Message 106 of 116 (703310) 07-18-2013 12:41 AM

Reply to: Message 100 by Skulb 07-17-2013 4:37 PM

I see sentence after sentence of untruths.

I'll comment on one of the falsehoods presented here.

One in situ fossil of an elephant in the ~3300 million year old Kromberg and Hooggenoeg Formations, Onverwacht Group, Barberton Supergroup, South Africa.

We find fossils of prokaryotes in there.

Solid enough for you?

Edited by Pressie, : Spelling

Message 107 of 116 (703319) 07-18-2013 12:19 PM

Reply to: Message 100 by Skulb 07-17-2013 4:37 PM

Nope, never forgotten.
In fact, it's written down in history of science books all over the world to help new scientists not repeat the mistakes of past generations.

Yes, things change.

But, if you don't like science... don't you think you should bring up your issues with the scientific method? Because that's what science is.
The rest is all just political drama about people who also happen to do science.

Like religion. There's lots of political drama over priests who do inappropriate things with young boys. Do you think "religion" should be judged by this drama caused by the people who also happen to do religion? Or should we judge religion by the religious method?

Sure.
Who figured out they were wrong? Was it other people using the religious method? Or other people using the scientific method?
I'll give you a hint... no one has made any technological progress using the religious method for over 2000 years now.

So, we're back to the same point. If you have an issue with science, you should identify your issue with the scientific method.
However, if you simply have a political drama issue with some people who happen to do science... then most will likely agree there's something wrong with those people... but you won't convince anyone that there's anything wrong with science if you go this route.

Right, absolutely.

Actually, no. Proving ID would not falsify evolution.

There are actually two different things to discuss here.

1. Falsifying a theory
Falsification of a theory has nothing to do with proving another one as true.

If ID was shown to be true, evolution would still also be true. They may meld together into some sort of strange Intelligent Evolution theory at some point, but nothing about the theory of evolution would go away... it would simply be added onto with the new knowledge of ID.

Falsifying a theory involves showing that the specific theory in question is actually wrong.
It means to take a prediction of the theory, and show that the result is something else.

Evolution predicts that a cat will never give birth to a snake or anything other than a slightly different cat.
If you could show that a cat gives birth to a snake... then you would falsify evolutionary theory.

Evolution predicts that organisms change over time.
If you could show that sharks today are exactly the same as sharks 100 000 years ago... then you would falsify evolutionary theory.
If you could show that birch trees today are exactly the same as birch trees 100 000 years ago... then you would falsify evolutionary theory.
If you could show that bacteria today is exactly the same as bacteria 100 000 years ago... then you would falsify evolutionary theory.

The point is, in order to falsify a theory you need to show that the predictions of that theory are incorrect.
Just because a theory gets falsified doesn't even mean it's automatically replaced... which leads us into our next topic:

2. Replacing a theory with another one

A theory is only ever replaced with another one if the following is true:

The new theory is able to explain all the information available better than the old theory.

That's it.
Nothing to do with falsification or truthiness or popularity.
("Better" in this context is two fold - being able to actually explain the information as well as doing it in the simplest way.)
("Explain" in this context is scientifically-related, the explanation has to be useful... it has to make predictions that can be tested and verified).

Falsification can be a part of replacing a theory, but it isn't necessary and doesn't actually mean anything will happen.

The following is an example about how theories are falsified and replaced

Let's say I see a lot of robins in spring and summer and fall.
I come up with a theory that robins only live during the spring and summer and fall.
Prediction of the theory: you will never find a robin alive in the winter.

Now, someone else comes up with a competing theory. They call it Intrinsic Death.
They say that robins aren't even alive in the spring or summer or fall. They are always undergoing Intrinsic Death which lasts for 9 months that makes it look like they're alive. But then they return to normal death during the winter.
Prediction of the theory: you will never find a robin alive in the winter.

Let's say a 3rd group has another theory. They call it Create-A-Robin.
They say that robins are created every spring by the Egg-God.
They don't have any predictions, just a book that says robins are created every spring by an Egg-God.

