Newsweek: Dumb things American's believe

[Skybird]

I think he meant it sarcastic, razark.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I think he meant it sarcastic, razark.

I certainly hope so. However, I've run into enough people out there that believe that makes a convincing argument...

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I think he meant it sarcastic, razark.

Bullseye

[razark]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Bullseye

I apologize for my reaction, then.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by tater

Also, while Dawin's theory (natural selection) is a mechanism up for debate (there are a few minor variants out there), the FACT of evolution is different. Evolution is the OBSERVED change in species over time. It is fact (unless you have dinosaurs, etc running around in your yard).

I disagree, but only mildly, and admit that my background in science is sketchy, to put it mildly. What I believe is that the concept of THEORY admits to the possibility that said theory may be flawed, or even wrong. I've seen people reply to the challenge "Evolution is only a theory" with "So is gravity." Gravity, like electricity, is an observed phenomenon, and is so well understood that we can use it. That said, its actual nature - why it is the way it is - is still the subject of much debate, hence the Theory part.

So evolution is an observed phenomenon, but one with missing parts. Lest someone think I'm even remotely dismissing it, I say that while it is "only" theory, it is the best one going.

But all that is my roundabout way of getting to this: There may be scientists in the field who change the shape of that theory tomorrow, and scientests who subscribe to it will say something along the lines of "Well, back to square one."

But the problem is that people who challenge evolution don't do so because they have another theory. They do so because they have a preconcieved idea that becomes unworkable should evolution be accepted. If new evidence turns up tomorrow in support of evolution, their response won't be to say "Well, maybe we'd better rethink this." Their response will be to challenge the new evidence any way they can, because the idea that it might be true would destroy their most cherished beliefs.

Their problem is that they think everybody on the "opposite" side thinks exactly the same way, and most scientists don't think that way at all.

[razark]

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

The fact: Populations change over time. This has been observed in the wild, as well as under laboratory conditions.

The theory: Populations change over time due to selection, either by natural means, or by conditions imposed by humans.

The fact of evolution is what is observed. The theory is the model built to explain why the fact is observed. As more facts are observed, the theory is modified to account for the facts.

The same with gravity. The fact of gravity, I drop something, it falls down. The theory of gravity explains why it happens. The theory may be wrong, but it is the best explanation for the observed facts.

[Sailor Steve]

Thank you, razark. The expands my understanding trememdously. I thought it was along those lines, but didn't really know enough to articulate it properly.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I've seen people reply to the challenge "Evolution is only a theory" with "So is gravity." Gravity, like electricity, is an observed phenomenon, and is so well understood that we can use it.

Humans have used evolution as well. Different breeds of dogs, cows, wheat, corn, and any other kind of livestock or crop. That's human imposed selection, as opposed to natural selection. Even before it was understood, humans were using it to shape their world.

[Safe-Keeper]

The ToE is the cornerstone of modern biology, much the same way we couldn't have the modern space industry without the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun. Evolution is not only observable, it's vital to so many fields it's not funny.

Skybird:

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by razark

I apologize for my reaction, then.

It helps to use these:
When being sarcastic.

To go back to what I posted on the last page, you nailed it right on the head...

Originally Posted by razark

The fact: Populations change over time. This has been observed in the wild, as well as under laboratory conditions.

^This is a "Scientific Law". This is the HOW of science.

The theory: Populations change over time due to selection, either by natural means, or by conditions imposed by humans.

^This is a "Scientific Theory". This is the WHY of science.

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm a Catholic myself but I resent how the church taught that the sun was revolving around the earth.

Simply because there's no biblical basis for that. I actually asked others in a Christian forum where did those priests get the idea and the verses they came out with were really needed to be twisted and stretched far to fit in that it was either an obvious lie or a severe case of stupidity. God helps us on either!
Of course the people who gave the verses stood up for the church for having been mistaken but I do not. To me it was a plain abuse of bible verses though i take no belief that the bible was written by God himself or contains no error at all because it was written by many different people who had had faith on God and experience and wisdom on God and which was translated many many times from one language to another.

