Proofs are for logic and mathematics. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t irrefutable facts in science, and species evolution is an irrefutable fact.
Irrefutable facts are added up, considered, measured, verified independently to be ‘True,’ and the “Theory” is what the greatest minds on the planet think all of these facts mean.
The fact that a theory is not the same thing as a proof is completely irrelivant. The germ theory of disease has saved billions of lives. Gravitational theory has landed men on the moon and set our satalites beyond our solar system. The theory of plate tectonics has helped us understand our world better. The theory of relativity helped us to understand space time and predict black holes. The theory of special relativity helped us to understand high-velocity phenomena. All this is validated, empirical, and independently verified. To pretend it is not based on verifiable facts is just stupid.
I agree, because we were not there to witness the actual events.
But to claim they are invalid because we were not there is something I reject because (just like a murder trial) we have a wealth of valid data and evidence.
It is definitely the best explanation compared to … poofing?
I am of the same mind. Buzzard’s sole reason to deny some sciences and theories is that “we were not there”, which fails miserably.
So you’re saying it’s not a fact that the history of life on earth is explained by the scientific explanation - ToE?
If you know how evolution works, please describe how an amphibian’s double-circulation heart evolved from the single-circulation heart of a fish … then demonstrate that your explanation is factual and not simply a product of your imagination.
You’re digressing. I’m not disputing that evolution has happened. My argument is that no one can prove that they know what process produced the evolutionary history of life on earth … and therefore no one can claim to know how evolution works.
Speaking of superstition, here’s one … believing without proof that the evolutionary history of life on earth is the result of biological mechanisms described by ToE (aka the modern synthesis).
What a load of crap. It is not an “accepted scientific fact” that early hominids become erect biped because a successful animal would learn to look over the tall grass, in order to enhance survival and find food.
That story is impossible to prove, so any scientist who claimed it’s an “accepted scientific fact” would qualify as a bullshit-artist and a con-man.
I know what an “hypothesis” is … but what is a “fucking hypothesis”? Does that have something to do with reproduction?
Some scientists try to explain how eurkaryotes might have evolved from prokaryotes, which means they assume eurkaryotes did evolve from prokaryotes.
Anyway, the point is, no one can prove that they know how eukaryotes evolved … which supports my claim that no one can claim to know how evolution works.
Never mind about “yet” - it will be forever impossible to prove that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes.
In order to claim to know how evolution works, one must be able to prove that one knows how evolution works. Merely providing evidence is not necessarily the same as proof.
Thank you for your kind concern and your sage advice.
This here post deleted
Science has proof. Religion has poof. Yeah. I am now convinced that God exists. I will pray for you.
Fine. That means science can’t prove what process produced the evolution changes evident in the fossil record … which is what I’ve been saying all along.
And if science can’t prove what process produced the evolution changes evident in the fossil record, science can’t claim to know how evolution works.
So it can’t be scientifically proven that Tiger Woods is a better golfer than me?
The theory of gravity does not prove gravity exists, it just offers the best explanation on a phenomena.
Do you want proof gravity exits?
For fuck’s sake; how long will an argument be permitted here which relies solely on a mistaken conflation of science’s use of a word versus the general public’s/ mathematics?
What’s next, purposely confusing science’s vs. the lay public’s/ mathematic’s use of “uncertainty”?
If someone can’t speak in the language and definitions of science when talking about a distinctly scientific subject, is there any point in earnestly responding to them?
I’m so sorry.
So you’re saying science can’t prove that
humans and modern apes had a common ancestor. In that case, since science doesn’t know that humans and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor, science can’t possibly claim to know how humans and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor.
And since science can’t prove that
humans and modern apes had a common ancestor, why did you state that “Humans and modern apes had a ‘COMMON ANCESTOR’” as if it were a proven fact?
Damn it, that is exactly what I was going to say.
It’s a waste of time to argue with religious fundamentalists.
However, the human/ape connection is an interesting one. We’re often said to share 98% of our genes with chimpanzees – but then in high school biology you’re told you inherit 50% of your genes from one parent, and 50% from the other. What???
So … off to Razib Khan’s Unsupervised Learning (which I think is the descendant of his Gene Xpression), where he explains it all:
By the way, this guy is absolutely brilliant. He has amazing, fascinating interviews with all sorts of really interesting people. (I’m new here, so sorry if y’all already know all about him.)
Because there is so much evidence that it has to be considered as a fact.
Once again … science does not claim anything as a hard fact, science is honest. Those in scientific professions understand that any theory can be upended or altered by new data, proof, and concepts.
For example (extracted from Calculation of the Mass of the Universe, the Radius of the Universe, the Age of the Universe and the Quantum of Speed), from general relativity, Einstein proposed a cosmological model with a spatially finite universe. He assumed a uniform distribution of matter in a huge 4-D sphere. Even if his equations were showing that the universe was either contracting or expanding, Einstein introduced the “cosmological constant” in his equation to force the universe to be static (being consistent with the general way of thinking of his time). In 1929, from observations of galaxies, Hubble found that the universe was expanding. From that moment, Einstein discarded his cosmological constant as an unnecessary fudge factor.
@Buzzard Your only argument is “no it isn’t”. I am open to you offering a better explanation on evolution. So instead of just stating “no it isn’t”, please offer a better explanation. I am open to revising my position.
That is how you attack evolution by offering a better explanation.