Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

[Aeelorty]

Haha pretty much. Scientist talk in degrees of probability. Don't believe me? Think about orbitals around an atom. There is not finite set of space where the atom must be, there are are just differing levels of likelihood where an electron will be. It could well be over a mile away but there is a very very low probability for that condition.

We live in a world of possibilities brethren = )

 

[Mathew1333]

No such thing as evolution. However, adaptation is an undeniable fact. I believe adaptation and scale relationship is key to understanding "evolution" Darwin WAS correct.

Freemason Connect HD

 

[coachn]

No such thing as evolution. However, adaptation is an undeniable fact. I believe adaptation and scale relationship is key to understanding "evolution" Darwin WAS correct.

Freemason Connect HD

No such thing as evolution? Yet, you state that "adaption and scale relationship is key to understanding" no such thing? Most Interesting!

 

[BryanMaloney]

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."

How many decimal points over do you want to round off? What is the criterion for rounding?

If you want absolute certainty, go find a cult leader. He will feed you all the certainty you want.

In some labs, it matters whether or not we deal with Penicillium veridians or Penicillium restrictans. Outside the lab, it's generally good enough to have "mold on the corn". It all depends on where you round the decimals, so to speak, and there is no universally valid standard for rounding the decimals.

Welcome to a world without training wheels.

 

[BryanMaloney]

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

In practice, among scientist, "laws" are actually rules of thumb or procedures that exist within and subsidiary to a theory or model.

There is no "law of gravity". There are several "laws of gravitational attraction" that actually boil down to equations.

 

[coachn]

How many decimal points over do you want to round off? What is the criterion for rounding?

If you want absolute certainty, go find a cult leader. He will feed you all the certainty you want.

In some labs, it matters whether or not we deal with Penicillium veridians or Penicillium restrictans. Outside the lab, it's generally good enough to have "mold on the corn". It all depends on where you round the decimals, so to speak, and there is no universally valid standard for rounding the decimals.

Welcome to a world without training wheels.

You're arguing Quantity over Quality. It's not too scientific to use half one's brain*. One doesn't require training wheels to know how to balance, once one has learned how to balance. How many decimal points are required? None! once one realizes precision and accuracy are two ENTIRELY different creatures. The former shall lead you to superfluity and vice when not subdued by wisdom. The latter tells you how close you are to your aims. Woe to those who know no difference.

In practice, among scientist, "laws" are actually rules of thumb or procedures that exist within and subsidiary to a theory or model.

There is no "law of gravity". There are several "laws of gravitational attraction" that actually boil down to equations.

Of which govern you with prejudice no matter how many times you may attempt to break them.

* No. This is not directed at you my Brother.

 

[Mathew1333]

No such thing as evolution? Yet, you state that "adaption and scale relationship is key to understanding" no such thing? Most Interesting!

Just pointing out that Darwinism isn't necessarily evolution. Adaptation isn't normally contested, which I like to use as a form of synthesis with such a controversial topic. Scale relationships are key in bridging the gap between the divine aspect of human creation, and the scientific side of evolution.

 

[Aeelorty]

Just pointing out that Darwinism isn't necessarily evolution. Adaptation isn't normally contested, which I like to use as a form of synthesis with such a controversial topic. Scale relationships are key in bridging the gap between the divine aspect of human creation, and the scientific side of evolution.

What do you mean by scale relationships? Science are religion are two different ways of gaining knowledge about the world and they do not mix nor are they intended to. The scientific method is designed specifically to avoid the preternatural.

Adaptation comes in a variety of forms, which specific kind are you talking about and how are you applying it?

once one realizes precision and accuracy are two ENTIRELY different creatures. The former shall lead you to superfluity and vice when not subdued by wisdom. The latter tells you how close you are to your aims. Woe to those who know no difference.

Precision in the scientific sense refers to how your results group together, whether they are close together or far apart. Accuracy refers to how close to the "truth" or "reality" a result is, ie how close to the bulls-eye you are. Both are important, accuracy with out precision is not very helpful and precision with out accuracy isn't either.

I am not entirely sure, Brother, what your stance is here, are you saying that science produces indisputable truths?

 

[Aeelorty]

Here is an essay that might be helpful, it compares mathematics, which does have facts and proofs, to science.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

 

[coachn]

...Precision in the scientific sense refers to how your results group together, whether they are close together or far apart. Accuracy refers to how close to the "truth" or "reality" a result is, ie how close to the bulls-eye you are. Both are important, accuracy with out precision is not very helpful and precision with out accuracy isn't either.

Precision in a scientific sense does not have to do with grouping together. It has to do with how you express a result.

...I am not entirely sure, Brother, what your stance is here, are you saying that science produces indisputable truths?

What I'm saying is science does not produce truth. It reveals models that explain. It is still up to the person reviewing such revelations to find their own truth.

 

[Mathew1333]

What do you mean by scale relationships? Science are religion are two different ways of gaining knowledge about the world and they do not mix nor are they intended to. The scientific method is designed specifically to avoid the preternatural.

Adaptation comes in a variety of forms, which specific kind are you talking about and how are you applying it?



Precision in the scientific sense refers to how your results group together, whether they are close together or far apart. Accuracy refers to how close to the "truth" or "reality" a result is, ie how close to the bulls-eye you are. Both are important, accuracy with out precision is not very helpful and precision with out accuracy isn't either.

I am not entirely sure, Brother, what your stance is here, are you saying that science produces indisputable truths?

