| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | Only a theory Thread poster: Oliver Walter
|
|---|
Erik Freitag 
Germany
Local time: 20:15
Member (2006)
Dutch to German
+ ...
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
What made them stop?
It hasn't stopped.
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
What do you mean by "they only share ancestors".How did that come about?
I'm afraid I come across as condescending, but seriously, you really should start reading a bit about all this before participating in the discussion.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 20:15
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
efreitag wrote: LilianBNekipelo wrote:
You can prove gravity, though, while you cannot prove evolution... Wrong again. You can't prove either of them. But both gravity (read: general relativity) and Darwin's evolution theory have...
I think you're the one who is mistaken, efreitag.
It seems to me as if you're re-interpreting the words used by Lilian to mean that which you feel most comfortable with or which suits your argument best, without taking into account what Lilian might have meant. You seem to assume that Lilian was talking about "general relativity" when she used the word "gravity", but... isn't it true that "gravity" also has a common meaning?
Gravity is the word that is used for the pulling sensation that all of us feel every day that keeps us stuck to the ground. You can be 100% sure that gravity exists because you can experience it directly, and you can measure it directly, and repeatedly. We risk stating the obvious, but we must say it: evolution can't be experienced (not even indirectly), and it can't be measured directly.
What can be measured, however, is the evidence that we believe are the effects of evolution. The amount of evidence is overwhelming, and there are many opportunities for measurements. But the point of those who say "evolution can't be proven 100%" is that human knowledge about evolution is not based on what we detected, but based on what we deduced. And that is true.
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
The evolutionary theory ... was presented as something axiomatic many years ago, when people were made to blindly believe it. And again, you're wrong. I don't know who told you people were made to blindly believe it.
I'm surprised that there is any question about this. Lilian is perfectly correct in what she says at this point (though I disagree with most of what she says elsewhere in this thread).
In fact, I didn't realise that this point was even up for debate. For one, evolution is taught in schools as fact, and parents often don't have a choice about what their children learn at school. Children are "made to blindly believe it". For another, newspaper and magazine editors of the general media who don't preach evolution are derided by their peers and by their proprietors and are unable to report anything else but the idea that evolution is a fact. It is common knowledge, surely, that the whole [Western] world is being blasted with the idea that evolution is fact.
Whether all of this is a good thing or a bad thing is a different question, of course, but not one that Lilian had asked (and therefore I will not discuss it in this post).
efreitag wrote: LilianBNekipelo wrote:
What do you mean by "they only share ancestors". How did that come about? Seriously, you really should start reading a bit about all this before participating in the discussion.
I find this response to be very rude and not condusive to this discussion. Oliver chose to present arguments (quoted from a book that he's reading) into this debate, and if anyone here does not understand it or is not familiar with it, they have the right to ask Oliver about it. In fact, Oliver has that responsibility, since he's the one who introduced these statements into the debate, and he's the one who assumed that everyone here will know what his author is talking about.
You are free to answer on Oliver's behalf, of course, but then you must answer with an answer, and not an admonishment that the asker should "read up" before asking.
[Edited at 2013-12-15 16:26 GMT]
| | | | | The aim of science... | Dec 15, 2013 |
In natural language people tend to say that the aim of science is "to prove things", whereas the scientific method does NOT consist of proving things, but consists of presenting a theory and comparing it with facts (observations of all kind). If the theory presented is disproven by the facts, this means that the theory is wrong or doesn't stand anymore. If the facts support the theory, the theory continues to hold... until more facts become available that disprove it or until these facts can be ... See more In natural language people tend to say that the aim of science is "to prove things", whereas the scientific method does NOT consist of proving things, but consists of presenting a theory and comparing it with facts (observations of all kind). If the theory presented is disproven by the facts, this means that the theory is wrong or doesn't stand anymore. If the facts support the theory, the theory continues to hold... until more facts become available that disprove it or until these facts can be refined by more detailed observation so that the same theory can no longer be upheld.
As Karl Popper stated: A theory is true until proven wrong. Newtonian physics were one hell of an intellectual realization and the laws stood firmly until we had the possibility to gather observations on a completely different scale and until someone had the intellect AND nerve to think out of the box, after which the laws fell.
