Evolution (and abiongenesis, Cosmology, etc) vs ID, again

[Neutraligon]

This is the law of gravitation
Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them:[3]
Diagram of two masses attracting one another

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}\
where:

F is the force between the masses;
G is the gravitational constant (6.673×10−11 N · (m/kg)2);
m1 is the first mass;
m2 is the second mass;
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.

It is contained with the theory.

There was no need to go through all that trouble, but thank you. I shall never make that mistake again.

I'm also sorry for causing threadjack of this magnitude.

Actually it isn't really a threadjack since at it's core this is part of the reason people dismiss scientific theories.

[Neutraligon]

:eyebrow:

You're all spewing misinformation.

A hypothesis is a testable, but untested, claim.
A "law" is an established scientific fact describing particular phenomena. It is a single piece of a theory.
A theory is a well-tested, thoroughly established body of evidence that describes a large group of related phenomena and acts as an explanation for them. It has nothing to do with laws or hypotheses, other than the fact that they may have contributed indirectly to the theory's formation.

No it is not, a hypothesis might have been tested.
We already stated that a law is contained within a theory.
A theory does have to do with laws or hypothesis since laws are used within theories.

[Esternial]

There was no need to go through all that trouble, but thank you. I shall never make that mistake again.

I'm also sorry for causing threadjack of this magnitude.

Actually it isn't really a threadjack since at it's core this is part of the reason people dismiss scientific theories.

Which would be...misunderstanding of terms?

[Geilinor]

Actually it isn't really a threadjack since at it's core this is part of the reason people dismiss scientific theories.

Which would be...misunderstanding of terms?

Combine that with religion and you get denial.

[Neutraligon]

Actually it isn't really a threadjack since at it's core this is part of the reason people dismiss scientific theories.

Which would be...misunderstanding of terms?

Yes. People end up equivocating, or doing what you did and saying it is just a theory, not understanding just how much support the theory has, or even what is meant by theory.

[Wallenburg]

Reason? Look at the "evidence" for vaccines causing autism. Yeah, I bet that was peer-reviewed.

It actually failed peer review...

Reason? Look at the "evidence" for vaccines causing autism. Yeah, I bet that was peer-reviewed.

You "bet" or are you certain?

Pretty important detail.

There's no mistake that there may be false positives because the people that are supposed to review papers are also still human. They can be corrupted by money or other means. I'm sure there are plenty of papers accuractly investigating the possible correlation between vaccination and autism without bias. It lies upon us to be critical of these papers and who stands behind them. Also, an expert on marine biology can't possibly have any expertise on neurotechnology, but sometimes some experts abuse their status to apply weight in a field they do not belong.

It's certainly not watertight, but if you're unable to find a good amount of valid peer-reviewed sources on a subject such as Intelligent Design, which stands in contrast to evolution, you know there's something wrong. Even if you found five, they wouldn't weigh up against the amount of papers that either handle evolution directly or cite it.

Yeah, I know. I'm being sarcastic. I'm defending hard science against whacky "science".

[Tekania]

a theory is the best you get in science, there is nothing higher.

Not entirely correct. A "law" would be higher than a theory.

But yes, I should rephrase that as a "shady theory"...or something like that.

A scientific law is not higher than a scientific theory. They are different things. A law is something which predicts the results of an observation within specific criteria.... a theory predicts the results and provides a mechanism which explains the observation. Technically a theory is of a bit more of use than a law, as a theory is not constrained as much and provides a mechanism which explains the results..... a law does not give that. An hypothesis becomes a a law or a theory once it has been backed by proof depending on whether the hypothesis is providing a mechanism or not.

[Technocratic Federation of Synertia]

There really is no point in this debate anymore. ID has absolutely no unequivocal evidence for it. It is, for all practical purposes, just Creationism in a cheap tuxedo and a fake moustache.
The Synthetic Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, has 150 years of peer-reviewed observations and experiments for it. Richard Lenski's E. coli experiments, John Endler's experiments on guppyfish in Venezuela and Trinidad e Tobago, Spiegelman's Monster(which also doubles nicely as evidence for the RNA World hypothesis in the modern Theory of Abiogenesis), ERVs, fossil lines, and other loads and loads of evidence for it.

Of course, there is a big difference between acceptance in the scientific community and the population in general. Still going to take a few years for it to be really accepted in the US and such, but the situation is getting better.

[Neutraligon]

It actually failed peer review...

You "bet" or are you certain?

Pretty important detail.

There's no mistake that there may be false positives because the people that are supposed to review papers are also still human. They can be corrupted by money or other means. I'm sure there are plenty of papers accuractly investigating the possible correlation between vaccination and autism without bias. It lies upon us to be critical of these papers and who stands behind them. Also, an expert on marine biology can't possibly have any expertise on neurotechnology, but sometimes some experts abuse their status to apply weight in a field they do not belong.

