Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

parados wrote:

You forgot the other part of the scientific method, predictions. Evolution predicts that we would share similar traits with other creatures

Did we wait until the 19th century to find that creatures who share the same habitat, face the same challenges of weather, terrain , food supply etc had in some (or many) cases similar structures to allow them to survive?

Did mankind really have to wait for evolution to 'predict' what everyone can see?

Laughing

This reminds me of the time that another A2Ker told me that 'evolution predicts that organisms will pass on some of their traits of their offspring'. No kidding! Anyone who has seen that Junior looks like Papa knew that, even if he lived thousands of years before Chuck D.

Laughing

Great 'predictions', guys !

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Yes, it's true.

Unfortunately, some give true science an undeserved bad name by claiming scientific 'proofs' of things that the scientific method was not designed to prove.

RL, now you are borrowing "anti-creationism" phrases for the "anti-evolution" cause. Many people (including me) have said that "creationism gives religion an undeserved bad name".

Is your propaganda evolving?

0 Replies

wandel: Is your propaganda evolving?

ROFL

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

real life wrote:
Yes, it's true.

Unfortunately, some give true science an undeserved bad name by claiming scientific 'proofs' of things that the scientific method was not designed to prove.

RL, now you are borrowing "anti-creationism" phrases for the "anti-evolution" cause. Many people (including me) have said that "creationism gives religion an undeserved bad name".

Is your propaganda evolving?

That's a good one, wande.

Actually this has been a consistent theme of mine.

Do you agree that the scientific method is not designed to prove historical events?

0 Replies

RL,

The scientific method is used this way in evolutionary theory: if evolutionary theory is correct it will predict what you should find in the fossil record.

0 Replies

Depends on what kind of historical event you're talking about. And that's not a weasel answer. If you are trying to maintain all historical events are the same kind of event, and are susceptible to a "yes or no" answer, then you're setting up a straw man. Again. Science can't tell us certain things about unique historical events. Science cannot, for example, tell us who won the Battle of Agincourt. But science can tell us pretty definitely it wasn't fought with machine guns.

I f the Creation happened, it was a unique event, certainly. But there should be evidence of it in the scientific record. Radioactive dating techniques shouldn't indicate dates millions of years before it occurred. We shouldn't be able to see galaxies that by every other indication we have are billions of years old, and diverged from a common area billions of years ago. Just to take two examples of thousands.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
You forgot the other part of the scientific method, predictions. Evolution predicts that we would share similar traits with other creatures

Did we wait until the 19th century to find that creatures who share the same habitat, face the same challenges of weather, terrain , food supply etc had in some (or many) cases similar structures to allow them to survive?

Did mankind really have to wait for evolution to 'predict' what everyone can see?

Actually evolution predicts that creatures that live in DIFFERENT habitat would share DNA. When you find me a PRE 1900 DNA test could you inform me when and where it took place? Let alone one from the 19th century.

So.. you can see DNA with your naked eye? I guess that means you are evolving from the normal human.

Quote:

Great 'predictions', guys !

Oh.. don't worry, my prediction on your response to my other post is now a hypothesis and is well on the way to becoming a theory and very likely a law.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
real life wrote:
Yes, it's true.

Unfortunately, some give true science an undeserved bad name by claiming scientific 'proofs' of things that the scientific method was not designed to prove.

RL, now you are borrowing "anti-creationism" phrases for the "anti-evolution" cause. Many people (including me) have said that "creationism gives religion an undeserved bad name".

Is your propaganda evolving?

That's a good one, wande.

Actually this has been a consistent theme of mine.

Do you agree that the scientific method is not designed to prove historical events?

So if I see an apple on the ground under an apple tree, I can't deduce how it got there based on observations?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
wandeljw wrote:
real life wrote:
Yes, it's true.

Unfortunately, some give true science an undeserved bad name by claiming scientific 'proofs' of things that the scientific method was not designed to prove.

RL, now you are borrowing "anti-creationism" phrases for the "anti-evolution" cause. Many people (including me) have said that "creationism gives religion an undeserved bad name".

Is your propaganda evolving?

That's a good one, wande.

Actually this has been a consistent theme of mine.

Do you agree that the scientific method is not designed to prove historical events?

So if I see an apple on the ground under an apple tree, I can't deduce how it got there based on observations?

You can draw inferences, but they won't be conclusive.

How will you know, for instance, if the apple fell from the tree that it is found under, or whether it fell from a basket of apples that a harvester was carrying to a truck?

0 Replies

Actually, that'd be pretty simple, comparatively speaking--check the apple stem breakage pattern against the stems above it (kinda like putting together a jigsaw puzzle, you know?) Get the forensic people in and look for examples of tracks in the grass in case it rolled (bent or broken grass shows traces of what happened to it). Check the weather for the day to see if wind deflection could have had an effect, and if so how much. Ask the farmhands if they drove laden trucks in the area. You should be able to prove one or the other beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course you could always claim, and I'm sure you would, that it was an act of god that put the apple there. And I'd never be able to disprove it. On the other hand, I'd have a lot of evidence, and you'd have none beyond your mere supposition. And I'd go with the physical evidence, even though you'd say "it's all circumstantial, n one saw it fall'>

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You can draw inferences, but they won't be conclusive.