THAT is the criterium to distinguish between science and pseudoscience (or downright mumbo jumbo).
Of course, those who like to have a go at the two last activities, like to confuse things a little more than they themselves already are and purposely mix up the two definitions of the original poster. It is, however, nothing more than creating confusion in the hope of coming out of te discussion in a positive way. The other possibility, of course, being that they do not even understand the difference between the two definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability ▲ Collapse
| | | | Erik Freitag
Germany
Local time: 20:15
Member (2006)
Dutch to German
+ ...
Samuel Murray wrote:
It seems to me as if you're re-interpreting the words used by Lilian to mean that which you feel most comfortable with or which suits your argument best, without taking into account what Lilian might have meant. You seem to assume that Lilian was talking about "general relativity" when she used the word "gravity", but... isn't it true that "gravity" also has a common meaning?
Gravity is the word that is used for the pulling sensation that all of us feel every day that keeps us stuck to the ground.
Your objection about using "gravity" in the sense it is defined in physics is partially valid, but since we were initially discussing different meanings of the word "theory", I think we can discard the trivial definition you (probably correctly) assume Lilian has used.
Samuel Murray wrote:
You can be 100% sure that gravity exists because you can experience it directly
Yes, but the mere existence is trivial. Newton's law of gravity and Einstein's general relativity make qualitative and quantitative statements.
We risk stating the obvious, but we must say it: evolution can't be experienced (not even indirectly) …
Indeed, you can't experience evolution in the sense of a sensory perception, but this again is trivial. Neither can you experience radio waves, ultrasonics, radioactivity. That's no reason to suggest these don't exist.
… and it can't be measured directly.
At the risk of repeating myself: Yes, you can (though this is not strictly necessary). Look here, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
But the point of those who say "evolution can't be proven 100%" (that would include me, see my earlier post) is that human knowledge about evolution is not based on what we detected, but based on what we deduced.
Deduced from what? Exactly: from observations.
For one, evolution is taught in schools as fact, and parents often don't have a choice about what their children learn at school. Children are "made to blindly believe it". For another, newspaper and magazine editors of the general media who don't preach evolution are derided by their peers and by their proprietors and are unable to report anything else but the idea that evolution is a fact. It is common knowledge, surely, that the whole [Western] world is being blasted with the idea that evolution is fact.
Yes, this is a valid point. In school and media, and even university education, it is often not made clear enough that it indeed is not a "fact", just a very useful and extremely well "proven" theory. I can't stress this enough: This is the same for any and all findings of natural science! Presenting them as facts is wrong. For all practical considerations, it's as good as fact though.
Samuel Murray wrote:
I find this response to be very rude and not condusive to this discussion. Oliver chose to present arguments (quoted from a book that he's reading) into this debate, and if anyone here does not understand it or is not familiar with it, they have the right to ask Oliver about it. In fact, Oliver has that responsibility, since he's the one who introduced these statements into the debate, and he's the one who assumed that everyone here will know what his author is talking about.
You are free to answer on Oliver's behalf, of course, but then you must answer with an answer, and not an admonishment that the asker should "read up" before asking.
I really didn't mean to be rude, but I saw this coming. For starters, I have answered one of Lilian's questions ("What made them stop?"), though briefly. Second, answers to her questions are easily availabe, and it's easy to find reliable sources that can explain basic evolution theory better than I can. I don't think it's asking too much to do some homework.
[Bearbeitet am 2013-12-15 17:00 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
efreitag wrote: LilianBNekipelo wrote:
What made them stop? It hasn't stopped. LilianBNekipelo wrote:
What do you mean by "they only share ancestors".How did that come about? I'm afraid I come across as condescending, but seriously, you really should start reading a bit about all this before participating in the discussion.
Do you believe then that one day people will turn into winged creatures, dragons or something else. What do you mean by that “it did not stop"? How does its continuous nature manifest itself in out modern age? Do you believe that it did not stop only because somebody wrote about it and you happened to read it? Even if it did not stop, you cannot see it -- so there is no real proof.
