Quantcast

Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history, Do You Agree?

American☆Atheist 2012/05/27 08:14:39
Related Topics: Evolution, Debate, News
GAWD IS REaL AND eVilUtun is of da Devil!
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • socokid 2012/05/27 12:33:48
    yes, even religious nuts will accept it
    socokid
    +6
    There is no debate concerning this topic by those that understand it. Period.

    If some religious fundamentalists wish to put their fingers in their ears to any knowledge that contradicts a literal interpretation of a particular flavor of bronze aged mythology, they have every right to do so. However, it also leaves the door open to call those people out as having left the field of discovery. Completely worthless within discussions of knowledge.

    Meh.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Philo-P... socokid 2012/05/29 14:08:19
    Philo-Publius
    I love you, too.

    A few weeks ago, I was walking around the edge of our pond on my back and forths of performing some yard work – the water happened to be particularly clear that day – and I caught out of the corner of my eye a fish move. I put down what I was doing and stepped over to the brim to see if I could tell what species it was, and as I began to lean down a bit, I noticed immediately that it was a very unusual fish: I could make out that its tail was long, flat and thin, and that the bulk of its 'body' (torso) seemed to be concentrated up toward the front. I wondered with great puzzlement what kind it might be as I began to look for details such as in the scales/flesh or fins, that might identify it as I paused to let my eyes focus some against the sun's glare.

    I crouched down slowly next to the water to get my best view and as I did it moved again; I was able to see it had fins which were exceptionally tiny and also which looked very awkward, and as it moved them to turn and propelled itself downward toward the shallow bottom of the shelf, It became clear all at once that these tiny fins were not fins at all – well, they were quasi-fins, just as I now saw it had behind its body a quasi-fish tail, and just as it moved with a quasi-fish movement – these 'fins' were ...








































    I love you, too.

    A few weeks ago, I was walking around the edge of our pond on my back and forths of performing some yard work – the water happened to be particularly clear that day – and I caught out of the corner of my eye a fish move. I put down what I was doing and stepped over to the brim to see if I could tell what species it was, and as I began to lean down a bit, I noticed immediately that it was a very unusual fish: I could make out that its tail was long, flat and thin, and that the bulk of its 'body' (torso) seemed to be concentrated up toward the front. I wondered with great puzzlement what kind it might be as I began to look for details such as in the scales/flesh or fins, that might identify it as I paused to let my eyes focus some against the sun's glare.

    I crouched down slowly next to the water to get my best view and as I did it moved again; I was able to see it had fins which were exceptionally tiny and also which looked very awkward, and as it moved them to turn and propelled itself downward toward the shallow bottom of the shelf, It became clear all at once that these tiny fins were not fins at all – well, they were quasi-fins, just as I now saw it had behind its body a quasi-fish tail, and just as it moved with a quasi-fish movement – these 'fins' were unambiguously appendages with webbed phalanges. It was a tadpole, in a stage of development I had not seen illustrated in any textbook (though afterward I looked up more detailed information on the larval stages of the common bullfrog online [the predominant species we have in our yard] and was able to find illustrations that matched).

    This little anecdote of mine doesn't represent an 'aha moment' surprise, where I began subscribing to evolution. I tell it rather because it's illustrative of the obviousness of what we're looking for as to evolution, and also of what I'd consider the limits of 'what we know'; of that which I am willing to *claim* I know, let's say, rather than to speculate upon, and it coincides (I trust to your delight) with my already firm acceptance that creatures such as these pollywogs do indeed represent the remnants of some evolutionary transitional stage between fish and amphibian (we didn't need in this case to go digging for fossils, the evidence was not far outside my bedroom window all along).

    To me though, as magnificently obvious as the tadpole is as a representative of some type of transition, the existence of such organismal stages, to me, is suggestive only of some very broad transition betwixt or between these two groups at some point in earth's history; between the various fish classes – extinct and extant – and the amphibian class. Though the *transitive nature* of such a present-day specimen may be obvious to us both, what is not obvious to me is the necessity that one species (as represented in the fossil record, or that an unknown similar species not yet represented) must have given rise to some other, and then to some other, and to some other again, etc., via mutations in their DNA which were selected for (linear biological descent), in order to have ended up with the result in nature that is before our eyes.

