veracity of evolution

@odenskrigare,

rich believes that the US is the only country in the world and ironically acts like the kind of conservative "let's bomb them there A-rabs" douche he appears to be opposed to

---------- Post added 09-01-2009 at 12:47 AM ----------

Iceland is a country 2

minus the recent financial collapse and the bizarre insistence on belief in elves, I might add that it seems to be a pretty awesome country

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;87254 wrote:

In a recent Zogby Poll only 33% of the U.S. public believed the Darwin's Evolutionary story. And for good reason. Science has not made its case.

Evolution News & Views: In Darwin Anniversary Year, New Zogby Poll Reveals Majority Support for Intelligent Design

Or it's because of the great influence by fundamentalist protestantism and biblical literalism in this country. And you still call it "Darwin's" theory, which just reflects your lack of education on the matter. That you now call it "Darwin's story" and liken the scientific story to thousand-year-old biblical myths is laughable. After 35 pages of this thread, you stuck with your own "story", and apparently have already decided never to change it.

Quote:

And yet, we have scientists coming out in mass and telling us it is a fact that what they say happened millions of years ago. It may be that scientists have convinced themselves, but this dog doesn't hunt.

Right. If you are looking for hidden-camera footage of life originating on the planet to prove to you that God didn't do it, you will be waiting for quite some time. Evolution is the best theory available, and is supported by a mass of evidence within multiple scientific fields; geology, biology, medicine...if we can observe bacteria populations actually evolving in front of our eyes through a microscope, it makes sense that they also did a similar thing millions of years ago.

Quote:

I think that it would be far more believable if scientists simply said that this is what they believe happened millions of years ago. But, it is something that apparently isn't allowed within the scientific vernacular to suggest that they aren't sure, so they convince themselves and no one else.

A scientific theory is not "truth", but it is still factual. It is the best explanation available, supported by evidence, and it allows for much improvement (or for being discarded) whenever new evidence is found. If you want 100% proof that is derived from first principles, and allows no room for error, then good luck. The only people who will tell you that they have this type of proof for anything are the bible thumpers.

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

Only 25% if the people in Britain believe in Darwin's theory as true while another say it is probably true. 50% don't buy it.

Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, Darwin anniversary survey finds | Science | guardian.co.uk

Of course, the wording of a poll is always important, and I wonder how people would react to the survival of the fittest aspect. I think most people find this really distasteful, as well as impossible to corroborate.

Rich

2 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;87263 wrote:

Only 25% if the people in Britain believe in Darwin's theory as true while another say it is probably true. 50% don't buy it.

Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, Darwin anniversary survey finds | Science | guardian.co.uk

yes but in Northern European countries, which are among the most civilized in the world, in terms of labor status, sexual equality, racial equality, treatment of prisoners, education, health care, low levels of corruption in government, etc. the majority of the population adheres to the theory of evolution

not that that matters

richrf;87263 wrote:

Of course, the wording of a poll is always important, and I wonder how people would react to the survival of the fittest aspect. I think most people find this really distasteful, as well as impossible to corroborate

on the first score, nobody cares

on the second score, here's an example of survival of the fittest that took place in England, in the historical era. was documented:

Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;87261 wrote:

A scientific theory is not "truth", but it is still factual. It is the best explanation available, supported by evidence, and it allows for much improvement (or for being discarded) whenever new evidence is found. .

It is this kind of presentation that I find troubling:

1) It is not the truth, but ...

2) it is still factual.

and besides

3) It is the best explanation going, supported by evidence

and ...

4) it allows for improvement

Now, this is what science has come to ...

Not Truth
But factual
Best explanation
Allows for improvement

If I presented this to my kid, in this fashion, I would be embarrassed. Science has got to get its act together.

1) Define what is evolutionary theory so anyone can understand it (I have no idea what we are even talking about)

2) Separate demonstrable, predictive, and verifiable evidence from the speculation.