Do you have any proofs? I have read quite a lot about various things in my life, including the evolution -- you might be surprised. I just don't believe everything I read, as opposed to some people who believe just about anything if it was published by some prestigious, or even less prestigious, sources.
As to gavity -- of course you can prove gravity thought various experiments. I think Newton dropped something -- an apple, if I remember it well, and apparently then he discovered gravity. You can even see various particles in how they behave in different fields, even if using strong microscopes. Can you see evolution? Perhaps you cannot see the force of gravity itself, but you can see its results in action.
It was perfectly legitimate question: How, in you opinion (various participants of the discussion), based put what you have read did it happened that we have a common ancestor with some other primates? It was a response to someone’s statement that “one spices did not change into another. We just have some a common ancestor “-- so I wanted to know how people imagined that happening, in more practical terms.
Just a final point -- ypu can feel radio waves, and you can cook with them. I doubt you could experience evolution in the same way.
[Edited at 2013-12-15 18:24 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 20:15
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
efreitag wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
You can be 100% sure that gravity exists because you can experience it directly. Yes, but the mere existence is trivial.
The "mere existence" is one of the definitions of the word "theory".
We risk stating the obvious, but we must say it: evolution can't be experienced (not even indirectly) …
Indeed, you can't experience evolution in the sense of a sensory perception, but this again is trivial. Neither can you experience radio waves, ultrasonics, radioactivity.
I did not mean "experience" in the most literal sense, namely of sensory perception. I meant it in a sense that includes radio waves, ultrasonics and radioactivity. Another word that I could have used is "detect". You can detect these things. You can observe them as they happen.
But the point of those who say "evolution can't be proven 100%" is that human knowledge about evolution is not based on what we detected, but based on what we deduced. Deduced from what? Exactly: from observations.
You and I are using the word "observation" to refer to two different things.
Yes, in the most literal sense of the word, evidence of evolution is "observed", and I guess you could say that the evidence is "detected" (although I think that that is a rather silly use of the word -- if you see a fossil in the ground, then you simply see it -- you don't "detect" it in the ordinary sense of the word).
Samuel Murray wrote:
You are free to answer on Oliver's behalf, of course, but then you must answer with an answer, and not an admonishment that the asker should "read up" before asking. Answers to her questions are easily available, and it's easy to find reliable sources...
They are only easy to find if you know where to look. Googling for the "cousins" argument in evolutionary theory brings up half pro-evolution and half anti-evolution hits on the first page, and many of them seem "reliable" on the face of it.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:15
Hebrew to English
| Dungeons & Dragons | Dec 15, 2013 |
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
Do you believe then that one day people will turn into winged creatures, dragons or something else....
Yes, dragons, I've always wanted to be a dragon.
How, in you opinion, based put what you have read did it happened that we have a common ancestor with some other primates? It was a response to someone’s statement that “one spices did not change into another. We just have some a common ancestor...
Do you have any proofs? I have read quite a lot about various things in my life, including the evolution -- you might be surprised.
Oh, I'm surprised all right....
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 20:15
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
It was a perfectly legitimate question: How [could it have] happened that we have a common ancestor with some other primates? [My question] was a response to someone’s statement that "one species did not change into another; we just have some a common ancestor". So I wanted to know how people imagined that happening, in more practical terms.
The statement that "one species did not change into another" is poorly worded. What the author mean to say is that "one currently existing species did not change into another". Evolution does mean that one species changes into another, but a common mistake by people who do not quite understand the theory is that current species will evolve into other current species, which is not true at all.
| | |
|
|
|
Erik Freitag
Germany
Local time: 20:15
Member (2006)
Dutch to German
+ ...
| Ok, you got me! | Dec 15, 2013 |
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
Just a final point -- ypu can feel radio waves
Maybe you can, but only if (in the way Samuel described in an earlier post) you define "radio waves" in your very own and private way. Q.E.D.
In the generally accepted definition of "radio wave", so far no individual has been found able to directly perceive them. If this happens one day, science will have to think again.
Apart from that: Ok, you got me! I confess. I was wrong. Anyway, I have said everything I can to the OP's question (if anybody remembers what it was).
I'm outa here.
