Evolution?

[cowcatcher]

post a link to the dictionary definitions

I would appreciate a reference to what causes gravity.

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com...mechanics, It is,play catch with your friends.

Note the word "speculated". Sort of preponderance of evidence rather than beyond reasonable doubt. Similar to evolution.

 

[Tuesday]

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/19245/what-causes-the-earth-to-have-gravity#:~:text=In quantum mechanics, It is,play catch with your friends.

Note the word "speculated". Sort of preponderance of evidence rather than beyond reasonable doubt. Similar to evolution.

What does astronomy have to do with any of this...?

 

[Scarlet Rose]

Ok I understand the concept but still it hasn't been proven like the Law of Gravity or that the earth is round etc...what I'm trying to point out is there is too much unexplained like if it didn't happen with a snap of the finger why aren't there any Neanderthals left at all while there are less evolved animals around like monkeys ect...there's too many missing links in the Theory of Evolution...

General consensus seems to be that the Neanderthals died out as a result of competition, from sociocultural advantages possessed by homo sapiens. There is no such thing as lesser evolved animals. Evolution isn't a progressive process, to speak of more or less evolved animals doesn't make sense. Animals either did, or did not, adapt to their respective environments. Also animals like monkeys have not stopped evolving. You are also confused about scientific laws and theories.

 

[ROHAN]

What’s the difference between a scientific law and theory? (in TED-Ed GIFs)

Chat with a friend about an established scientific theory, and she might reply, “Well, that’s just a theory.” But a conversation about an established scientific law rarely ends with “Well, that’s j…

blog.ed.ted.com

So while the majority of the scientific community consider the theory of evolution to be scientific fact it still isn't a proven fact hense the designation of evolution being a theory instead of law...

You are using the general definition of theory. Use the scientific definition. These videos explain it in more detail.

 

[~ True Legend ~]

That's a rather startling "headline" ; has nothing to do with the article though.

Nothing to do with the thread, sure, sorry 🤣
I litr just read the thread title and posted 🤪 ! Teaches me to read at least the first post in the thread first 👀
[automerge]1696788723[/automerge]

General consensus seems to be that the Neanderthals died out as a result of competition, from sociocultural advantages possessed by homo sapiens. There is no such thing as lesser evolved animals. Evolution isn't a progressive process, to speak of more or less evolved animals doesn't make sense. Animals either did, or did not, adapt to their respective environments. Also animals like monkeys have not stopped evolving. You are also confused about scientific laws and theories.

I suppose there could be such a thing as the extent of evolution, in the sense of a certain proportion of animals possessing traits to pass them on, with the minority not possessing said traits. Eventually though, the evolution should be expected to be greater as there reaches a point where some animals without kids decrease.

 

[passenger]

This may be an interesting read: a guy lives underwater for 100 years.

A professor is spending 100 days underwater. Here’s why | Fortune

The previous world record for living underwater is 73 days

fortune.com

.

Nothing to do with the thread, sure, sorry 🤣
I litr just read the thread title and posted 🤪 ! Teaches me to read at least the first post in the thread first 👀

Maybe your article somehow fits in with the thread, that's really beside the point.

Actually what I was talking about was YOUR "headline" of "... a guy lives underwater for 100 years." when the article says "100 DAYS".
Thought I was reading the National Enquirer for a minute there.

 

[~ True Legend ~]

.

Maybe your article somehow fits in with the thread, that's really beside the point.

Actually what I was talking about was YOUR "headline" of "... a guy lives underwater for 100 years." when the article says "100 DAYS".
Thought I was reading the National Enquirer for a minute there.

Ah whoops, typo 🤣
That really does make a difference in semantics 🤪

 

[Tuesday]

General consensus seems to be that the Neanderthals died out as a result of competition, from sociocultural advantages possessed by homo sapiens. There is no such thing as lesser evolved animals. Evolution isn't a progressive process, to speak of more or less evolved animals doesn't make sense. Animals either did, or did not, adapt to their respective environments. Also animals like monkeys have not stopped evolving. You are also confused about scientific laws and theories.

How am I confused about laws and theories...?

You are using the general definition of theory. Use the scientific definition. These videos explain it in more detail.

I understand the scientific definition...the scientific definition is that the scientific community mostly agrees that the theory of evolution is fact but still it's an unproven fact that's why it's called the theory of evolution not the law of evolution...not sure why you all keep trying to say theories are are proven facts when the link from TedTalks clearly says otherwise...

Since I can't post images I'll just copy and paste from the TedTalk link:

In simplest terms, a law predicts what happens while a theory proposes why. A theory will never grow up into a law, though the development of one often triggers progress on the other.

Since I can't post images I'll just copy and paste from the TedTalk link:

In simplest terms, a law predicts what happens while a theory proposes why. A theory will never grow up into a law, though the development of one often triggers progress on the other.

So...scientific theories propose things...a proposition is not proven fact...laws predict things...when a prediction from a law scrolls actually happens that proves the scientific law to be true...theories try to explain because we can't see them actually happening therefore cannot be proven to be true even though they might be true...so scientific theories are based on belief while scientific laws are based on our ability to observe them actually happening...we can observe theories actually happening unlike scientific laws...

 

[PGen98]

In simplest terms, a law predicts what happens while a theory proposes why.

Thanks for restating exactly what I said earlier. You're still wrong, btw.

 

[Tuesday]

Thanks for restating exactly what I said earlier. You're still wrong, btw.

How wrong...?

 

[ROHAN]

How am I confused about laws and theories...?


I understand the scientific definition...the scientific definition is that the scientific community mostly agrees that the theory of evolution is fact but still it's an unproven fact that's why it's called the theory of evolution not the law of evolution...not sure why you all keep trying to say theories are are proven facts when the link from TedTalks clearly says otherwise...

