Do you believe in evolution ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Imagine evolution like this, a line 1,000,000 mm long, at the start it is 1,000,000:0 yellow:magenta pigment, the 2nd mm is 999,999:1 yellow:magenta, 3rd mm is 999,998:2 yellow:magenta and so on for the length of the line.

Now, what you'll end up with is a line with one end yellow, and one end magenta, but the changes are still small, you wouldn't be able to identify the single point on the line where it changes from yellow to magenta, because there isn't one, it's a combination of gradual changes.
 
Sliver said:
Are you saying the scientific method is claptrap ? :confused: Talk about placing yourself in the tin foil hat brigade, you must be making your own tin foil hats too. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No. I am saying that you appear to have a poor understanding of scientific method and how it fits with science's epistemological framework.
 
Uriel said:
No. I am saying that you appear to have a poor understanding of scientific method and how it fits with science's epistemological framework.
Click to expand...

Really, ok so tell me where I went wrong in my explanation of the scientific method. Here's what I posted that you object to:


Sliver said:
No. You don't understand the scientific method. It does not rely on assumptions even if assumptions are made at the start of the process. It starts with observation and then an hypothesis is developed to try and explain that observation. Assumption is the wrong word.

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for reaching the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:


• 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
• 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
• 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
• 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
• 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Your theory will be subject to peer review by other scientists from around the world. Their aim is to find flaws in your theory and prove it wrong. Once a theory passes this test, it becomes widely accepted as the best possible explanation for the observed phenomena. This does not mean it is not subject to change however if new evidence arrives later.


When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
Click to expand...
 
It does impress me that you people have the patience to have the same argument over and over again. Don't you get tired of it?
 
ganesh said:
It does impress me that you people have the patience to have the same argument over and over again. Don't you get tired of it?
Click to expand...

What_to_you_mean_you_people.jpg
 
Haggisman said:
Imagine evolution like this, a line 1,000,000 mm long, at the start it is 1,000,000:0 yellow:magenta pigment, the 2nd mm is 999,999:1 yellow:magenta, 3rd mm is 999,998:2 yellow:magenta and so on for the length of the line.

Now, what you'll end up with is a line with one end yellow, and one end magenta, but the changes are still small, you wouldn't be able to identify the single point on the line where it changes from yellow to magenta, because there isn't one, it's a combination of gradual changes.
Click to expand...


But it's still a line or am I missing the point?
 
You're missing that the speed of evolution is incredibly difficult to observe, unless in the case of macro-evolution. We cannot observe human evolution because the current state in which we find ourselves is the same position in evolution, to the human eye, that we were at 20,000 years ago (roughly, I believe, when we acknowledge that homo sapiens came into existence).
 
LOAM said:
The one thing I utterly hate about these threads, that spoil them for me to the point I generally avoid them is the lack of tolerance towards peoples religious beliefs, I class myself as fortean agnostic in that i'm happy sat on the fence looking in each garden but more often than not I find myself in a position of religious defence purely because of the rabid militancy of some who think others need to be educated. You are the very people you claim to despise, you preach and you do so offensively and loudly!

In the context of the thread accept that not everyone chooses to reject evolution due to a lack of understanding of the process, they do so because it goes against their belief structure, some can align evolution with their beliefs and infact most do and are happy to do so. I know many Christians and i'm yet to meet one that doest accept evolution.

Finally how many times do we need to have the "blame religion for wars" nonsense, we are a hostile species that war, religion is an excuse not a cause. I dont deny that some wars have been over religion but most recent have been territorial or resource based. WW2 was caused by frustration of loss of territories and the rise of fascism and resulted in 50-70 million deaths. I'm not sure any religious persecution could equal that. should we say that scientists are to blame for those deaths for discovering chlorine gas, gun powder and metal alloys etc? Of course not!


I'd to add that the OP wants punching in the face (over tcp/ip) for starting this. His post count speaks volumes!
Click to expand...

Well at least you've found a way to feel superior to everybody.
 
Sliver said:
Not surprised you chirped in to be honest. Again, a slur with nothing to back it up. Nothing new.
Click to expand...

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=26261129

That link is to the relevant thread where once again you demonstrate a parroting of basic scientific theory without being able to place things in context or within their limitations.

It gets quite funny at the end with the amount of backtracking you do. :D
 
Just read the entire thread. Yeesh.

Humanity: fantastically intelligent and fantastically stupid in the same breath.

God killed half the people in the old testament, Adam and Eve's offspring were into incest and we should all have different numbers of toes.
If he created us and everything in the world, then he also gave us HIV, anthrax, TB etc etc. The flu virus can mutate rapidly into more virulent strains: this is obviously just god trying to keep us on our toes then? Nothing to do with genetic variation and evolution.
So why worship something that supposedly made us, then invented thousands of ways to cause our suffering and death. Nice bloke, eh?

If 'He' is all-seeing and all-powerful, then there is nothing stopping him from popping down to see me and set me straight.
I'm willing to accept the existence of god WHEN I see some evidence. And I mean REAL evidence, not the Bible.

Until then, science and evolution all the way for me. This is my opinion, and I am entitled to hold it.

Don't bother quoting this post- I'd sooner nail my unmentionables to a bit of wood than come back to this thread.
 
Xordium said:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=26261129

That link is to the relevant thread where once again you demonstrate a parroting of basic scientific theory without being able to place things in context or within their limitations.

It gets quite funny at the end with the amount of backtracking you do. :D
Click to expand...

I actually think you looked very foolish in that topic so ironically I'm glad you reposted it here for others to see.

Back to this topic though, you seem to disagree with me where ? You haven't made it clear yet. Was it my explanation of the scientific method ? Can you point out what it is about my explanation of the scientific method that you find disagreeable ?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom