Video: Mom pushes kid to ask Perry about evolution

SauerKraut537 on August 18, 2011 at 11:09 PM

There are so many faulty statements in that post I don’t know where to begin, I’ll start at the end, because I think it was pointed in my direction.

Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher “rank” (contrary to the belief that “theories” become “laws” over time).

Firstly, in no way are theories the “goal” in science, and to suggest so is beyond wrong. Theories are a TOOL and at most form an advanced hypothesis that cannot yet be proven fully TRUE but also have not been proven FALSE.

No one here, especially not me has suggested that theories becomes laws as a function of time. That’s INSANE. It might take some time for a theory to develop into a set of laws, but it’s not time that does it, it’s exhausting the possible avenues of experimentation and prediction and ruling out possible exceptions that moves something from the theory to the set of laws governing a system.

Scientific Laws and Demonstrable Scientific Fact ARE indeed the end PRODUCT of science, but even they are not the goal, TRUTH or understanding is the goal.

You’re acting as if when something becomes a theory, that means it’s fact and TRUE, nothing is farther than the truth. There are literally hundreds of thousands of published and accepted theories that were posited by scientists over time and which dominated their respective fields for decades, even centuries before someone came along and developed an experiment that destroyed it.

The number of scientific LAWS that have been overturned in this manner can be counted on your fingers and toes. There most definitely a “rank” or “hierarchy” to Questions, Hypothesis, Theories and Laws, if you don’t doubt that I’ll leave you with a couple of names. Newton, Copernicus, Aristotle, Curie, Einstein. . all had accepted theories that stood for a time and then were tossed out because someone came along and looked at the question from a different angle and determined that the theory didn’t work.

The consensus (which isn’t science) is that Darwin’s ToE has held up. In fact, that’s in no way shape or form true. Darwin’s name is still attached to the ToE, but Wallace’s work tore the guts out of parts of OtOoS and when they went against Huxley, their ideas stood for a while, but his theoretical work eventually trumped some of theirs.

Theories are working frameworks, they aren’t fact and should not be treated as such. To do so moves you away from science and firmly into the grounds of religion.

biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world, and if the predictions fail, the theory is revised.

I do hope that you realize that every single one of the theories you have named supplanted an earlier theory which was just as VALID as a theory as the one that replaced it. In some that you mentioned, the named theory is on multiple revisions complete re-writes, and as we speak at least one of those theories is falling apart and probably won’t be the accepted theory by the end of next year.

Yet in all these cases you named save one, the Scientific Laws identified through the work of the theory has remained.

They unify the scientific community’s view and approach to a particular scientific field.

I can hardly imagine a more un-scientific statement than that above. What you’ve written there is politics at best, religion at worst.

Calling evolution a theory like you call belief in bigfoot a theory is a gross misrepresentation of what exactly a scientific theory is. Scientific theories incorporate many hard sciences to prove the theory true. With evolution we have biology, chemistry, geology, paleontology, and genetics just to name a few. These sciences are the hard evidence which adds overall evidence to the theory.

First off, nice strawman you built in that first sentence. The ToE is a VALID scientific theory, the “belief in bigfoot” is not a theory, it’s a belief, one shared by few and devoid of a large body of evidence. Bigfoot is BARELY a hypothesis. You’re approaching hackery here.

The next part is for lack of a better word, pretty ignorant. Supporting science from other disciplines does not make a Theory TRUE. Copernicus and Newton and Aristotle all had corroboration from other disciplines and all the pieces fit together and worked in every example tried (FOR CENTURIES), and in each case, it was a single solitary man who just asked the question in a slightly different way and all those theories crumbled to dust. They had NO TRUTH in them, they were just illusions that looked right. . . .as long as you only looked at them certain ways.

PUBMED –

I’ll make you a wager. You pick a paper at random from PUB MED and identify a theory from it. I’ll then go into PUBMED and find another paper that has a competing theory attached.

Just because something has been “peer reviewed” doesn’t make it good, valid, or truthful, just as a review in the NYT and the WAPO and the WSJ doesn’t guarantee that your book is good, valid or truthful.

