything. On the contrary, it would confirm a part of my beliefs. I do not believe that the universe is some 4,000 years old, but I do find it amusing that every time we find a piece of evidence, it seems as though the universe is younger than previously thought.

By the way, how many studies of this exact nature have been done? No self-respecting scientist accepts the results of a study until it's been repeated several times and gotten the same results. The media are another matter, but real science isn't: one study is not enough. One of the cornerstones of modern science is duplication; has this fallen out of favor?

Umm, yes.

We've already been through this, Mil, read up the page a little.

[boots]

Originally posted by Millennium:
By the way, how many studies of this exact nature have been done? No self-respecting scientist accepts the results of a study until it's been repeated several times and gotten the same results. The media are another matter, but real science isn't: one study is not enough. One of the cornerstones of modern science is duplication; has this fallen out of favor?

A number of them have been done that all suggest that these are in fact real. This one is a big deal because of the resolution of the measurements.

On a nother note here, they fed the data into a simulation program that accurately predicted what we know to be now. In essence, they tweaked the model until it was calibrated to what know, then ran it backward. So, this is still not direct evidence. But it is pretty stronge none-the-less.

[Cipher13]

Zimphire: things become confusing here, with quotes being several levels deep.

I could go through every comment you made and post a reply, but most of it would be redundant. Instead, I'm going to focus on one or two things you said which I believe are key.

Now, if you have a problem with this, or if you're gonna go around later saying "yeah, you didn't respond to this, obviously you can't", then I'll respond to every useless little bit.

For the moment, because it's 2.30am, I'm gonna concentrate on your ignorance of the fossil record, for the most part.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
They don't agree with you. They realize there are holes. They realize there is a lot that could change. They realize its still a theory. You don't.

No, No, No.

Mechanisms = theory.
Evolution = fact.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Zimphire: things become confusing here, with quotes being several levels deep.

I could go through every comment you made and post a reply, but most of it would be redundant.

How would that be redundant? The way you did it didn't work, doing that would have. So it wouldn't be exceeding what was needed.

Instead, I'm going to focus on one or two things you said which I believe are key.

And ignore the rest. Ok.

Now, if you have a problem with this, or if you're gonna go around later saying "yeah, you didn't respond to this, obviously you can't", then I'll respond to every useless little bit.

For the moment, because it's 2.30am, I'm gonna concentrate on your ignorance of the fossil record, for the most part.

And please be more condescending about it while you do.

"And here I am going to show you how stupid you are"

Thanks Ciph. You just lost even more respect.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Cipher13:

Evolution = fact.

Say it 10x more

Still wont be true.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by boots:
For the record, I am one of those with one foot in each camp. So I wasn't trying to make a comment on your beliefs. I was simply trying to delimit the relative strengths of theories.

And I think Cipher makes some valid points. But you both seem to be arguing past each other.

On one hand, you have a theory backed by observed data. On the other hand, you have a theory that, as of yet, no one has been able to study in the same way. They are, for the purposes of supporting a scientific theory, not in the same catagory so the arguments used against one to bolster the other are flawed.

You can go round and round, and in the end, you will never reach concensus. You will, however, learn a lot about what drives each other. And that is a fine goal in and of itself. But this method of building understanding tends to be rather prone to flamefests.

Too true. The problem I have is with 'faith' in something that has never manifested itself in any way, never been seen, never been heard (by any sane person), never done anything for any of us. No, I'm not bitter, don't pin it on that.

To me, God is what people believe in when they simply don't know any better.

[boots]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
No, No, No.

Mechanisms = theory.
Evolution = fact.

No, no, no. Evolution = Mechanism = Theory.

Fossil = fact

[Timo]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Any chance that this could be the "dark energy"?

ROTFLMAO!

Great article, BTW. Cool pix on page 1 of the Times this morning.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Hey I am not against evolution, it in no way disproves the Bible. I can admit that I can't prove God exists, it's factual TO ME, but I cannot prove it.

Cipher seems to have problems admitting to such things. I don't know why.

You said before that you were willing to accept the evolution of man, yes? Say, from Australopithecus ramidus (sp - early of the Australopithecines, no?) to Homo sapiens sapiens? ...but not from archaeobacteria to Homo sapiens? What do you propose for *that*?

[Eug]

Maybe when Adam and Eve ****ed for the first time, it created the Big Bang!

Almost correct. That didn't create the Big Bang, that WAS the Big Bang.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

How would that be redundant? The way you did it didn't work, doing that would have. So it wouldn't be exceeding what was needed.
[/b] And ignore the rest. Ok.
And please be more condescending about it while you do.