    As I mentioned last time, I know what the textbooks say and what the consensus is, but I have found no evidence in my personal study that would even remotely suggest that the neo-Darwinian mechanism can explain such transformations. In the absence of a plausible mechanism satisfactory to my mind, I am not, like Gould and his followers, comfortable in averring that 'evolution happened' (that it's a fact). That seems so disingenuous and backward to me, not to mention unscientific. So I would tarry on mechanism here, for one, and put that forward as one of our points of disagreement to explore:

    As to this lack of mechanism, I've cited for the direction of my view, elsewhere for instance, Behe's second book, 'Edge of Evolution', wherein an attempt was made with organisms such as bacteria and other parasites (which reproduce themselves in the trillions upon trillions in a relatively short space of time) to diligently document, plot and compare (apply) the extent of mutations that have arisen therein to populations of *other* organisms. Having explored these, nothing of an order of magnitude that could be expected to produce more than perhaps a beneficial alteration of an enzyme, or some loss of function that happened incidentally to be beneficial while overall being harmful (like we see in sickle cell disease) was determined to be possible mathematically during, for example, the entire putative history of primate evolution.

    We have also inherent in this all, the fundamental problem of protein evolution – natural selection in large organisms can only operate at the phenotype level; the physical difference has to be large enough to confer advantage, but in order for it to create novel proteins (which are needed as building blocks before we can even talk about forming tissues, a muscle, tendons, ligaments, a bone...) it would have to operate at the molecular (nucleotide) level, which we know it does not, as there is no benefit to having 1/1,000th or 2/1,000th, 3/1,000th or even 999/1,000th of a protein. A protein cannot fold and function until it is completely coded for. Moreover, many, many, many proteins would need to arise at once – or at least in succession *and* somehow be conserved – in a multicellular organism like a mammal, reptile or bird, in order for perceptible advantage to be had that could then be selected for by nature to be passed on. We all know this is not what happens; this is not in dispute – it is rather ignored by science – and yet we go on believing that, although this is impossible, evolution *must* have happened this way in the past. Or else we balk and begin to talk about peppered moths, or finches.

    The other problem is that all the evolutionary examples I've read or heard the Darwinists cite are of what I've come to call 'front-loaded' evolution: An ancient wolf gives rise to all the dog breeds we have today (and their exquisite, dramatic diversity) through selection of already extant genes (in this case artificial more than natural selection), or the wild cabbage (Brassica oleracea) gives rise, likewise through the selfsame mechanism of allele segregation (not random mutation), to our cabbage, Broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Chinese kale, Brussels sprouts, savoy, kohlrabi, and even to a particular tree-like form from which they make walking sticks. If we can get, through segregation of genes only (front-loaded evolution), creatures as dissimilar as the Great Dane and the Chihuahua, whose skulls are so morphologically dissimilar that if a paleontologist had never heard of a 'dog' and encountered these on a dig for the first time, he would surely classify them as distinct species and opine they shared only a very distant mammalian common ancestor, then why do we look to other mechanisms for an explanation of those (small f) families of organisms we've exhumed from the earth?
    great dane chihuahua
    In the dog example, the only documented mutation is the gene for the wrinkly skin of the Shar Pei, which is damaged through duplication, not 'evolved': http://www.plosgenetics.org/a... which also causes periodic fever disorder and early death in these creatures. We cannot, as I've heard so many Darwinists (including Dawkins) do, extrapolate front-loaded evolution (already extant genes being merely segregated to produce great diversity) into 'rear-loaded' evolution, where we infer that, because DNA has occasional copying errors, these errors must have by 'happy accident' (to quote Bob Ross) – and *without* the aid of natural selection – stumbled upon first a foldable (and useful) protein combination, and then other protein combinations that are exquisitely complimentary and perfectly self-coordinated, as well as – by chance also – all the necessary accompanying regulatory genes to tell the protein not merely 'where' to go (where physiologically to work with the other novel proteins arising alongside it to help eventually form a ligament to complement this or that bone, and another to work with these others to eventually help form a tendon, etc., so we can arrive at an arm – yes, we appear to be talking about a teleological process), but 'when' to go (when to develop in utero).

