1 2 3
You mean like when creationists make arguments from ignorance like "there is no way an eye could have evolved" and then evolutionary scientists propose, and gather evidence for, like 16 ways that eyes could have evolved? Is that what you mean when you say modifications were introduced?
Guy apparently is a dumb ass.
11/12/2009 4:48:57 PM
Oh my god.
You are fucking ignorant. Seriously.
11/12/2009 4:59:47 PM
Theories evolve huh?
11/12/2009 5:03:24 PM
Ooh, Latin. You must understand what the heck you're talking about.
11/12/2009 9:11:06 PM
For the googabazillionth time, EVOLUTION IS NOT A RIVAL DOGMA!
11/12/2009 9:58:14 PM
All scientific theories are modified to fit the evidence. That's how science works.
11/12/2009 10:24:46 PM
" Normally, any standard scientific theory would have been abandoned after two or three legitimate objections had been raised"
Err. No. Go and have a look at the history behind research into the model of the atom and keep track of how they developed our model of the atom. Scientists did pretty much the same thing there, heck, that is how science works.
" The continuing series of ‘ad hoc’ modifications made since the theory was launched in 1859 to this day distinguishes it from any theory claiming to be scientific."
This comment is so incorrect that is is laughable. I know trying to get your head around the concept of a scientific theory and how they are refined is different to the normal definition of theory, but at least try.
You could also go check out the concept of aether for light propagation and how that model was actually thrown out.
11/12/2009 10:24:58 PM
"Normally, any standard scientific theory would have been abandoned after two or three legitimate objections had been raised"
Uhm. . . if it's being abandoned, it's not a theory yet, or those are -really, really big- problems with it that have only just been uncovered. Besides that, modifications can be made to theories even if there isn't objection to it. That's just how science works.
11/12/2009 11:00:28 PM
That's how science works. If you don't like it, stay out of it.
11/13/2009 12:45:20 AM
That's... that's not how theories work.
11/13/2009 2:12:32 AM
Your scientific arguments, with no citations and examples, and disregarding that modifications are part of the scientific method(provided that new evidence is provided), are very convincing indeed.
11/13/2009 2:49:08 AM
Kuhn supercedes Popper. You lose
11/13/2009 10:46:02 AM
It would be refreshing to have an intelligent debate with a Creationist regarding the merits of evolution, if only one could find an intelligent creationist who understands the theory of evolution, instead of the usual crop of retards without the slightest knowledge of science.
11/13/2009 11:34:21 AM
That's what makes science better than religion. Religion stagnates if new information surfaces, while science can make corrections to accomodate since scientists don't have emotional attachment to theories like people have to religion.
In fact, I think its safer to say that any scientists would LOVE to find significant problems in existing theories. Then they could become famous by correcting or replaacing the theories! There is no logical reason scientists would cling to a theory once it was unreasonable.
11/13/2009 3:48:42 PM
Normally, any standard scientific theory would have been abandoned after two or three legitimate objections had been raised.
Uh no. Learn science before trying to discredit it. But if we are going to go with your rules since the Bible has been found to have multiple errors...
11/14/2009 6:21:57 AM
"Each time an objection was made to the theory of evolution on scientific grounds"
Fine-tuning. More additions to then actual 'corrections'.
The basic theory has only been built upon and supported by continued research. Life changes over time, You can't use the 'God gave life adaptive abilities, that has nothing to do with evolution' argument by rewording the theory.
Darwin's sub-title could have been 'life has adaptive abilities and changes over time'
11/14/2009 7:02:45 AM
A scientific theory attempts to explain observable facts of nature by means of experiments.
A fundamental requirement of expderimental science is firstly that phenomena to be studied must be observable. Then, the object or phenomenon must be repeatable: unrepeatable events concern history. Finally, observable and repeatable phenomena must be testable by experiment.
Despite the 150 years it’s taken to patch over evolution theory’s deficiencies none of the above experimental or empirical criteria have been addressed.
This state of affairs led American biologist and educator Paul Ehrlich to say the theory of evolution "cannot be refuted by any possible observations" and thus is "outside of empirical science."
The latest experimental results in stratigraphy produce data that refutes the principles upon which the geological time-scale (and ‘ipso facto’ evolution theory) was constructed (www.sediemntology.fr))
It is because standard experimental theories are based on facts that they would rapidly be abandoned if the facts were shown to incorrect. A new theory would have to be formulated.
11/15/2009 3:04:39 AM
11/15/2009 3:05:49 AM
Theory =/= doctrine
11/19/2009 8:13:36 AM
Actually, it would be very easy to think of facts that would disprove evolution.
Off the top of my head, I can think of , let's see...God appearing and invoking a bunch of new species, a new species appearing overnight without ancestors, or shadowrun's "goblinisation" when human kids turned into elves, goblins, trolls and such en masse when they hit puberty. (only works if the humanoids are not able to have kids together, though,otherwise you fail to meet the speciation definition)
of course, to disprove that darwinian evolution ever happpened, you'd have to prove that the new species-creating phenomenon was the only one working all along
Good luck with that
btw, when we discovered mitochondrial dna, we could have had a refutation of the ToE if the mitochondrial phenotype group borders had been significantly different than the host phenotypical group borders. They are not.
in plain language: mitochondiae are monocellular organisms that live in symbiosis with our living cells (human and animal). They are basically our cells'power plants(we can't live without them), but they have their own dna code. And when two individuals or species have common ancestors, so do their mitochondriae (since they don't leave our cells). had significant differenczs been found between species' "family trees" and their mitochondriae's, we'd have had to rethink the toe pretty badly.
11/19/2009 9:16:27 AM
"A fundamental requirement of expderimental science is firstly that phenomena to be studied must be observable. Then, the object or phenomenon must be repeatable"
Experimental studies of in vitro evolution have observably and repeatedly demonstrated that it occurs.
Not that this is even a requirement of science. A theory should be able to make specific predictions that can be confirmed by observation or experiment. Theories such as the periodicity of certain comets, relativistic bending of light, etc. were confirmed by observation, not experiment. The same is true - in spades - of evolution.
11/19/2009 9:29:24 AM
1/14/2013 12:55:54 PM
You don't know much about the scientific method, do you, Guy? What you are describing is the peer review process, when other scientists have the opportunity to question and scrutinize a hypothesis to find holes and discrepancies, which can then be addressed. This happens before a hypothesis becomes a theory.
Sure, the ToE might be distinguished from any theory CLAIMING to be scientific. But that is because it actually IS scientific. Evolution and speciation has been observed.
1/14/2013 1:33:21 PM
Which is why we're still using leeches to drain the bad humors out of patients in hospitals.
1/14/2013 2:28:10 PM
I know! How dare they critically think about their findings? They should blindly believe in things, like that bloodletting is good for you.
1/15/2013 6:08:31 PM
1 2 3