"And here I am going to show you how stupid you are"

Thanks Ciph. You just lost even more respect. [/B]

Fine, I'll respond to all of it then.

I didn't mean to be condescending, but yeah, it was pretty harsh. Apologies. I don't use the term "ignorance" exclusively in a derogatory manner. Read above where I mentioned my ignorance of quantum uncertainty w/regards to string theory. My bad.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by boots:
No, no, no. Evolution = Mechanism = Theory.

Fossil = fact

Evolution = result of evolutionary mechanisms = fact (for lack of my ability to word that better at 3am... you know what I mean)

Evolutionary mechanisms = theory.

[boots]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Evolution = result of evolutionary mechanisms = fact (for lack of my ability to word that better at 3am... you know what I mean)

Evolutionary mechanisms = theory.

Again, you are mixing you terms. Evolution IS the theory of the mechanism. The only facts are the fossil remains and the observed mutation in, say, bacteria.

There is no difference between "Evolution" and "Evolutionary Mechanism."

[Cipher13]

Zimphire:
REad the bible, it defines him pretty well. I find it funny that someone can denounce the Bible, but obviously don't know whats in it.

I'm not gonna read the Bible to get a definition. I went to a Catholic school for thirteen years - with mandatory religion lessons for every one of those years. I know the Bible well enough to denounce it, burn it, or use it as a door stop.

Fact is you can't give me any evidence. This is just verbal masturbation. You pounding your chest.

Well, we'll see once you define "God", won't we? Come on. Post-haste.

They don't add up because you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. You again failed to. This post was nothing but you ranting,

I never said I could. I made it explicitly clear that what I could do was prove that he does NOT exist moreso than you could prove he DOES. I could prove EVOLUTION more than you could prove GOD. And I stand by that.

I believe you are projecting.

I am? Go me!

[Timo]

Originally posted by boots:
This is one of the hardest things to teach students. You can't prove theory. Only support or disprove. Evolution is no different. Evolution is the theory of mechanism that unifies the data we have. We test the theory by making prediction about what we should find if we assume the theory is valid. Evolution has, so far, held up. But it is far from fact.

::dries eyes after weeping for joy::

Hey everyone! Evolution is a theory...but that's not a problem. It's a darned good theory. Every day we make judgments with theories less well thought out than evolution...no big whup!

People are much too sloppy with these words:

prove: real proofs are few and far between. In mathematics they are a kind of definition of elegance. In law they are a tightly-knit demonstration, never approaching a mathamatical universality, but not needing to, as the threshold there is lower. Except in math or legal jargon, demonstrate is the better word.

fact: facts are empirically verifiable, and they are data points. Theories that are "proven" in the mathematical sense are also fact, but theories that are demonstrated occupy a different world: you could call it conditinal fact, or "fact good enough for us." It depends entirely on what the threshold of meaning is. Statistical data's ability to move from data to fact is predicated on what the threshold of meaning is. So, fact is a word not to be slung around...it should be reserved for facts. Otherwise, use phenomenon, observed instances and my opinion, for example.

universal: most knowledge is mediated by culture: our own, and our own position within a culture. One of science's main objectives to my mind is to try to control for the bias inherent in any POV. Claims to a universal outside of mathematics and the pure sciences (let's say physics and chemistry) often have a political dimension. In fact [ah, irony, anybody watching?], when you hear someone trot out universal or natural, look for motive. People outside science use these words to prop up stuff that probably benefits them at the expense of others. Inside science, the scene is more complicated. Some things are plausibly universal. Some things are claimed universal. And everyone remembers the Holy Grail: the Grand Unifying Theory.

All IMHO, of course, and mediated by my POV.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by boots:
Again, you are mixing you terms. Evolution IS the theory of the mechanism. The only facts are the fossil remains and the observed mutation in, say, bacteria.

There is no difference between "Evolution" and "Evolutionary Mechanism."

Oh, but I believe there is a difference.

Fossils, casts, and so on are the data.

Evolution is the result and consequence of evolutionary mechanisms.

We know evolution occurs; we just don't know how.

The mechanisms are theory. Evolution is not. They're two different things.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Timo:
::dries eyes after weeping for joy::

Hey everyone! Evolution is a theory...but that's not a problem. It's a darned good theory. Every day we make judgments with theories less well thought out than evolution...no big whup!