    If front-loaded evolution has been observed (not inferred) to produce such impressive morphological change, why then do we insist that the Darwinian (rear-loaded, hypothesized) kind of evolution must be responsible for the evolution of groups such as the elephant and horse families, which exhibit a very similar range of (limited) diversity? Recall that, outside of these ranges which are fairly well-documented in the fossil record (they're always finding new species of dinosaurs, for example, which fit neatly within the known main dinosaur groups), the ancestors are 'hypothesized', are 'debated'... 'candidates' are proposed: In a word, outside of the bush-like periphery of diversity in all the broad taxonomical groups, the ancestral trees tend to break down.
    horse elephants
    I think also that this is one of the problems in disproving evolution: The definition of evolution itself seems to be very unclear: 'Which evolution are we talking about?'. If the definition is unclear, then of course no one will be capable of proving it wrong and thus winning the much-coveted trip to Disneyland: Every time some scientist succeeds in disproving (or in demonstrating to a mathematical certainty) that a portion of the theory is wrong (even inadvertently, as in the article I cited above), before his criticism has even been examined, another direction of 'possible evolution' is appealed to – the goal posts are moved – or worse, the unknown is appealed to (one of my points above was that, “We don't know, therefore Darwin,” is as unscientific and as full of child-like faith as, “We don't know, therefore God.”).

    It might then behoove us both to first agree on the definition of evolution that is being meant: If you are talking about 'change in allele frequency in populations over time', then you, myself and Kent Hovind are evolutionists. If you add in limited common [biological] descent as I have above with recent examples like dogs and wild cabbage, you likely still have me and Behe (and most of the ID crowd, a member of which, incidentally, I do not count myself). If, to be an 'evolutionist' I must agree there's evidence sufficient to show that humans (and all extant organisms) evolved linearly – nucleotide-to-nucleotide, cell division-to-cell-division, egg-to-egg-, placenta-to-placenta – from an amoeba-like creature, in a way that has not been demonstrated to even be possible and in fact one whose data from known observations show us that such a thing is impossible, then naturally I'm out.

    We know such 'rear-loaded'/ground-up evolution is not possible due to the data that has been examined (we know from knowledge, not 'hope' from ignorance). Any time we make a model based on data (say, as Behe of whom I'm so fond has done) it is of course an extrapolation. But as with my examples it is an extrapolation of what we *know* evolution to be capable of, and in the precise *direction* that it has been documented. I'm not comfortable in dealing with some vague notion of 'change over time' as other might be, or of 'offspring varying slightly from their parents' and extrapolating that, which notions are so fast and loose that any number of other factors can and have been able to account for them.

    ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

    Something is definitely going on with the frog example I mentioned – I've already agreed there's smoke there, if not fire, and that might be able to serve as a point of agreement from which we can in the future launch. Such is what I would consider among the *best* evidences of large-scale (or of any) transition, but all it tells us is that numerous, numerous organisms have culled this mode of development – from somewhere – as they arose onto the earth scene. If we insist this apparent recapitulation in the tadpole *must* be due to common biological descent, however, then we're on very shaky ground, I think, because we have so many other examples in nature of complete modes of reproduction that are said to have arisen independently (as well as countless morphological structures), outside of common ancestry. Viviparity, for example, is said to have arisen independently at least 100 times[!] in squametes alone: http://www.faculty.biol.vt.ed... They now are quite certain mosasaurs and plesiosaurs at least, among the marine reptiles, gave birth to live young like cetaceans, etc.


    I've given my reasons as to why I am not impressed with scientific consensus in much detail elsewhere, so I won't belabor them further here – you know what I think about the role of bias (and even active and passive intimidation) in forming scientific consensuses on controversial subjects like evolution. There is a reason gravity is not hotly-contested, and evolution is. When you start from the premise that, as you say, “We know life tends to evolve using whatever its environment provides,” that is, from the firm conviction that what I've termed 'rear-loaded'/ground-up biological evolution took place, then of course nothing outside of rear-loaded biological evolution taking place will be viewed as an available possibility. This is, in fact, the very type of knowledge filtration that I complain is going on in today's science, yet there are, for any problem, a large number of possible solutions, some of which can align themselves in the same seeming direction for a long time without being the correct one. We talked last time about the geocentric model of Ptolemy, for instance, and how for the better part of two millenia the explanations it produced as well as the predictions it made comported quite satisfactory with the observed motions of the heavenly bodies. What I've endeavored to make known here though (in the limitations of space and my time at least), is that the evolution model under consideration today does not even explain what we observe. Right now, I'd assert, the superseded geocentric model is more predictive and explains far more in its respective arena than the Neo-Darwinian model does with respect to evolution.