A collection of papers espousing theories doesn’t make all the theories true.

———————–

In another post, you said “We all come from Africa”.

You might think that. A lot of people might think that. I’m even partial to the ideal and give it a greater than 50% chance of being true.

But guess what, that doesn’t make it true, there is no scientific evidence to state with absolute certainty that it is true and it’s going to take a hell of a lot of work to make it true, or an extraordinary strike of good luck.

The fact is that we’ve concentrated our efforts in Africa to prove a theory, and with each bit of corroborating evidence there are IDIOTS to run out and scream “LOOK LOOK we found another LUCY, that proves Darwin right.” No, it doesn’t.

If you only look under rocks in your search for a particular microbe, when you find the microbe in question a moron might be tempted to run out and say “All of microbe X lives under rocks” and to declare such a statement to be TRUE. That doesn’t make it true.

We look in Africa because it is A) Exceedingly Easy to dig in Africa compared to say. . . .the fertile crescent in Iraq. It’s also easier to look for fossils in the exposed strata of Africa than it is to look in the jungles of South America.

You should know though, that before the current group of researchers were “settled” on Africa, the prevailing theory was that the bridge from proto-homo-sapien to homo-sapien occured in what is now present day China or after that Indonesia. Today we’re stuck on Africa because that’s where the research is.

There is a GREAT probability that the discoveries in the Rift Valley will prove to NOT be the origin of present Homo Sapien, but more likely we’ll find the link somewhere as far removed from the Rift Valley as Indonesia was. We might just need to scrape off some new jungle and dig down underneath.

I think I should clarify a couple of things for the record. Number one, I’m a pretty firm atheist, more firm that AP, that’s for sure. I’m also pretty convinced that the ToE is pretty darn close to true but it has some pretty major flaws that leave it just as open to be trashed as Copernicus was.

If you click the link on my name, the quote at the top is from Huxley, Darwin’s “mentor” or predecessor or even nemesis if you will. Huxley first put down alot of the theory that Darwin rehashed on the Beagle and while there wasn’t a lot of daylight between the two, the daylight is there, and when push has come to shove, Darwin has lost and Huxley has won.

I’m a friend to the ToE, but I’m not going to make the classic layman’s mistake of calling it TRUE, when it most probably is NOT TRUE without some major re-writes.

We probably DID come from Africa, but if you give me the choice between betting on that, or sitting down to blackjack, I’m going to have to choose blackjack. The science behind blackjack has no unknowns, the science of ToE has enough unknowns in it to drive a semi through, sideways.

As far as genetics go. Look up a term, “Junk DNA”. It’s not something that trashes DNA science. Junk DNA refers to a large amount of DNA present in our meatbags that does not fit the evolution theory, but is so unknown that it is impossible to say that it contradicts Darwin. It most likely though does and will create some serious problems for Darwinian Evolution.

Genetics and Evolution together also don’t explain why cows are closer to dolphins in their DNA than they are to other bovines.

So please. Stop making the mistake that Theories are settled science. Scientific laws are “more settled”, “more valid”, “more truthful” and “more tested” than theories, and even they sometimes fall.

You could drag Darwin up out of the grave, teach him the entire body of evidence built since his death and even he himself would not give the certainty to his theory that you have.

That’s because he’s a scientist and he knows that he’s wrong about far more than he’s right.

Jason Coleman on August 19, 2011 at 12:36 AM

We are all Africans.

You believe that. Some other people believe that. . . but.

Before we dug up some fossils in the Rift Valley, we thought that we all came from a broken up landmass where Indonesia is toady. Before that we thought we were from China.

We’ve only been on the “We are all from Africa” kick since 1975.

If we dug up Darwin today, brought him up to speed on all the data we’ve collected since his death and then asked him to put the certainty into his theory that you have, he would undoubtedly refuse.

He would refuse because he is a scientist and firmly understood that he was wrong about far more than he was right.

