Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

Discussion in 'The Voting Booth' started by KO2134, Aug 27, 2013.

?

Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

  1. Yes

    46 vote(s)
    50.0%
  2. No

    32 vote(s)
    34.8%
  3. Unsure

    7 vote(s)
    7.6%
  4. Need more information

    7 vote(s)
    7.6%
  1. JohnnyFlotsam

    JohnnyFlotsam Premium Member

    485
    62
    28
    Perhaps, but that list would not include scientists who, as a group, would never make such a bold assertion. Now that same group will tell you, has told you, over and over, that when there is overwhelming reproducible evidence supporting a theory the matter is effectively settled, for only a fool would act as if a thing were not so in the face of that evidence. Notice I did not say that no one should question that evidence. Good science demands such pursuit, but only a fool would bet his children's future, for example, on the chance that such a pursuit might, against all odds, turn up something new. Such a bet is not "a difference of opinion". It is the very definition of stupidity.


    No. They can not. Again, you misunderstand the definition of a scientific theory.
     
  2. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    If anyone tell another they are not qualified to look at data decide for them selfs what theory is right, wrong or needs more data it proves my point that there are those that try to stop or control the converstion needed to prove or disprove things. This is just what the Dem's in the Senate are doing about global warming. Did any of them look at the actual data vs the hocky stick graph of Al Gore since 2004? Have you or any or anyofthe otheres look at data of Darwins theory since he published it? I am the only one that is qulifyed to say what I know, what I think and what my aaccomplishments in the sciences.
     
  3. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    Not really it is how big of a picture you look at the theory of chaos. How much data do you add to your theory or leave out. I am working on a predictive algorithm that has to use big data (Hadoop style of storage) and getting deferent answers than when it has been used for the last 10 year with less data for the same peroid and the big data answer are so very close to what actuly happened when the other was off by as much as 20%. The data that is making a deferance doesn't even look like it is related to the problem. I am finding this other data I am now using by using a (self orginizing map) SOM.


    Think big and you will find more truth .
     
  4. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    This is so funny that everyone is getting so up in arms trying to convince me that this theory is right. The one thing we all know is the word "theroy" is attached to it so everyone that writes pro or con about it know that even the other Darwin knows it is not "proof". Thisis because the word "proof" is the opposite of "theory". This is what you should know as a scientist and we may never know if any theory is the truth or not till it is proven.

    When someone desen't know they attack and say thing like qulified, stupidity or tell one that they don't know something without being that that person. This is the same tactic the Dem's use against REP, Pregrsives against the concertives and unions against managment. I want to tell you think about what I said and how Sir Francis Bacon said about words.
     
  5. JohnnyFlotsam

    JohnnyFlotsam Premium Member

    485
    62
    28
    No... We are trying to tell you that you are conflating the terms "theory" with "scientific theory" and that you appear to be doing so deliberately, in an attempt to defend an indefensible position.

    I will now also tell you that mixing politics into a discussion that has already wandered pretty far afield is completely inappropriate.
     
  6. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    Remember the research on the algorithm I am in valved in and yes Religion, art, Politics and Science and in volved in how we procive things. Adding the word scientific to the word theory doesen't make the word theory anymore proof it only make it sound like you are trying to convince someone and when some one try to convince me without any more or new data I beleive they may have inturpted the data wrong. The only indefensible postion is one that ignores data or shouts down oposition.

    And yes I would expect the discource we are having when you put a signature on your stuff for an org that does the same thing.
     
  7. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    I tried to add this line to my last post but it would not let me.

    A scientific theory is just a theory that is repeatedly tested but I say why do you repeatly test something?....because it looks like something is wrong.
     
  8. ej6267

    ej6267 Registered User

    50
    5
    8
    Forget it, brethren, it's the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action. 'Nuff said.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect


    Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
     
  9. jjjjjggggg

    jjjjjggggg Premium Member

    252
    155
    63
    But the Dunning-Kruger Effect is just a theory!!! :30:


    Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2014
  10. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    Just checking did you mean I was having the Dunning-Kruger effect? I don't have all the data in your mind to process this.
     
  11. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    No it was never put for as a theory but as fact so it did not go through the peir process as a theory. The Darwin theory of evolution has been tested but using only the data for Darwin's timefreme. In the last 60 years archaeologist have found evloution data that doesn't fit his theory because it has only one trunk based in Africa. There are now 3 known scelitons before the data used by Darwin that show other trees that don't point to the same evolution. I have never said I did not beleive in evolution but just how they start. If you look at the big picture you will see the probems in the data Darwin used.
     
  12. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    No it was never setforth as a theory. If you really look at Darwins theory there is data for other eveloutionary origins. there are 3 other archaeology sources for the tree other than Africa which is stated in his theory.
     
  13. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48

    I was trying to edit post #252 and change for to forth but it looked like #252 did not happen so I was starting over.
     
  14. jjjjjggggg

    jjjjjggggg Premium Member

    252
    155
    63
    I wasn't being serious... just making a joke.
     
  15. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    Sorry for the miss understanding
     
  16. Zaden

    Zaden Registered User

    95
    15
    18
    (emphasis added)

    This statement is flatly and demonstrably false. DNA was not even known in Darwin's day. Yet today we have consistently seen modern genomic research adding further evidence (and clarifying) the theory of evolution. Just one example: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/5/547.full
    Darwin only caught the tip of the iceberg by noticing and suggesting natural selection. The fact that the theory has been expanded upon doesn't make the theory wrong, nor does it make it just a hypothesis (which is closer in meaning to what you are calling "theory").
     
  17. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    You are still not looking at the big picture. There are many theorys of eveloution before and after Darwin. The question was do you beleive in "Darwins" theroy of eveloution. I did not say eveloution doesn't exist but that I did not beleive in Darwins theory and others have come back saying because it is a theory it is proven but that is untrue. The reasion the left wants everyone to think Darwins theory is the only one is it limits any other action except hapenstance. If more than hapenstance happened it stops the eveloution of ccommunism.
     
  18. Zaden

    Zaden Registered User

    95
    15
    18
    It is clear through this thread that every person who has argued with you over "theory" was discussing the currently agreed on (mainstream consensus) Theory of Evolution. The main people who even call it "Darwinian Evolution" are those who dispute macro-evolution as a whole. No one who discussed this with you was saying that the theory hasn't been expanded on, added to and corrected since Darwin wrote Origins. The initial question was poorly phrased, but the resulting discussion topic was clear. Especially all of the clarification and distinction regarding the definition of "Theory" in this context. Darwin's idea was more of a premise, the foundation of the theory that is still regularly supported by ongoing research (not because something "seems wrong" but to better understand everything from migratory patterns to genetic medicine as well as to better understand the "tree of life").

    And how any political system may or may not misuse a scientific theory has no bearing on whether or not said theory is correct.
     
  19. jvarnell

    jvarnell Premium Member

    754
    26
    48
    Am I going to have to give you the jedi wave and say look at the big picture to show you everything is connected and that there is no consensus. The word mainstream means only what the person saying means.
     
  20. widows son

    widows son Premium Member

    1,828
    18
    38
    I totally agree that Darwin just saw the tip of the iceberg. New DNA research has propelled our understanding of evolution as well as advancement in other sciences. Bro. Varnell I believe many here will agree that the big picture is not quite visible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you think to have a better understanding than those whose lives are dedicated to the topic at hand?


    Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
     

Share My Freemasonry