    What it boils down to, I think, is that we have data – enormous amounts of data: fossils, genetic and morphological information, etc.) which must be interpreted, but as firmly as you may believe the Darwinian interpretation of this data is, there are other, quite reasonable and equally as intelligent people who do not agree that it is reasonable. The morphological data with respect to the higher primates does not, for instance, agree with the DNA data: http://www.news.pitt.edu/news... (there is so much more that could be argued on the human-ape data – perhaps one day...), and I just read last week how turtles are likewise now thought to be more related to birds when genetics are considered, notwithstanding that all morphological studies have places turtles near reptiles like lizards and snakes: http://www.sciencedaily.com/r... Cladistically, bats and whales must be grouped together due to their sole possession of prestin:

    "Although the bat and whale biosonars originated independently and differ substantially in many aspects [2], we here report the surprising finding that the bottlenose dolphin, a toothed whale, is clustered with microbats in the gene tree constructed using protein sequences encoded by the hearing gene Prestin."

    Link: http://www.cell.com/current-b...

    prestin
    The point is, interpretation is everything, and from where I'm standing, the whole theory appears cacophonous. I've listed examples of convergence in the past such as the octopus/human eye, the Thylacine/North American wolf skeletons, and the various marsupials, which many hardcore evolutionists have admitted are extremely unlikely to have occurred via random mutation plus natural selection in even a single instance. Homology itself, though routinely cited as evidence in favor of evolution, is overturned on this basis by analogy; by the so many much more striking examples of morphological convergence outside of common ancestry. (Not to tarry here too long on this; I could cite examples all day long, but this goes to interpretation; to what I consider to be incorrect interpretation by the Darwinists).

    As to a theory of my own, wild or sound, what I'm admitting is that I don't know *how* life came to be here on this planet, as we find it today. I would, however, not be looking for an explanation in the current Darwinian proposals which have failed us, but to which nonetheless most hang on for lack of a replacement, expecting that, if we only tweak it enough, it will somehow all come together. I would be looking in the direction of something completely outside of what has been considered thus far (in the direction perhaps of fields and energy as I've mentioned – including conscious energy; consciousness), and I would be looking away from uniformitarianism, not only as it is applied to geology a la Lyell, but also away from what I see are its more universal philosophical underpinnings; as it has been applied to matter, elemental and chemical evolution. If my cited article above suggested nothing else, it suggested that we are thinking of biology all wrong.

    .
    (more)
  • BHGOzzy Philo-P... 2012/05/28 03:11:04
    BHGOzzy
    +1
    Science-ism? Didn't know that everything ever was a religion of some sort. I wonder what the proponents of Burger Flipper-ism think of the world, or maybe the Stamp Collector cult can help with this.
  • Philo-P... BHGOzzy 2012/05/29 14:16:04
    Philo-Publius
    Agreed.

    I'm hoping the Stamp Collector cult has a better mechanism than copying errors to explain the diversity of all life on planet earth, too.

    (In fairness, these aficionados *do* highly prize stamps which exhibit printing errors. Although, they're not usually transformed into coins or Hummel figurines when the presses misfire... they just become interesting, though un-mailable.) ;)
  • BHGOzzy Philo-P... 2012/05/29 15:59:53
    BHGOzzy
    ...
    The ignorance shown there is just breathtaking. I don't know what to say, so I shall say nothing and let your willful ignorance be shown to everyone. I'm not even going to give you five minutes. I'm done.
  • socokid 2012/05/27 12:33:48
    yes, even religious nuts will accept it
    socokid
    +6
    There is no debate concerning this topic by those that understand it. Period.

    If some religious fundamentalists wish to put their fingers in their ears to any knowledge that contradicts a literal interpretation of a particular flavor of bronze aged mythology, they have every right to do so. However, it also leaves the door open to call those people out as having left the field of discovery. Completely worthless within discussions of knowledge.

    Meh.
  • Waldorf 2012/05/27 12:25:47
    GAWD IS REaL AND eVilUtun is of da Devil!
    Waldorf
    +1
    The Ancient Aliens theory is more plausible.
  • socokid Waldorf 2012/05/27 12:35:39
    socokid
    +4
    Concerning life origins? Evolution does not explain how life began...
  • Waldorf socokid 2012/05/27 12:56:10
    Waldorf
    +1
    Evolution per se assumes the existence of life.
  • socokid Waldorf 2012/05/27 21:28:22
    socokid
    +3
    I believe we can all assume life exists...
  • David L... Waldorf 2012/05/27 13:37:32
  • Waldorf David L... 2012/05/27 14:00:42 (edited)
    Waldorf
    +1
    He's a hoot, isn't he? Who has a better explanation?
  • David L... Waldorf 2012/05/27 14:46:18
    David Lindner
    haha yeah.
  • Andrew 2012/05/27 11:34:43
    no, religious nuts will never accept it
    Andrew
    +2
    The religious evolutionists won't alow debate because they fear it. I personally know a Christian scientist who for years has offered a $100K prize to the "believer" in evolution if they can prove it to be correct. Everywhere he goes, he challenges evolutionists from major universities to debate him and thus far, no takers! I would think they would welcome the chance to prove him a fool in front of his own audience. I'm sure that would go a long way toward finalizing the debate, but somehow, none of them seem to have the courage. Perhaps their own "belief system" is a bit shakey?!
  • BHGOzzy Andrew 2012/05/28 03:15:33 (edited)
    BHGOzzy
    Religious evolutionists?

