An individual who screws up the term, "Theory"... / "Proof"?

[fohfoh]

IMO you should take this in another direction, start providing evidence for creationism just to be an ass. And bring up other theories that are fairly popular in the creation of the universe.

There were a few others sort of going in that direction. It was funny just to watch.

[Borror0]

I think that, when he says that "The Theory of Evolution and The Theory of the Big Bang do not need to be proven," he means that there are already enough evidences to believe that those scientific theories are accurate. For example, the theory of evolution is the most plausible description of the mechanism because it perfectly describes the observed reality. In that sense, it does not need to be proven since it's the most likely explanation (assuming Occam's Razor).

A theory can be called into question if new evidences show behavior that cannot be explained by the current model, but a scientific theory does not need to be proven since it is, by definition, the most plausible explanation.

For as long as it explains the mechanism perfectly, scientists assume it is correct.

[mizore]

Scientists never assume.  That would be counter to the very idea of scientific method.

[Borror0]

Scientists never assume.  That would be counter to the very idea of scientific method.

Correct. Scientists view scientific theories as "the current best possible and simplest explanation" rather "the truth" (which is why they are called theories, even though they are what most people would call facts) therefore allowing the possibility for those theories to be wrong.

I should have used another term.

[mgz]

not to mention we havent observed evolution per say.

[relic2279]

Luckily, evolution is widely accepted as fact. Much the same way gravity is. There is nearly equal evidence for both and none against. But you guys are correct. Theories can be disproved with a single piece of evidence. That's what makes them immensely strong in the world of science. (but not all theories are equal). Some are pretty close though. 

[mgz]

Luckily, evolution is widely accepted as fact. Much the same way gravity is. There is nearly equal evidence for both and none against. But you guys are correct. Theories can be disproved with a single piece of evidence. That's what makes them immensely strong in the world of science. (but not all theories are equal). Some are pretty close though. 

gravity is proven, evolution isnt

[Borror0]

gravity is proven, evolution isnt

Outline your standards to determine if something was proven.

[mgz]

gravity is proven, evolution isnt

Outline your standards to determine if something was proven.

pretty sure that gravity has been tested both with math and observed in atoms

[Borror0]

pretty sure that gravity has been tested both with math and observed in atoms

Likewise, evolution has been observed and DNA is structured just like if we evolved.

[fohfoh]

pretty sure that gravity has been tested both with math and observed in atoms

Likewise, evolution has been observed and DNA is structured just like if we evolved.

We still don't have the missing links, no? I dunno.. I can sort of see micro evolution imo, sort of like how in spore, once you get a small form, you have to continue within the limits of that form. (ie: carnivore/herbivore/omnivore). To a certain extent, we have to follow such rules imo, so I really don't see a possibility of creatures jumping all over the damn place due to evolution. True, the idea isn't really like that, but it seems to be a concept that isvery true that isn't well versed in most debates.

It's monkey to human being the biggest one and then there's stuff like dinosaurs into birds and reptiles. But the thing is... they're similar types of creatures and not something like a beetle to a reptile sort of thing.

IMO there needs to be an idea where we figure out where the branches begin and where they can overlap and where they cannot. Since imo, it seems as if once the evolution hits a certain form, it's set within the boundaries of that form. Right? It can take on characteristics that are seen in other forms, but it really doesn't take on those other forms.

[Borror0]

We still don't have the missing links, no?

There are no such thing "a missing link." Evolution works slowly, through generations. If evolution was made of huge leaps, it most likely would not work because the creature who made the huge leap might not be able to reproduce (as it would have no one of its kind and the genetic difference would be too great to reproduce with its cousins). It's small leaps, slowly shaping the genetic baggage of a group of living creature through natural selection.

If you have a group of foxes where you mate the most docile ones while killing the more aggressive ones, you'll slowly create a bread of more docile foxes as you select the more docile genes over the more aggressive genes.

You won't end up with a pet fox after one generation, but over several generations...

IMO there needs to be an idea where we figure out where the branches begin and where they can overlap and where they cannot.