It's certainly not watertight, but if you're unable to find a good amount of valid peer-reviewed sources on a subject such as Intelligent Design, which stands in contrast to evolution, you know there's something wrong. Even if you found five, they wouldn't weigh up against the amount of papers that either handle evolution directly or cite it.

Yeah, I know. I'm being sarcastic. I'm defending hard science against whacky "science".

Sorry, As you have seen in this thread people actually believe this.

[Sociobiology]

incorrect
laws are components of theories, a theory cannot be come a law nor can a law become a theory.

Ah, I see. I thus stand corrected.

also there is a law of evolution, the theory is evolution via natural selection.
a law is a type of observation usually one so well confirmed it is considered safe to simply assume it will continue to happen unless you can demonstrate otherwise, in this case, variation in populations of living things change over time.

A theory is an explanation for a law or set of laws, in this case, literally why do they change.
And evolution via natural selection (the theory) is mathematically predictable and repeatable in laboratory condition, see the long term E-coli experiment for a good example. its as predictable as chemistry.

[Neutraligon]

Ah, I see. I thus stand corrected.

also there is a law of evolution, the theory is evolution via natural selection.
a law is a type of observation usually one so well confirmed it is considered safe to simply assume it will continue to happen unless you can demonstrate otherwise, in this case, variation in populations of living things change over time.

A theory is an explanation for a law or set of laws, in this case, literally why do they change.
And evolution via natural selection (the theory) is mathematically predictable and repeatable in laboratory condition, see the long term E-coli experiment for a good example. its as predictable as chemistry.

In the end. isn't evolution in essence chemistry?

[Narland]

:eyebrow:

You're all spewing misinformation.

A hypothesis is a testable, but untested, claim.
A "law" is an established scientific fact describing particular phenomena. It is a single piece of a theory.
A theory is a well-tested, thoroughly established body of evidence that describes a large group of related phenomena and acts as an explanation for them. It has nothing to do with laws or hypotheses, other than the fact that they may have contributed indirectly to the theory's formation.

No it is not, a hypothesis might have been tested.
We already stated that a law is contained within a theory.
A theory does have to do with laws or hypothesis since laws are used within theories.

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a limitation on its validity.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws describes things, but they do not explain them.

One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

***NOTE: I mixted up the two of the definitions and corrected them. ***
I woud blame my cat walking across the kb but she is in the other room.

[Neutraligon]

No it is not, a hypothesis might have been tested.
We already stated that a law is contained within a theory.
A theory does have to do with laws or hypothesis since laws are used within theories.

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a limitation on its validity.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

You did not disagree with what I said, in fact you supported it.

[Narland]

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a limitation on its validity.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

You did not disagree with what I said, in fact you supported it.

correct. my intention was to help clarify.

[Neutraligon]

You did not disagree with what I said, in fact you supported it.

correct. my intention was to help clarify.

Ok thanks. Sometimes hard to tell purpose of a post.

[Technocratic Federation of Synertia]

Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them.

I would actually say it is the opposite. Scientific laws describe the behavior of phenomena that have never been contradicted after extensive observation and are usually mathematical in nature. Explaining the phenomenom is a Theory's job, really.

[Narland]

correct. my intention was to help clarify.

Ok thanks. Sometimes hard to tell purpose of a post.

np, english is not a very good form of post-it note communication for deep topics.

[Sociobiology]

also there is a law of evolution, the theory is evolution via natural selection.
a law is a type of observation usually one so well confirmed it is considered safe to simply assume it will continue to happen unless you can demonstrate otherwise, in this case, variation in populations of living things change over time.

A theory is an explanation for a law or set of laws, in this case, literally why do they change.
And evolution via natural selection (the theory) is mathematically predictable and repeatable in laboratory condition, see the long term E-coli experiment for a good example. its as predictable as chemistry.

In the end. isn't evolution in essence chemistry?

sort of, but in the end that's all life is.

evolution does not technically require life, just heredity with self-replication. we have created computer programs that can evolve within the setting of a storage space.
Its kinda cool really.

[Narland]

Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them.

I would actually say it is the opposite. Scientific laws describe the behavior of phenomena that have never been contradicted after extensive observation and are usually mathematical in nature. Explaining the phenomenom is a Theory's job, really.

sorry, i corrected the statement. in general laws are descriptions, and theories explainations

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

I'm an atheist, and I support evolution and the big bang.

Good for you.

