Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 
Send Topic Print
Evolution is not a scientific theory (Read 33824 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48816
At my desk.
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #135 - Feb 21st, 2014 at 9:17pm
 
Yes you were. I was equating your ignorance of the meaning of the term falsifiability with their ignorance of the meaning of the term evolution.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #136 - Feb 22nd, 2014 at 8:33am
 
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 20th, 2014 at 8:56am:
freediver wrote on Feb 17th, 2014 at 7:23pm:
That is still not falsifiable. Falsifiable means that you cannot perform a scientific experiment that would disprove the theory if it were incorrect. If you find a fossil out of the geological time slot it would not actually disprove evolution. You would just make another slot for it.



Well actually it would, because it would contradict the whole biological and geological time span. E.g finding monkey fossils in Jurassic era rocks. Monkeys/apes appear later than this in the evolutionary time scale and thus finding this would throw the current evolutionary tree out, science would be forced to start again. You're right in the sense that evolution wouldn't necessarily be disproved, it would just change it from a theory to a hypothesis.


Reminds me of a geology field trip in which one of the students drew a graptolite (they look like pencil markings) fossil on to some shale. He gave it to another student who, totally unaware of the hoax, showed it to our Geology lecturer. He spent about 5 minutes saying - but it can't be! You didn't get that from here - did you. Finally the first student licked his finger and (somewhat embarrassed) rubbed it out, explaining that it was just a pencil mark, and  that he didn't intend it to end up that way.

Of course a thin section would have exposed it for what it was.

FD: 

If you're stuck in the era of Popper, I'm not going to argue the case. I realise that you're not making a case for Creationism, and that it's basically mental mastication around some defunct Philosophy of Science concepts. 

If you equate Astronomy and Cosmology with stamp collecting, then that's not a problem I need to get involved with. In a field where there are no proven absolutes, we need to avail ourselves of the logic of probability.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 22nd, 2014 at 8:42am by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48816
At my desk.
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #137 - Feb 22nd, 2014 at 9:39am
 
Quote:
If you're stuck in the era of Popper, I'm not going to argue the case. I realise that you're not making a case for Creationism, and that it's basically mental mastication around some defunct Philosophy of Science concepts.
 

You keep telling me I am parroting popper, then debunking popper, all the while ignoring what I actually say. It is a strawman. I don't know exactly what popper said or how it might differ from what I say, and I am not particularly interested in the details. You on the other hand seem completely focussed on popper to the exclusion of the debate you are participating in. You are the one who is stuck. I am actually far more interested in Kuhn's philosophy.

Quote:
If you equate Astronomy and Cosmology with stamp collecting, then that's not a problem I need to get involved with.


I don't.

Quote:
In a field where there are no proven absolutes, we need to avail ourselves of the logic of probability.


I have never suggested we don't, just that we call it for what it is.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #138 - Feb 22nd, 2014 at 10:22am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 9:39am:
I have never suggested we don't, just that we call it for what it is.


- science

- and I also think thatl an obsession with requiring experiments and falsification in order to label something as science should be called for what it is.

- philosophism.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 22nd, 2014 at 10:29am by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48816
At my desk.
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #139 - Feb 22nd, 2014 at 11:27am
 
Of course. You cannot perform an experiment to determine the definition of science.

Most people call it philosophy.

I think it's great that you are interested in such a broad range of topics - pretty much everything except why evolution is not a scientific theory.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
it_is_the_light
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #140 - Feb 22nd, 2014 at 12:05pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 9:17pm:
Yes you were. I was equating your ignorance of the meaning of the term falsifiability with their ignorance of the meaning of the term evolution.


many blessings

evolution can mean many things

individual evolution , terrestrial evolution and so on

the term has many meanings and for one

to project their interpretation on the definition of

that or any other word is mere linguistic chess ..

an art yes

however

the message is lost in semantic petty to and fro

point scoring and the thread in question can get

bogged down to a level of inanity .. the facts remain

nothing stays the same

everything is changing in every now moment

blinking in and out of reality as the DNA and atoms

respond to harmonic resonance in physicality

at a constant ..

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Particles.htm

which is the truth ie : maxim of law

so be at peace

namaste

- : ) =

Back to top
 

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : )  ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯
it_is_the_light it_is_the_light Christ+Light Christ+Light  
IP Logged
 
it_is_the_light
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #141 - Feb 22nd, 2014 at 12:08pm
 
Particle Physics


For the longest time as history records, science has held that all matter is composed of fundamental building blocks. Even though they could not see it, the ancient Greeks for example presumed that a stone could be ground up into finer and finer grains until it reached single indivisible points of matter which they called átomos, meaning “uncuttable”. Their suspicions proved correct, as some two-and-a-half-thousand years later scientists in the early 20th century discovered that indivisible unit and named it the atom.

This naming turned out to be premature as it was later found these atoms could be further broken into smaller particles, namely the proton, neutron and electron. But that was not the end of the tale. Over the following decades particle accelerator experiments revealed there to be large number of, what were labeled, sub-atomic particles. This gave birth to a new branch of science called particle physics.



Developmental Problems

As time passed and more and more particles were discovered, it became clear that something was amiss with these ‘fundamental’ units of nature. Their numbers ran into tens then to over a hundred. Could nature be this complicated? A study of their properties and interactions led to the idea that many of these were made up of still smaller units. This led to the discovery of quarks, which are said to compose protons, neutrons and other particles.

While it is true that a large number of particles might pose a philosophical problem, a more fundamental problem must be the way in which they are said to interact. In the world of particle physics, matter is constantly flashing in and out of existence as new particles are created and destroyed. And while this process may seem strange, it is stranger still that many of these interactions appear to occur without regard to mass conservation. Take muons for example.



Muons

Muons are charged particles that are primarily generated as a result of cosmic bombardment in the upper atmosphere. They are mostly negatively charged and can be thought of as heavy but unstable electrons. Muons have a short half-life of 2.2 microseconds, after which they decay into an electron and a couple of neutrinos. The decay process goes like this:

...

This reaction obeys the charge conservation rule in that both muon and electron have an equal negative charge while the neutrinos are neutral. But a muon is 206 times heavier than an electron and the neutrinos weigh nothing (or next to nothing). Where did all that mass go? According to modern physics, mass must either be conserved or converted to an equivalent amount of energy, determined via the E=mc2 relation. This energy must be released in the form of electromagnetic radiation, i.e. as photons. But there is no suggestion in the standard texts that photons are released during this process.

Actually, the above diagram is incomplete because there should also be a W– boson particle involved. This W particle weighs in at 157 thousand times heavier than an electron and quickly flashes in-and-out of existence while creating the electron and one of the neutrinos. Here again is another apparent violation of mass conservation, and a huge one at that! But since it quickly disappears we could give it the benefit of doubt and say that it causes no overall conservation problem.

One possibility for mass conservation may have to do neutrino momentum. I will discuss this further on.



Pions

The next question has to do with where muons come from. Muons come from pion decay, which in turn are generated from high-energy proton collisions in the upper atmosphere. The pion to muon conversion process looks like this:

...

Again there is a temporary intermediate W particle involved which I’ve not shown. The pion has a mass of 273 electrons which is only slightly above the muon (at 206) and there are no photons in sight. Hence again we have a mass conservation problem, albeit only minor. Ignoring the various neutrinos then, the complete process goes something like this:

...

Notice something amiss? That’s right: the positive proton yields a negative pion! This is surely impossible according to charge conservation rules. Now to be fair, the interaction is not stated in full like this. Various literatures on the subject discuss the pion/muon and muon/electron decays separately and each decay process shown preserves charge correctly. But when it comes to the full process the literature becomes somewhat vague, particularly in regard to the pion’s charge. For example on Wikipedia’s muon page we find the following [1]:

When a cosmic ray proton impacts atomic nuclei of air atoms in the upper atmosphere, pions are created. These decay within a relatively short distance (meters) into muons (the pion's preferred decay product), and neutrinos.

The above excerpt does not say what charge these pions have except they are somehow created from protons. Since protons are positive this indicates the created pions must also be positive, in which case they could not decay into negative muons. The webpage from SLAC helps clear this up when it says [2]:

...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 22nd, 2014 at 12:25pm by it_is_the_light »  

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : )  ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯
it_is_the_light it_is_the_light Christ+Light Christ+Light  
IP Logged
 
it_is_the_light
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #142 - Feb 22nd, 2014 at 12:33pm
 
http://phys.org/news/2011-12-physicists-darkness-breakthrough-discovery.html

Physicists’ ‘light from darkness’ breakthrough named a top 2011 discovery
Dec 19, 2011 By Nicole Casal Moore

...

A team of physicists including a researcher from the University of Michigan observed what's called the dynamical Casimir effect for the first time earlier this year. They essentially squeezed light particles from the vacuum of space. Credit: Philip Krantz

(PhysOrg.com) -- They shook light from darkness. They coaxed something out of what we normally think of as nothing—the vacuum of space. And now their work has been named one of the top 10 breakthroughs of the year by Physics World, the international magazine announced today.

University of Michigan physics researcher Franco Nori is involved in the work, which was published in Nature in November.
The physicists directly observed, for the first time, light particles that flicker in and out of existence in the vacuum. They witnessed the long-predicted quantum mechanical phenomenon known as the dynamical Casimir effect.
"One of the profound consequences of quantum mechanics is that we know that something can come from nothing," Nori said. "The vacuum is actually teeming with activity, the question is how to harness it and observe it because the particles move in an out of existence in the blink of an eye."

and as such

evolution is science yes

not a limited fragmented theory dreamt up by

you ' scientists ' whom remain constantly baffled ..

yet evolution is much much more

in love and divine light

and so it is

namaste

- : ) =

Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 22nd, 2014 at 12:38pm by it_is_the_light »  

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : )  ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯
it_is_the_light it_is_the_light Christ+Light Christ+Light  
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #143 - Feb 22nd, 2014 at 12:48pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 11:27am:
Of course. You cannot perform an experiment to determine the definition of science.


Correct. Most people who want a definition of science would ask scientists.

Quote:
Most people call it philosophy.


Philosophism is the the love or practice of philosophy for its own sake, usually for the purpose of obfuscation. It usually implicates the branches of philosophy variously termed sophistry and/or charlatanism. 

Quote:
I think it's great that you are interested in such a broad range of topics - pretty much everything except why evolution is not a scientific theory.


It all hinges on the narrow interpretation of science that you are ascribing to. All science is effectively observational. Even in experimental science, that observation consists of data.  Data in the real world is seldom clear-cut enough to sanction a position of 100% certain falsification or non-falsification.  To insist on a theory being falsifiable before it's accepted as "scientific" is often an unattainable dream. Many theories have been "falsified" as rigorously as possible at the time, only to resurface later as new findings come to light.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 22nd, 2014 at 12:57pm by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48816
At my desk.
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #144 - Feb 22nd, 2014 at 2:21pm
 
Quote:
Correct. Most people who want a definition of science would ask scientists.


Kuhn explained the folly of this. See - nothing to do with popper at all.

Quote:
Philosophism is the the love or practice of philosophy for its own sake, usually for the purpose of obfuscation. It usually implicates the branches of philosophy variously termed sophistry and/or charlatanism.


You made the accusation. Now back it up. Am I actually wrong about evolution not being a scientific theory?

Quote:
It all hinges on the narrow interpretation of science that you are ascribing to.


Well done. I think we are getting somewhere.

Quote:
All science is effectively observational. Even in experimental science, that observation consists of data.  Data in the real world is seldom clear-cut enough to sanction a position of 100% certain falsification or non-falsification.