Which theory scientifically explains all the information available in a better way?
Well, the one with no predictions isn't scientific at all, so we just ignore it.
The other two make the same prediction, so they are both validated equally by the testing.
One uses the states of nature we know about from all other animals (alive and dead).
The other introduces a new state of nature (Intrinsic Death) that is mysterious, has no explanation and sounds a bit fishy.
Which, then, is simpler?

Obviously, we go with the natural theory.

Now, we have our accepted scientific theory that robins only live during the spring and summer and fall, and die in the winter.
We also have our "other scientific theory" of Intrinsic Death that some folk just keep insisting is correct.
We also have something else that some people call a theory even though it's not scientific (Create-A-Robin), and they also insist that it is correct.

Then we get some more information.
People from further south give us a phone call and say "hey, robins live in the winter... they come down here!"
We take a trip to see for ourselves, tag a few robins to track them, and understand that yes... robins do not die every winter... they just fly south.

What now?

Our accepted theory is falsified.
Does that mean Intrinsic Death becomes the accepted scientific theory? No, it's also falsified.
Does that mean Create-A-Robin becomes the accepted scientific theory? No, it still doesn't make any predictions so it still isn't science.

What now?

Well, since our old accepted-theory still scientifically explains all the information better than the others... it's still the accepted theory!
We still know that robins live in spring, summer and fall. This part of the theory still works great, so we keep it.
But we now know that robins don't die in the winter... they just fly south.

What happens is we adjust our theory to account for this new information.

The theory becomes "robins live year round, but they fly south for the winter."
Intrinsic Death can adjust their theory... but they still include an additional, mysterious, unnecessary aspect which makes the natural theory better.
Create-A-Robin didn't become the accepted theory just because the other two were shown to be wrong... because it never explained the information in any way at all. It's just based on a book with pictures of eggs and bearded chefs.

As long as Create-A-Robin stays the same, it'll never be used in the scientific world. There's no predictions, no usefulness, no science.
As long as Intrinsic Death keeps it's additional, mysterious, unnecessary ideas, it'll never be used in the scientific world.

The theory that is always used in the scientific world is the one that explains all the information better than the others.

This is generally developed by changing our theories to account for new information as our knowledge grows.

If you don't like a theory, you need to show some information that it cannot account for... and then identify a new theory that does account for it, but also accounts for all the old information as well. This will make it better, and then it will replace the old theory.

If you don't like the method of science... then you're free to think up a better method.
The method of science, however, does have a pretty good track record. Not much advancement in human technology until science came around... then BOOM! Computers! Cell-phones! Space Exploration!!
It seems to be doing pretty good so far.

Message 108 of 116 (703320) 07-18-2013 12:35 PM

Reply to: Message 102 by Skulb 07-17-2013 8:04 PM

That's also the greatest weakness of creationism and its alter-ego Intelligent Design - the unshakable faith that you already know everything there is to know.

Message 109 of 116 (703321) 07-18-2013 2:24 PM

Reply to: Message 102 by Skulb 07-17-2013 8:04 PM

Where did this part come from?
Scientific exposition exists for all scientific ideas.

If you can't back up your claims... then your ideas are not scientific and will never be accepted by anyone in science.

It's quite possible that the media did not inform you of the scientific exposition for this or that idea.
But this is generally because scientific exposition is long, difficult and usually kind of boring.
Therefore, the media just ignores that part. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though, it's just long and difficult and boring.

Scientific exposition can take quite a bit of education and motivation to understand.
Most things can eventually be explained if you have the time and patience to go through it with someone who understands the subject matter.

Is there anything specific you think there's no scientific exposition for? I'm sure we can go over it, if you'd like.
Even "junk DNA" is kind of a broad term.

I did a quick google on "History of Junk DNA" and came up with a bunch of websites, including this blog:

quote:

---

In other words, there was no real period in which noncoding DNA was dismissed by the scientific community, though there was a much-needed shift away from strictly adaptive interpretations in the 1980s. Some individual researchers ignored noncoding regions, but there is no gap in the literature other than limits on what could be done in a methodological capacity. The "new" view of noncoding DNA as potentially important has been proclaimed regularly for at least as long as the claimed period of neglect between 1980 and 1994.

