Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

[BryanMaloney]

I would not read Darwin to get an accurate idea of modern evolution theory, just like I would not read Galen to get an idea of modern medicine.

 

[widows son]

I'd say reading Darwin would be good way to get a good foundation of the subject. As other brothers have said though, it should be the only material read on the subject.

 

[widows son]

Sorry, it shouldn't be the only material read.

 

[BryanMaloney]

I would not start with Darwin. Far too dated.
Start with Mayr.
I am a biologist, after all, I ought to know what doesn't reflect current consensus.

 

[jvarnell]

As I have been thinking about this question I have come to the conclusion that Darwinian evolution is a theory and has some facts and questions. (Not proven) As a theory it is like dogma of religion not all proven and there has to be some faith on the parts those part that are not.

The word "theory" is just that and the first step of coming to a conclusion that still my not be right but just a conclusion to ones research so others can start pier review and modify the theory. Because someone wants the theory to be fact doesn't make it complete.

 

[coachn]

Here's a neat article on the 23 human vs 24 chimp chromosome mystery. It confirms for me that evolution is not so much evolving (no pun intended) as much our understanding and explanations of it is, almost daily!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/l...-guest-appearance-from-facebook-creationists/

 

[jwhoff]

I have to agree with Brother Bryan and Brother Nagy on this subject.

I suspect we've learned more about biology since Darwin's era. Not sure we've learned much about Enlightenment. But I hear, on occasion, there have been quantum leaps in knowledge throughout the history of man.

Logically, there is always hope.

 

[widows son]

"I would not start with Darwin. Far too dated.
Start with Mayr."

• Ill check it out thanks. In college I took a sci-if course that looked at fiction that was influenced by the theories Darwin put forth so we started by reading Origin of Species.

 

[BryanMaloney]

As I have been thinking about this question I have come to the conclusion that Darwinian evolution is a theory and has some facts and questions. (Not proven) As a theory it is like dogma of religion not all proven and there has to be some faith on the parts those part that are not.

The word "theory" is just that and the first step of coming to a conclusion that still my not be right but just a conclusion to ones research so others can start pier review and modify the theory. Because someone wants the theory to be fact doesn't make it complete.

What you call a "theory" is called a "hypothesis" by scientists. Science does not use "theory" the way you use it. The first step is called a "hypothesis"--or do you also believe that the "theory of Gravity" is just a first step and can be, therefore, simply disbelieved? How about the germ theory of disease? You can just deny that bacteria cause disease? The use of the word "theory" says nothing about a model being merely preliminary. What scientific work have you done to get this complete misconception about the terminology of the fields?

 

[jvarnell]

What you call a "theory" is called a "hypothesis" by scientists. Science does not use "theory" the way you use it. The first step is called a "hypothesis"--or do you also believe that the "theory of Gravity" is just a first step and can be, therefore, simply disbelieved? How about the germ theory of disease? You can just deny that bacteria cause disease? The use of the word "theory" says nothing about a model being merely preliminary. What scientific work have you done to get this complete misconception about the terminology of the fields?

I think that Darwinian evolution is a theory.

"
A theory is a causal chain, or statements of a causal chain, which have been proven logically/mathematically to be true. In other words, a statement is made about a causal relationship ("X because Y" or "X therefore Y") and that statement is tested. Evidence is gathered and presented regarding the statement, and evaluated; this might include the results of observation or experiment, but in all cases evidence must be grounded in the objective, external world.
A hypothesis is an unproven theory - e.g. it is a statement of a causal chain or relationship, perhaps (one hopes) including an explanation of why it is likely to be true. It has not, however, been subject to definitive or rigorous testing! If I stated "The sky is blue because blue dye evaporates the fastest and humans have made lots of dye in their history so that the sky is permeated with predominantly blue dye," that's a hypothesis.
"

 

[BryanMaloney]

If someone claims that a theory is merely a "first step", one is claiming that it is actually just a hypothesis, since the hypothesis is the first step, not the theory.

Finally, there is no such thing as a "fact" in science, merely a theory that has not yet been falsified. If you want "facts" do not look to science. Science has models. All models are wrong, but some appear to be useful for the current moment, within certain parameters. In our real world, there are no verifiable "facts", merely models with more or less levels of support. If a model ceases to be useful, a scientist will abandon it.

 

[BryanMaloney]

A hypothesis is an unproven theory - e.g. it is a statement of a causal chain or relationship, perhaps (one hopes) including an explanation of why it is likely to be true. It has not, however, been subject to definitive or rigorous testing! If I stated "The sky is blue because blue dye evaporates the fastest and humans have made lots of dye in their history so that the sky is permeated with predominantly blue dye," that's a hypothesis.
"

A hypothesis should never be distinguished by being a silly idea. Hypothesis: Amyloid beta causes Alzheimer's disease. Alternative hypothesis: Amyloid beta is a result of Alzheimer's disease. Both are hypotheses. The first one, for a time, had the weight of greater evidence. Now, the weight is less unevenly distributed between the two hypotheses. Neither one is silly. Right now, current models still favor the first hypothesis, but there may be room to admit the second, or even both hypotheses within an overall theory explaining Alzheimer's disease. A hypothesis is not an "unproven theory". A hypothesis is never "proved", it is merely "insufficiently disfavored by the weight of current evidence". And no matter how much a hypothesis is insufficiently disfavored, it never becomes a theory in and of itself. Theory is the overall framework into which hypotheses might or might not fit.