Now because of those priests' arrogance and stupidity many people believe the whole teaching is wrong and a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

Keep in mind that the Bible is several thousand years old. It's from a people who did literally believe the Earth was flat and covered by a dome. Whatever verses there might be backing up the old idea that the Sun revolves around the Earth is the least of your worries. The idea that the Earth is round, and not the centre of the universe, didn't come about until much later (think the Greeks and later Copernicus).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I disagree, but only mildly, and admit that my background in science is sketchy, to put it mildly. What I believe is that the concept of THEORY admits to the possibility that said theory may be flawed, or even wrong. I've seen people reply to the challenge "Evolution is only a theory" with "So is gravity." Gravity, like electricity, is an observed phenomenon, and is so well understood that we can use it. That said, its actual nature - why it is the way it is - is still the subject of much debate, hence the Theory part.

Gravity is a theory as well. First we had newton, than einstein. The fact of an observation alone does not make something a theory. You observe something, form a hypothesis on it, test the hypothesis by predicting an outcome, and then compare the result with the prediction, and if the test fails, you give up or correct the hypothesis and test again, and if the results confirm the prediction often enough, then you slowly raise the hypthesis to the state of a theory. A theory is a model for the purpose of explanation and detailed prediction. But every theory, always, is just temporary, even gravity. A theory is the way in which we, at present, can make best sense of observations, can explain them best and make best predictions. A hypothesis as long as it is a hypothesis can be chnaged and altered anyway you want, it only needs to base on a former observation that serves as an ignition point. without that, it just is fantasy and speculation that is not triggered by reality (an observation for example). A theory you cannot chnage so easily, in the scientific process you can only give it up if you can explain it's content in a simplier and/or more economic and/or more fact-including way.

So evolution is an observed phenomenon, but one with missing parts.

Sorry, no, it is not. Nobody ever has observed "evolution". It is the name of a theory that explains how and why species evolve and change. What we have observed are samples of species, and similiarities between them (or differences). The theory of evolution so far explains these similiarities and differences and the changes in species better than any other model that was tried on the task. That, and due to it's wide meaning in our understanding of life, are the reaosns why the theory of evolution even serves in the role of a paradigm currently.

But all that is my roundabout way of getting to this: There may be scientists in the field who change the shape of that theory tomorrow, and scientests who subscribe to it will say something along the lines of "Well, back to square one."

All theories are no absolute and final statements but just a description of the best model that so far we could have come up with. So yes, it can change indeed. But hardly "just en passant". In the light of what I said above you see that it needs a bit more to chnage a theory or paradigm. you need an alternative model that delivers the same value in explanation, but in a simplier way, or you need a model that includes all what the theory of evolution can explain - and then some more. Theoreticall spoken, in practice these things probably are more interacting. theories can be known to include contradictions, or to be not complete. solving these issues also can lead to greater adjustements of theories.

But the problem is that people who challenge evolution don't do so because they have another theory. They do so because they have a preconcieved idea that becomes unworkable should evolution be accepted. If new evidence turns up tomorrow in support of evolution, their response won't be to say "Well, maybe we'd better rethink this." Their response will be to challenge the new evidence any way they can, because the idea that it might be true would destroy their most cherished beliefs.

Well, that is the clash between science and non-science. But to change a scientific statement, the reason must be found by scientific methodology, and explained in scientific terminology. that's why I said in the past in various debates that it makes no sense to bring religious dogma and sciences together. It are two totally incompatible modi operandi.

Their problem is that they think everybody on the "opposite" side thinks exactly the same way, and most scientists don't think that way at all.

Science always makes temporary statements only, even if temporary may mean, in case of paradigms, several centuries. Religious people often accuse science to make absolute statements that stand forever, and that science claism to have found the last, the final, the ultimate last answers. that is not only wrong an accusation, but also ironic. If you look at it, science, as i said, makes temporary statements, but it is the religious dogma that claims to know the final, the eternal truths, and makes according absolute statements that claim valdiity until the end of time. A superb example of "psychoanalytical "projection".

There aren't any dumb things Euoropeans believe? which are false?

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

But the problem is that people who challenge evolution don't do so because they have another theory. They do so because they have a preconcieved idea that becomes unworkable should evolution be accepted. If new evidence turns up tomorrow in support of evolution, their response won't be to say "Well, maybe we'd better rethink this." Their response will be to challenge the new evidence any way they can, because the idea that it might be true would destroy their most cherished beliefs.

Their problem is that they think everybody on the "opposite" side thinks exactly the same way, and most scientists don't think that way at all.

Well said!

So if you think a theory is wrong you have to have something to replace it? Only a fool would think such a thing. Which explains the folks at SS.