One wonders just how long we will be told that we have long been neglecting noncoding DNA.

The history of junk DNA explored

---

There's a bunch of information just in that blog alone.
And, the blog isn't even the scientific exposition on Junk DNA. It's just a blog.
But, if you think the time required to read and understand the blog is too much... that's nothing compared to the time required to read and understand the scientific exposition.

That's what scientific research and science-related post-university schooling is for... reading and understanding the scientific expositions behind certain principles. It can sometimes take years to get through the amount of data backing up specific ideas.
The way to break that down isn't to ignore it, though.. it's to go through it, understand it, and then identify something that is better.

That's what happened when things change in the scientific community. Someone studied a subject... realized something didn't line up... studied it harder and longer... then identified why and how to correct the issue.

That's not a "problem"... that's "scientific advancement."

Message 110 of 116 (703434) 07-21-2013 7:09 PM

Reply to: Message 108 by ringo 07-18-2013 12:35 PM

I know but that is what is not happening. Instead an illegitimate practise of consensus based paradigms has been introduced to replace it, specifically for political purposes, under which change is resisted for decade after decade because people have made their careers under the old paradigm and refuse to accept contradicting information. This is how modern science now works and although you all give wonderful presentations of how science is supposed to work it not how it actually works in the real world. We could discuss how this phenomenon affect evolutionary biology in particular but I don`t think there`s much point.

Unless you catch up on science practises for the past few decades you`ll obviously not understand a word I`m saying, and to be frank the level of arrogance and self admiration in some of these posts is very unappealing.

I will therefore excuse myself from the discussion and these forums. I want intelligent conversation, not scientific dogmas and an inability to think individually.

Have a nice summer.

Edited by Skulb, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : More blank lines.

Message 111 of 116 (703435) 07-21-2013 7:42 PM

Reply to: Message 110 by Skulb 07-21-2013 7:09 PM

More likely you want people to ignore the scientific method and accept, uncritically, your own particular brand of woo.

Sorry, try elsewhere.

Message 112 of 116 (703445) 07-21-2013 11:22 PM

Reply to: Message 110 by Skulb 07-21-2013 7:09 PM

Oh look, someone making sweeping and extraordinary claims without offering a shred of evidence to back them up is lecturing us on the scientific method. Oh, and complaining about "arrogance" while he does it.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Message 113 of 116 (703446) 07-21-2013 11:45 PM

Reply to: Message 99 by Stile 07-17-2013 3:42 PM

I'd keep it with the politics where it reichtfully belongs.

Message 114 of 116 (703455) 07-22-2013 9:19 AM

Reply to: Message 110 by Skulb 07-21-2013 7:09 PM

Weren't you looking for intelligent conversation?
Can you explain what intelligent conversation looks like from your point of view?

From here, it appears that you came onto a forum, dropped a few points without backing them up at all, and then ran away when they were easily discarded by those who actually did back up their positions.

Perhaps a nice summer would help you to relax and reflect on your ideas about what intelligent conversation actually entails.
I would suggest focusing on the part about communicating the reasons behind your words instead of just empty claims. Things like examples or statistics can be very helpful in providing actual weight behind stringing together a few simple phrases.

Another thing is to try and not take responses personally. Just because your first attempt at communicating your issues with science didn't go the way you planned doesn't mean anything is wrong with you. Your recent hostility should have been contained. Instead of wondering why no one saw the obvious intelligence in your remarks, you should focus on thinking of ways to make the points even more obvious. Switching to petty grumpiness only shows that you're more concerned with trying to "save face" instead of actually talking about the topic.

One of the nice things about forums is that they don't disappear. You can take as much time as you need. Whenever you're ready you can come back and try again.

Message 116 of 116 (729823) 06-19-2014 12:31 PM

http://www.iflscience.com/...reationism-state-funded-schools