- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why are theories on evolution, climate change, etc sacrosanct,
Posted on 4/1/17 at 7:50 am to DawgsLife
Posted on 4/1/17 at 7:50 am to DawgsLife
quote:
If evolution were so proven, then it would be a Law and not a theory.
There's more evidence for evolution via natural selection than there is for the fact that the sun is at the center of our solar system. If you're skeptical of evolutionary theory, then you should be highly skeptical that the Earth orbits the sun.
quote:
Do they think evolution is how everything happened? yes. Do they have proof or evidence? No.
Evolution via natural selection makes very specific claims regarding heritability and genetic variation, and how those alterations lead to reproductive discrepancies and phenotypic variance among a population over time. Evolution doesn't attempt to explain "how everything happened".
1
Posted on 4/1/17 at 8:54 am to DawgsLife
quote:
If evolution were so proven, then it would be a Law and not a theory. The very fact that it is still considered a theory suggests there is not proven evidence to support it. Do they think evolution is how everything happened? yes. Do they have proof or evidence? No.
I'm just going to source from Wikipedia here, but there is a ton more out there that corroborates this
quote:
[Scientific] [l]aws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated
Source
quote:
It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.
Article of scientific theories
You may have been taught in high school that laws are more binding than theories, but when it comes to "Scientific Laws" v. "Scientific Theories" (like the theory of evolution). That is not true.
There is a lot of evidence supporting evolution.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 8:57 am to SoulGlo
NO ONE, left or right, truly has all of the answers of how an economy works outside of a handful of generalities.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 8:57 am to Cs
quote:
There's more evidence for evolution via natural selection than there is for the fact that the sun is at the center of our solar system. If you're skeptical of evolutionary theory, then you should be highly skeptical that the Earth orbits the sun.
You see? that's my whole point. If there were solid evidence it would be a law. There is observational evidence, which is not the same thing. But 400 years ago there was observational evidence that the sun rotated around the earth....or so they thought...until it changed. 400 years from now? Who knows? EVERY scientist will tell you that science changes.
The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.
quote:
Evolution via natural selection makes very specific claims regarding heritability and genetic variation, and how those alterations lead to reproductive discrepancies and phenotypic variance among a population over time. Evolution doesn't attempt to explain "how everything happened".
Evolution by natural Selection is but one theory of evolution. Do you have any idea of how many theories of evolution there are?
Evolution by Natural Selection
Front-loaded Evolution
Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo)
Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering
Somatic Selection
Structuralist / Platonic Evolution
Biological Self-Organization
Multilevel Evolution
Epigenetic Evolution
Evolution by Symbiogenesis
Teleological Selection
But you think Natural Selection is the correct one. That's fine. Do you know more than the scientists and scholars they say the others are correct? That's what I mean.
All are theories based upon a theory of how it all happened. Just because some professor taught you Natural Selection in school because that is what he believed does not make it rock solid fact. If, indeed, evolution is proven as fact, only one of the evolutionary theories can be correct, right? Which one is it? The one you think is correct, because...well, you think it is correct? As I said, 400 years ago they thought the sun rotated around the earth. 50 years ago they were going to wipe out disease and hunger.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:01 am to DawgsLife
I like how you toss up a bunch of unscientific "theories" as if they are credible at all.
A lot of what you posted is unscientific ID nonsense.
A lot of what you posted is unscientific ID nonsense.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:01 am to DawgsLife
quote:
You see? that's my whole point. If there were solid evidence it would be a law.
Please stop saying this, unless you are also going to argue that there isn't "solid evidence" for gravity.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:03 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
I'm just going to source from Wikipedia here, but there is a ton more out there that corroborates this
No problem. Often Wiki backs up their information with notes from outside sources.
And I understand your point, however, there have been many theories that have been abandoned, because more research and evidence has come in to prove said theory incorrect. Just because something is a scientific theory does not make it fact. Does it gain more weight than somebody just saying, "I think..."? yes. But if it were proven with no chance of being wrong it would enter into the world of scientific law. Gravity is a scientific law. At one time man did not understand gravity. but it has been proven beyond approach and was then moved from theory into law.
quote:
There is a lot of evidence supporting evolution.
And it is all observational. See my post above.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:05 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
I like how you toss up a bunch of unscientific "theories" as if they are credible at all.
Please be more specific. What did I toss up that are unscientific theories?
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:13 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Dude. Gravity is a scientific law. SURELY you knew this.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation attempts to describe the effect of gravity via equation. Because it does so imperfectly, it has been usurped by general relativity. As such, referring to anything pertaining to gravity as a "law" is an unscientific misnomer.
Surely you knew this?
This post was edited on 4/1/17 at 9:14 am
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:17 am to ForeverEllisHugh
Its only 50/50 split in your sunday school class.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:21 am to SoulGlo
Im pretty sure the left doesn't believe in evolution anymore.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:22 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation attempts to describe the effect of gravity via equation. Because it does so imperfectly, it has been usurped by general relativity. As such, referring to anything pertaining to gravity as a "law" is an unscientific misnomer.