How will you know, for instance, if the apple fell from the tree that it is found under, or whether it fell from a basket of apples that a harvester was carrying to a truck?

Observation my silly boy. Observation.

And your conclusion can be 99.9% conclusive.

1. You can look above the apple and find where it fell off the tree then calculate it's trajectory based on gravity. It's pretty easy to compare the end of the stem to the spot an apple was attached.
2. You can examine the apple itself for damage and see if the damage is consistent with falling from the tree or from a basket. (Unless you want to argue that the basket used by a harvester is normally tree height. But that is easily dispensed with by observation.)
3. You can observe what it is like under other trees that HAVE been harvested and trees that have NOT been harvested. You then compare the conditions of the tree where your apple is. That will allow you to possibly rule out harvesting as a cause.
etc, etc..

Of course you are free to argue that unless we are 100% certain, we can't know for sure but then that would be you applying science incorrectly again.

0 Replies

username wrote:

Actually, that'd be pretty simple, comparatively speaking--check the apple stem breakage pattern against the stems above it (kinda like putting together a jigsaw puzzle, you know?) Get the forensic people in and look for examples of tracks in the grass in case it rolled (bent or broken grass shows traces of what happened to it). Check the weather for the day to see if wind deflection could have had an effect, and if so how much. Ask the farmhands if they drove laden trucks in the area. You should be able to prove one or the other beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course you could always claim, and I'm sure you would, that it was an act of god that put the apple there. And I'd never be able to disprove it. On the other hand, I'd have a lot of evidence, and you'd have none beyond your mere supposition. And I'd go with the physical evidence, even though you'd say "it's all circumstantial, n one saw it fall'>

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is certainly possible, but some of the methods, as well as the standard of proof you cite, are not tools of the scientific method, but rather are used of legal/historical proofs.

You make my case very well.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

username wrote:
Actually, that'd be pretty simple, comparatively speaking--check the apple stem breakage pattern against the stems above it (kinda like putting together a jigsaw puzzle, you know?) Get the forensic people in and look for examples of tracks in the grass in case it rolled (bent or broken grass shows traces of what happened to it). Check the weather for the day to see if wind deflection could have had an effect, and if so how much. Ask the farmhands if they drove laden trucks in the area. You should be able to prove one or the other beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course you could always claim, and I'm sure you would, that it was an act of god that put the apple there. And I'd never be able to disprove it. On the other hand, I'd have a lot of evidence, and you'd have none beyond your mere supposition. And I'd go with the physical evidence, even though you'd say "it's all circumstantial, n one saw it fall'>

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is certainly possible, but some of the methods, as well as the standard of proof you cite, are not tools of the scientific method, but rather are used of legal/historical proofs.

You make my case very well.

ROFLMAO.. Logic is logic unless real life claims it ain't so.

Are you saying that "observation" and "conclusion" are not part of the scientific method?

Please post your definition of that method.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is certainly possible, but some of the methods, as well as the standard of proof you cite, are not tools of the scientific method, but rather are used of legal/historical proofs.

You make my case very well.

I'm sorry, but I have to butt in here, because I do remember that you have a tendency to play loose with word definitions.

What are "scientific methods" according to you, real life?

EDIT: Well, it would seem that Parados beat me to the punch.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Are you saying that "observation" and "conclusion" are not part of the scientific method?

Please cite where this was said or implied.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Please cite where this was said or implied.

You dismissed username's response, duh.

0 Replies

rl said:

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is certainly possible, but some of the methods, as well as the standard of proof you cite, are not tools of the scientific method, but rather are used of legal/historical proofs."

Wrong again, rl. "reasonable doubt" in scientific terms tanslates to 2 or 3 sigma deviation from the mean, as farmerman has caught you up on before. It's not certainty, but it has proven to be a very good measure of how real life (not you, the world) actually functions, and a very good predictor. And the way real science works.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is certainly possible, but some of the methods, as well as the standard of proof you cite, are not tools of the scientific method, but rather are used of legal/historical proofs.

You make my case very well.

I'm sorry, but I have to butt in here, because I do remember that you have a tendency to play loose with word definitions.

What are "scientific methods" according to you, real life?

A better question is , which are NOT strictly scientific methods?

Interviews with potential or professing witnesses is one for starters

Looking for tracks in the grass is (rather weak) circumstantial evidence at best

Citing historical records (another form of interviewing witnesses secondhand as it were) i.e. checking the weather for the day

The standard of proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is a legal benchmark, not a scientific one.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
Please cite where this was said or implied.

You dismissed username's response, duh.

What are you talking about?

0 Replies

Totally false. All of them are legitimate methods for establishing certain kinds of scientific truth and ruling out your alternative hypothesis, in this case, in particular.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know