Regarding science and religion not mixing like oil and water; I'll have to disagree. In fact, I think they're complementary. More like a magnet. Polar opposites, but part of the same entity. The reason I bring up scale relations is the same. To understand the macrocosm one must understand the microcosm. But the mathematics we use go in two separate directions. And its clearly obvious that large scale objects are made up of microscopic particles. And regarding adaptation, I accept Darwinism as a template for long-term adaptation. Modern evolution, however, equates us to tadpoles, and I think were well past that point.

 

[Aeelorty]

Glad we agree on that last point coach : )

Matthew if you are saying that science and religion are both ways to view the world and gain knowledge then I agree with that. The methods each uses are different and don't work In the other system however. Each had its advantage and weaknesses.


Modern evolution does not equate humans with tadpoles, unless you are referring to the idea that humans stay in adolescent stages longer than other species which is true. If you are referring instead to the idea that we share ancestors with different species that is also well supported in a variety of ways such as genetics and fossil records.

 

[coachn]

Religion seeks to convey truths about humanity and things that are transcendent to this reality; Science seeks to reveal models of the internal and external world. They both have their uses, and also are misused and abused when the people applying them make effort to do anything more than these.

 

[jvarnell]

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.

These were quotes from the internet and with that I would like to just say...............ah Bonjour...........Lol

Theory = SWAG

I always have a theory then come up with a hypothesis to try to prove it or test it. Darwinian evolution to me is still a theory with one hypothesis ... conclusion that doesn't prove anything except that another hypothesis is needed to come up with a conclusion that really show proof. Then and only then will I say it is not a theory.

 

[Mathew1333]

Glad we agree on that last point coach : )

Matthew if you are saying that science and religion are both ways to view the world and gain knowledge then I agree with that. The methods each uses are different and don't work In the other system however. Each had its advantage and weaknesses.


Modern evolution does not equate humans with tadpoles, unless you are referring to the idea that humans stay in adolescent stages longer than other species which is true. If you are referring instead to the idea that we share ancestors with different species that is also well supported in a variety of ways such as genetics and fossil records.

Thanks, I'll have to reform my opinion on evolution. And agree that science and religion are different studies, my point being they are part of one body; truth. For example, the Swartzchild proton scaling law for organized matter of mass in the universe.

 

[Aeelorty]

There are many hypotheses in evolutionary theory. My favorite is about the origins of birds to dinosaurs, to a specific group of raptors. It was predicted that medullary bone would show up when a Dino was pregnant wick is the case for birds. This type of bone was found in a pregnant t rex. whole school s of Thor have developed around evolution including evolutionary psychology.

 

[dfreybur]

Haha pretty much. Scientist talk in degrees of probability. Don't believe me? Think about orbitals around an atom.

Heisenberg Uncertainty principle - The energy of observation effects the state of the observed thus limiting knowledge of objects on very small scales. According to the principle an object can be so large that the uncertainty in its position is small compared to the size of an atom. The size it takes for that is rather smaller than a baseball. The smaller an object is the more random it's movement and position start to appear. The Brownian motion of microscopic objects has a different cause and is much larger in scale but follows the same general principle.

There's far more to probability than the one described by those. The orbits of planets and moons is described statistically. The orbits have a described path plus an uncertainty around that described path. Distant objects have a lot of uncertainty in their known positions. When the Voyager probes passed Saturn I remember a point when it turned out Voyager 2 was headed for the center of Titan because the amount of uncertainty in it's position was several times its diameter. A very hairy day was spent calculating corrections, transmitting burn orders, gathering feedback on the result. The good quality data on the exact position of Titan reduced its uncertainty considerably that day - Titan is big enough for Heisenberg to be tiny compared to an atomic nucleus but it's very far away so it's hard to measure exactly.

 

[coachn]

This has been a fun and challenging thread. Thanks to all who contributed, so far! ;-)

 

[BryanMaloney]

These were quotes from the internet and with that I would like to just say...............ah Bonjour...........Lol

Theory = SWAG

I always have a theory then come up with a hypothesis to try to prove it or test it. Darwinian evolution to me is still a theory with one hypothesis ... conclusion that doesn't prove anything except that another hypothesis is needed to come up with a conclusion that really show proof. Then and only then will I say it is not a theory.

In science, there is, ultimately, only theory. The "germ theory of disease", for example. Saying that something is "only a theory" or dismissing something because it is called a "theory" only proves complete lack of understanding of science.

 

[BryanMaloney]

Regarding science and religion not mixing like oil and water; I'll have to disagree. In fact, I think they're complementary. More like a magnet. Polar opposites, but part of the same entity. The reason I bring up scale relations is the same. To understand the macrocosm one must understand the microcosm. But the mathematics we use go in two separate directions. And its clearly obvious that large scale objects are made up of microscopic particles. And regarding adaptation, I accept Darwinism as a template for long-term adaptation. Modern evolution, however, equates us to tadpoles, and I think were well past that point.

Evolution only "equates us with tadpoles" if you accept the belief that science is supposed to supply moral guidance--that is, if you are a totalitarian who cannot accept that one is to use the right tool for the right job. No biology, psychology, sociology, chemistry, physics, political science, etc. can tell us what we ought to do, only how things have happened to have happened. What we ought to do has to be answered with different tools. If ones moral tool is based merely on the premise that humans are ontologically different than other animals, then ones moral tool is simply a very lousy moral tool. One might as well base morality upon race if one is going to base it on species.

That being said, one needn't go full PETA, either. After all, I may share several traits with a chimp, including far-off ancestors, but I'm obviously still not a chimp.