Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Pharmacy / January 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

EVOLUTION: The difference between a THEORY and a HYPOTHESIS

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
MobiusDick - 10 Jan 2006 16:14 GMT
Whenever you listen to a creationist talk about evolution, it usually
does not take very long for the creationist to show his ignorance. My
biggest point is when you hear something like, "Evolution is just a
theory!" Creationism is a theory too, and so is inteeligent design.

Well the truth is that eveolution IS a theory, but creationism and
intelligent design are not: they are hypotheses. A theory is the
highest position something can hold in science, It is not an idea that
someone comes up with to test; rather it is a hypothesis that has been
tested time and time again and has been shown to statistically hold up
tp its premise.

A hypothesis is an educated guess. But after lots of testing and lots
of peer review, and endless retesting, a hypothesis that holds up after
intellectual rigor is a theory.

Science is not about 100% absolute proof. At best we have statistical
methods like a t-test, an F-test or a Chi Squared Analysis that say
that the possibility of this happening by chance alone is less than X
percent. Many analyses hold up to 99.999%, some only 99.5% and and some
as low as 95%. We call this number the confidence interval and the
confidence limits. If we wat something to hold up to .001 Confidence
limits, we want our statistical analysis to say that there is a 99.999%
chance that the variations seen in the data were not do to chance
alone.

You cannot speak of something as 100% Confidence Limits in science.
There is always some small statistical doubt (far less doubt than OJ
killed Nicole and Ron Goldman, or that Michael Jackson has a thing for
little boy dicks.) This is not reasonable doubt, or possible doubt;
rather it is much more stringent statistical doubt.

An example I like to use is the corner stone of modern cytology, know
as the cell theory of biology anf basically states that all life is
made up of cells. Is this a fact that your body has cells in it? NO! NO
IT's NOT! But statistically, it is as close to that as possible.

And that is the same way with evolution. Is it possible that God put
down all these misleading clues to fool us? Yes, but it is not likely.
Evolution makes sense and it wold take a powerful force to stop it from
happening. We know that when an organism acquires a feature that helps
it survive or it uses a feature it already has to survive because of
climate change orgeographic isolation, it survives and passes it down
to its offspring. Step by step linear logic.

Many people lump all aspects of evolution together, and this confuses
the issue. FIrst of all, the least certain aspect of evolution is
abiotic synthesis, This is the time when non-life became alive. There
are many hypotheses about this that fit much of the data, but nothing
conclusive.

Another problem people have is the idea that humans evolved from
monkeys, and considering we have about 98-99% of the same DNA
sequences, it seems likely that this occured or God did not start from
scratch when he made each knew species. THis is an outgrowth of the
idea known as the missing link: this basically says that we have never
found a fossil of a species right when it changed from one species to
the next. But this is not quite true. Every year more and more fossils
showing the transition from one organism to the next are being found.
Archeoptyrix seems to be a direct connection from birds to dinosaurs.
Pythons seem to be the missing link between snakes that had 2 back legs
to a completely legless creature (Pythons retain two little spurs made
of bone where the legs once were that contiue to be used in mating.

Also, so you can sound educated when debating a creationist, note that
there are 2 main types of evolution. Normal evolution is called
phyletic gradualism, and happens very slowly, at an near constant rate,
mutation by mutation, until eventually the two organisms can no longer
interbreed and have sexually productive young.

The other (more recently agreed upon) type of evolution is call
punctuated equilibreum, and it happens at a much quicker pace, Usually,
it is the result of a sudden change in climate or geographical
isolation, or a new predator or prey source. The organism in question
adapts suddenly to occupy this ecological niche and becomes a new
species in as few as 10 -100 years, particulary when communities become
isolated and can no longer interbreed.

But make no mistake about it: Just as there are cells in your body,
species mutate, and evole. If you are looking for a way to put God into
it, fine, but don't forget the underlying premise which is inviolate.

MobiusDick
underclass - 10 Jan 2006 20:59 GMT
Tao - 10 Jan 2006 21:08 GMT
> Whenever you listen to a creationist talk about evolution, it usually
> does not take very long for the creationist to show his ignorance. My
[quoted text clipped - 79 lines]
>
> MobiusDick

My Hypothesis is that your Theories Have No baring on the Basis of the
Theory of Evolution or , Hypothetically Speaking,.even  Theoretical
evolutionists themselves.

Theoretically. .

But , then .... Maybe.