Since I can't post images I'll just copy and paste from the TedTalk link:

In simplest terms, a law predicts what happens while a theory proposes why. A theory will never grow up into a law, though the development of one often triggers progress on the other.


So...scientific theories propose things...a proposition is not proven fact...laws predict things...when a prediction from a law scrolls actually happens that proves the scientific law to be true...theories try to explain because we can't see them actually happening therefore cannot be proven to be true even though they might be true...so scientific theories are based on belief while scientific laws are based on our ability to observe them actually happening...we can observe theories actually happening unlike scientific laws...

I rest my case.

 

[Tuesday]

I rest my case.

Well if links to dictionaries and TedTalks aren't enough proof for you then nothing will be enough for you...

 

[ROHAN]

Well if links to dictionaries and TedTalks aren't enough proof for you then nothing will be enough for you...

I refuse to budge on my stance that evolution is an undeniable aspect of reality. I am exiting the debate. Move on.

 

[Tuesday]

I refuse to budge on my stance that evolution is an undeniable aspect of reality. I am exiting the debate. Move on.

Haha...ok...well if it's so undeniable then why are there people that deny it? There haha now I'm ending the debate...

 

[MrDawn]

As you understand it has the theory of evolution ever been observed in controlled experiments etc...?

It’s been observed in laboratories in real time, using selective breeding. Take the horse for example.

" The evolutionary lineage of the horse is among the best-documented in all palaeontology. The history of the horse [family] began during the Eocene Epoch, which lasted from about 56 million to 33.9 million years ago. During the early Eocene there appeared the first ancestral horse, a hoofed, browsing mammal, designated correctly as Hyracotherium, but more commonly called Eohippus, the Fossils of Eohippus, which have been found in both North America, and Europe, show an animal that stood 4.2 to 5 hands about 42.7 to 50.8 cm, or 16.8 to 20 inches high, diminutive by comparison with the modern horse, and had an arched back and raised hindquarters."

Horse - Evolution, Domestication, Anatomy

Horse - Evolution, Domestication, Anatomy: The history of the horse family, Equidae, began during the Eocene Epoch. Eohippus (Hyracotherium) was the first ancestral horse to appear. The line leading from Eohippus to Equus, the modern horse, includes Orohippus, Epihippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus...

www.britannica.com

 

[PGen98]

Haha...ok...well if it's so undeniable then why are there people that deny it? There haha now I'm ending the debate...

There are people that still believe the Earth is flat...

 

[Tuesday]

There are people that still believe the Earth is flat...

Well we can see it's not flat but we can't see evolutions taking place the way the theory of evolution describes that's the difference...

It’s been observed in laboratories in real time, using selective breeding. Take the horse for example.

Horse - Evolution, Domestication, Anatomy

Horse - Evolution, Domestication, Anatomy: The history of the horse family, Equidae, began during the Eocene Epoch. Eohippus (Hyracotherium) was the first ancestral horse to appear. The line leading from Eohippus to Equus, the modern horse, includes Orohippus, Epihippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus...

www.britannica.com

Ok but that still doesn't explain why the human evolution theory has us changing species from monkeys to Neanderthals to homo sapiens etc...plus just because horses are observed to adapt to their environments doesn't prove that it can happen to humans too...specifically it hasn't been observed yet that those horses have changed into horses that can talk and think like homo sapiens...

 

[Scarlet Rose]

I suppose there could be such a thing as the extent of evolution, in the sense of a certain proportion of animals possessing traits to pass them on, with the minority not possessing said traits. Eventually though, the evolution should be expected to be greater as there reaches a point where some animals without kids decrease.

It isn't so much about the prevalence of the traits in question, but rather the notion that evolution itself isn't a progressive process. It isn't about the species themselves improving and becoming more evolved, as evolution isn't an optimization process. It is about those that are able to adapt to their respective niches better than the other alternatives. So within a single species we can see through the evolutionary process those that were better able to adapt to a particular niche, we can also observe this between species that were competing within the same niche. However it doesn't make much sense to speak of one animal as being more evolved than another. The example they gave of monkeys, implies that when humans and monkeys branched out from our common ancestor only humans kept evolving which is patently false.

How am I confused about laws and theories...?

You are underselling theories while also overselling laws. Your implication seems to be that theories are uniquely a result of social processes and the current general consensus, whereas laws are not. While I agree when you discuss the difference in their scope and what they seek to explain, laws can also be seen as the current consensus on their respective issue and have been historically show to change.

 

[Tuesday]

It isn't so much about the prevalence of the traits in question, but rather the notion that evolution itself isn't a progressive process. It isn't about the species themselves improving and becoming more evolved, as evolution isn't an optimization process. It is about those that are able to adapt to their respective niches better than the other alternatives. So within a single species we can see through the evolutionary process those that were better able to adapt to a particular niche, we can also observe this between species that were competing within the same niche. However it doesn't make much sense to speak of one animal as being more evolved than another. The example they gave of monkeys, implies that when humans and monkeys branched out from our common ancestor only humans kept evolving which is patently false.

You are underselling theories while also overselling laws. Your implication seems to be that theories are uniquely a result of social processes and the current general consensus, whereas laws are not. While I agree when you discuss the difference in their scope and what they seek to explain, laws can also be seen as the current consensus on their respective issue and have been historically show to change.

Yes but bottom line is that theories are not proven unlike laws...that is at least the simplest ways to put it...I don't think it's underselling to explain that therioes are not observable facts unlike laws...

 

[MrDawn]

to Neanderthals to homo sapiens etc....

Concerning the Neanderthal, anthropologist studies state that we interbred with them.