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

Why should i be polite to people who are spreading lies? For you to claim that you are a scientist, and that you "know whereof [you] speak" after butchering the meaning of theory is laughably absurd . . . and pathetic.

Where did you get your education? Christian schools?

I think germ theory and continental drift theory are not quite in the same category as relativity theory, quantum theory or the theory of universal magnetism which I have placed last in the list to remind me to ask you to explain it for us.

The first two can be readily understood by almost anyone and it ought not to be concluded that inserting them in a list with the others implies an understanding of those other three as to do so would defy the logic of empirical evidence.

A theory is an attempt to link up in a systematic fashion the knowledge about some particular aspect of the world of experience. It cannot include faith except insofar as there might be a theory of faith. A theory is limited by the experience of the speculator. Hopefully, usually, excluding racial purity theories, the partial understanding produced by a theory gives explanatory powers and predictive felicity which are of utility to mankind.

Newton's gravitation theories fits this sort of definition far more satisfactorily than does Darwin's theory of evolution which is nowhere near as being as tightly integrated and has no known predictive capacity and many say, a couple of thousand million at least, that it has negative utility and possibly on a grand scale.

Modern concepts of the term "theory" are moving away from such matters and are coming to view theories as descriptions of the ways science is practiced.

A hypothesis is a hunch. Popper, who wande quotes a lot, was of the view that scientific theories are hunches too. That there is therefore no difference between theory and hypothesis unless you are seeking to impress an audience of fuckwits with your general excellence and have sought refuge in the concept of the excluded middle.

As fm never explains anything Eudie but prefers the name-drop-trick instead under the laws of conservation of energy, I thought I would stand in for his understandable omissions.

The inhabitants of some western islands off the coast of Scotland had a theory in the 18th century that they got colds from people visiting them from the mainland. An example of germ theory it might be said.

On investigation it turned out that visitors to the island could only land when the wind was in a certain direction and it was this change of air which caused the islanders to catch their colds. Possibly they felt that by insisting that visitors could not land when the wind was in that direction they contrived to be left in peace.

That simplicity business is hogwash. Any person claiming simplicity is usually lying.

A Christian Scientist?

I wonder what kind of scientist Eudaimon claims to be?

I thought perhaps a follower of Jesus Christ, Scientist. Maybe he has a B.S. degree because he didn't want to take a foreign language to earn a B.A. degree.

Welcome to the American way with words Eudie. They use them as tools of personal validation. It seems to work too although I don't know how long for. Both Churchill and Eden mention the foible in their memoirs but Evelyn Waugh thought it harmless because Americans never require or expect you to listen to what they are saying which he thought very decent of them. He was full of praise for their manners.

We Englishmen accept that if you say you are a scientist we allow that it is true and wouldn't dream that questioning it constitutes an argument contradicting anything you might say. For the obvious reason that it isn't one.

When in Rome and all that.

spendi, What's very funny is your comment about "self-validation." Have you looked in the mirror lately? ROFL

See what I mean Eudie. They laugh at their own jokes. Which are not jokes actually but additions to the project.

It's because you're so funny!

Well, first I am not from Christian school. Born in the Soviet Union, raised in post-Soviet Russia where I think there weren't even such a conception like Christian school those days. Neither am I "Christian scientist", here in Russia this name even sounds strange. I am a student of physics in local university in Krasnodar.
Now, what I must explain again. I like this case with Aristotle, which I have already used 100 times. He thought that heavier bodies are falling faster than those with smaller masses. And indeed he had validation (stones and feathers). Now we say that his experiments are limited. What about ours?
And that's not all. When we work with facts, actually we work with our memories, that is with our consciousness. We should always be aware of that. Memory is memory, not reality. Therefore you can never say that you work with reality. Neither can anyone say that results obtained, are obtained through our actions. No one even said that there is such thing as 'cause' at all. No memory, no theory.

Theory (if we say that it depicts reality) demands at least one faith -- the faith in causality. And perhaps that we know those causes.

You call yourself a scientist, and yet you're babbling Socratic philosophical drivel, rather than addressing the question of what theory means to a scientist, which was the original point of departure for criticizing what you've posted.

You're no scientist, you're a bullshit artist.

If you wish to call it "Faith" go ahead. I prefer to ana;lyze available data and evidence to see whether it fits into a workable explanation for any phenomenon. "Faith" is kimnd of a diminution of all the important work that goes into not disproving a theory.
When we have a theory, weve already gone waay beyond a simple hypothesis (where there probably is some faith , but its in your own abilities ). A theory has ALL the evidence in support and NO evidence that refutes it.
When you get down to such a simple case of prove or disprove, you can see how a theory builds upon itself.

