Why do people always forget the word 'theory' in the theory of evolution? [Spirituality & Religion]
Its just a theory. I'll pass no commentary on its validity, just pointing that out.
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Pfuzylogic · M
View 90 more replies »
Pfuzylogic · M
@newjaninev2
Improve your grammar and concept of ideas? I’m done trying to help you today.
Improve your grammar and concept of ideas? I’m done trying to help you today.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Pfuzylogic OK... well, best you run along then.
Pfuzylogic · M
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
[b]Just[/b] a Theory?
Seriously?
Science starts with observation. We look at the world, and we notice things. Many of these things seem to be related, and so we try to come up with an explanation as to how they’re related. This explanation is called a Theory… we can think of these as ‘Big T’ Theories, because they are based on demonstrable evidence and they have wide explanatory power.
Scientists then test the Theory in order to prove that it is wrong. This is an important point, and it seems to constantly confuse non-scientists. Science doesn’t try to prove that a Theory is correct. Science tries to prove that the Theory is [b]wrong[/b], and the Theory is accepted only so long as we are unable to show that it is wrong.
Contrast this with our everyday ‘theories’ (my neighbour is probably cheating on her taxes… my friend is having an affair), which are simply vague hunches or convenient fictions - we can think of those as small-t theories. Usually we go looking for evidence to support these ‘theories’, and it is common for us to ignore evidence that contradicts them. It seems to me that it's these vague hunches or convenient fictions that people have in mind when they say that evolution is ‘just a theory’.
Seriously?
Science starts with observation. We look at the world, and we notice things. Many of these things seem to be related, and so we try to come up with an explanation as to how they’re related. This explanation is called a Theory… we can think of these as ‘Big T’ Theories, because they are based on demonstrable evidence and they have wide explanatory power.
Scientists then test the Theory in order to prove that it is wrong. This is an important point, and it seems to constantly confuse non-scientists. Science doesn’t try to prove that a Theory is correct. Science tries to prove that the Theory is [b]wrong[/b], and the Theory is accepted only so long as we are unable to show that it is wrong.
Contrast this with our everyday ‘theories’ (my neighbour is probably cheating on her taxes… my friend is having an affair), which are simply vague hunches or convenient fictions - we can think of those as small-t theories. Usually we go looking for evidence to support these ‘theories’, and it is common for us to ignore evidence that contradicts them. It seems to me that it's these vague hunches or convenient fictions that people have in mind when they say that evolution is ‘just a theory’.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@newjaninev2 This guy's just a troll. He's been on here a couple of times with similar bullshit. He's really not worth the effort.
UpsideOutInsideDown · 36-40, M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Jm31xxx · 41-45, M
@MalteseFalconPunch joking always joking but many a truth is spoke in jest
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
CopperCicada · M
Pfuzylogic · M
@QuixoticSoul
As I stated before cut the condescension if you want a discussion.
It is obvious that you have no idea what the new cosmological facts are.
As I stated before cut the condescension if you want a discussion.
It is obvious that you have no idea what the new cosmological facts are.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@Pfuzylogic Call it whatever, you just seem to have a weird view on how the whole things works that's pretty out of step with reality of the methodology or the process. What a law is. What a theory is, what it's for, and how it's used. How science progresses, and what sort of knowledge it generates. You've managed to miss the point of all of it. The real issue isn't even with anyone's awareness of facts here, you have a philosophy of science problem.
I haven't even discussed any cosmological facts with you here, new or old. What I did talk about, was that the theory of relativity is not threatened by any supposed upcoming failure of the big bang model. Which is true.
Hawking [b]is[/b] buried next to Newton. And Darwin. That's pretty sweet.
Gaia found the biggest black hole ever last year, btw.
I haven't even discussed any cosmological facts with you here, new or old. What I did talk about, was that the theory of relativity is not threatened by any supposed upcoming failure of the big bang model. Which is true.
Hawking [b]is[/b] buried next to Newton. And Darwin. That's pretty sweet.
Gaia found the biggest black hole ever last year, btw.
Pfuzylogic · M
@QuixoticSoul
We talked about the fact that black holes didn’t exist as science had previously established without question.
