Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

[Aeelorty]

You would think more information was better than not. Archaeology is finding more things that don't fit the theories of today all the time. When these things are found what happens if the don't fit the prevailing theory? The science try's to fist discredit the evidence and if the evidence holds out they then discredit the one that found it. How scientific is that.

Finding evidence that contradicts the current theories is what every scientist hopes to find. Why do you think people we so excited about the faster than light neutrino speeds out of Italy a few years ago (it was a error in the experiment in the end)? When we find something that contradicts the current theories the first thing to do is make sure the new information is legitamate. That means that the evidence actually contradicts something already well supported and that the conclusions being drawn from it are accurate, that the data wasn't fabricated or manipulated in some way.

The science try's to fist discredit the evidence and if the evidence holds out they then discredit the one that found it. How scientific is that

This is exactly how scinece works, you try to falsify a hypothesis, make sure it is repeatable and that the conclusions being drawn fit the data. Often there are people who draw conclusions without enough evidence or biased on beleifs that are not scientific.

The reaction to your introduction was a scinetific one, it was discreditied because it lacked merit, which is appropriate because we are discussing a scientific idea. When an idea is introduced into science it is well known that the goal of others will be to discredit it, and if you have done your job correctly that will be hard for them to do. Its like building a wall for defense. You expect people tp try to knock it down and if you built it well then it should hold up for the time being untill someone comes up with a way to break though it. Then once that happens you take your experience and try to build another one untill that gets knocked down.

Now religion does not work on that principle. Can I come in and falsify your beliefs, especially ones that tell you to take them on faith alone? Most people will say no to that. That is why science and religion work differently, in science there is nothing sacred that is not open to questioning. How many churches focus on trying to disprove God so that they can say he might exist, not that he does exist as a matter of face, but that he might possibly exist?

 

[Aeelorty]

I find this comment on Climate change particularly relavent for this converstation

One of the report's authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford
University's Climate Research Network, has said that people should not look to
the IPCC for a “bible” on climate change.

Professor Allen, who admits “we need to look very carefully about what the
IPCC does in future”, said that he could not comment on the report as it was
still considered to be in its draft stages.

However, he added: “It is a complete fantasy to think that you can compile an
infallible or approximately infallible report, that is just not how science
works.

“It is not a bible, it is a scientific review, an assessment of the
literature. Frankly both sides are seriously confused on how science works - the
critics of the IPCC and the environmentalists who credit the IPCC as if it is
the gospel."

Scientist were constantly revising their research to account for new data, he
said.

 

[Aeelorty]

Here is an article about a guy who has no understanding of science, commenly called a quack.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...in+(Opposing+Views+-+Issues,+Experts,+Answers)

 

[jvarnell]

I am not going to defend the content or reject the content with out doing my own review. This is this guys theory and because of some facts about mammals he has come to this theory. Men can not have children without a woman, women have the most nurturing personality of the sexes. I don't come to the same conclusions he has but the information he used had him come to that theory. I am not going to cut him down or try to disprove his theory I am going to make sure my theory has more facts and evidence than his and they can compete at the same level of human consciousness. This is how pier review happens not to have a hypothesis to disprove, but have a new hypothesis to prove something in this way you want your theory to be reported. You can build on their research and even use it to prove your point. If you disprove part of there theory you disprove everything and can not use any part of there research. Bro. Aeelorty you have just pointed out the point I have been talking about.

 

[Aeelorty]

If you disprove part of a theory it doesn't disprove the whole thing. You don't prove anything you only support it and support is gained from being unable to falsify something using tests or observations.

 

[jvarnell]

If someone says "I believe Darwin theory of evolution is wrong" and then quote him in your theory we don't understand if the part you used of his work is better than what you did not use. If you just say "I have a theory that is deferent than Darwin's theory but uses some of his data" it will show you have a understanding of his conclusion but have a deferent one.

 

[Aeelorty]

Your wording is bit confusing. Are you saying that people can use the same data to support differing arguments? I agree with that. What is your theory exactly because I would hate to be arguing over and agreement.

 

[Benjamin Baxter]

I become a freemason to get rich because i don't want to work. I also want a girlfriend so i hope there are benefits. I like to also add that all masons should get a free car for joining.

Freemason Connect HD

I hate to tell you joined for the wrong reasons sir. You must be disappointed or did you get all these things. This is not what freemasonry about at all.

Freemason Connect HD

 

[BryanMaloney]

I believe every statement I made was to invoke though and I have found out very quickly how people think that an induction and offence is really a defense of the theory they back. I think to really gain knowledge we can not divide what has been called myth and science here. they do mix. What was myth 20 years a go is being found to be fact today. Like the town of Jericho. At fist it was said to not be a town at all. Now they have found it with the walls down and as the are allowed to excavated. We can never know it the account in the bible happened but it is written history. In the Darwin story we have archaeology without any written account. You would think more information was better than not. Archaeology is finding more things that don't fit the theories of today all the time. When these things are found what happens if the don't fit the prevailing theory? The science try's to fist discredit the evidence and if the evidence holds out they then discredit the one that found it. How scientific is that.

Have you ever actually met a scientist? What research have you done? Where are your publications? What is your field? The first and most sensible thing to do when finding apparently anomalous data is to question the data--that is always the most sensible thing to do, because it is the height of self-serving arrogance to think "My data collection methods are infallible". Infallibility is a dogmatic's approach, not a scientist's. Then, if the methods are still strong, you have to see if it fits in a conservative manner. Destroying every model merely from one piece of data is also extremely arrogant and smacks of the sin of pride. If it doesn't, and you cannot come up with a model that fits the data as well as the old model, you wait until more data arrives. Simply saying "We can't explain it, we must all become literal Biblical creationists" is extremely prideful and sinful. It is the height of arrogance and pride. If enough information amasses that a better model can be actually built, then it is built.

 

[BryanMaloney]

I am not going to defend the content or reject the content with out doing my own review. This is this guys theory and because of some facts about mammals he has come to this theory. Men can not have children without a woman, women have the most nurturing personality of the sexes. I don't come to the same conclusions he has but the information he used had him come to that theory. I am not going to cut him down or try to disprove his theory I am going to make sure my theory has more facts and evidence than his and they can compete at the same level of human consciousness. This is how pier review happens not to have a hypothesis to disprove, but have a new hypothesis to prove something in this way you want your theory to be reported. You can build on their research and even use it to prove your point. If you disprove part of there theory you disprove everything and can not use any part of there research. Bro. Aeelorty you have just pointed out the point I have been talking about.

What actual, real, professionally-published peer-reviewed papers have you authored? Really? I'd like to see a publication list if you are going to lecture on how "pier review" [sic] actually works. Here are some of mine: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Lrix8rUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

Since you see fit to lecture on "pier review" [sic], I eagerly await seeing some of your peer-reviewed publications.

 

[jvarnell]

At this point I see this discussion turning in to a, My thoughts are better than yours. I am not in academia and don't take theory as fact. I weigh all of my observations equal with theory and do not draw a line in the sand saying something is science or Myth. All my real world review is of actual data that I know how it was recorded in the electric power industry so there is no theory involved. But if I come up with future processes to enhance the way the electric grid operates which I guess is then a short term theory I always have human experiences (you call dogma) built in. This is why views/theories out comes are better than my counterparts. I know there is no so-called science in the human behaviour or in myth but you will see there is a pattern in everything that can be calculated.

I know how per-review works that is why the un global warming report show there is man made global warming and that is because the scientist that shouted down their per's and tried to discredit them because they did not see the data the same way.

Like I stated out Darwinism is "Just a theory" so just keep telling me you are right and I am wrong and I don't care. I have a new theory I will call it the Bully theory. The theory is when a person that is an academic tells me I don't understand because I deal with known values. Also I can't disbelieve his theory even after I have reviewed his data and said something is missing.

 

[Aeelorty]

At this point I see this discussion turning in to a, My thoughts are better than yours. I am not in academia and don't take theory as fact. I weigh all of my observations equal with theory and do not draw a line in the sand saying something is science or Myth. All my real world review is of actual data that I know how it was recorded in the electric power industry so there is no theory involved. But if I come up with future processes to enhance the way the electric grid operates which I guess is then a short term theory I always have human experiences (you call dogma) built in. This is why views/theories out comes are better than my counterparts. I know there is no so-called science in the human behaviour or in myth but you will see there is a pattern in everything that can be calculated.