Tao ......... (i'll give your post a proper read and a proper response
in the morning!!)
MarkO - 10 Jan 2006 21:28 GMT
I'm not on this board much, and was here for an unrelated reason.  But
I cannot help but respond.  One of the reasons I don't "embrace" the
theory of evolution the way others so willingly do is because I don't
trust the messengers.
Let's look at the case where a school board wanted intelligent design
simply "mentioned" along with evolution in science class.  Not only was
the innitiative knocked down, but the board members voted out.  For
what...because they simply wanted kids to hear that maybe...just maybe
a creator put things in motion?  Is that going to freakin scar kids for
life?  Perhaps hearing they came from apes will scar kids for life.
That such effort was made to quiet the board members tells me
evolutionists have an agenda, and willing accomplices like the original
person posting here.
I've read several books debunking evolution, as it's presented...with
great clarity.  But these things never get into the mainstream, just
like much of the news.  You have to listen to Fox, Rush Limbaugh or
Sean Hannity to get ANYTHING other than the so called mainstream
information.   My biggest problem with evolutionists and liberals isn't
their opinion...it's their FANATICAL desire and attempt to silence the
other side...all while saying they support free speech.
  Let's say we had a "big bang".  Ok, what caused it or came before
it?  No one is certain.  Therefore, here's my "theory"....AN
INTELLIGENT DESIGNER did it.   The proof lays in everything in the
universe.  It's here, but wasn't here before.  So we have a universe
full of proof.  I'd say that qualifies The Theory (not hypotheses) of
Intelligent design to be simply mentioned along with the theory of
evolution.
  But, I'm just one of these morons who doesn't believe everything I'm
told just because I'm told it.  So sue me.
Signing off for good, Mark
Abraxus - 10 Jan 2006 21:52 GMT
> I'm not on this board much, and was here for an unrelated reason.  But
> I cannot help but respond.  One of the reasons I don't "embrace" the
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> told just because I'm told it.  So sue me.
> Signing off for good, Mark

The only problem I have with Intelligent Design is when it is being
taught in Science Class. The reason I have a problem with it being
taught in a Science Class is because it's not Science.  I have a
problem with it being presented in a Science Class as an equal to the
theory of evolution, because it's not.  It's something that someone
came up with to explain the universe, but it does not have roots in the
scientific method, has not(and really can't be) tested, and hasn't
undergone the evaluations and testing that the Theory of Evolution has.

So basically, teach kids Intelligent Design in Social Studies or
another similar class, and leave science class to science.  There is no
"Theory of Intelligent Deisgn"  and there never will be because it
cannot be tested using the scientific method, and due to this fact I
would not want my child being taught it in science class.  Period.  I
have no problem at all with a debate on the validity of Intelligent
Design, Creationism, Evolution, and Faith, in other classes where this
type of thing is appropriate, but just because a lot of people beive in
something does not mean it should be held as an equal of a Scientific
Theory.
Methadoper - 10 Jan 2006 22:47 GMT
>I'm not on this board much, and was here for an unrelated reason.  But
>I cannot help but respond.  One of the reasons I don't "embrace" the
>theory of evolution the way others so willingly do is because I don't
>trust the messengers.

so you're a paranoid idiot, what else is new.  Your type is a dime-a-dozen on
usenet!  Actually the truth is that the black helicopters are involved in the
evolution conspiracy.
54/543 - 11 Jan 2006 06:43 GMT
> I'm not on this board much, and was here for an unrelated reason.  But
> I cannot help but respond.

Me too.

>[snip] I don't "embrace" the
> theory of evolution the way others so willingly do is because I don't
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> what...because they simply wanted kids to hear that maybe...just maybe
> a creator put things in motion?

'For what'?! How about because there ideas were pure conjecture;
lacking *any* facts or evidence. And they didn't want it just to be
mentioned in class, they wanted people to refer to their ideas as
actual science without actually doing any science.

>Is that going to freakin scar kids for
> life?  Perhaps hearing they came from apes will scar kids for life.

There's objective evidence that we did indeed decent from apes: NONE
supporting ID. Plus they have been teaching evolution for years now and
it dosn't seem to have scared many kids thus far, IMO.

> That such effort was made to quiet the board members tells me
> evolutionists have an agenda [snip]

Very true - they are trying to provide students with information
about one of the best proven theory's in science. When the ID crowd
comes up with any credible arguments to support their case or even
debunk evolution, we'll be glad to entertain their ideas but until
then, kids will be taught the theory that best represents the available
data.

> [snip] these things never get into the mainstream, just
> like much of the news.  You have to listen to Fox, Rush Limbaugh or
> Sean Hannity to get ANYTHING other than the so called mainstream
> information.

That explains a lot about your position. Fox, Rush Limbaugh, et. al.
are undeniably at the far right of the spectrum. They claim other news
organizations are "main stream" and thus inaccurate but in reality
_they're_ the ones who are the most inaccurate; their heavy bias tends
to cause them to skew the news in their favor - promoting things like
ID.

>My biggest problem with evolutionists and liberals isn't
> their opinion...it's their FANATICAL desire and attempt to silence the
> other side...all while saying they support free speech.

That couldn't be any further from the truth. Again, If they had even a
/shred/ of evidence supporting their case, it would be different.
Making wild, unsupported and untestable claims is usually a good way to
get ignored by real scientists.

> Let's say we had a "big bang".  Ok, what caused it or came before
> it?  No one is certain.  Therefore, here's my "theory"....AN
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Intelligent design to be simply mentioned along with the theory of
> evolution.