3) Present the findings exactly for what they are. And if some paleontologist or some biologist feelings are hurt, well send them back to the field and tell them to do a better job.

Rich

2 Replies

@odenskrigare,

rich we've thrown hard evidence at you for pages on end, did you look at any of it

including the most recent addition, color change in peppered moths due to industrial activity

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;87265 wrote:

Now, this is what science has come to ...

Not Truth
But factual
Best explanation
Allows for improvement

Tell me one thing that is completely "true" and demonstrable to be 100% true. Philosophers and mathematicians deal with logical "truths", but when it comes to science and the real world, facts based on solid evidence confirmed by observation is as close to the truth as you're going to get.

Reject evolution, and instead adopt the next most popular theory, and most popular for the uneducated masses, strict creationism. This is what creationism has come to...

-Truth! (Why? Because the bible tells us so, and bible = truth :sarcastic:)
-Not factual or historically accurate.
-Worst Explanation ("God did it...he works in mysterious ways!") :Not-Impressed:
-Allows for no improvement. They got it right 2000 years ago, and it will remain that way for all eternity, no matter what humans might discover in the future.

I think I'll stick with evolution.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

even mathematical truths are not immutable

Aristotelian logic was the standard for hundreds of years

then Boole and De Morgan came along and thankfully stripped a lot of **** out of the Aristotelian model, turning the square of opposition to an 'X'

now there's fuzzy logic and ternary logic and so on

most mathematicians would consider themselves formalists rather than Neoplatonists as they once used to, most likely for reasons such as this one

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

[QUOTE=richrf;87254]To be consistent with something does not make it a fact. [/QUOTE]Well evolution is not a fact. It is a theory but the difference seems lost in this discussion.

[QUOTE=richrf;87254]In a recent Zogby Poll only 33% of the [/QUOTE]

richrf;87254 wrote:

U.S. public believed the Darwin's Evolutionary story. And for good reason. Science has not made its case.

The weakest form of truth is consensus. For thousands of years the earth was the center of the universe and man was the crown of creation. A finer reading of such polls shows that the higher the level of education the more likely the respondent is to accept the theory of evolution. People who have degrees in the biological sciences (i.e. those familiar with the facts and the theory) accept the theory at about a rate of 90%, Lots of polls show Americans are unfamiliar with even the most basic of scientific concepts and knowledge, as well as geography and history

[QUOTE=richrf;87254]Science cannot even predict the weather tomorrow with any accurracy much less facts [/QUOTE]The weather being a non linear dynamic complex system is chaotic and thus inherently unpredictable in exact detail. We can tell you what the weather was yesterday however. No scientist would claim to be able to predict the future path of evolution either. No evolutionist would claim to be able to trace evolution, step by step in an unbroken chain. Even the general outlines of evolution are subject to change and revision with the discovery of new evidence. The whole theory could be overthrown by "evidence". A certain degree of skepticism is part of science.

[QUOTE=richrf;87254]And yet, we have scientists coming out in mass and telling us it is a fact that what they say happened millions of years ago. It may be that scientists have convinced themselves, but this dog doesn't hunt. [/QUOTE]No evolution scientist claims to be able to trace evolution as an unbroken chain of events. Nor does anyone expect such a comprehensive knowledge of a historical process to ever be available. The exact details in any historical process are always subject to some degree of speculation.

[QUOTE=richrf;87254], but scientists apparently don't speculate. They only theorize and present facts - or at least they suggest that they do.Rich[/QUOTE]Science does not claim to be anything more than an approximation to "truth" based on the best currently available evidence, and reason. Scientific theories are inherently subject to revision (even revolution). It is good even commendable to challenge or question the "dominant paradigm" but to be taken seriously one must use reason and evidence. There is no evidence and no reason to doubt the general outlines of the theory of evolution any more than Newtonian mechanics, general relativity or quantum mechanics.

of course, theories can become facts. The earth is round was once a theory now a fact. The sun is the center of the solar system once a theory now a fact. Newtons theory now newtonian mechanics, etc.