I know how per-review works that is why the un global warming report show there is man made global warming and that is because the scientist that shouted down their per's and tried to discredit them because they did not see the data the same way.

Like I stated out Darwinism is "Just a theory" so just keep telling me you are right and I am wrong and I don't care. I have a new theory I will call it the Bully theory. The theory is when a person that is an academic tells me I don't understand because I deal with known values. Also I can't disbelieve his theory even after I have reviewed his data and said something is missing.

The issue is that the theory you purpose and others as well is not scientific, which led to the need to define science and how appealing to the Divine removes a theory from science. Quod erat demonstrandum.

It's alright to purpose a new Theory but that theory will be attacked because all scientific theories are attacked by definition of the scientific method. You haven't really provided evidence of your theory beyond it is your belief, which is not scientific evidence. This is why I said science and religion don't mix because they do not accept the same kinds of evidence. I am not sing that one is better than the other only that they are different.

 

[dfreybur]

I find this comment on Climate change particularly relavent for this converstation

The science of evolution has evolved to include DNA genetics and genetic engineering. While there are a lot of points remaining to be filled in the parts that are filled in work to better precision than we can currently measure. All science comes with error bars. The error bars on the mechanisms of genetic engineering are tiny. If a scientist disagrees with a known mechanism of genetic engineering he's not going against the consensus. He's incorrect.

The science of climatology went in my lifetime from predicting a new ice age to predicting extended warming. All science comes with error bars. The error bars that bracket climatology are large enough that a consensus among scientists is in use. If a scientist disagrees with the consensus in climatology, he's going against the best conclusions of most of the experts in the field.

Climatology made for a good comparison with evolution before inheritance through DNA was worked out. Since then they do not make good comparisons. The error bars are very different. Both have huge gaps missing in their material. Don't let that confuse you when it comes to the level of experimental match of the details of the parts that are known.

 

[Aeelorty]

The science of evolution has evolved to include DNA genetics and genetic engineering. While there are a lot of points remaining to be filled in the parts that are filled in work to better precision than we can currently measure. All science comes with error bars. The error bars on the mechanisms of genetic engineering are tiny. If a scientist disagrees with a known mechanism of genetic engineering he's not going against the consensus. He's incorrect.

The science of climatology went in my lifetime from predicting a new ice age to predicting extended warming. All science comes with error bars. The error bars that bracket climatology are large enough that a consensus among scientists is in use. If a scientist disagrees with the consensus in climatology, he's going against the best conclusions of most of the experts in the field.

Climatology made for a good comparison with evolution before inheritance through DNA was worked out. Since then they do not make good comparisons. The error bars are very different. Both have huge gaps missing in their material. Don't let that confuse you when it comes to the level of experimental match of the details of the parts that are known.

I meant the part about how people do not understand science, which is why I jumped into this conversation. Polls show that nearly 70% of Americans do not clearly understand science, which is alarming to me.

 

[coachn]

I meant the part about how people do not understand science, which is why I jumped into this conversation. Polls show that nearly 70% of Americans do not clearly understand science, which is alarming to me.

What's even more disturbing is 80% of Americans do not clearly understand polls and the remaining 20% have been known to fabricate statistics in the moment!

 

[BryanMaloney]

At this point I see this discussion turning in to a, My thoughts are better than yours.

You have seen fit to lecture everyone on how "pier review" [sic] works. I have undergone peer review for years and have the publications to prove it. Since you have seen fit to lecture ME on how MY field does things, I want to see evidence that you have actually EVER BEEN THROUGH IT. Otherwise, it's as silly as an American who once saw someone speaking Chinese lecture everyone on how speaking Chinese really works. So, since you are fit to lecture us all on how science is actually done and keep pulling out your "background" as proof of your competence, put your cards on the table.

All my real world review is of actual data that I know how it was recorded in the electric power industry so there is no theory involved.

Really, no theory at all is involved in electrical power???? I'll talk to some physicists and see if there is no theory at all involved in electrical power.

I know how per-review works that is why the un global warming report show there is man made global warming and that is because the scientist that shouted down their per's and tried to discredit them because they did not see the data the same way.

Have you ever actually even met a scientist? This is exactly the opposite of how science works. If I can find something that goes completely counter the current paradigm and can back it up, I would be a science golden boy, it's Nobel Prize time for me. Science is not like religion. It is NOT about just re-enforcing the current paradigm. Whoever says it is must be either utterly ignorant of science or a flat-out liar. Again, where are your peer-reviewed publications, since you see fit to lecture the world on what the process is or how it actually works?

Like I stated out Darwinism is "Just a theory" so just keep telling me you are right and I am wrong and I don't care. I have a new theory I will call it the Bully theory. The theory is when a person that is an academic tells me I don't understand because I deal with known values. Also I can't disbelieve his theory even after I have reviewed his data and said something is missing.

Ah, yes, now you're going to go sulk because someone is wanting some intellectual honesty and rigor. If someone started lecturing the world on how "medicine really works", would you just blindly and foolishly take every word that person says or want something to back it up? Likewise, dismissing something merely because the word "theory" is attached to it is superstition. If it were called the "Law of Evolution" it would be no more or less true or false. If the Holy Trinity were called the "theory of the Holy Trinity" or there was a "theory of Atonement and Salvation", these would not magically become any less true for being called "theory".

Quote SPECIFICALLY wherein I stated that "dealing with known values" means that someone cannot understand. Reply to what I write.

If you are going to see fit to lecture the world on how science really works, so to speak, then it behooves you to show that you actually do work as a scientist.

 

[BryanMaloney]

What's even more disturbing is 80% of Americans do not clearly understand polls and the remaining 20% have been known to fabricate statistics in the moment!

There is a 27.358889% margin of error on these numbers.

 

[jvarnell]

You have seen fit to lecture everyone on how "pier review" [sic] works. I have undergone peer review for years and have the publications to prove it. Since you have seen fit to lecture ME on how MY field does things, I want to see evidence that you have actually EVER BEEN THROUGH IT. Otherwise, it's as silly as an American who once saw someone speaking Chinese lecture everyone on how speaking Chinese really works. So, since you are fit to lecture us all on how science is actually done and keep pulling out your "background" as proof of your competence, put your cards on the table.

Really, no theory at all is involved in electrical power???? I'll talk to some physicists and see if there is no theory at all involved in electrical power.



Have you ever actually even met a scientist? This is exactly the opposite of how science works. If I can find something that goes completely counter the current paradigm and can back it up, I would be a science golden boy, it's Nobel Prize time for me. Science is not like religion. It is NOT about just re-enforcing the current paradigm. Whoever says it is must be either utterly ignorant of science or a flat-out liar. Again, where are your peer-reviewed publications, since you see fit to lecture the world on what the process is or how it actually works?



Ah, yes, now you're going to go sulk because someone is wanting some intellectual honesty and rigor. If someone started lecturing the world on how "medicine really works", would you just blindly and foolishly take every word that person says or want something to back it up? Likewise, dismissing something merely because the word "theory" is attached to it is superstition. If it were called the "Law of Evolution" it would be no more or less true or false. If the Holy Trinity were called the "theory of the Holy Trinity" or there was a "theory of Atonement and Salvation", these would not magically become any less true for being called "theory".

Quote SPECIFICALLY wherein I stated that "dealing with known values" means that someone cannot understand. Reply to what I write.

If you are going to see fit to lecture the world on how science really works, so to speak, then it behooves you to show that you actually do work as a scientist.

Where I am at, at this time is to say to you is "What ever". I work and am not able read or answer this thread sometime for many day I am not going and sulking. What makes a man a scientist, engineer or artist is ambiguous. I can see you don't understand anything I am saying and you just attack my oppinion and I am going to not respond to this any more.

 

[dfreybur]

I meant the part about how people do not understand science, which is why I jumped into this conversation. Polls show that nearly 70% of Americans do not clearly understand science, which is alarming to me.

Very alarming. There are people who treat science like a religion. There are people who put religion and science in opposition. It's terrible.

 

[coachn]

there is a 27.358889% margin of error on these numbers.

lol!