[Bearbeitet am 2013-12-15 19:20 GMT]
| | | | | I always wanted to meet one at least. | Dec 15, 2013 |
Ty Kendall wrote: LilianBNekipelo wrote:
Do you believe then that one day people will turn into winged creatures, dragons or something else.... Yes, dragons, I've always wanted to be a dragon. How, in you opinion, based put what you have read did it happened that we have a common ancestor with some other primates? It was a response to someone’s statement that “one spices did not change into another. We just have some a common ancestor...
Do you have any proofs? I have read quite a lot about various things in my life, including the evolution -- you might be surprised. Oh, I'm surprised all right....
| | | | | Prhaps there is nothing to understand there. | Dec 15, 2013 |
Samuel Murray wrote: LilianBNekipelo wrote:
It was a perfectly legitimate question: How [could it have] happened that we have a common ancestor with some other primates? [My question] was a response to someone’s statement that "one species did not change into another; we just have some a common ancestor". So I wanted to know how people imagined that happening, in more practical terms. The statement that "one species did not change into another" is poorly worded. What the author mean to say is that "one currently existing species did not change into another". Evolution does mean that one species changes into another, but a common mistake by people who do not quite understand the theory is that current species will evolve into other current species, which is not true at all.
Many theories are worded in such a way so that most people would not understand anything, and it would be harder to refute them.
| | | | Neil Coffey
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:15
French to English
+ ...
| @LilianBNekipelo | Dec 15, 2013 |
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
Yes , I understand. You can prove gravity, though, while you cannot prove evolution with 100%, or even 90%, certainty. The gravitational theory is a theory in the first sense of the word: the evolutionary theory is a theory in the second sense, as of now, although it was presented as something axiomatic many years ago, when people were made to blindly believe it.
Actually, the two theories are really quite comparable and scientists really do mean similar things by the word "theory" in the two cases. "Prove" isn't really part of the definition as such. You can't "prove" gravity either. Our present understanding of gravity may turn out to be wrong in various ways-- just as it actually did when Einstein refined Newton's original model of gravity. *But* the "theory" of gravity is a theory in the scientific sense not because it is necessarily "true" or "proven" but because if you assume it to be true and proceed with your calculations, whether or not it actually is, it turns out to make reliable, repeatable, potentially falsifiable but so far not falsified, predictions about various aspects of the nature of the universe. (Note: not *all* aspects, but some.)
It's essentially the same with evolution: you can't "prove" it as such (and no scientist worth their salt is seriously claiming that you can), but what you can do is pull in evidence from multiple sources and look at the degree of confidence with which it predicts or models certain aspects of speciation compared to the available alternatives.
So in calling evolution a "theory", I don't think you can say that biologists are trying to be "axiomatic". In as far as it does model or predict the things that it models or predicts, it the theory of evolution really does do that. (It's not like DNA secretly encodes a message saying "Copyright God 6000 years ago" but the evil scientists are pretending it encodes instructions for proteins; it's not like the family tree suggested by DNA secretly bears no resemblance to the family tree shown by the fossil record but scientists are pretending it does, etc.) The confusion comes more from non-scientist that put words in their mouth as far as I can see.
| | |
|
|
|
| Deduction as a scientific method | Dec 15, 2013 |
Logical deduction can lead to concluding the existence of physical phenomena.
The Positron Story:
The existence of the positron, a subatomic particle which is the positive version of the electron, was inferred in 1928/29, long before it was actually discovered in 1932 by physical observation.
Before its existence was confirmed, it was concluded as the most viable explanation to what was being observed regarding the inner workings of an atom.<... See more Logical deduction can lead to concluding the existence of physical phenomena.
The Positron Story:
The existence of the positron, a subatomic particle which is the positive version of the electron, was inferred in 1928/29, long before it was actually discovered in 1932 by physical observation.
Before its existence was confirmed, it was concluded as the most viable explanation to what was being observed regarding the inner workings of an atom.
Isn't the theory of evolution right now at the stage of "the most viable explanation"?
Just asking...
For the whole story of the positron, click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | There are apparently human DNA samples | Dec 15, 2013 |
Neil Coffey wrote: LilianBNekipelo wrote:
Yes , I understand. You can prove gravity, though, while you cannot prove evolution with 100%, or even 90%, certainty. The gravitational theory is a theory in the first sense of the word: the evolutionary theory is a theory in the second sense, as of now, although it was presented as something axiomatic many years ago, when people were made to blindly believe it.
