Evolution?

[Tuesday]

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

Yes I understand that's the theory of evolution which is the best explanation so far but that's far from a proven fact...not all scientific facts are proven facts as you've already noted...

 

[Scarlet Rose]

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...

The two are not in opposition to each other, nor is one more scientific than the other. The two are quite closely interconnected with each other. We agree that they operate on different scales and scopes. I disagree that theories are less scientific than laws, or that laws are more pure. To prove a law we would need a theory of what constitutes a scientific law and a theory of what constitutes proof. Throughout human history and across cultures we have seen repeated examples of the hegemonic theories framing the kinds of questions that get asked, the methodologies behind how these questions are answered and what counts as laws. Your view of theories and laws is ahistorical and appears to be appealing to naive empiricism.

 

[cowcatcher]

that's the theory of evolution which is the best explanation so far

My point about gravity is that currently there is no accepted explanation of gravity. Gravity works, we can see that through cause and effect, experiments etc, but we don't understand why it works.

In evolution, we can observe mutations in genes on a daily basis, see how some mutations make for better chances of survival (most of the ones we observe make for less chance of survival). We can even observe some causes of gene mutation (e.g. radiation). I don't think we have yet "observed" the case where a mutation in a species prevents successful reproduction with the non-mutated population but allows reproduction with the mutated population, nor understand why this would occur.

 

[Tuesday]

My point about gravity is that currently there is no accepted explanation of gravity. Gravity works, we can see that through cause and effect, experiments etc, but we don't understand why it works.

In evolution, we can observe mutations in genes on a daily basis, see how some mutations make for better chances of survival (most of the ones we observe make for less chance of survival). We can even observe some causes of gene mutation (e.g. radiation). I don't think we have yet "observed" the case where a mutation in a species prevents successful reproduction with the non-mutated population but allows reproduction with the mutated population, nor understand why this would occur.

Exactly why the law of gravity is a law because we see it working we see it happening you don't need to explain it you just see it to believe it...whereas theories you can't see it to believe it instead you have to imagine it to believe it...

The two are not in opposition to each other, nor is one more scientific than the other. The two are quite closely interconnected with each other. We agree that they operate on different scales and scopes. I disagree that theories are less scientific than laws, or that laws are more pure. To prove a law we would need a theory of what constitutes a scientific law and a theory of what constitutes proof. Throughout human history and across cultures we have seen repeated examples of the hegemonic theories framing the kinds of questions that get asked, the methodologies behind how these questions are answered and what counts as laws. Your view of theories and laws is ahistorical and appears to be appealing to naive empiricism.

Nobody says they were in opposition to each other or one more scientific than the other so not sure why you needed to point that out...

Anyways if you wanna think scientific law are the same as scientific theories keep going right ahead because that's being quite native...

 

[Scarlet Rose]

Nobody says they were in opposition to each other or one more scientific than the other so not sure why you needed to point that out...

Anyways if you wanna think scientific law are the same as scientific theories keep going right ahead because that's being quite native...

Could you clarify your position then, as it had genuinely been my understanding that this is what you were doing.

 

[Tuesday]

Could you clarify your position then, as it had genuinely been my understanding that this is what you were doing.

All I'm saying is that scientific theories like the theory of evolution are things that we can't see happen in real time and have yet to be observed to have happened that's why they are called theories they are the best proposals of what scientists think or estimate happened...

While scientific laws are things that can be seen to happen in real time things that we can observe to have happened there is no need to theorize or purpose what happened because we can reproduce it and see it happen over and over again...

Laws are proven through seeing it happen...theories can't be proved that way theories only propose what probably happened...

 

[Tuesday]

All I'm saying is that scientific theories like the theory of evolution are things that we can't see happen in real time and have yet to be observed to have happened that's why they are called theories they are the best proposals of what scientists think or estimate happened...

While scientific laws are things that can be seen to happen in real time things that we can observe to have happened there is no need to theorize or purpose what happened because we can reproduce it and see it happen over and over again...

Laws are proven through seeing it happen...theories can't be proved that way theories only propose what probably happened...

@PGen98

Explain what so funny about my post since you obviously don't agree...

