Evoluton Revisited

We understand the effects of evolution too just look at the plants and animals around you. The theory though isn't about the effects its about how those came to be which is the same with the leading hypothesis on gravity. We know gravity exists we just don't know how it works.

 

and I thought you were the one saying ppl are sensitive but yet didn't I bold the part where I think its a correct theory? I'm not disputing it at all, but you felt the need to lecture me on it even though I specifically said I think it's a correct theory.

I'm simply saying that when you teach elements of it and make it seem like its undisputed fact, you do yourself and science a disservice. And when someone challenges facets of evolution, maybe be a little less elitist about it and dont assume that what you currently know is the only answer.

And isn't that much closer to Socrate's words "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"?

 

but who has challenged the validity of evolution on this thread?

I certainly havent.

 

So why bother getting a Biological Anthropology degree when it's evolution is just a theory? Why even study Physical Anthropology? I mean you can't get a question wrong or right on an exam if it is all theory. You have to teach knowledge based on the scientific method as fact if you are going to teach it at all.

 

I don't know about you, but I have observed gravity in action a lot more often than evolution.

 

Not me. I see nothing but change.

 

how do you know that it is gravity in action and not some other force that can cause objects to attract, like magnetism? Do you test it?

 

How many times does this have to be said? A "theory" in science is not a "theory" in its common connotation.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theory

The common usage of theory is definition 6b. The usage of theory when referring to the "theory of evolution" is definition 5. Scientifically acceptable is a very strong standard; scientists are by nature very skeptical people and usually it's hard to convince them of something knew.

It's really too bad the word theory can have two very different connotations, allowing the right-wing propagandists to abuse the connotations to suit their ends.

 

I don't know what you're getting at. It's generally understood that students are taught what's readily known by scientists at the time, though diluted to fit their understanding.

If you're saying evolution shouldn't be taught because we "don't know all the facts" or "can't definitely prove it" (not your words, but familiar to some people...), then you might as well scrap 80% of all science taught in schools including physics, molecular chemistry, and most of biology.

 

That's not 80% of all science. That's 100% of all science. You cannot definitively prove science, ever. Science is by definition empirical; the theories come from observed data, and they will only ever be as good as the data we have. We will never know all the facts in any science.

 

I thought 80% was a conservative number considering the tech we use can be taught and considered as science.

 

The objects that do not react to magnets don't display a lack of attraction, and magnets don't get flung into space when you turn them over.

 

There's like 10 things wrong with this statement, let's start with the first 3

1. You go around testing things with magnets all day?

2. Magnets would very definitely get flung into space depending on the strength of the magnetic force that is propelling/retaining them.

3. You go around turning things over all day?

Your observations of gravity in action are decidedly unscientific. And we are just at a basic level.

 

Have you ever tried to pick up an orange with a magnet? Doesn't work.

If it is magnetism that is keeping everything pinned to the ground, then taking any ordinary 2-pole magnet and flipping it over should reverse the effect, repelling it away from the earth. Have you seen a bunch of grade school children impaled by magnets in science class when they turn them over?

All day? No. Have I ever turned a magnet over and observed it not repelled from the earth? Yes.

This entire argument is ridiculous, you know as well as I do that people have observed gravity in action far more than evolution. How many instances of one species involving into another have ever been witnessed and recorded in history. Feel free to make intellectually dishonest arguments directed at someone else now.

 

OK, so I take it your answer is NO, you do not go around testing things for the presence of the magical force you observe (but cannot explain - at ALL, see below) and call gravity.

It just illustrates how stupid it is for you to say this and to try to pass it off as having some kind of scientific validity. What you describe is really the opposite of science, just faith and assumption in what you've been told, rather than experimentation and observation.

It goes in the other direction too. When was the last time you saw an individual atom? Does that not mean that they don't exist? This line of reasoning is atrociously bad.

Quite literally there are millions of examples, using not only the fossil record - but I've seen it happen live, right in front of my eyes, in high school biology class, with bacteria in a petri dish.

You can select for all sorts of genetic mutations, depending on how you alter the enviroment. This type of experiment has been around for hundreds of years. Likewise the historical record is full of it.

It's not intellectually dishonest, that's just plain intellecutal, your argument is that of a complete simpleton, you know this.

But anyway, stupidmoniker, since you have gravity all totally and completely figured out, perhaps you could let us know if superstring theory has 10, 11, or 26 dimensions, what these strings are made of, why regular gravity breaks down at the quantum level, how it relates with electromagnetic, strong, and weak forces, general relativeity etc etc etc etc.

There are literally of thousands of scientists around the world working right now, trying to solve holes, gaps, and inconsistencies in the theory of gravity that you maintain so much faith in. But we don't see wingnuts around the world agitating for its unproven aspects to be emphasized in school textbooks, and you're certainly not willing to toss gravity under the bus when trying to agitate against evolution on a BBS despite its obvious and myriad flaws.

 

I thought we already knew that homo sapiens and homo sapien sapiens existed at the same time. I don't see why knowing that habilis and erectus also overlapped is any big deal (to the overall link theory).

 

So it is your contention that gravity does not attract massive bodies like oranges and people to the earth? That was the only statement I made that you have now argued several times. I even said in my first post that while the mechanism of gravity may not be nailed down, we can observe the effects on macroscopic objects. Unless you are disputing that, then yes, your argument is intellectually dishonest. You are arguing against a straw man (namely someone who has claimed to know everything about gravity) just for the sake of arguing. I am sure you have some point in mind, but unless the point is that gravity does not make an orange fall to the ground when I through it up in the air, it has nothing to do with what I have posted. Have fun with your pointless diatribes.

 

You're the guy who brought it up.

You tried to make a ridiculous argument against evolution based on the fact that "you can't see it" just to be nettlesome and now you get pissy when it provokes the intended response.

If you don't want to engage in pointless diatribes and sideshows, don't bring up silly arguments like that

If you can't take being a troll, get the hell out from under the bridge, boy.

 

We could not agree more! I find this very moving, and kind of tragic that the sheer beauty of a mechanism like evolution cannot be seen as spiritually inspiring by millions or billions of people.