NOW, if we find some disconnect between , say , the theory of evolution at the micromolecular scale, then wed have to develop some corollary that fits or else we would have to abandon the theory. (I dont think its gonna happen because, until now, ALL the molecular data has firmly supported the theory)

Allowing this theory to be tested by predictions based upon it; or testing it against falsifiability propositions is a way that we add more bricks to the wall of evolutionary synthesis.

FAITH really has very little to do with anyhing, and if youve worked that out in Russia, I can almost understand. Ever since Lysenko had coopted the entier Russian biological science program, it took the SOviet Union decades to even catch up. Lysenko 's own propoganda was based upon a "False belief" in a concept that , today, is being resurrected in special conditions of epigenetic inheritance of multi generational effects . When the Lysenko guys were studying inheritance of acquired characteristics, they experimented on plants and fur bearing animals (theyd stretch necks and cut off tailes). Today we have seen that chemical effects on specific organizms can be inplanted into successive generations of offspring , even when the chemical irritant is removed . The mechanisms for some of this epigenetic inheritance has been looked at and is being applied in novel cancer treatments.

O.K., friend, I understand. But I want to be accurate in my thinking, in my worldview. For me the absence of facts that contradict theory is only enough to take it in practice. But you should agree that if we call our theory "truth", we demand too much. First, we take on faith (sorry, I can't find any subsitute for it) that phenomena have causes (we could just as well assume that they happen on their own accord or by God's will!), then we take on faith that our system of causes is reality (just because there is nothing that contradicts it). I can't agree with these assumptions, I can only use theory in practice, even though, to be honest, I have also no reasons for this. But I have no reasons for the opposite likewise, so it's alright.
So, I see that the main question in this discussion is what the criterion of truth is. Hope I've explained something.

Equally, you have no reason for your goofy imaginary friend thesis. You write: ". . . we could just as well assume that they (phenomena) happen on their own accord or by God's will!" So, you have no reason to accept the concept of falsifiability for a scientific theory, but you're willing to throw "god" out there (capitalized, no less) without establishing the validity of the concept. You are the one skating on intellectual thin ice here.

Which is the right place for a modern intellectual to skate. The thick ice (peer-reviewed and double checked by safety officers) is for softies who are unprepared for risk because their pride is such that being wrong mortifies them.

Obviously, skating on intellectual thin ice is exactly what a "bullshit artist" who is "babbling Socratic drivel" might be expected to engage in. That is the source of all the greatest discoveries.

Being right all the time can be expected to result from fear and having looked everything up first to see what somebody else has said and whether it has been verified. A bit like the safety harness in a pram.

Setanta shouldn't be asserting that people are "no scientist" when he is unaware of a simple thing like that as he sits comfortably looking "his ideas"up in reference books and doing the parrot trick. He self-evidently is confusing "scientist" with "librarian".

Well, most scientists would use the word "evidence".(As in "we take it based upon evidence). A theory is required to have all the evidence support it and you have to think what that means. MAy be the first guy (like Darwin doing his pidgeon experiments, or his detailed work on urchins), used the principals that he was discovering to "Evidence" what he said. In his case he was looking primarily at artificial selection in which he was satisfied that he was proceeding on the right track. ARtificial selection and animal husbandry tricks had been in use for at least a millenium already, so "faith" wasnt really an accurate term in his case.

I suppose if you wish to continue in your thought process, I cant stop you, But in my opinion, youd be quite wrong. If you say that youre a scientist, think about the governing theories in your work. SInce you rely upon them to demonstrate that your work is proceeding along within an established discipline, you dont even question whether they need "faith" to make sure that everything that happened yesterday will be the same today or that you can make valid predictions based upon the theories and its laws.

Sorry your so conflicted, it must be hard being some kind of scientist . I once had a Creationist employee who would always log drill holes with specific Creationist terminology and interpretations that never could correlate with drill holes in another tract adjacent. He was a nice guy but was rather useless as a field leader, so his tenure was brief. WHen youve got someone elses money at stake and your reputation is on the line with every report, you really cant afford to entertain deviations from good ole predictability and laws that fit within an expected theory. (LAws are usually within a theory , not over it). In evolution theory we have such components as Dollo's Law (the "law of irreversability") or (the "LAw iof SUperposition" ), other LAWS, such as those in crystallography actually define how DNA occurs in nature