 

[PGen98]

@PGen98

Explain what so funny about my post since you obviously don't agree...

I already have, several times. I'm not going in circles with you because you don't comprehend.

 

[Tuesday]

I already have, several times. I'm not going in circles with you because you don't comprehend.

Well if you not willing to explain there no point for you to criticize others...

 

[MrDawn]

Well if you not willing to explain there no point for you to criticize others...

She has. Other members in this thread have explained it as well and you dismiss it. There is strong anthropological evidence and documentation supporting the existence of other human species from millions of years ago. Evolution is even documented in virology. No amount of disbelief is going to make that evidence just go away for your own cconvenience. It's there.

 

[Scarlet Rose]

All I'm saying is that scientific theories like the theory of evolution are things that we can't see happen in real time and have yet to be observed to have happened that's why they are called theories they are the best proposals of what scientists think or estimate happened...

While scientific laws are things that can be seen to happen in real time things that we can observe to have happened there is no need to theorize or purpose what happened because we can reproduce it and see it happen over and over again...

Laws are proven through seeing it happen...theories can't be proved that way theories only propose what probably happened...

Before I give a more lengthy reply, I want to clarify that I have understood what you are saying correctly. To do that, I will quote philosopher of science A.F Chalmers from his book What is this thing called science?

When it is claimed that science is special because it is based on the facts, the facts are presumed to be claims about the world that can be directly established by a careful, unprejudiced use of the senses. Science is to be based on what we can see, hear and touch rather than on personal opinions or speculative imaginings.

Edit: Fixed a typo

 

[Tuesday]

She has. Other members in this thread have explained it as well and you dismiss it. There is strong anthropological evidence and documentation supporting the existence of other human species from millions of years ago. Evolution is even documented in virology. No amount of disbelief is going to make that evidence just go away for your own cconvenience. It's there.

Not denying that there evidence and that you all belief it proves that the theory of evolution really happened but my point is that is it still a theory as opposed to something we can actually see happening to humans in real time...the best the theory can be is just telling us to believe what we can't see for ourselves...that's the difference between scientific theories and scientific laws and is you all want to scoff at that then you all are not being reasonable especially when I've posted links to TedEd and Oxford dictionaries to explain why theories and laws have significant differences...

Before I give a more lengthy reply, I want to clarify that I have understood what you are saying correctly. To do that, I will quote philosopher of science A.F Chalmers from his book What is this thing called science?



Edit: Fixed a typo

And your point is...?

 

[Scarlet Rose]

And your point is...?

Are you asking me what the point of clarification is?

 

[Tuesday]

Are you asking me what the point of clarification is?

The point of what you posted that quote...it's like saying the sky is blue and I would you so...

 

[Scarlet Rose]

The point of what you posted that quote...it's like saying the sky is blue and I would you so...

I was wanting your clarification that the quote I posted accurately reflects the point you have been making about scientific laws. Something you still haven't confirmed or denied.

 

[Tuesday]

I was wanting your clarification that the quote I posted accurately reflects the point you have been making about scientific laws. Something you still haven't confirmed or denied.

Really...? You want me to spell out that I agree with the obvious? I've already posted that I think that statement is like claiming the sky is blue...so if that's not clear enough for you then I'll make it even clearer...yes I do agree with that quote you posted from Chalmers...

 

[Scarlet Rose]

Really...? You want me to spell out that I agree with the obvious? I've already posted that I think that statement is like claiming the sky is blue...so if that's not clear enough for you then I'll make it even clearer...yes I do agree with that quote you posted from Chalmers...

Thank you, I appreciate the clarification. We have already had an instance where you asserted I was misunderstanding your point, so I wanted to be certain this time before I gave a more detailed response. I will hopefully have it up within a week or 2.

 

[Tuesday]

Thank you, I appreciate the clarification. We have already had an instance where you asserted I was misunderstanding your point, so I wanted to be certain this time before I gave a more detailed response. I will hopefully have it up within a week or 2.

Ok well if you are sincere in needing clarification I have no problem clarifying but sometime it hard to tell it people are being sarcastic or facetious or not on the internet...