    ...you mean like... this guy?
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
    The guy who proposed that T-Rex was a hunter and warm blooded?
    The guy who also happens to be a bible believing Pentecostal Minister?
    That "religious evolutionist"?

    And are you refering to James "the Amazing" Randy? The guy whose been offering the contest prize to anyone who can actually provide evidence of the supernatural?
  • Andrew BHGOzzy 2012/05/28 10:41:17
    Andrew
    You may want to look up the 2005 location of the TRex skeleton in Montana that was discovered to have soft tissue still intact some "67,000,000 years after the last dinosauers went extinct", when scientist claim that the possibility of soft tissue surviving more than 100,000 years is impossible. This should have been front page news and should have destroyed the dating models claimed to be accurate by "evolutionary science"! Instead, they are now attempting to quitely create new excuses to prop up this failed theory!

    I don't claim to be able to prove creation. I think the evidence surrounding us of its validiity is overwelming, but one must receive it by faith. I do contend that it take MORE faith to believe the evolutionary religion! That is why the evolutionists insist upon extracting creationism from the schools and indoctrinating the children from kindergarten in their newly created religion!
  • BHGOzzy Andrew 2012/05/28 10:43:13
    BHGOzzy
    Source?
  • Andrew BHGOzzy 2012/05/28 10:45:11
    Andrew
    Google it if you want the truth! Your a big boy. I read the article in the LA Times!
  • BHGOzzy Andrew 2012/05/28 10:47:47
    BHGOzzy
    You're making a positive claim. If your'e doing that then YOU are the one who needs to provide the evidence. After that it is MY turn to do the research to refute your argument. Pulling this? That makes you NephillimFree.
    NephillimFree Youtube
    You know, this guy, who never provides a source for his arguments, never tells the truth and never EVER gets any love from anyone but Fundies for his arguments.
  • Andrew BHGOzzy 2012/05/28 10:51:35
    Andrew
    +1
    This whole post is about a "scientist" who claims positively that soon everyone will believe his religion. It is him and those who agree with him who MUST provide PROOF and they CAN'T!!

    Simply google "dinosauer soft tissue" and you'll literally find hundreds of articles on the subject!
  • BHGOzzy Andrew 2012/05/28 10:53:55
    BHGOzzy
    Source or STFU
  • Andrew BHGOzzy 2012/05/28 11:34:59
    Andrew
    You can curse me if you want, but you cannot silence me! Your too lazy to do a simple google search and I ain't gonna do it for you! If you want the truth you will and if you want to sit here and argue ignorantly you won't!
  • BHGOzzy Andrew 2012/05/28 11:40:34
    BHGOzzy
    First. Source. Give one or give up on this.
    Second. A newspaper as your citation? REALLY? Do you HONESTLY expect anyone to take a news article as a source or citation? There's a reason they're not used as evidence you know.
    Thirdly, I've told you how these things work. More then once, but you seem to think the burden of proof is on me. Tell you what, you wanna act like a 3 year old and whine that I'm not doing things your way because you don't have to prove anything? Be a 3 year old. I'm done with this conversation, and yes, i do have an inkling of what you're talking about. There was no flesh found, just imprints of the skin that revealed what kind of skin T-Rex had.

    Or hadn't you heard of "Dave the Fuzzy Raptor"? Or perhaps that hubub back in the 90's when they found Velociraptor skin impressions?

    This is NOT new, it does NOT disprove Evolution and even if Evolution was disproven NOW, it would NOT make YOUR special creation Myth right by default. YOU still have to show how YOUR side is correct. But you're not interested in that. You'd rather lie for Jesus and be "Forgiven" later.