We already can do that by looking into DNA. Like I said above, DNA is structure just like if we evolved. Most of our DNA has actually no function. It's all leftovers from previous generations, but it does no result in any different phenotypes for us. As a result, we can look at the DNA of two creatures and know whether they share a common ancestor.

[relic2279]

pretty sure that gravity has been tested both with math and observed in atoms

Evolution has just as much evidence backing it that gravity does.

Prove gravity exists.  

You throw something up, and it comes down. Proof, right? Nope. What if the earth is moving fast enough through space that it's simply kinetic energy? Like acceleration in a car that makes your coffee cup go flying to the back seat if you step on the gas. There are 100's of theories just like this of why things fall down, instead of up. But the evidence is the strongest for gravity. It's the same with evolution. The evidence is there. Much evidence, perhaps even more so than gravity. And every day the evidence gets stronger. But theories can never become "facts". They always stay theories. Always. (Until there is evidence to disprove them, that is)

[fohfoh]

We still don't have the missing links, no?

There are no such thing "a missing link." Evolution works slowly, through generations. If evolution was made of huge leaps, it most likely would not work because the creature who made the huge leap might not be able to reproduce (as it would have no one of its kind and the genetic difference would be too great to reproduce with its cousins). It's small leaps, slowly shaping the genetic baggage of a group of living creature through natural selection.

If you have a group of foxes where you mate the most docile ones while killing the more aggressive ones, you'll slowly create a bread of more docile foxes as you select the more docile genes over the more aggressive genes.

You won't end up with a pet fox after one generation, but over several generations...

IMO there needs to be an idea where we figure out where the branches begin and where they can overlap and where they cannot.

We already can do that by looking into DNA. Like I said above, DNA is structure just like if we evolved. Most of our DNA has actually no function. It's all leftovers from previous generations, but it does no result in any different phenotypes for us. As a result, we can look at the DNA of two creatures and know whether they share a common ancestor.

Well, if ti's there, it's there, but probably needs a little more clarification so that others will know about it too.

I don't claim to be knowledgeable about a lot on evolutionism, so I'll just take it as so.

[newy]

pretty sure that gravity has been tested both with math and observed in atoms

I doubt that. Even my physics prof told me to accept the gravity since there is no explanation how gravity is generated when a huge mass is present. He told us whoever finds a satisfying theory can directly fly to Sweden to receive the Nobel Prize.

[fohfoh]

pretty sure that gravity has been tested both with math and observed in atoms

I doubt that. Even my physics prof told me to accept the gravity since there is no explanation how gravity is generated when a huge mass is present. He told us whoever finds a satisfying theory can directly fly to Sweden to receive the Nobel Prize.

The attraction properties of the chemical aspect of all elements causes a buildup when a large mass is present. Similar to the idea where larger droplets will "suck" smaller droplets into themselves instead of vice versa. Attraction properties amass at a large scale and based on the elements in question, there will be a certain amount of pull overall of a "heavenly mass" AKA planet. Gravity as well as light testing will be a useful idea when we decide to crack open a planet to take up the valuable minerals inside. IF gravity is too weak, it might not be worth your while to crack open the planet in question...


When you get the money... Don't forget me.

[newy]

I might have to revoke my statement since I think I confused it with mass ;_;

[Borror0]

I might have to revoke my statement since I think I confused it with mass ;_;

I think you did. No one knows how mass is happens. The most common theory related to the Higgs boson but it is not yet discovered (although the LHC is meant to discover it, if it does indeed exist).

[relic2279]

No one knows how gravity is generated. It's like electromagnetism, the weak force, or the strong force. They cannot explain why or how at the quantum level, or the macro level. We have a little idea as to some of the forces, but the least about gravity. That's why your professor is correct. Even if someone glinted a tiny hint as to how (rather, why) it works, they'd probably receive the nobel.

It's one of the four fundamental interactions of nature. And gravity being the most enigmatic among them.

[mizore]

Lol, there is so much wrong in this thread I wouldn't know where to start...