I'm letting you know because you're mocking me for being "uneducated" of evolution and the big bang. Maybe if you didn't act so smug this might had been a little more of an enjoyable conversation.

Nothing. That's not what I argued against. I argued against you trying to pretend that random articles that aren't peer reviewed publications constitutes evidence for ID. It doesn't.

But just because it's not peer reviewed does not make it wrong, for the third time or so.

---

Because it is not testable. That is why it is not even a hypothesis. TO be a hypothesis it needs to be testable. There is no evidence that supports it. Plausible is not enough and comes with it's own problems.

Maybe I'm the one who's in the wrong here. The evidence is rather limited for ID, and I've only been able to find two articles so far. Although I'm not going to say one-hundred percent that ID is wrong.

[Othelos]

Good for you.

I'm letting you know because you're mocking me for being "uneducated" of evolution and the big bang. Maybe if you didn't act so smug this might had been a little more of an enjoyable conversation.

Nothing. That's not what I argued against. I argued against you trying to pretend that random articles that aren't peer reviewed publications constitutes evidence for ID. It doesn't.

But just because it's not peer reviewed does not make it wrong, for the third time or so.

---

Because it is not testable. That is why it is not even a hypothesis. TO be a hypothesis it needs to be testable. There is no evidence that supports it. Plausible is not enough and comes with it's own problems.

Maybe I'm the one who's in the wrong here. The evidence is rather limited for ID, and I've only been able to find two articles so far. Although I'm not going to say one-hundred percent that ID is wrong.

ID claims that everything sprung out of existence as it is now, which makes a lot of sense.

What's weird is that the same people who don't believe in evolution (because they think it means that cells just sprung from existence) believe in creationism/ID, which is even less believable from that perspective...

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I'm letting you know because you're mocking me for being "uneducated" of evolution and the big bang. Maybe if you didn't act so smug this might had been a little more of an enjoyable conversation.

This might have been a more enjoyable conversation if you understood what was being discussed on at least a basic level.

But just because it's not peer reviewed does not make it wrong, for the third time or so

That is not what anyone is saying. We are saying that our standard for evidence for giving credibility to a scientific claim is a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

Maybe I'm the one who's in the wrong here. The evidence is rather limited for ID, and I've only been able to find two articles so far. Although I'm not going to say one-hundred percent that ID is wrong.

Neither are we. We're just saying that we haven't seen any credible evidence and don't believe there is any.

This is a source that lists some of the very few peer-reviewed articles that discuss ID, and talks about what exactly peer review means.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html

[Technocratic Federation of Synertia]

In the end. isn't evolution in essence chemistry?

sort of, but in the end that's all life is.

evolution does not technically require life, just heredity with self-replication. we have created computer programs that can evolve within the setting of a storage space.
Its kinda cool really.

Give Spiegelman's Monster a read, it is basically a package of the RNA of a virus(Qβ) and its replicase enzyme in a nutritive environment with the bits and pieces necessary to build more RNA, a sample of which was then transfered to a new vial after a while. It started evolving and cutting out strands of RNA that were useless for reproduction, effectively being an example of heredity without metabolism.

[Mavorpen]

I'm letting you know because you're mocking me for being "uneducated" of evolution and the big bang. Maybe if you didn't act so smug this might had been a little more of an enjoyable conversation.

No, if there was any "mocking," it was over your misunderstanding of the scientific process and peer review.

But just because it's not peer reviewed does not make it wrong, for the third time or so.

Nice straw man, but that's not what I said. I said it means it has no actual scientific evidence. Sure that doesn't make it wrong, but it makes it functionally so. Something with no evidence might as well not be true, and we can indeed treat it as not being true. That's not a definitive statement about whether that is the case or not, it's just that we have no reason to take the idea seriously.

[Sun Wukong]

Because there's no mechanism by which that could happen. I just told you. Evolution does not allow you to move from a system which works, to one that does not, so that you can get to another configuration that works at some time in the future. If it could then your retinal cells would have righted themselves by now.

Moreover, this impossible thing would have had to occur independently in ever vertebrate species.

There's no mechanism that we have discovered =/= there isn't a mechanism (scientific, paranormal, or otherwise) and there can never be such a mechanism (not equivalent)

You're assuming the truth of the theory you support.

I can also say:

''There's no need for evolution to be advanced as a theory because we know that things can be created by bigger and more intelligent beings.''

No, I'm saying it's fucking impossible for the exact same mutation even to occur in a billion different species, producing the exact same effect in all of them, with 100% participation, no holdovers, and be a mutation that transforms a fully functional system into another completely different fully functional system in one step.

If that actually happened, in would prove intelligent design.

Thus is the stupidity of your comment: that which you think would happen in the absence if ID, requires ID.