People are much too sloppy with these words:

prove: real proofs are few and far between. In mathematics they are a kind of definition of elegance. In law they are a tightly-knit demonstration, never approaching a mathamatical universality, but not needing to, as the threshold there is lower. Except in math or legal jargon, demonstrate is the better word.

fact: facts are empirically verifiable, and they are data points. Theories that are "proven" in the mathematical sense are also fact, but theories that are demonstrated occupy a different world: you could call it conditinal fact, or "fact good enough for us." It depends entirely on what the threshold of meaning is. Statistical data's ability to move from data to fact is predicated on what the threshold of meaning is. So, fact is a word not to be slung around...it should be reserved for facts. Otherwise, use phenomenon, observed instances and my opinion, for example.

universal: most knowledge is mediated by culture: our own, and our own position within a culture. One of science's main objectives to my mind is to try to control for the bias inherent in any POV. Claims to a universal outside of mathematics and the pure sciences (let's say physics and chemistry) often have a political dimension.
In fact, when you here someone trot out universal or natural, look for motive. People outside science use these words to prop up stuff that probably benefits them at the expense of others. Inside science, the scene is more complicated. Some things are plausibly universal. Some things are claimed universal. And everyone remembers the Holy Grail: the Grand Unifying Theory.

All IMHO, of course, and mediated by my POV.

It comes down to this: absolute truth is unattainable.

We'll never know anything for a fact.

Evolution is nearly as good as it gets. You're right on.

By definition, evolution is a theory. I said that before, in agreement with boots. However - so is our very existence, if you wanna be like that.

Evolution may as well be fact, and it should be treated as fact - until something else better comes along. If, not when.

[boots]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Oh, but I believe there is a difference.

Fossils, casts, and so on are the data.

Evolution is the result and consequence of evolutionary mechanisms.

We know evolution occurs; we just don't know how.

The mechanisms are theory. Evolution is not. They're two different things.

No, you are drawing an arbitrary distinction that is a) not necessary, and b) not supported by anything I've heard in the biology circles.

Evolution is the theory of the mechanism. How much simpler can I put it?

[Apple Pro Underwear]

whoops, i thought this thread was about gang bangs





i guess i have nothing to add

[boots]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Evolution may as well be fact, and it should be treated as fact - until something else better comes along. If, not when.

The danger in treating something as fact when it is, in fact, theory arises when you now make predictions based on supposed fact and your results are contrary. If the basis is fact, you have violated a fact, and there is no room to adjust. If it is treated as theory, there is room to adjust. It comes down to perspective. If you make decisions based on a false fact, you get screwed and will look to other sources for explanation rather than your initial presumption. Early astronomy is filled with just this kind of thing because we KNEW the earth was the center of the universe. Simply knowing this made people come up with elaborate ideas that fit the data, but were wrong because the fundamental premise was wrong. It is a serious disservice to claim fact when it isn't there.

[Spheric Harlot]

Wow, cool, an evolution thread!

MacNN hasn't had one of those in...days?

Just goes to show that, while evolution may be a fact to the entire real world, it certainly does not happen on the MacNN Forums.

grunt grunt,

-spheric*

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Gee there was a question there? I believe that was a statement. You are getting your panties in a knot, and it is making you confused. I asked if that is what you are saying. I never said THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID.

What, exactly are you then, if you are not Christian? Because most Christians denounce A&E as a simple story.

You seem to have trouble knowing the difference between fact and theory. I suggest you relearn it. Has man evolved slightly over the years? Sure I Could by that as fact. Has man evolved from a single celled organism over a long period of time? No proof of that at all. That is just a guess.

No, it isn't a guess. There is evidence for it. The same sort of evidence that suggests we evolved from apes; and that apes evolved from something else; and so on. 3.5 billion years is a long time, even in geological terms, for evolution to take place.

If the universe can be created and stabilised in, say, 5 billion years; surely life can evolve in 3?

What would you propose? God zapped the ground and made us out of clay? Wow, thats believable.

Ah the irony of that statement. And you are again having problems telling the difference between fact and opinion. Also the silly pretentious chest pounding still doesn't work on me.

Am I having problems telling the difference between fact an opinion? Are you suggesting that Genesis is a fact, or that my opinion of Genesis as a kids story is less than fact? Either way - Genesis is a joke. Metaphorical or not; metaphores don't cut it when it comes to history.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Gen 6:4

"Giants in the earth" - to me, that reads as... big trees. Sorry. Even if not - "men or renown" - giants, respect wise. Looked up to. Remember how many times that book has been translated. That passage is a load of garbage if you're saying they're talking about dinosaurs. Or, it could be another metaphore... *cough*

Well it's a good thing I wasn't doing that. See you didn't specify what you was responding to, and since that was my next point, I assumed that is what you was talking about. And since I never brought up dinosaurs.. I really don't know why you even mentioned them. Rambling?