    Uhhh, sorry, science doesn't work that way. Do me a favor: stop and
think about what you're saying for a minute. It's patently absurd.
"God created everything because no one has proof he didn't."
Whaaaa? By that logic, one could arrive at the conclusion that there is
no god because no one can conclusively prove their's is - and it would
be as valid if not more so than your's (although both would be
immensely feeble arguments). Not to mention much of what you attribute
to a 'creator' already has testable theory's contradicting your utterly
baseless ones.
    And I'll bite. Where did said Intelligent Designer come from? Don't
say "from nowhere" - that's just adding extra baggage to the
equation. If 'god' came from nowhere and for no reason, the universe
could have just as easily came from nowhere and for no reason. Or if
you think 'god' has existed forever, whats stopping the universe from
having existed forever? Occam's razor (you might want to look it up, it
would help your arguement) leans heavily in favor of their being no
'god' in this case.

>    But, I'm just one of these morons who doesn't believe everything I'm
> told just because I'm told it [snip]

Hahaha, good one. You adamantly believe their is a 'creator' because
you read that one exists in a two-thousand year old story book! Can't
you see you ARE just blindly everything someone tells you? Their isn't
*ANY* evidence that supports your claim! Although I guess it must be
true if Fox news or Rush Limbaugh said it... After all, you're all to
smart to buy that well proven, well documented scientific bullshit -
I mean, c'mon, it's only a theory...

Check out this video - Penn & Teller's "Bullshit!" on the bible.
It's a great show; they bring up some great points about how ludicrous
the bible really is.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3593866248238036452
MobiusDick - 11 Jan 2006 19:39 GMT
You are correct in stating that we do not know for sure. But there is
an overwhelming amount of evidence, and most refutations of evolution
often include the statistics of how rare it would be for this to happen
by chance alone. But just because it is rare does not mean that it did
not happen given enough time and enough chances to happen.

And do not confuse a liberal and an evolutionist just because so many
right wingers are creationists. I am probably further to the right than
you are (as a Libertarian) not believing in minimum wage, affirmative
action, socialized medicine, welfare, taxation that is not based on
consumption and many other very far right positions. Liberalism and
evolution are not bedfellows. Just because I am opposed to a blatantly
unconstitutional concept like drug criminalization does not make me
liberal. Most liberals are not in favor of legalizing drugs. But up
until 1914 or later after the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Act,
was it even discussed that the Feds had the right to criminalize what
you can put into your body. This is a 10th Amendment issue and all
things not expressly stated in the Constitution are left to the states.
Most people thing you are an anti-abortion proponent when you talk
about states rights, but this and the right to privacy implied in
Harrison figured 5th and 11th Amendments were accepted as a given
before a way around the Constitution by using taxation. The 1914
Harrison Act was a tax act making the sellers of opiates require a tax
stamp to do business, a tax stamp that was virtually never issued other
than to a select few. Drs could not treat patients addicted to drugs
and the government was de facto practicing medicine without a license,
something strictly forbidden.

But now we don't even question this even after Supreme Court decisions
saying the "power to tax is the power to destroy" Even when California
citizens said that medical marijuana was legal in their state, the feds
said f.ck you, we make the rules. Even though the initiative process
used to enact the law had been around since almost the inception of
CA's statehood. Laws are disregarded when it doesn't further the agenda
of the person trying to accomplish their goals and to me this is an
outrage.

Just wait and see how long before the USA PATRIOT Act is used to spy on
Americans suspected of drug crimes, first with on party of the phone
call outside the country and then no matter where they are. Mark my
words. Within 10 years we may have to make a choice as far as whether
we are going to let this country fall and all its principles of freedom
die in order to stop "the drug menace." We may all have decide whether
to pick up arms against are own government, and I for one sure hope we
still have guns around to do this with if it becomes necessary.

Pardon my typos in the first post, someone walked into my office and I
did not have time to proofread.

Also, Intelligent Design is just another way of saying creationism,
brought into play by the same people. In a comparative religion class,
this is fine to talk about. But it is not science and should not be
taught in a science class.

MobiusDick
ManMadeGod - 12 Jan 2006 20:08 GMT
> I'm not on this board much, and was here for an unrelated reason.  But
> I cannot help but respond.  One of the reasons I don't "embrace" the
> theory of evolution the way others so willingly do is because I don't
> trust the messengers.

Yet you "trust" a 2,000 year old book of fictional stories?

> Let's look at the case where a school board wanted intelligent design
> simply "mentioned" along with evolution in science class.  Not only was
> the innitiative knocked down, but the board members voted out.  For
> what...because they simply wanted kids to hear that maybe...just maybe
> a creator put things in motion?

Which "creator" should they tell these kids about? The "creator" that YOU
believe in?

>  Is that going to freakin scar kids for
> life?

Absolutely.

> Perhaps hearing they came from apes will scar kids for life.

Perhaps learning that we evolved in the same family of species as apes (with
99% matching DNA) they would feel comfortable knowing the truth.

If we evolved FROM apes, then apes would no longer be around, jackass.

> That such effort was made to quiet the board members tells me
> evolutionists have an agenda, and willing accomplices like the original
> person posting here.

Truth is not an agenda.

> I've read several books debunking evolution, as it's presented...with
> great clarity.  But these things never get into the mainstream, just
> like much of the news.

And who wrote these books? Some christian like Pat Robertson?

> You have to listen to Fox, Rush Limbaugh or
> Sean Hannity to get ANYTHING other than the so called mainstream
> information.

