Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
I wasn't aware of the difference, but if there is no proven in science, than that makes sense.
|
The way theory is used in common language is more akin to hypothesis in science.. in science a hypothesis is like a speculation or educated guess (or a more robust proposal of a theory).
A theory is much more solid, so to say "it's just a theory" doesn't really make sense, general relativity is "just a theory" but it tells us how gravity works and the universe evolves and explains all the relevant phenomena and has made a huge # of predictions that have all been confirmed.
Evolution is exactly the same, it's made huge #'s of predictions that have all been confirmed, is the only way to explain what we see and hasn't a single observation yet to falsify it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
micro evolution we can observe, but having a short recorded human history, we can't fully observe this, although it may be the best possible explanation at the time
|
Define micro evolution.
We can and have also observe "macro evolution" (which I'll for now put at the species level until you give a more precise definition).
There's also mountains of evidence for macro evolution in the fossil records and even moreso in genetics.
In addition, if you say micro evolution is valid but macro is not, then you are saying 1+1=2, but 1+1+1 does NOT equal 3, so there must be some mechanism by which change is stopped beyond a certain level.
This kind thing is a perfect example of research a creationist should be focusing on that would be an excellent point against evolution, but there is nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
what i mean is it is a theory about something that happened in the past.
|
Gravity happened in the past, is gravity a historical theory and should only be taught as history?
Evolution happens continuously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
and never?? really?
|
Nope. That's why it is a successful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
Although I guess how would we have a falsified observation if we can't really observe it?
|
We have a fossil record as well as a phylogenic record and a genetic record, embryological record, etc etc. And they all agree.
All you would need is a real rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian and evolution is completely overturned (or any out of order fossil).
Or if an organism had one place in the genetic tree structure of common ancestry completely different than its place in the tree for phylogeny, that would overturn evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
aside from looking at fossils which are supposedly billions of years old
|
Most fossils aren't that old, multicellular life took billions of years to evolve. And why supposedly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
in fossil layers that are at times all mixed up, with dating systems that aren't perfectly accurate.
|
Dating systems are highly accurate, and agree where they overlap. The agreement can't be overstated, if dating systems were inaccurate then they would disagree wildly where they overlap (since different dating systems depend on different things). If one dating system depends on radioactive decay and another depends on the magnetic field of the earth and yet another on the orbit of the moon and how it has changed over time, and they all agree, that's very meaningful. If all of them were wrong, there's no way they could all be wrong in just such a way to agree on a wrong set of numbers, since they all depend on completely different processes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
I'm sorry but this statement is sort of arrogant, by the Gould guy.
|
How is it arrogant? You only think so because you disagree, but why do you disagree? Because of science? Or just because of what you believe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
evolution is as close to a fact as science ever gets? no, gravity is as close to a fact as science ever gets, water being made of hydrogen and oxygen particles is as close to fact as science ever gets.
|
Evolution is at the same level of those two things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
The problem with science is we can't question it because we aren't as smart as these guys who study it.
|
That's a problem?!?
Science should be limited to the least educated person or something?
It's not about being smart, you don't need to be smart to understand evolution, anyone of average intelligence can understand it. It's about being educated.
There are tons of educated people who disagree with evolution, but the thing is they never seem to actually produce any science that disagrees with it, just write books, or speak to sympathetic audiences, or make web pages.. things that can tickle the ear of people who thing evolution threatens their faith, but that aren't actually rigorous science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
I have heard stories of scientists being threatened because they didn't believe what other scientists believed, told not to continue thier research.
|
If you dig down into those incidents though (I have) they usually end up being false. I can think of only one real case, and it wasn't threatened, it was a case of not being hired for a specific job.
Science THRIVES on being different. If science pushed out anything different then we'd never change, there'd be no such thing as a Nobel prize. The process of science is a) create a hypothesis b) try to disprove it. If someone disproved evolution or general relativity or quantum theory or germ theory they would generally be celebrated, not threatened (as has been proven over history).
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
It's easy to criticize religion because, well its religion, but to criticize science? I guess we can't do that
|
Of course you can criticize science, the whole foundation of the scientific process is criticism.
But you have to do it properly. If you say "I don't like evolution because I don't like the idea that humans evolved from a non-human ancestor" then that's an invalid criticism, because it's fallacious. The correctness of a claim isn't determined by what one likes.
If you say "I don't believe evolution because I've discovered these rabbit fossils in pre-Cambrian fossil layers" then that's different, and there's 150 years of evolution research that demonstrates that that kind of criticism is welcomed and celebrated; the theory of evolution today is quite different compared to what Darwin first proposed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
how do you know that? science can disprove itself
|
Sure it can, but eventually a theory becomes so confirmed that giving it provisional assent would be perverse.
Newton's ideas about gravity weren't correct, but they weren't disproved either. General relativity replaced Newton, but Newton still applies if you don't move too fast or space isn't too curved. GR encompassed Newton, it didn't disprove Newton.
Similarly the foundations of evolution are so well established that a new theory would encompass it (as the current modern synthesis theory didn't disprove Darwin's, it encompassed it, expanded and extended it).
This is a good essay on this:
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScien...ityofWrong.htm
I mean really, the basics of evolution are just common sense. Descent with modification (which we can observe, how many mutations do you think there is in you from your parents?), and natural selection (which is also observed) produces evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
to make assumptions, yes there are tools, but those tools change over time as they are found to be not accurate enough. They haven't been using the same tools (or ideas) for 150 years
|
So as the tools get more accurate, the better they support evolution. And the new and different tools come to bear on the issue, they also produce conclusions that further confirm evolution.
I don't understand your criticism here, if you have specific details we can discuss them.