Not rambling, just another hole in Genesis... the fact that God forgot all about them, y'know.

No we THINK those fossils are part man part ape. That is a guess. We really don't know for a 100% fact. That is why.. class.. it's still a theory. And yes please show me some half man half fish remains. How come you don't know of this "missing link" or "hole" in the evolutionary theory, and everyone else does? Does it simply not exist in your world?

Oh, for Gods sake take a biology course. For our sake. Part of a "man-ape". I'm not talking one bone here. I'm talking full skeletons from SEVERAL species, seperated by millions of years, showing clear evolutionary links to each other - resulting in us.

Uh... you wanna see a half-man, half-fish? Obviously you have no clue how evolution works then, and I don't see why I'm even discussing this with you.

The missing link is irrelevant in the grand scheme of evolution. The "missing link" is the common ancestor of hominids and hominoids. It is relevant only to human evolution. Get a clue. It's absence does not harm evolution significantly. There are hundreds of missing links. Thousands. At points where species diverged from a common ancestor. You only dwell on our missing link because you don't know any better.

Sure thing, I will be waiting.

Okay, lemme think.
Chronologically (I hope I'm getting the order right. Check on google or something if you want a more accurate listing:

Err, I changed my mind. I found a website. Go here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Can't vouch for its accuracy, but a quick once over and it seems pretty good. One or two of the species mentioned I haven't heard of before. One of the pre-Austra's, and the Kenyan skull; because all they have is a skull of that particular one. But, read on... it has fossil pictures too.

FUD, simply FUD. You wont admit because then there lays doubt. And you are too insecure it seems to admit there is doubt.

See my previous comment re. missing links.

Only in your mind Cipher, only in your mind.

Yes, Zim.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by boots:
No, you are drawing an arbitrary distinction that is a) not necessary, and b) not supported by anything I've heard in the biology circles.

Evolution is the theory of the mechanism. How much simpler can I put it?

You can't put it any simpler. I understand what you're saying perfectly well.

I think you'll find biology circles support what I'm saying.

I think the distinction is necessary; there is evolution, and then there are the processes (key: plural) by which it occurs.

Genetic drift, natural selection, interspecial interaction, and so forth. The mechanisms are theory... people don't dispute evolution any more, really. It is accepted.

[boots]

Genesis (the creation stories) can't be taken literally as there are actually two creation stories that have different time lines. There is no reasonable way to make the two synch.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by boots:
The danger in treating something as fact when it is, in fact, theory arises when you now make predictions based on supposed fact and your results are contrary. If the basis is fact, you have violated a fact, and there is no room to adjust. If it is treated as theory, there is room to adjust. It comes down to perspective. If you make decisions based on a false fact, you get screwed and will look to other sources for explanation rather than your initial presumption. Early astronomy is filled with just this kind of thing because we KNEW the earth was the center of the universe. Simply knowing this made people come up with elaborate ideas that fit the data, but were wrong because the fundamental premise was wrong. It is a serious disservice to claim fact when it isn't there.

When we make observations based on said "fact", and the results do not work out, that is when one revises the datum *and* the theory. That's exactly how Quantum mechanics came to be.

Our idea of FACTS are not solid. FACT and TRUTH are unattainable! Completely, totally! So what we have to work with is all theoretical; some things we HAVE to treat as fact, like our very existence. That can be "adjusted" later based on newer information, newer technologies, newer ideas, etc. But to get anywhere, we just have to accept some things sometimes.

Are you with me?

[boots]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
You can't put it any simpler. I understand what you're saying perfectly well.

I think you'll find biology circles support what I'm saying.

I think the distinction is necessary; there is evolution, and then there are the processes (key: plural) by which it occurs.

Genetic drift, natural selection, interspecial interaction, and so forth. The mechanisms are theory... people don't dispute evolution any more, really. It is accepted.

[boots]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
When we make observations based on said "fact", and the results do not work out, that is when one revises the datum *and* the theory. That's exactly how Quantum mechanics came to be.

Our idea of FACTS are not solid. FACT and TRUTH are unattainable! Completely, totally! So what we have to work with is all theoretical; some things we HAVE to treat as fact, like our very existence. That can be "adjusted" later based on newer information, newer technologies, newer ideas, etc. But to get anywhere, we just have to accept some things sometimes.

Are you with me?

Wow. I've seen dissertation committes rip people new @ssholes for less than this. And people denied because they couldn't get the idea that fact and theory are distinct.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by boots:

Haha. That's gonna get you nowhere fast.