You can say that again. Those morons probably have the lowest IQ of any
humans.

> My biggest problem with evolutionists and liberals isn't
> their opinion...it's their FANATICAL desire and attempt to silence the
> other side...all while saying they support free speech.

Free speech is fine. Just keep your religion OUT of OUR government.

>   Let's say we had a "big bang".  Ok, what caused it or came before
> it?  No one is certain.  Therefore, here's my "theory"....AN
> INTELLIGENT DESIGNER did it.

Here's my "theory", a little green cat with a red hat did it.

>The proof lays in everything in the
> universe.  It's here, but wasn't here before.  So we have a universe
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>   But, I'm just one of these morons who doesn't believe everything I'm
> told just because I'm told it.  So sue me.

Go back under your rock.
Methadoper - 13 Jan 2006 05:45 GMT
>If we evolved FROM apes, then apes would no longer be around, jackass.

I don't think that's necessarily true, I mean in the case of humans, yes, but
it is possible for a species to evolve directly from another species and for
the original species to continue propogating, if an event such as a volcanic
eruption or earthquake split a species population apart (such as on two
islands).  The species on one island may evolve into another species due to
environmental factors specific to that island which aren't a factor on the
other island, where the species does not need to evolve to survive.  Most of
the time an entire species would evolve and displace its direct ancestor, but
if that were the rule, then the only life on the planet today would be humans.
creamedbrainsontoast - 13 Jan 2006 21:59 GMT
> In article <0Hyxf.6655$CV.1345@dukeread03>, spamhere@nospam.com
> says...
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> that were the rule, then the only life on the planet today would be
> humans.

i went over this before. we (homo sapiens) didn't evolve _from_ apes.
chimpanzees aren't sitting around waiting for their turn in a few thousand
years to become humans. we share with other primates a common ancestor in
our history a few hundred thousand years ago. saying that apes shouldn't
exist because there are people is like saying your grandparents shouldn't
exist because you're alive now.

Signature

-creamedbrainsontoast
"One tablespoon of butter, one egg yolk, one scant tablespoon of flour,
salt and pepper to season, half cup of milk, three-fourths pound of brains.
Parboil the brains. When cool, salt to taste and chop in small pieces. Cook
flour and butter in double boiler; add milk and beaten egg yolk and stir
slowly into butter and flour, add seasoning and brains. Cook about three
minutes and serve on toast."

Methadoper - 13 Jan 2006 23:43 GMT
>> In article <0Hyxf.6655$CV.1345@dukeread03>, spamhere@nospam.com
>> says...
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>exist because there are people is like saying your grandparents shouldn't
>exist because you're alive now.

Did I say anything that contradicted that?  No.  So why are you repeating
yourself?
creamedbrainsontoast - 14 Jan 2006 01:59 GMT
>>> In article <0Hyxf.6655$CV.1345@dukeread03>, spamhere@nospam.com
>>> says...
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> Did I say anything that contradicted that?  No.  So why are you
> repeating yourself?

i was responding to the same person you were responding to with that snarky
comment. sorry to cross wires like that! it's a common misconception that
evolution operates as some kind of linear progression towards perfection
(with homo sapiens conveniently located on top, of course), so it bears
repeating.

Signature

-creamedbrainsontoast
"One tablespoon of butter, one egg yolk, one scant tablespoon of flour,
salt and pepper to season, half cup of milk, three-fourths pound of brains.
Parboil the brains. When cool, salt to taste and chop in small pieces. Cook
flour and butter in double boiler; add milk and beaten egg yolk and stir
slowly into butter and flour, add seasoning and brains. Cook about three
minutes and serve on toast."

Methadoper - 13 Jan 2006 05:48 GMT
>> I've read several books debunking evolution, as it's presented...with
>> great clarity.  But these things never get into the mainstream, just
>> like much of the news.
>
>And who wrote these books? Some christian like Pat Robertson?

No, they have much more intelligent operatives spearheading the Intelligent
Design obfuscation.  Try William Dembski.

>Free speech is fine. Just keep your religion OUT of OUR government.

Yeah and keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate!!

>>   Let's say we had a "big bang".  Ok, what caused it or came before
>> it?  No one is certain.  Therefore, here's my "theory"....AN
>> INTELLIGENT DESIGNER did it.
>
>Here's my "theory", a little green cat with a red hat did it.

I think the invisible pink unicorn is far more believable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
Methadoper - 10 Jan 2006 22:45 GMT
>You cannot speak of something as 100% Confidence Limits in science.

Maybe you cant, but I can.  I can speak with 100% confidence that gravity
happens when mass exists.  You seem to have forgot that when theories have
proven themselves over time, they become Laws.

>An example I like to use is the corner stone of modern cytology, know
>as the cell theory of biology anf basically states that all life is
>made up of cells. Is this a fact that your body has cells in it? NO! NO
>IT's NOT! But statistically, it is as close to that as possible.

The fact that life is made up of cells is not a theory, As wikipedia's article
on 'theory' explains, "The term theoretical is used in science to describe a
result that is predicted by theory but has not yet been observed.  For example,
until recently, black holes were considered theoretical."