I introduced you to new science.
You are welcome.
We talked about the fact that black holes didn’t exist as science had previously established without question.
I introduced you to new science.
You are welcome.
Pfuzylogic · M
@newjaninev2
Sir “Roger” has to spank Hawking in the 60s. Gaia is currently rebuking all of the filler people had called science fact” for decades. I can see why Hawking kicked it on Pi Day. He got his noteriety and is buried next to Newton.
Sir “Roger” has to spank Hawking in the 60s. Gaia is currently rebuking all of the filler people had called science fact” for decades. I can see why Hawking kicked it on Pi Day. He got his noteriety and is buried next to Newton.
Pfuzylogic · M
@SW-User
Can’t let you have the last word you scrounge lol
Can’t let you have the last word you scrounge lol
@SW-User
Um dude?
I can't see who you're talking to but it sorta sounds like you're every bit as as desperate to get the triumphant last word as you seem to think he is.
Maybe he's a twat but this is not a good look.
Um dude?
I can't see who you're talking to but it sorta sounds like you're every bit as as desperate to get the triumphant last word as you seem to think he is.
Maybe he's a twat but this is not a good look.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
“Just a theory” 🤦♂️
There is nowhere higher to get to in the epistemological ladder of science. Don’t mistake the meaning a scientific theory for its casual language definition. To be considered a scientific theory requires far more than the casually vague possibility implied by your language.
On top of this, the theory of evolution is probably the best-supported theory in all of sciences. Up there with heliocentrism.
There is nowhere higher to get to in the epistemological ladder of science. Don’t mistake the meaning a scientific theory for its casual language definition. To be considered a scientific theory requires far more than the casually vague possibility implied by your language.
On top of this, the theory of evolution is probably the best-supported theory in all of sciences. Up there with heliocentrism.
NeloAngelo · 26-30, M
there's a difference between normal theory and scientific theory.
in the context of science it isn't considered a theory until other non biased sources confirm there results. its called a theory so its never set in stone. new discoveries might add or change to the theory so that were always willing to improve and correct any errors or fill in the gaps of the parts we don't know yet.
in the context of science it isn't considered a theory until other non biased sources confirm there results. its called a theory so its never set in stone. new discoveries might add or change to the theory so that were always willing to improve and correct any errors or fill in the gaps of the parts we don't know yet.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
👍️👏👏
Northwest · M
TheWildEcho · 56-60, M
@TheWildEcho There is no missing link. Unless you want a transitional species between each subspecies. Lol
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@TheWildEcho [quote]where is the missing link?[/quote]
The term 'missing link' (i assume that's what you're referring to) is a pre-Darwinian term first used by the geologist Charles Lyall. It's based on the creationist notion of a 'great chain of being'... with single-celled life at the bottom and some sort of magical entity at the top, with humans right next to it (creationists seem to be hung-up on hierarchies).
This is what is behind those silly pictures creationists draw of several creatures in a line slowly morphing from something lemur-like to a modern human. It is a static, non-evolutionary concept, and is irrelevant in any discussion of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which consistently and coherently accounts for the evidence that all primates (apes, bonobos, humans, and chimpanzees) are descended from a common ancestor which lived from 70 million years ago until around 40 million years ago.
(I would be happy to discuss all that with you, should you so wish)
The term 'missing link' (i assume that's what you're referring to) is a pre-Darwinian term first used by the geologist Charles Lyall. It's based on the creationist notion of a 'great chain of being'... with single-celled life at the bottom and some sort of magical entity at the top, with humans right next to it (creationists seem to be hung-up on hierarchies).
This is what is behind those silly pictures creationists draw of several creatures in a line slowly morphing from something lemur-like to a modern human. It is a static, non-evolutionary concept, and is irrelevant in any discussion of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which consistently and coherently accounts for the evidence that all primates (apes, bonobos, humans, and chimpanzees) are descended from a common ancestor which lived from 70 million years ago until around 40 million years ago.
(I would be happy to discuss all that with you, should you so wish)
SW-User
and to some... the theory is more plausible than gods.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment