Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

[BryanMaloney]

You're arguing Quantity over Quality.

I was using "decimal points" in a metaphorical sense. Whether one talks about "quantity" or "quality" is often a matter of perspective. Quality: Autism vs. Alzheimer's. Quantity: Timing and amount of dysfunction of the amyloid beta precursor protein processing machinery. These could actually turn out to be the same issue, just viewed from different "ends".

 

[Mathew1333]

^^ Which is why I bring up scale relationships. Every thing in science can be understood/ misunderstood through scales. To a human, a grain of sand is hardly worth observing. To an ant, its the cornerstone to a home. The closer one observes another depends on the accuracy of the resulting theory. ie: a football game to unscrupulous is just a bunch of guys running after a ball. To an NFL commentator, it is a predictable work if science

Sent from my XT907 using Freemason Connect HD mobile app

 

[Aeelorty]

Which is why I bring up scale relationships. Everything in science can be understood/ misunderstood through scales. To a human, a grain of sand is hardly worth observing. To an ant, its the cornerstone to a home. The closer one observes another depends on the accuracy of the resulting theory. ie: a football game to unscrupulous is just a bunch of guys running after a ball. To an NFL commentator, it is a predictable work if science

Except there are scientist who do look at all levels from subatomic particles to the observable universe. Error and scaling is different. Error is about how accurate measurements are while scale is about size. Errors can be introduced by systematic and technical faults, the degree to what something is measured (using cm or mm or Pico meters etc.). Scale the way you're using it sounds more like level of detail, comparing a cell to the whole organism. Depending on the field looking at sand may be very important, take fracking for example. The football example plays more towards personal preference and desire to study a phenomenon.

 

[jvarnell]

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.

No the only "Lack of understanding" is you don't believe my theory of what a theory is. Why I say "only a theory" because everything is just theory to me until it is proven to a 100% or have faith the un proven part is true. This is where some scientist have a problem where if there theory is widely except it is fact until disproved and what they should be saying is that it stands until another theory is widely excepted. I only have to prove my theory not disprove your theory. As humans we are not omnipotent. I understand science but I am whole brain and also understand art. I also don't try to tell someone they don't understand without knowing what is in there thoughts.

As to Darwin all the reasons for branching are not proven except that the GAOTU touched things at that time of branch.

 

[coachn]

Aren't Theories merely "Approximating Models" that make effort to both explain and work with things in a more knowledgeable and predictable way?

 

[Mathew1333]

Aren't Theories merely "Approximating Models" that make effort to both explain and work with things in a more knowledgeable and predictable way?

True, but all theories embed facts. And I hope that we could, at very least, all agree on those.

Sent from my XT907 using Freemason Connect HD mobile app

 

[BryanMaloney]

No the only "Lack of understanding" is you don't believe my theory of what a theory is. Why I say "only a theory" because everything is just theory to me until it is proven to a 100% or have faith the un proven part is true. This is where some scientist have a problem where if there theory is widely except it is fact until disproved and what they should be saying is that it stands until another theory is widely excepted. I only have to prove my theory not disprove your theory. As humans we are not omnipotent. I understand science but I am whole brain and also understand art. I also don't try to tell someone they don't understand without knowing what is in there thoughts.

As to Darwin all the reasons for branching are not proven except that the GAOTU touched things at that time of branch.

I understand completely what you mean, it is also not what "theory" means when used by science. Thus, dismissing something merely because it is called "theory" is superstition. "Theory of gravity", "germ theory of disease", etc. You're starting to sound like Humpty Dumpty from the Alice books.

 

[BryanMaloney]

Except there are scientist who do look at all levels from subatomic particles to the observable universe. Error and scaling is different. Error is about how accurate measurements are while scale is about size. Errors can be introduced by systematic and technical faults, the degree to what something is measured (using cm or mm or Pico meters etc.). Scale the way you're using it sounds more like level of detail, comparing a cell to the whole organism. Depending on the field looking at sand may be very important, take fracking for example. The football example plays more towards personal preference and desire to study a phenomenon.

Actually, error is not about accuracy, either. Error could be about precision. A measurement can have a very low error and still be quite inaccurate--but it is very repeatable. Error could also be a measurement, itself, if innate variation. If you measure the heights of 1000 men, you can calculate the error of that measurement. Even if your individual measurements are Platonically perfect, you would still have an error for that measurement. This is because the error reflects deviation from the mean, which might or might not be due to inaccuracy.

Not all subjects should be treated like protons, identical and interchangeable.

 

[coachn]

Are all Protons Identical? Could our precision not reveal differences?

 

[jvarnell]

Aren't Theories merely "Approximating Models" that make effort to both explain and work with things in a more knowledgeable and predictable way?

Yes exactly

 

[jvarnell]

I understand completely what you mean, it is also not what "theory" means when used by science. Thus, dismissing something merely because it is called "theory" is superstition. "Theory of gravity", "germ theory of disease", etc. You're starting to sound like Humpty Dumpty from the Alice books.

What ever....Lets look at the "Theory of gravity" When Isaac Newton Proposed his theory it was deemed right and good. But it was lacking information that was expanded on by Einstin. So Einstin modified that theroy by introducing more information about space and other bodies with mass. No Humpty there it happen when we think. It is when we as humans think we know everything and try's to make others believe the way they do we get groups like the cult of Darwin even though we know things like there is a missing line in the tree in many places.