Black holes are no longer theoretical, and neither are cells.  

>Many people lump all aspects of evolution together, and this confuses
>the issue. FIrst of all, the least certain aspect of evolution is
>abiotic synthesis, This is the time when non-life became alive. There
>are many hypotheses about this that fit much of the data, but nothing
>conclusive.

A hypothesis becomes a theory as soon as any experiment on the hypothesis is
undertaken that seems to verify the hypothesis.  Since there have been plenty
of experiments on how life came out of the primordial ooze, it would fall under
the catagory of theory.  And it remains theory because it has not been
observed.

>Also, so you can sound educated when debating a creationist, note that
>there are 2 main types of evolution. Normal evolution is called
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>species in as few as 10 -100 years, particulary when communities become
>isolated and can no longer interbreed.

Ummm, you are treading on Lamarckian nonsense if you are suggesting that
evolution has anything to do with organisms 'adapting' to environments.  A
sudden climate change will simply more quickly displace populations without
mutations that allow them to survive the change in environment.  Evolution does
not occur in the manner that some species finds itself cold so it grows thicker
fur in response to the stimuli.  If it doesn't already have thicker fur when
the climate change occurs, it will die off.  Punctuated equilibrium is not a
seperate 'type' of evolution, it is just an explaination as to why big changes
in organisms happened over short periods, between long periods with little
change.  Gould, who co-coined the term, states that 'punctuated equilibrium' is
nothing more than an addition of the ideas of catastrophism and stasis to
Darwin's gradualism.  In fact, by suggesting that punctuated equilibrium is a
different type of evolution, you are falling into a trap set by
anti-evolutionists who charactarized evolution as a theory in crisis because
'punctuated equilibrium' challenged Darwinian evolution, when in fact it
doesn't, at all.
creamedbrainsontoast - 11 Jan 2006 01:33 GMT
>>You cannot speak of something as 100% Confidence Limits in science.
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Black holes are no longer theoretical, and neither are cells.  

the idea that living things are made of cells is still called "cell
theory," just as the "theory of gravity" is still a "theory". the
predictions made by both have been verified and are as such no longer
theoretical, but the ideas themselves retain the apellation "theory".

Signature

-creamedbrainsontoast, who's played enough semantic games for a day
"One tablespoon of butter, one egg yolk, one scant tablespoon of flour,
salt and pepper to season, half cup of milk, three-fourths pound of
brains. Parboil the brains. When cool, salt to taste and chop in small
pieces. Cook flour and butter in double boiler; add milk and beaten egg
yolk and stir slowly into butter and flour, add seasoning and brains.
Cook about three minutes and serve on toast."

Methadoper - 11 Jan 2006 07:27 GMT
>>>You cannot speak of something as 100% Confidence Limits in science.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>the idea that living things are made of cells is still called "cell
>theory," just as the "theory of gravity" is still a "theory".

No, it's called the Law of Gravity, and I already explained why.  Cell theory
would be a 'law' by now too, if there were such a classification in biology.  
And it seems there should be, considering the obfuscation that religious
nutters are using regarding the definition of words like 'theory'.  I guess it
wasn't really a problem until recently, when religious craziness went
mainstream again (but lets face it, religious craziness usually goes mainstream
around the turn of centuries, and always when milleniums turn).

> the
>predictions made by both have been verified and are as such no longer
>theoretical, but the ideas themselves retain the apellation "theory".

Again, probably because up until recently, the threat to academia from
religious crazies hadn't been serious enough to warrant an overhaul of the
vernacular.
Methadoper - 11 Jan 2006 07:29 GMT
>Again, probably because up until recently, the threat to academia from
>religious crazies hadn't been serious enough to warrant an overhaul of the
>vernacular.

actually I think I should have said 'nomenclature' instead of vernacular.
creamedbrainsontoast - 11 Jan 2006 07:35 GMT
>>Again, probably because up until recently, the threat to academia from
>>religious crazies hadn't been serious enough to warrant an overhaul of
>>the vernacular.
>
> actually I think I should have said 'nomenclature' instead of
> vernacular.

argot? jargon? you're right about the so-called "theory" of "gravity" being
a "law". what's to stop stuff from falling up if it says so in a holy book
somewhere, mr bigshot scientist man???///LI@H#LI!111

Signature

-bizzaro fundamentalist creamedbrainsontoast
"One tablespoon of butter, one egg yolk, one scant tablespoon of flour,
salt and pepper to season, half cup of milk, three-fourths pound of brains.
Parboil the brains. When cool, salt to taste and chop in small pieces. Cook
flour and butter in double boiler; add milk and beaten egg yolk and stir
slowly into butter and flour, add seasoning and brains. Cook about three
minutes and serve on toast."

MobiusDick - 11 Jan 2006 19:20 GMT
While gravity is referred to as "The Law of Gravity," it is still a
theory. No one has ever seen a graviton or the gravitational force. We
feel its presence, but ask any physicist, and he will tell you that
quantum gravity is the one thing that stands in the way of a Unified
Field Theory in physics. The other 3 previously known forces, the
strong nuclear, electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force can all be
reduced into different aspects of the same force. But gravity has not
found its way into the picture of the Theory of Everything. It is an
anomaly. And recently, there appears to be a fifth force that is
repulsive in nature and counter balances some of the gravitational
force. So Gravity is still only a theory, but that doesn't mean it is
not there.