That is not actually a part of falsifiability. You get around this issue by relying on repeatable experiment.

Quote:
To insist on a theory being falsifiable before it's accepted as "scientific"


I suspect you are introducing a red herring here. There is no need to accept or reject it at all.

Quote:
Many theories have been "falsified" as rigorously as possible at the time, only to resurface later as new findings come to light.


Falsified means they are wrong (as all good scientific theories are). We are talking about falsifiability. What you describe is the forefront of science - figuring out new and creative ways to test theories. It does not always require a million dollar piece of infrastructure. Sometimes it merely takes a coin held above your hand to test one of the most apparently unobtainable theories around.

The distinction to make is between a restriction based on new technology or new ideas, or new scientific understanding itself, and one based on more fundamental limitations - eg the "dinosaur experiment".
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #145 - Feb 22nd, 2014 at 3:00pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 2:21pm:
You made the accusation. Now back it up. Am I actually wrong about evolution not being a scientific theory?

Quote:
It all hinges on the narrow interpretation of science that you are ascribing to.


Well done. I think we are getting somewhere.


You and I both know that this is the sticking point in the argument.

To answer your highlighted question depends on the definition of "scientific" that you use.

Kuhn is a red herring. The basis of the argument around falsifiability is essentially Popperism.

If we draw that argument to its logical conclusion, whole Faculties of Science would be shutting down entire  Departments of the various branches of "Observational Science" as being non - scientific.  Observational science is just as valid and scientific as experimental science.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48816
At my desk.
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #146 - Feb 22nd, 2014 at 3:09pm
 
Quote:
You and I both know that this is the sticking point in the argument.


You have picked up more than you let on.

Quote:
Kuhn is a red herring. The basis of the argument around falsifiability is essentially Popperism.


You are doing it again.

Quote:
If we draw that argument to its logical conclusion


How about you just stick with the argument I am making? What is your fascination with Popper?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #147 - Feb 22nd, 2014 at 5:56pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 3:09pm:
How about you just stick with the argument I am making? What is your fascination with Popper?


Well I could talk about the evolution of bacteria to form new species.  That is directly measurable and observable. That's an example where a bacterium will mutate, and a few of the surviving mutant strains gradually become  tolerant to one or a number of waste products. In other words an organism changes over several generations in reponse to environmental constraints. It's commonly used in  bioremediation. They usually start with Escherichia coli or Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and end up with something that will withstand all kinds of toxic substances and probably antibiotics.

Now surely you're not going to bring up that special pleading argument that it's "not real evolution" - it's "micro" evolution or something like that?

If you run out of special pleading arguments, the Creationist sites have a good supply of them.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 22nd, 2014 at 6:03pm by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48816
At my desk.
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #148 - Feb 22nd, 2014 at 6:43pm
 
Quote:
Now surely you're not going to bring up that special pleading argument that it's "not real evolution" - it's "micro" evolution or something like that?


You mean natural selection? It sure sounds like it. Whatever label you want to use, I am happy to label it scientific, as that process is essentially an experiment that can be repeated. You would probably even get identical results.  Tongue It's what Popper would have wanted.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #149 - Feb 22nd, 2014 at 7:47pm
 
Natural selection is the basis of evolution.

Darwin’s process of natural selection has four components.

*Variation.  Organisms (within populations) exhibit individual variation in appearance and behavior.  These variations may involve body size, hair color, facial markings, voice properties, or number of offspring.  On the other hand, some traits show little to no variation among individuals—for example, number of eyes in vertebrates.

*Inheritance.  Some traits are consistently passed on from parent to offspring.  Such traits are heritable, whereas other traits are strongly influenced by environmental conditions and show weak heritability.

*High rate of population growth.  Most populations have more offspring each year than local resources can support leading to a struggle for resources.  Each generation experiences substantial mortality.

*Differential survival and reproduction.  Individuals possessing traits well suited for the struggle for local resources will contribute more offspring to the next generation.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 
Send Topic Print