They are still teaching it in our colleges and Universities as a law, so if you have a problem with it, you need to take it up with them, maybe?
LINK
quote:
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation
In your response to me you referred to it as Newton's Law.....wow.
LINK
Now, as for your post....are you saying because Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is imperfect, so they do not refer to it as Law? Hmmmm, then why don't they call Evolution Law? Is it imperfect?
Isn't that my whole point? Thanks for proving my point!
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:26 am to DawgsLife
*sigh*
I hate when folks give half baked science debates. It muddles the discussion so.....
But I'll comment on this as being emphatically wrong, simply because it seems to be a core tenet of the perspective put forth by you here:
The issue of a scientific law has nothing to do with the presence of solid evidence or even the amount of it. Nothing.
Something is only a law if it is 100% inviolable, and calculated with mathematical precision. In fact, if you look into it, most scientific laws are actually equations describing behavior.
You are making a straw man of the argument. Furthermore, you aren't listing "alternative theories of evolution." You are listing evolutionary forces, which aren't mutually exclusive.
Except for the intelligent design listed under another name though. I thought that one was cute.
Evolution is the change of allelic frequency in a given population under time.
That's it. And that's as undeniable as rain. No one of authority claimed all elements of the mechanisms behind it are ironclad, solidified, and beyond reproach.
I hate when folks give half baked science debates. It muddles the discussion so.....
But I'll comment on this as being emphatically wrong, simply because it seems to be a core tenet of the perspective put forth by you here:
quote:
If there were solid evidence it would be a law.
The issue of a scientific law has nothing to do with the presence of solid evidence or even the amount of it. Nothing.
Something is only a law if it is 100% inviolable, and calculated with mathematical precision. In fact, if you look into it, most scientific laws are actually equations describing behavior.
quote:
Evolution by natural Selection is but one theory of evolution. Do you have any idea of how many theories of evolution there are?
You are making a straw man of the argument. Furthermore, you aren't listing "alternative theories of evolution." You are listing evolutionary forces, which aren't mutually exclusive.
Except for the intelligent design listed under another name though. I thought that one was cute.
Evolution is the change of allelic frequency in a given population under time.
That's it. And that's as undeniable as rain. No one of authority claimed all elements of the mechanisms behind it are ironclad, solidified, and beyond reproach.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:28 am to ChineseBandit58
Language is the mechanism by which humans describe and define our realities including our own identities.
Science cannot account for Creation. Existence is way more complicated than you good old baws were told, in church and/or science class. Science is just a junior religion.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:33 am to Volvagia
quote:
Evolution by natural Selection is but one theory of evolution. Do you have any idea of how many theories of evolution there are?
quote:
You are making a straw man of the argument. Furthermore, you aren't listing "alternative theories of evolution." You are listing evolutionary forces, which aren't mutually exclusive.
The you misunderstood my point. he said Natural selection as if it were the only theory out there and t was pretty much a proven fact. I was merely pointing out that there were many evolutionary theories out there, and it is far from being settled.
quote:
That's it. And that's as undeniable as rain. No one of authority claimed all elements of the mechanisms behind it are ironclad, solidified, and beyond reproach.
Then you did not read the post i was responding to.
*sigh*
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:34 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Dude. Gravity is a scientific law. SURELY you knew this.
You really are adorable.
What you referred to, the law of universal gravitation is about describing the EFFECTS of gravity. Not the cause.
Gravity isn't a scientific law because they aren't completely sure what causes it. What drives it.
Much like your entire argument against evolution earlier in this thread about how there are many theories and hypotheses as to what causes it.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:35 am to DawgsLife
You're impressively dense. From your own link:
As for the law vs theory distinction, this single sentence from the wiki of "scientific law" actually covers it quite nicely:
Objects in our universe attract one another. Organisms on planet Earth change over time.
No explanation for why either of those things occur will ever be a "scientific law" because explanations of cause per se can't be scientific laws.
quote:
Today, Newton's law of universal gravitation is a widely accepted theory. It guides the efforts of scientists in their study of planetary orbits.
As for the law vs theory distinction, this single sentence from the wiki of "scientific law" actually covers it quite nicely:
quote:
Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation.
Objects in our universe attract one another. Organisms on planet Earth change over time.
No explanation for why either of those things occur will ever be a "scientific law" because explanations of cause per se can't be scientific laws.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:36 am to SoulGlo
Nothing stopping anyone from submitting their own theories for peer review. If someone has a better theory, submit it.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 9:38 am to DawgsLife
quote:
The you misunderstood my point.
No. I didn't.
quote:
I hate when folks give half baked science debates. It muddles the discussion so.....
Wasn't directly solely at you. Hell, not even primarily at you.
Doesn't detract that that was a whooooole lotta wrong in your post which I addressed, and you cherry picked around.
For instance, the phase "different theory of evolution." There is a clear connotation there that it's a wide option discussion of alternatives.
There's not.
It's:
Theory of Evolution
Subsection theories:
A) natural selection
B) etc etc etc
This post was edited on 4/1/17 at 9:42 am
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News