MD

> >>Again, probably because up until recently, the threat to academia from
> >>religious crazies hadn't been serious enough to warrant an overhaul of
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> slowly into butter and flour, add seasoning and brains. Cook about three
> minutes and serve on toast."
PTA* - 12 Jan 2006 03:49 GMT
The issue is building the vocabulary to describe gravity.  It
must be fully characterized.  Sometimes the simplest things to
observe are the most difficult to prove.

The mantra of Observable, Testable and Repeatable get thrown awry
in mathematical proofs and thought exercises akin Schroedingers
Cat Box.

Modern string theory (or is it hypothesis) is oft accused of
being a soft science.  How does one prove the existance of 10 or
more discreet dimensions of which 6 or more are infinitesimally
sized.  Yet many interesting problems get solved with the
additional dimensions.

Then there is the holographic theory that only two dimensions
exist but project a perceived number of dimensions greater than
two.  Gravity being the force that distorts the 2 physical
dimensions into the perceived multi-dimensional universe.

So could multi-dimensional constructs or traditional euclidian
n-space be simpe mathematical constructs that allow us to
visualize numerically the world around us?  Does modern physics
move beyond traditional scientific precepts if the math works?

-PTA*

> While gravity is referred to as "The Law of Gravity," it is
> still a
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
>> about three
>> minutes and serve on toast."
MobiusDick - 13 Jan 2006 16:54 GMT
In general, when something is referred to as a law, it still holds no
more weight than a theory. Usually, a law is something that can be
written out mathematically, but it does not mean that it is more valid
than a theory, a law is still only a theory. For example, with gravity,
the formula: Fsub g (Force due to gravity of object A on object B) =
G(the gravitational constant)* M sub A (mass of object A) * M sub B
(Mass of object B) / r^2 (divided by the distance between object A and
object B).

There are lots of data which support this theory (or law) but it can
still be wrong. We have no way of knowing if there is some as of yet
unknown mechanism that fits the data but still does not contradict the
general gravitational formula.

A good example of this is Newtonian physics vs relativistic physics.
Until we began to be able to achieve speeds close to that of light,
Newtonian physics worked fine. V(t) (velocity at time t) = V0 (initial
velocity) + A * t (acceleration times time). But at speeds approaching
the speed of light, there is another term that enters into the picture
because the maximum velocity that anything can travel is the speed of
light. So the term Sqrt (1/ (1- V^2/c^2) --the square root of 1 divided
by 1 minus the velocity squared divided by the speed of light
squared-must be used because at speeds near the speed of light:
Newtonian physics does not apply.

So do not confuse laws and theories: they are one and the same in
science. In normal language, there are semantic differences, but in
science there are none.

MobiusDick
PTA* - 13 Jan 2006 18:02 GMT
> In general, when something is referred to as a law, it still
> holds no
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
> MobiusDick

I think that generally science is generally about building up
theories.  Newtonian Physics was not disproven but shown to be
incomplete or a special case where at non relativistic speeds the
other values become insignificant.

The case of Lamarckian vs. Darwinian evolution is an example of
how one theory was easily because it did not fit the data.
Whereas Darwinian evolution does fit the data, at the very least
it fits better than any other theory.  The process of natural
selection is the least disputed aspect of evolution and even the
ID/Creationist advocates accept natural selection.  I think the
main issues are the development of speciation.

Science is about seeking understanding of the world that operates
around us.  It can be very technical but ultimately the goal is
very simple; To understand.  Within this framework science builds
in much the same way as we learn, building block by building
block, each block laying the foundation to understand the next
layer of blocks.

Any good discussion of scientific theory should involve
discussion on what the problems are, what things are not yet
understood or do not fit to the theory.  This is how progress is
driven.  This is what moves modern physics, unifying the
relativistic universe with the quantum universe.

There is this book I read once that took the deistic evolution
view, wherein God created the laws of the universe, of which
evolution was the means of creation.  It took the view that if
God created the universe, then God must exist outside our
universe.  That point of creation was the big bang.  As our
universe expanded each "day" of creation to God outside our
universe was relativistically 100's of millions of years inside
the universe.  Taking this approach and looking at current
estimates on the age of the universe there is some correlation or
alignment between the days of creation (what was created when)
and the current understanding of evolution on earth by the fossil
record, etc...

Interesting approach trying to reconcile creation account to
modern scientific understanding.

-PTA*
ann hedonia - 12 Jan 2006 17:44 GMT
> While gravity is referred to as "The Law of Gravity," it is still a
> theory. No one has ever seen a graviton or the gravitational force. We
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> MD

Gravity:  It's the Law.
Shaun aRe - 13 Jan 2006 11:29 GMT
> >>You cannot speak of something as 100% Confidence Limits in science.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> predictions made by both have been verified and are as such no longer
> theoretical, but the ideas themselves retain the apellation "theory".

The Law of Gravity is one of The Laws of Physics - HELLO!!!!

TYVM.