 

[jvarnell]

And yes I do like this conversion a lot it pushes me to grow. But the way I grow is by trying to prove my thoughts out and not trying to disprove others.

 

[Aeelorty]

No the only "Lack of understanding" is you don't believe my theory of what a theory is. Why I say "only a theory" because everything is just theory to me until it is proven to a 100% or have faith the un proven part is true. This is where some scientist have a problem where if there theory is widely except it is fact until disproved and what they should be saying is that it stands until another theory is widely excepted. I only have to prove my theory not disprove your theory. As humans we are not omnipotent. I understand science but I am whole brain and also understand art. I also don't try to tell someone they don't understand without knowing what is in there thoughts.

The scientific method can never prove anything. This is because the scientific method is about falsifying a hypothesis. You test it oen to see if it is false, if it is not and you have enough support from other experiments you can say that you have a theory. The method is why science does not produced facts or truths etc. Science does not produce proof or proofs, that is something that exist in mathamatics, science produces support for an idea, but that support is indirect. It can be thought of like outlining a shape, we don't touch it but by eliminating the surrounding space we produce a something that outlines the shape or so we think.

The fundamental quality of the scientific method is that it seeks to falsify a hypthesis.

[cult of Darwin/QUOTE]

Current evolutionary theory is well supported, there are gaps in certain parts but compared to the overall support the theory has, it is well vetted. What specific things do you beleive are missing? Or a better question yet is to ask what is your full knowledge on current theories? How much have you really looked into them? It really is a vast field. I am just trying to understand how much knowledge you have on the topic to get a better picture of where you are coming from.

 

[coachn]

Aren't Theories merely "Approximating Models" that make effort to both explain and work with things in a more knowledgeable and predictable way?

Yes exactly

So, stating that it's "just a theory" does affirm that the person stating this does realize that theories are approximating models of reality that are used by some to deal with reality in more knowledgeable and predictable ways?

 

[jvarnell]

The scientific method can never prove anything. This is because the scientific method is about falsifying a hypothesis. You test it oen to see if it is false, if it is not and you have enough support from other experiments you can say that you have a theory. The method is why science does not produced facts or truths etc. Science does not produce proof or proofs, that is something that exist in mathamatics, science produces support for an idea, but that support is indirect. It can be thought of like outlining a shape, we don't touch it but by eliminating the surrounding space we produce a something that outlines the shape or so we think.

The fundamental quality of the scientific method is that it seeks to falsify a hypthesis.

[cult of Darwin/QUOTE]

Current evolutionary theory is well supported, there are gaps in certain parts but compared to the overall support the theory has, it is well vetted. What specific things do you beleive are missing? Or a better question yet is to ask what is your full knowledge on current theories? How much have you really looked into them? It really is a vast field. I am just trying to understand how much knowledge you have on the topic to get a better picture of where you are coming from.

Yes just think about the all the points along the line where there is a fork? What caused it to fork and not just evolve?

 

[Aeelorty]

There are lots of forks we know about through the fossil record and genetics. The goths are a result of evolution where the differences became too divergent for reproduction between the two species and then more accumulating changes occurred. Changes in genetics they provided an advantage are what causes the changes and thus forks in the evolutionary tree

 

[jvarnell]

So, stating that it's "just a theory" does affirm that the person stating this does realize that theories are approximating models of reality that are used by some to deal with reality in more knowledgeable and predictable ways?

I have a lot of things in my head that are just theories that when I model them have some verables that can not be disputed. But missing or wrongly modeled thoughts are still a theory if there are more than one that believes that. Think of how many theory's have been out there explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs. Now most but not all think it was the asteroid that hit the Yucatan. They all have some of the same data some more some less. All theories and in my mind all "Just a theory". At this time I believe the asteroid theory. But if someone comes up with a theory that has more data that it is based on and goes through the process I may change my belief.

 

[coachn]

So, stating that it's "just a theory" does affirm that the person stating this does realize that theories are approximating models of reality that are used by some to deal with reality in more knowledgeable and predictable ways?

I have a lot of things in my head that are just theories that when I model them have some verables that can not be disputed. But missing or wrongly modeled thoughts are still a theory if there are more than one that believes that. Think of how many theory's have been out there explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs. Now most but not all think it was the asteroid that hit the Yucatan. They all have some of the same data some more some less. All theories and in my mind all "Just a theory". At this time I believe the asteroid theory. But if someone comes up with a theory that has more data that it is based on and goes through the process I may change my belief.

So, we can strike out the part about them being used to deal with reality in more knowledgeable and predictable ways?

 

[jvarnell]

There are lots of forks we know about through the fossil record and genetics. The goths are a result of evolution where the differences became too divergent for reproduction between the two species and then more accumulating changes occurred. Changes in genetics they provided an advantage are what causes the changes and thus forks in the evolutionary tree

How did the genetics change? There is no data that I know of that can answer that question. There is fossil record before a fork there is fossil record in the same line as before. There is a record of what looks like a fork but why did the genetics change drastic enough to cause a fork or why did fork side one not evolve in the same manner as fork side two. The theory I have is divine intervention and I know there are others that like this theory as much as I do. But it is just a theory that I believe in as much as others don't.

 

[jvarnell]

So, we can strike out the part about them being used to deal with reality in more knowledgeable and predictable ways?

No we can strike out the word "more". More or less is supposition.