 

[coachn]

I like what WIKI says on this. The red colored words stand out most for me:

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory.

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested.

In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.[SUP][1][/SUP]

A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[SUP][2][/SUP]

A different meaning of the term hypothesis is used in formal logic, to denote the antecedent of a proposition; thus in the proposition "If P, then Q", P denotes the hypothesis (or antecedent); Q can be called a consequent. P is the assumption in a (possibly counterfactual) What If question.
The adjective hypothetical, meaning "having the nature of a hypothesis", or "being assumed to exist as an immediate consequence of a hypothesis", can refer to any of these meanings of the term "hypothesis".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

Sort of like: This might explain it... Hypothesis --> Let's put it through Extensive and Rigorous Testing --> WOW! Looks like this explains it! It can be called a "Theory!"

Now, contrast this with Law, such as the Law of Gravity, and we open up a whole new bag o' evolving worms!

 

[dfreybur]

Hypothesis versus theory. A hypothesis is a theory waiting for experimental or statistical evidence. According to the scientific method you come up with a hypothesis (idea) then figure out how to test the idea. Some ideas work well with the data. Many ideas don't and are falsified. All theories are hypothesis in the sense of that's how they start out.

Fact versus theory. General semantics - All knowledge is provisional. Science - All data comes with error bars. There gets to a point where the error bars are so small it hardly makes sense to call an idea not a fact. Sure, it's never going to stop being provisional and it's always subject to being overturned but the quality of match to reality and the length of time it's been that way matters. Does anyone ever think that the inorganic chemistry that makes the lead-acid battery start a car for the morning commute is going to stop working? We replace the battery or fix the wiring because we know the chemistry is never going to stop working. Theories range from almost mythical speculation like Big Bang through indistinguishable from fact like inorganic chemistry.

What a civilian means by "fact" and what a scientist means by "fact" are different but there reaches a point when the difference is too small to effect anything we'll ever encounter.

When Darwin wrote "The origin of Species ..." he was not aware of experimental evidence supporting his ideas. What he saw was statistical not experimental. Now we know otherwise. Domestication is experimental evolution. Darwin wrote a book on the topic "The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication". I just found a public domain copy on Project Gutenberg and downloaded it in MOBI format for my Kindle.

 

[coachn]

So, it's not a verifiable fact that, if you squash a man's skull into a pancake, light what remains of it on fire and then scatter the resulting ashes to the four winds, he shall cease to be the same man he was and that there exists some small amount of error in this fact?

Just one question, at what point does fact not have error ?

 

[Aeelorty]

So, it's not a verifiable fact that, if you squash a man's skull into a pancake, light what remains of it on fire and then scatter the resulting ashes to the four winds, he shall cease to be the same man he was and that there exists some small amount of error in this fact?

Just one question, at what point does fact not have error ?

Science does not deal with facts as nothing is ever proved only falsified, scientist talk in degrees of support. It is a great trick to see how much a person really knows by listening for the use of words like usually, we believe, right now we think, etc. The more concrete a person claims to be an expert gets the less you should listen.

So what a scientist would say is that there is a small chance he might not cease to be the same man. Another bizarre thing to think of is that in Quantum mechanics it is possible to walk through a solid wall, minuscule changes but still possible. Thinking purely scientifically is not an easy way to live or operate.

When Darwin wrote "The origin of Species ..." he was not aware of experimental evidence supporting his ideas. What he saw was statistical not experimental. Now we know otherwise. Domestication is experimental evolution. Darwin wrote a book on the topic "The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication". I just found a public domain copy on Project Gutenberg and downloaded it in MOBI format for my Kindle.

Not all supporting evidence needs to be experimental, the qualification is that the question must be falsifiable in theory.

 

[ej6267]

As I have been thinking about this question I have come to the conclusion that Darwinian evolution is a theory and has some facts and questions. (Not proven) As a theory it is like dogma of religion not all proven and there has to be some faith on the parts those part that are not.

The word "theory" is just that and the first step of coming to a conclusion that still my not be right but just a conclusion to ones research so others can start pier review and modify the theory. Because someone wants the theory to be fact doesn't make it complete.

Freemason Connect HD

 

[coachn]

At what point does taking a man's brain out of his skull, running it through a blender (on the highest setting) and pouring it back into his skull become more than just provisional brain death? I don't even know where you would begin to hook up the electrodes to attempt measuring this.

Is there no point where science can factually say, "yup, the guy's brain is worm fodder."

 

[Aeelorty]

Is there no point where science can factually say, "yup, the guy's brain is worm fodder."

Nope there really isn't we can only say that he only very very very very very likely isn't the same. It is one of the draw backs to science and is also why rigorous scientific thinking is difficult, it is a very unnatural way of thinking. All evidence points to saying no that person is no longer the same so we can say it like that fact but it is important to distinguish that it is not. No one is going to seriously claim that the person is the same but due to the constraints of being "science" we cant say it is fact. Now scientist get lazy and treat things as facts but those facts may change and that is the catch. When we say something is a fact we mean that it is always true, however we have discovered many times that new information might change the picture so we have to be careful in declaring "facts" because "facts" do in fact change from time to time. Nothing is more exciting to a scientist, or more disconcerting, than findings that disprove "facts."

 

[coachn]

So, your saying that the denial of every day accepted reality is a skill highly prized, revered and cultivated by Scientist worldwide? It reminds me of something out of Monty Python or Lister from Red Dwarf! [video=youtube;shs7VQhVvxA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shs7VQhVvxA[/video]