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;87265 wrote:

Not Truth
But factual
Best explanation
Allows for improvement

If I presented this to my kid, in this fashion, I would be embarrassed.

Rich, you are flatly prescriptive about people's health and you generalize wildly about everyone in America based on an n=3 anecdote (the personal health of you and your family). You are so confident in this, yet so skeptical of the entire opus of evolutionary biology.

In other words, your method of weighing evidence shows that evidence doesn't matter to you at all.

What is abundantly clear is that your opinion about science and evolution reflect your own mentality about them -- your opinion certainly isn't a fair or studied analysis of science and evolution. It's closed-minded, but I'm not sure you're interested in opening your mind this way. It's ok, whatever works for you.

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;87263 wrote:

Only 25% if the people in Britain believe in Darwin's theory as true while another say it is probably true. 50% don't buy it.

Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, Darwin anniversary survey finds | Science | guardian.co.uk

Of course, the wording of a poll is always important, and I wonder how people would react to the survival of the fittest aspect. I think most people find this really distasteful, as well as impossible to corroborate.

Rich

what is distasteful about the aspect of survival of the fittest? natural selection is not the same as a wrestling match. the fittest would not be limited to mean the one with behavior capable of destroying everything else. take it to the basic form of aggression, which male is strong enough to be the breeder. if he were so strong and antagonistic that he destroyed every other male of his species including his children, the species would come to an end. on the other hand, if a male has superior qualities other than physical strength which are more important and suited to the direction a species is leaning towards, they will be selected.

if you are heavily invested in the metaphysical world you would easily be able to understand that consciousness on a spiritual level is also evolving and why should it not be due to the process of natural selection?

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

What may seem like a mountain of evidence today can all come crumbling down tomorrow by the discovery found in one molehill of an excavation site.

What would you all say on this board tomorrow should that happen tonight? What would you say about your facts and about what should be taught as facts if that were to happen? Have any of you asked yourself that question in your determination to be accepted?

This is the real question here! Not whether or not evolution should be considered a fact. This post is about its veracity, deliberately suggesting that it should be deemed truth and finally acknowledged as such before it has its proof. Evidence is not proof when it is circumstantial and no court of law would define it fact without proof.

Ask yourselves why you feel it needs to be recognized as fact instead of evidence in the first place and you will have the true reason why you are on this board.

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

Pathfinder, we'll come groveling to you like humiliated idiots when that happens.

In the meantime, we're not going to live by the assumption that everything might be wrong, and never ever believe anything however well-established it is, simply because someone with no background or interest in the subject says so.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;87284 wrote:

Pathfinder, we'll come groveling to you like humiliated idiots when that happens.

In the meantime, we're not going to live by the assumption that everything might be wrong, and never ever believe anything however well-established it is, simply because someone with no background or interest in the subject says so.

Aedes why do you take this so personally? You are making my point exactly just by your reaction.

I am not insinuating that I am anybody that deserves to have anyone come groveling to them, and I have never claimed to be anyone important or well educated int he field. I am asking the questions that anyone else would ask if they were curious about the veracity of the subject which is what this thread asks.

What I am saying is why would anyone place themselves in a position of even needing to grovel when it is not necessary. Do not make claims that will put one in that position and it will not have to turn out that way.

You say you are not going to live that way? What way? How does the theory of evolution affect how you are going to live your way? And why does a common ordinary person's questions bother you to such a degree that you react in such a manner? Have you seen some of the posts by the more immature posters here?

These are the pertinent questions here.

2 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;87290 wrote:

Aedes why do you take this so personally? You are making my point exactly just by your reaction.

Aedes gets mad when he sees people write dumb posts, therefore evolution isn't true

makes sense

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;87290 wrote:

Aedes why do you take this so personally? You are making my point exactly just by your reaction.

I'm not taking it personally, it's just a conversation on a forum, and I was being ironic.