I do understand what you're saying, but I like to look at it from a different perspective. If evolution is not fact, what do you propose in place of it?

Evolution is too good a theory to just put it on the backburner until we're able to go back in time and WATCH it occur. So we TREAT is as fact, and try to understand its MECHANISMS in order to understand IT better.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by boots:
Many use this same argument against evolution. I think Zimpy is one of them. In terms of the volume of support, QM is much more well supported that macro-evolution. Not to say macro-evolution is wrong, just not as well supported.

But, back the original thread, Any thoughts on the causality of the BB? I really curious, and I don't know many people in the physics community well enought to keep up on the current thinking. I'm sure this report will force a lot of people to reconsider their thoughts on the matter.

Well, macro-evolution vs. micro-evolution is a big, big grey area, and is beyond the scope of this thread, I think.

Back on topic! I haven't seen any new ideas on the causality of the BB... I mean, the problem is the BB suggests something was *there* in the first place, which is the catch. And that's what screws everything up, and that, to me, is the only question which gives religion a place. What came first?

I don't keep up with it either, anymore. But I will keep an eye out.

[boots]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Haha. That's gonna get you nowhere fast.

I do understand what you're saying, but I like to look at it from a different perspective. If evolution is not fact, what do you propose in place of it?

Evolution is too good a theory to just put it on the backburner until we're able to go back in time and WATCH it occur. So we TREAT is as fact, and try to understand its MECHANISMS in order to understand IT better.

No where have I said that Evolutionary Theory should be put on the back burner. No where have I said it isn't a valid theory to explain what we have observed. You are simply trying to hold on to your belief that evolution is fact when it is not. Nothing needs to replace it. But that doesn't elevate it to fact. Someday, we may need to make major modifications. Newtonian mechanics had to be revise because it is really only a subset of theories that explain things on a macroscopic scale. Quantum theory is a bigger and broader theory that encompasses Newtonian mechanics, but it still is a MAJOR modification of the theory. But it is still theory, not fact. The data from the Black Box experiment was fact the theory that explains it is QM. Why can't you seem to understand this distinction? You are wrong in your opinion that evolution is fact. That's it. So far, all you've said amounts to "I think it should be fact." But your opinion is only one voice. The scientific community as a whole argues againt you on this. Evolution is a damned good theory. That's it.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
But there were TREES not single cells that became trees, there was also a man of some age, not a baby he was able to talk with God and think intiligently... for a human. HE was smart enough to name all the animals hence he was of some age when he was already created.

Here's a fun point of language. Let's assume for a moment that Adam spoke Hebrew, or some ancestor of that language. This is commonly assumed about the Bible; in truth we don't really know what they would have spoken, but this would make some sense.

In Hebrew, most animal names are onomatopoeic, that is, they mimic the sound the animal makes. I don't remember the appropriate transliteration for the Hebrew word for "serpent", to give one example, but it has a distinct hissing sound, much like the animal (as an aside, it sounds very much like the word for "seraph" as well, which leads to some interesting possible puns later on). Most of the names which aren't onomatopoeic describe some distinct thing the animal does; for example, I'm pretty sure the word for "rabbit" involves hopping (someone kindly correct me if I'm wrong).

My point behind this? In other languages which don't do this, many children call animals by similar names until they learn the "proper" names for them. It's instinctive, it seems, and it certainly does make a lot of sense; what better way to identify animals than by what they say or do? This could be taken one of two ways. One might say that these really were the original names, passed down by some kind of racial memory, and the kids just happen to pick up on it. Or, you could say that Adam wouldn't have required a great deal of intelligence in order to name the animals. Either way, it's just an interesting point.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
It comes down to this: absolute truth is unattainable.

Maybe. The assertion is unproveable.

We'll never know anything for a fact.

Maybe. The assertion is unproveable.

Evolution is nearly as good as it gets. You're right on.

To my mind evoluion is demonstrated adquately in outline, with lots of work to go filling in the details.

By definition, evolution is a theory. I said that before, in agreement with boots. However - so is our very existence, if you wanna be like that.

<-- the emoticon that looks most like Sartre or Camus. This is to my mind a philosophical question. Being something of a pragmatist (rather than, say, an existentialist), I don't have a lot of time for the solipsistic theories of knowledge, or the idea that since nothing can be proved, nothing can exist: an obvious short circuit.

Evolution may as well be fact, and it should be treated as fact - until something else better comes along. If, not when.

Agreed. But why not stay precise: it's a theory. A good one. Not a fact. That way the words "theory" and "fact" retain precision.