Shaun aRe
Methadoper - 13 Jan 2006 12:17 GMT
>> the idea that living things are made of cells is still called "cell
>> theory," just as the "theory of gravity" is still a "theory". the
>> predictions made by both have been verified and are as such no longer
>> theoretical, but the ideas themselves retain the apellation "theory".
>
>The Law of Gravity is one of The Laws of Physics - HELLO!!!!

Yeah but breaking the law of gravity wouldn't hurt anybody.  The fun stuff is
always against law!
creamedbrainsontoast - 13 Jan 2006 22:11 GMT
>> >>You cannot speak of something as 100% Confidence Limits in science.
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> Shaun aRe

are you thinking of newton's law of universal gravitation? it's valid
for a certain frame of reference, as with the rest of newtonian physics,
but it doesn't hold at the quantum level. as someone else pointed out,
gravity is still a theory. physics isn't my forte, but as i understand
it, it's the only one of the four fundamental forces (electromagnetic,
strong, weak) whose workings are still unknown. if you've got a theory
of gravitation that cohesively ties together observations at the quantum
and macro levels, there's a nobel prize in it for you. if it's verified
enough, it might even become a law. any scientific law is simply a
scientific theory that has been verified by repeated observation so many
times and in so many ways as to be "proven", as much as anything can be
in science.

just because gravity is still a "theory" doesn't mean that things don't
still fall down (assuming of course, you're on earth, and "down is
defined as "towards the center of the earth" and blah blah blah). as
long as you believe that there is an external reality beyond our
perceptions, the idea that the "laws of nature" are going to keeping
doing what they're doing no matter how we interpret them. living things
keep evolving, no matter how many fundamentalists insist it doesn't
because it doesn't hew with their "literal" interpretation of genesis.

Signature

-creamedbrainsontoast
"One tablespoon of butter, one egg yolk, one scant tablespoon of flour,
salt and pepper to season, half cup of milk, three-fourths pound of
brains. Parboil the brains. When cool, salt to taste and chop in small
pieces. Cook flour and butter in double boiler; add milk and beaten egg
yolk and stir slowly into butter and flour, add seasoning and brains.
Cook about three minutes and serve on toast."

Methadoper - 13 Jan 2006 23:50 GMT
>are you thinking of newton's law of universal gravitation? it's valid
>for a certain frame of reference, as with the rest of newtonian physics,
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>keep evolving, no matter how many fundamentalists insist it doesn't
>because it doesn't hew with their "literal" interpretation of genesis.

Instead of babbling about gravity only being a 'theory', what you SHOULD be
doing is telling the ID retards that the fact that science deals in 'theories'
only means that science is more honest that the bullshit THEY spew.  And you
should take every opportunity to inform them that because science deals in
'theories' doesn't mean that the jury is out regarding evolution and that there
is any place for their non-scientific 'ID' nonsense.  And maybe you should hold
them to the same standards they are inappropriately fingering as science's
weakness - that is, why don't you tell them to teach that Jesus is only a
'theory', and that they should be teaching about buddism and every other
religious theory in every 'christian' church?  Instead of helping them attack
science, why don't you make yourselves useful, idiots?  (Yes this applies to
Mobius, too, who isn't even worth replying to directly since he can't follow
a thread for more than two posts before going off on a tangent to talk to an
imaginary friend).
MobiusDick - 13 Jan 2006 17:12 GMT
Lamarckian genetics has nothing to do with what you are talking about.
To simplify it, Lamarckian genetics makes tenets that an organism
undergoes somatic changes in its lifetime that are the result of its
environment and it passes this on to its offspring. For example, if you
cut off the tail of a lizard, this will be passed on to future
offspring. And this has been shown not to support the data available.
The mutation or change must take place in the germplasm (or sex cells)
in order to be passed on. Changes that happen somatically (in the body)
cannot be passed on as Lamarck hypothesized.

You are incorrect about this and The Wilkepedia is not the final word.
Ask a physicist. There is no such thing as a law of science that is
100% certain, no matter what The Wilkepedia says. There are always
alternative possibilities. Do I believe in gravity? Of course I do. Do
I believe the body is made of cells? Again of course. But if you want
to understand science, you must realize that when something is called a
law in science, it is because there is a mathematical basis, but it
still can be wrong. Nothing is certain in science. There are no facts
that are indisputable. Ask Einstein, Neils Bohr and any other
scientist.

This is very basic scientific theory taught in first year biology, and
I am not trying to insult you, but you need to reread your text book.
As far as claiming Punctuated Equilibrium is not a different type of
evolution, you are falling into a semantic trap. It is a different
method by which evolution occurs. Perhaps my wording could have been
better, but the concept that evolution can occur quickly or very slowly
by these two different modus operandi.

MobiusDick

MobiusDick
Methadoper - 13 Jan 2006 23:44 GMT
I see this bozo is still talking to his imaginary friend, or at least hasn't
yet learned to direct his comments to whoever they're intended to be directed
to.  And what's a 'Wilkepedia'?  What a maroon...