    Sorry, but here's what I think of Fundies like YOU.
  • Andrew BHGOzzy 2012/05/28 11:48:46
    Andrew
    I did not say this was proof of anything. I simply stated that his religious beliefs are not facts, just as the evolutionary religion is not proven. Nor will it ever be. I believe in the Bible as the Word of God. I believe it is substantiated by nature and the fossil record. This so called scientist believe another theory! Unproven and certainly takes faith to believe. I do not have that much faith! He is wrong to suggest that somehow I should reject my faith for his!
  • Radical Ed Andrew 2012/05/28 17:32:54
    Radical Ed
    he is correct however. unless you can provide substantial and unequivocal evidence to support your claims then they will be presumed to be false. in other words: source or GTFO.
  • Andrew Radical Ed 2012/05/28 17:51:45
    Andrew
    Umtil the opposition provides the same, they should be quite! However, you and I are free to express our faith! Leakey does it and you find his faith convincing. I do it and others find that believable. Only in the end will the final truth be undeniable!

    My source, the innerrant Word of God!
  • Cliff 2012/05/27 11:13:42
    no, religious nuts will never accept it
    Cliff
    +4
    Here we have an atheist whose dreams of proving the theory of evolution are reinforced by his belief that the world will be a more peaceful place if it can be shown that God does not exist. No doubt he will gather many followers with entertainers such as Paul Simon to lure them in. The real problem with folks like these is that they lack evidence to support their belief. If it took billions of years for change to happen, there would be ample evidence in the fossil record. There is not.
  • The_Infidel_Atheist 2012/05/27 10:56:43
    yes, even religious nuts will accept it
    The_Infidel_Atheist
    +4
    There is no debate. There is a consensus on the matter.
  • BHGOzzy The_Inf... 2012/05/27 11:06:46
    BHGOzzy
    +4
    Unless you're off your meds like VoteOut. Seriously, this guy's like a case study in mental disorder.
  • The_Inf... BHGOzzy 2012/05/27 11:07:43
    The_Infidel_Atheist
    +4
    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
  • BHGOzzy The_Inf... 2012/05/27 11:09:11
    BHGOzzy
    +4
    Though no truth is actually self evident. There are evidences that are required for every truth, even the ones that seem self evident. The quickest way to learn this is to try to show "Self evident" things to a 5 year old who has never seen them before.
  • David L... The_Inf... 2012/05/27 13:38:36
    David Lindner
    look up the definition of a theory. Its an eye opener to know that a theory cant be proven or disproven.
  • The_Inf... David L... 2012/05/27 22:00:58
    The_Infidel_Atheist
    Theories are disproven all the time. Take the theory of geocentrism. It was the popular idea at the time, but it was proven false and was replaced with the heliocentrism . Heliocentrism is now a fact.
  • David L... The_Inf... 2012/05/27 22:16:08
    David Lindner
    youre right.

    that principle only applies to theories like gravity and evolution.
  • The_Inf... David L... 2012/05/27 22:30:22
    The_Infidel_Atheist
    +1
    I believe you are thinking of the normal, everyday use of the word "theory". In science an idea starts out as just an idea, if that idea is testable it becomes a hypothesis. After you finish testing your hypothesis, your evidence then can be sent in for peer-review. If peer-review agrees with you, then the hypothesis becomes a theory.
  • David L... The_Inf... 2012/05/27 23:07:55
    David Lindner
    you might be right. I was always taught a theory can never be proven, nor disproven.
  • The_Inf... David L... 2012/05/27 23:15:33 (edited)
    The_Infidel_Atheist
    They can't really proven, but they can definitely be disproven. You see, proof only exists in math. Nothing in the real, physical world can ever be proven. A scientific theory has been tested extensively and found to be true in all tests. It's the closest thing to proof that exists in the real world. Take Einstein's Theory of Relativity, it is a great description of how the world operates, but it's not proof. A test could come out tomorrow disproving Einstein's theory. But until then, it's a great theory that we use to make predictions.
  • David L... The_Inf... 2012/05/27 23:21:59
    David Lindner
    +1
    Ohhhh i see. yeah. come to think of it, I remember that now. thanks
  • The_Inf... David L... 2012/05/27 23:23:29
    The_Infidel_Atheist
    +1
    No problem.
  • VoteOut 2012/05/27 10:32:28 (edited)
    no, religious nuts will never accept it
    VoteOut
    +2
    and what form of evolution are they talking about as Darwin's Malthusian form of evolution is being debunked by the latest in epigenetics and quantum physics which flips it is back to something greater. But many people are materialistic based so let them have their cake as material based does not evolve as does energetic based
  • reaper VoteOut 2012/05/27 10:37:57
    reaper
    +5
    does this make sense to anyone here?

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/24 04:16:27

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals