The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by davidm » Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:16 pm

Walker wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:19 am
thedoc wrote:
Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:22 pm
You are confusing the Lay persons definition of a theory and a scientists use of the word theory. To a lay person a theory is an unsubstantiated guess or hunch. To a scientist a theory is a collection of proven facts, a scientific theory explains scientific facts.

BTW, scientists regularly talk about and speculate about the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, quantum theory, etc, I don't believe that many scientists are nitwits.

There is no such thing as "Darwinism" except to creationists who are trying to discredit Darwin, it's the "Theory of evolution" by Charles Darwin.
Evolution is not a scientific law because evolution has merely been inferred and not observed.

Newton’s law of gravitation is not a theory.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Evolution has been repeatedly observed. Evolution is both a thoery and a fact. You don't even know what a theory is.

Newton's "law" of gravitation is a theory. And his theory is wrong. It was superseded by the theory of general relativity.

It's both amazing and amusing to see so many people here prattle on about something or other with utter confidence, not knowing that they are making total asses of themselves.

uwot
Posts: 4495
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by uwot » Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:01 pm

davidm wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:16 pm
Evolution has been repeatedly observed.
True enough.
davidm wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:16 pm
Evolution is both a thoery and a fact.
Well, the fossil record is a fact. The genetic similarities between humans and other apes is a fact. The observed evolution you refer to, is also a fact. The theory is that this is due to natural selection, rather than the meddling of some sky-pilot.
davidm wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:16 pm
Newton's "law" of gravitation is a theory.
Actually, no it isn't. It's a mathematical model that describes the behaviour of massive bodies very accurately...
davidm wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:16 pm
And his theory is wrong.
...but not perfectly.
davidm wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:16 pm
It was superseded by the theory of general relativity.
A bit like evolution, it is a fact that Einstein's field equations describe the behaviour of massive bodies more accurately than Newton's inverse square law. The theory is that this is because there are two types of substance, space and matter, and that matter warps space. (Nick_A, if you're reading; that's dualism for you.)

Walker
Posts: 6993
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by Walker » Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:46 pm

davidm wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:16 pm
Walker wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:19 am
thedoc wrote:
Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:22 pm
You are confusing the Lay persons definition of a theory and a scientists use of the word theory. To a lay person a theory is an unsubstantiated guess or hunch. To a scientist a theory is a collection of proven facts, a scientific theory explains scientific facts.

BTW, scientists regularly talk about and speculate about the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, quantum theory, etc, I don't believe that many scientists are nitwits.

There is no such thing as "Darwinism" except to creationists who are trying to discredit Darwin, it's the "Theory of evolution" by Charles Darwin.
Evolution is not a scientific law because evolution has merely been inferred and not observed.

Newton’s law of gravitation is not a theory.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Evolution has been repeatedly observed. Evolution is both a thoery and a fact. You don't even know what a theory is.

Newton's "law" of gravitation is a theory. And his theory is wrong. It was superseded by the theory of general relativity.

It's both amazing and amusing to see so many people here prattle on about something or other with utter confidence, not knowing that they are making total asses of themselves.
No, I’m afraid you’re simply wrong, insulting, smug science guy with an unsupported opinion.

- Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
- The Theory of Evolution.
- Laws are observed, theories are inferred, mutations are witnessed.

uwot
Posts: 4495
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by uwot » Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:26 pm

Walker wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:46 pm
No, I’m afraid you’re simply wrong, insulting, smug science guy with an unsupported opinion.
Er? Them in glass houses...
Walker wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:46 pm
...theories are inferred...
Yes they are, but in the case of evolution, the evidence that creatures, including human beings have evolved is so overwhelming, that to deny it happened takes some chutzpah. If you want to tack your god onto it, that is entirely your business, but that is an inference for which there is no evidence.

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by davidm » Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:54 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:01 pm
davidm wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:16 pm
Newton's "law" of gravitation is a theory.
Actually, no it isn't. It's a mathematical model that describes the behaviour of massive bodies very accurately...
Right. That's why it's a theory. A theory is a predictive mathematical model. And it's a wrong theory, if what we would like to have from a theory is a true description of reality. That may be asking too much. Newton's theory works (as a useful model) to limit. The limit "up" is GR. The limit "down" is QM, where Newton also breaks down.