>Lamarckian genetics has nothing to do with what you are talking about.
>To simplify it, Lamarckian genetics makes tenets that an organism
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
>MobiusDick
creamedbrainsontoast - 11 Jan 2006 01:23 GMT
"MobiusDick" <MobiusDick@gmail.com> wrote in news:1136909676.619521.278710
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Whenever you listen to a creationist talk about evolution, it usually
> does not take very long for the creationist to show his ignorance. My
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> of peer review, and endless retesting, a hypothesis that holds up after
> intellectual rigor is a theory.

you're more generous to the IDers than i am in calling their ideas hypotheses
-- or at least, scientific hypotheses. ID is academic sophistry;
misinformation designed to mislead and confuse the issue. one of the ground
rules of scientific endeavour is that the hypotheses you make must be
_disprovable_. ID fails this test miserably. it's not just un-scientific,
it's anti-scientific. science is fundamentally about finding _naturalistic_
explanations for natural phenomena. by claiming that certain features are
simply too complex to have evolved naturally, ID advocates turn their back on
science. it's intellectually stultifying to claim that the best course of
action, when faced with what appears to be an intractible problem, to simply
throw up one's hands and say "i can't understand this! god [oops! better make
that "an intelligent designer of some unknown kind", since IDers insist their
"theory" isn't just another name for creationism] must have done it!" until
watson and crick discovered the double helix structure of dna, scientists had
no good way to explain the biological basis of the heritability of traits.
what if the scientific community in the early 1950s had collectively declared
"f.ck it! this is way too complicated. god must have done it and that's
that."

in order for the arguments of ID to be scientific, they must be disprovable.
some IDers with a shred of scruples tried to create make scientific claims
for "irreducible complexity" around seemingly intractable evolutionary
puzzles. if a verifiable naturalistic explanation can be found for one of
these supposedly "irreducibly complex" objects, it's strong evidence against
ID. fortunately for IDers, there're a lot of unknowns still about the precise
mechanisms of evolution. for decades the bacterial flagellum has been a
favorite "example" of "irreducible complexity". bacteria use flagella as
their means of locomotion, and the way they work is pretty complex. a few
years ago, scientists discovered how slight mutations in several proteins not
directly involved in locomotion could result in the formation of a flagellum.
faced with a plausible mechanism for the natural evolution of the flagellum,
the ID advocates simply brushed it aside and found another "irreducible"
problem. the properly formed scientific hypotheses that IDers have propsed
have been disproved over and over. they have no credibility in the scientific
world, and so they have taken their fight into the political realm.

>Another problem people have is the idea that humans evolved from
>monkeys, and considering we have about 98-99% of the same DNA
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>to a completely legless creature (Pythons retain two little spurs made
>of bone where the legs once were that contiue to be used in mating.

strictly speaking, human beings didn't evolve from monkeys. one of the most
common misconceptions about evolution, even among people who accept it as the
law of nature that it is, is that there is direction to it. think of that
picture of the fish crawling out of the water, turning into an amphibian,
then eventually to the "ancestors" of man gradually developing the upright
posture that is the hallmark of homo sapiens. evolution is not a linear
process, and it is not an inexorable march towards perfection. it's more
accurate to say that humans and other modern-day primates share a common
ancestor thousands and thousands of generations back. the chimpanzees you see
in the zoo today aren't quietly waiting their turn (or their descendents'
turn, more accurately) to have human offspring in a few thousand years, just
as a python, given enough time won't spontaneously evolve into a modern
snake.

> But make no mistake about it: Just as there are cells in your body,
> species mutate, and evolve. If you are looking for a way to put God into
> it, fine, but don't forget the underlying premise which is inviolate.
>
> MobiusDick

hear, hear! evolution is a fact, as much as gravity is, or that the earth
revolves around the sun or is spherical, to give examples of two other
scientifically verifiable facts that contradict a completely literal reading
of certain parts of the bible. the flat earth society earns the derision it
receives because people's BS detectors operate fine when it comes to that.
nothing about evolution precludes the existence of God. the only conflict
between it and the Bible comes from a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Signature

-creamedbrainsontoast
"One tablespoon of butter, one egg yolk, one scant tablespoon of flour, salt
and pepper to season, half cup of milk, three-fourths pound of brains.
Parboil the brains. When cool, salt to taste and chop in small pieces. Cook
flour and butter in double boiler; add milk and beaten egg yolk and stir
slowly into butter and flour, add seasoning and brains. Cook about three
minutes and serve on toast."

MobiusDick - 13 Jan 2006 21:58 GMT
Humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. That is the most
scientific way of putting it. One day a monkey did not birth a human,
so to be technically correct, let's put it this way.

Pedomorphism is when an adult organism retains juvenille
characteristics as an adult. We are thought by many leading
evolutionary biologists to be pedomorphic members of the superfamily
Hominoidea. Chimps and gorillas are members of the family Panidae, and
did not appear to directly evolve into the family Hominadae (of which
we are the only member.) But the idea of pedomorphism is one of the
very prominent ideas (hypotheses) in modern evolutionary thought along
with dramatic increases in cranial capacity that caused such radical
and dramatic changes in the development of modern humans.

MobiusDick
KRH - 11 Jan 2006 06:42 GMT
I used to do the same thing when I was bored.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.