Started by josephpalazzo, February 03, 2016, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: u196533 on March 29, 2016, 04:59:20 PM"These are not holes in the theory. The theory still works fine even if we don't know some of the more detailed workings of the things this theory explains. There are for instance no huge and gaping holes in the theory of gravity, not even when considering the fact that we still have no clue whatsoever how gravity works."In my view the inability to explain quantum leaps such as sexual reproduction and the evolution of multi cellular organisms are huge gaps. I don't deny evolution, but I don't think it is done cooking.There are very likely huge holes in the theory of gravity. Since we don't understand it and the equations don't balance, physicists theorize things like dark energy to compensate for their ignorance. I strongly suspect that in the future when we do understand gravity, Dark energy will be viewed as the phlogiston of the 21st Century.Also your explanation of the Venus Flytrap doesn't make much sense. How could such a complex, energy intensive system as the trap, digestion etc evolve in an environment in which it was not useful? It seems to me that the ability to grow better root or metabolize the nutrient would have evolved faster than the trap system.
Quote from: u196533 on March 29, 2016, 03:37:08 PMI concede you are correct about facts. However, the highest level of acceptance is not a theory, but a law. E.g. The Laws of Thermodynamics have been proven countless times without exception, and there are no unexplained loose ends.
Quote from: u196533 on March 29, 2016, 03:37:08 PMThe Laws of Thermodynamics have been proven countless times without exception, and there are no unexplained loose ends.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 29, 2016, 06:00:36 PMScience is not in the business of "proving" anything at all. No scientific theories have ever been "proven" in the sense of having been shown to be absolutely and certainly true. Theories can have experimental confirmation or disconfirmation, but no proof. Only mathematicians are out to prove things.
Quote from: Gerard on March 29, 2016, 06:21:12 PMSure, but at some point a scientific theory that keeps being affirmed by new observations (new from the old ones that it was initially based on) becomes impossible to refute. Simply because any refutation thinkable, causes more problems than it solves versus the facts that already confirm the theory. To say that a theory like that (Evolution being a prime example) is not proven ( OK let's say consistently confirmed) is a matter of semantics. But basically you're right of course...... I'm just sometimes bothered by the semantics. Mathematics is of course another subject altogether. The way we deal with those premises is not comparable. ok, but that shouldn't even suggest that knowledge in other fields is impossible or even worth less.Gerard
Quote from: Baruch on March 29, 2016, 06:39:58 PMMultiple observational and experimental confirmations make a theory very persuasive, even if unlike a math theorem, it isn't proven. Newton's theory works almost always ... and is what engineers use most of the time. Einstein didn't change that. Maxwell's theory isn't quite as useful on its own, since solid state theory (quantum mechanics) is very useful too. Quantum mechanics came about, with Max Planck, because he was trying to make a more efficient light bulb (on top of Edison's et al invention).
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 29, 2016, 06:57:45 PM"The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." Thomas Huxley
Quote from: u196533 on March 30, 2016, 10:01:23 AM"The simple answer is that none of these were quantum leaps."Biologists have been asking these questions for decades and they have NO answers, let along simple ones. It is a fact that we don't know the answer to some very basic questions:How did sexual reproduction evolve? How did multi-cellular life evolve? How did self preservation evolve? This seems trivial at first, however when you consider simple /primitive organisms, it is a conundrum. Why didn't they simple succumb to entropic forces and die?
Quote from: u196533 on March 30, 2016, 10:01:23 AM"And that has remained consistently so since it's inception back in the 19th century."I don't think that is true. Darwin didn't know about genes/DNA. Since their discovery, his theory has been revised several times. Microbial cooperation conflicts with the idea of genetic competition. Recent gene mapping has confirmed horizontal gene transfer. The Evolutionary tree with a trunk and 3 branches needs to be redrawn. (It will likely look like a colony of Aspen trees but who knows.)A good theory makes accurate predictions and guides research in the right direction. Recent advances in biology have occurred despite Darwinian Evolution, but because of it. I am not an ID proponent suggesting that we throw the baby out with the bath water. I consider it a fact that natural selection occurs. I also consider it a fact that random mutations and natural selection alone cannot explain all of the diversity of life. I think from a purely scientific perspective, the Theory of Evolution needs to be refined/revised to explain these new findings. That's how science works.I think you have been too busy defending it against attacks from religious people that you became unable to acknowledge its' flaws.
Quote from: u196533 on March 30, 2016, 10:01:23 AMI also consider it a fact that random mutations and natural selection alone cannot explain all of the diversity of life. I think from a purely scientific perspective, the Theory of Evolution needs to be refined/revised to explain these new findings.
Quote from: u196533 on March 30, 2016, 10:01:23 AM... the Theory of Evolution needs to be refined/revised to explain these new findings.
Quote from: u196533 on March 30, 2016, 02:32:48 PMI did not mean to convey that it is in a state of crisis, but that it is still needs refinement.