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by davidm » Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:05 pm

Walker wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:46 pm
No, I’m afraid you’re simply wrong, insulting, smug science guy with an unsupported opinion.
Yes! I win! (God, I wish we had some decent smilies here.)
- Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
...is not a "law" despite being (mis)characterized as such in countless texts aimed at laymen. It's a theory. And it's wrong. It's a wrong theory. That is what it is.
- The Theory of Evolution.
... is a correct theory that describes the observed fact of evolution.
- Laws are observed ...
Law are not observed. Facts are observed.
theories are inferred, mutations are witnessed.
Theories are models of observed facts and yes, mutations are observed, along with actual evolutionary changes in populations being observed.

Walker
Posts: 6993
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Walker » Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:19 pm

Alina disagrees with you, and agrees with me.

“In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory.”

https://www.livescience.com/21457-what- ... c-law.html

*
Law are not observed. Facts are observed.
This is why people run red lights. Fact is, they're in a rush.

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm » Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:28 pm

Walker wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:19 pm
Alina disagrees with you, and agrees with me.

“In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory.”

https://www.livescience.com/21457-what- ... c-law.html
Actually that agrees with me and not you. But it's still (partly) wrong.

A theory is not (necessarily) an explanation of a phenomenon, it's a predictive model of reality. That's why it's called "shut up and calculate." Quantum theory works very well, but it does not explain the reality behind the model.

On the other hand, evolutionary theory does seem to explain the reality of the observed phenomenon of evolution.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12052
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Arising_uk » Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:38 pm

Walker wrote: This is why people run red lights. Fact is, they're in a rush.
Nah! That's just because they are American drivers.

uwot
Posts: 4495
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by uwot » Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:50 pm

davidm wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:54 pm
A theory is a predictive mathematical model.
You mean like the theory of evolution? To be honest, I have never met two scientists who could agree what a 'theory' actually is. My field is history and philosophy of science, but where I am at the moment, they take science and technology studies, which is essentially sociology, seriously. So, reluctantly, I am compelled to do likewise. The natural inclination of the philosophers, is to analyse theories, and science in general, to discover the distinguishing features, and apply the label to those. The sociologists, on the other hand, are more inclined to say a theory is whatever practising scientists say it is, and they have a point. Long story short; I'm not that bothered by what anyone calls a theory, beyond the fact that the confusion allows cranks to dismiss proper science as 'Just a theory'. Whatever you call them, it is worth distinguishing between a mathematical model; for example: Einstein's field equations, which are empirically falsifiable, and a philosophical/metaphysical model, such as warped spacetime, for which there is no direct empirical evidence. Potayto/potahto.

uwot
Posts: 4495
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by uwot » Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:56 pm

davidm wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:28 pm
Quantum theory works very well, but it does not explain the reality behind the model.
Actually, that's what quantum field theories, such as QED, QCD and Higgs, attempt to do.

uwot
Posts: 4495
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by uwot » Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:59 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:38 pm
Walker wrote: This is why people run red lights. Fact is, they're in a rush.
Nah! That's just because they are American drivers.
It used to be the national sport of Holland. I think it's using English swear words these days.

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm » Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:03 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:56 pm
davidm wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:28 pm
Quantum theory works very well, but it does not explain the reality behind the model.
Actually, that's what quantum field theories, such as QED, QCD and Higgs, attempt to do.
Well I don't think these things do in the sense that all of them, so far as I know, work equally well on collapse and no-collapse QM. Find something that proves either c or no-c and then that would be something.

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?

Post by davidm » Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:11 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:50 pm
davidm wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:54 pm
A theory is a predictive mathematical model.
You mean like the theory of evolution? T
Population genetics

uwot
Posts: 4495
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by uwot » Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:23 pm

davidm wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:03 pm
uwot wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:56 pm
Actually, that's what quantum field theories, such as QED, QCD and Higgs, attempt to do.
Well I don't think these things do in the sense that all of them, so far as I know, work equally well on collapse and no-collapse QM.
The point about them is that they are predicated on the hypothesis that 'particles' are disturbed states of an underlying 'field'. Again, the mathematical models are extremely accurate, but the fields themselves, like Einstein's spacetime, are currently undetectable. All we can do, is hit them really hard to create a disturbance, like the Higgs boson.
davidm wrote:
Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:03 pm
Find something that proves either c or no-c and then that would be something.
Well, the wave function is another mathematical model, which may or may not describe what actually happens to physical entities.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 2 guests