Pathfinder;87290 wrote:

I am asking the questions that anyone else would ask if they were curious about the veracity of the subject which is what this thread asks.

You're asking questions that would be answered in overwhelming terms if you actually looked at the science, though. Sure, anything can be overturned. But the thing is the major paradigm shifts in the history of science have NEVER EVER happened in domains so well-studied as this. I mean the experimental methods in evolutionary biology are generally easy, they're reproducible, they corroborate across vast different disciplines, and they tell an overall story that in general terms is the only possible one.

Pathfinder;87290 wrote:

What I am saying is why would anyone place themselves in a position of even needing to grovel when it is not necessary. Do not make claims that will put one in that position and it will not have to turn out that way.

I'm not "making claims". I'm communicating, to the best of my understanding, the state of the science and its strength.

Pathfinder;87290 wrote:

You say you are not going to live that way? What way?

If you feed the birds bread crumbs every morning, then you have good reason to believe that tomorrow the birds will eat bread crumbs if you throw them. This is experience, and it is how we come to understand the world around us. Science systematizes experience so that it can be reproduced again and again. We could not live if we truly believed that the fundamental behavior of the world were constantly changing -- we have to assume some reliability.

And by admonishing us to reject evolution because it is POSSIBLE that it may be overturned some day, you're asking us to irrationally reject an overwhelming body of systematized experience. That's just not how we come to learn things. The better-demonstrated something is, the more it justifies our belief -- and the harder it is to overturn.

Pathfinder;87290 wrote:

Have you seen some of the posts by the more immature posters here?

Yes, but that reflects their character and communication style. So long as we're not getting too nasty (ahem Odenskrigare...), let's look past their style -- because everyone is making good points.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

I have never asked anyone to reject the teaching of evolution Aedes.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

You're trying to undermine it, which is the same thing. But you're not trying to undermine it on its own terms, and its own terms are simply the body of science itself. I mean all you have is circumstantial evidence that your mother is really your mother, and that could come crumbling down too. But "fact" and "proof" are living, functional things, their legitimacy is only as strong as what underlies them -- and this is true of everything in the world.

So whether we call evolution "a fact" or "a strong scientific theory based on voluminous evidence" is unimportant. It is what it is -- and what it is is functionally true until something overturns it. And by the way, no single scientific finding can overturn evolution, because evolution does not hinge on one single point of argument.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;87304 wrote:

And by the way, no single scientific finding can overturn evolution, because evolution does not hinge on one single point of argument.

I get what you're saying, but be careful you don't accidentally argue Popper's recanted position here.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;87283 wrote:

What may seem like a mountain of evidence today can all come crumbling down tomorrow by the discovery found in one molehill of an excavation site.

Are you saying, as a general principle, that no amount of evidence is ever sufficient to confirm a theory beyond reasonable doubt? Or are you confining this principle to evolutionary theory? Do you think there is significant doubt about such things as the theory of gravity, the Earth's revolution about the Sun, the idea that stars are composed of incandescent gas, or the existence of the Roman Empire?

I just want to be clear where you draw the line between theories that you can confidently accept (gravity?) and those that you consider at serious risk of falsification (e.g. evolution). Surely any belief at all is suspect if you are prepared to consider sufficiently far-fetched scenarios. For example, heavy objects might start to float upwards tomorrow, or the Earth's revolution about the Sun might turn out to have been an illusion!

But we cannot seriously doubt everything, can we? So why single out evolution for disbelief? Yes, it deals with past events that we did not observe directly, but so do cosmology (e.g. the Big Bang, or the formation of stars) and human history (e.g. the Roman Empire). I am all for healthy skepticism where it is justified, but one must be consistent. One must either take the view that:

(a) no theory is on solid ground, since it can always be falsified; or

(b) any theory that is backed by a large weight of evidence (as biological evolution undoubtedly is), and is the best available theory (ditto), is probably true.

I take the latter view. The fact that falsification is possible does not imply that it is likely.

2 Replies

veracity of evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know