Actually, the two theories are really quite comparable and scientists really do mean similar things by the word "theory" in the two cases. "Prove" isn't really part of the definition as such. You can't "prove" gravity either. Our present understanding of gravity may turn out to be wrong in various ways-- just as it actually did when Einstein refined Newton's original model of gravity. *But* the "theory" of gravity is a theory in the scientific sense not because it is necessarily "true" or "proven" but because if you assume it to be true and proceed with your calculations, whether or not it actually is, it turns out to make reliable, repeatable, potentially falsifiable but so far not falsified, predictions about various aspects of the nature of the universe. (Note: not *all* aspects, but some.) It's essentially the same with evolution: you can't "prove" it as such (and no scientist worth their salt is seriously claiming that you can), but what you can do is pull in evidence from multiple sources and look at the degree of confidence with which it predicts or models certain aspects of speciation compared to the available alternatives. So in calling evolution a "theory", I don't think you can say that biologists are trying to be "axiomatic". In as far as it does model or predict the things that it models or predicts, it the theory of evolution really does do that. (It's not like DNA secretly encodes a message saying "Copyright God 6000 years ago" but the evil scientists are pretending it encodes instructions for proteins; it's not like the family tree suggested by DNA secretly bears no resemblance to the family tree shown by the fossil record but scientists are pretending it does, etc.) The confusion comes more from non-scientist that put words in their mouth as far as I can see.
from around 400,000 years ago, so it would not be 6,000 years. We all come form one common ancestor for sure, in a sense at least -- matter. How we got to our forms is still a big mystery.
| | | | Oliver Walter
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:15
German to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Collection of several responses | Dec 15, 2013 |
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
Do you believe then that one day people will turn into winged creatures, dragons or something else. What do you mean by that “it did not stop"? How does its continuous nature manifest itself in out modern age? Do you believe that it did not stop only because somebody wrote about it and you happened to read it? Even if it did not stop, you cannot see it -- so there is no real proof.
People could, just about conceivably, turn into winged creatures (after all, other animals have done it!), but it would probably take at least another million years of evolution (and some natural pressure driving it in that direction) to achieve that. Evolution does not, and is not claimed to occur visibly during the life of any one person.
On the question of common ancestors, let me repeat the already repeated:
"As we'll see in a later chapter, it is unfortunately necessary to explain, again and again, that modern species don't evolve into other modern species, they just share ancestors: they are cousins." [Dawkins, Chapter 2]
1. It (evolution) hasn't stopped and nobody claims it has.
2. It's extremely slow (in most cases, with some easy-to-understand exceptions such as certain insects and bacteria) compared to our lifetimes, which is why it hasn't been directly observed among humans.
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
There must be a better theory than the current theory of evolution, because this one seems quite incoherent. What was it that brought about the changes?
The changes were brought about, as has already been explained, by natural heritable (usually very small) variations, and what Darwin called "survival of the fittest", all acting over a very large number of generations and in a wide range of environments in many places in the world.
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
you cannot create a bird out of a lizard.
That has not been claimed and it is not relevant. Evolution by natural (i.e. not artificial) selection, as is very clear to everybody who understands at least a bit of it, occurs over a very large number of generations. The differences between any generation and the next one are as small as the natural variations within any single generation, and the differences that turn one species into another are the result of these extremely small differences accumulating over very large numbers of generations.
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
The gravitational theory is a theory in the first sense of the word: the evolutionary theory is a theory in the second sense, as of now, although it was presented as something axiomatic many years ago, when people were made to blindly believe it.
Not so. Gravity and evolution are both scientific theories, supported by evidence. Evolution is not claimed to be axiomatic. An "axiom" is a statement which is assumed to be true without proof and is used in deriving theorems, the truth of which may therefore depend on the validity of the axiom.
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
How we got to our forms is still a big mystery.
Yes perhaps, but the theory (scientific) of evolution is a very big contributor towards the answer to that mystery.
Oliver
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Only a theory | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