The history of evolutionary research suggests that if we scrape the jungle out of the deepest valleys in South America we would probably find origins older than the AL 333 “the first family”.

It’s probably most accurate to say we came from someplace that is now probably covered with water somewhere off the coast of either India or Eastern Central Africa.

WE can’t dig there, so there’s no work in that direction, so until the ability comes, we’ll take what we can get.

“We all come from Africa” might be true. I lean that way but I would NEVER say that because scientifically I cannot prove it. Just as we can trace a migration from the Rift to Java, there is nothing to say there wasn’t a migration from somewhere else to the Rift. In fact, history shows us that probably is the case.

On a completely unrelated note. . . about that Slanty Eye comment, I’ve got one word for you . . . .BIGOT!

Jason Coleman on August 19, 2011 at 12:50 AM

But of course the atheists want to cheat on the “wall of church and state” by teaching, in the name of science, that students’ religious beliefs are false. No acknowledgment that evolution (as taught today, at least) BEGINS WITH THE ASSUMPTION that no deity was present.

RegularJoe on August 19, 2011 at 12:17 AM

Can you rephrase this please, it’s pretty convoluted and as an atheist I’m leaning toward being offended at your generalization and wrongheadedness.

Darwinian Evolution REQUIRES “the Creator” according to Darwin himself. I haven’t come across any schools teaching pure Huxleyan evolution yet.

Jason Coleman on August 19, 2011 at 12:53 AM

As for Lucy.

As we go farther and farther back in time, we’re moving farther away from Lucy and AL 333 (the so-called “First Family”).

The “truth” of our species origin is most definitely NOT in the Rift Valley, it’s somewhere probably N and E of there by a significant margin.

WE get it though. You have faith in Evolution. But that’s it, you’re going on faith. You sure as hell aren’t talking like someone with an eye on the science other than using simplifications to reinforce your faith.

You’re treating it like a religion, and you’re not only wrong, you’re even doing it wrong.

Just as Lucy’s peeps went all the way to Java, someone before Lucy moved their family to the Rift. We have ideas of where they came, but most probably we have no accurate guess at this point.

We haven’t gone looking all that much in the areas NE of Ethopia where the current oldest remains were found for political and practical reasons.

You’ve betrayed yourself and your knowledge by relying on the 1975 discoveries and assuming that future discoveries would only be centered around that point. They aren’t.

Jason Coleman on August 19, 2011 at 1:02 AM

On cows and dolphins:

Dude are you reading what you’re writing???? Do you realize that after all that poor work you’ve done to convince us of your faith that The Theory of Evolution as taught right now today is 100% true and accurate and that there is no other possibility. . . . .

You just tossed it all out on a throw away line about common ancestor way back when that would account for a COW being genetically closer to a dolphin than all the other bovines.

Do you realize that for you statement to be true, it would literally wipe everything you’ve said to this point in support of a theory of Darwinian evolution???

Evolution says that we should find similarity between the two as mammals yes. Over time there would be divergence. In the case of the water mammals and the land animals, the first bovines came about long after the separation of land and sea. If we go with natural selection (Darwin and Wallace) we’ll see sea go off in one direction and land in another.

Now along comes the first bovine, then the second and third and the fourth and some more and then, COW. According to ToE, the COW must be closer genetically to his ancestor bovine than he would be to the much farther back split to land and sea.

No one knows why the dolphin and the cow are so close and why the uniqueness of the relationship, it’s not “because they had a shared ancestor” all the other bovine had the same shared ancestry reinforced over millions of years.

There are theories about this. Some of those theories fit into an Evolutionary framework without destroying it, but they aren’t very solid and require some assumptions and the acceptance of coincidences. There are other theories that point to a deeper genetic blueprint that we haven’t discovered yet and the answer is probably in what is commonly referred to as the “Junk DNA”.

The fact is that we don’t know, WE DO KNOW that is a big gaping hole in Evolutionary theory, and closing that hole will require the re-writing of a whole lot of textbooks.

It also confirms with certainty that Evolution is not 100% righ in All instances, that Evolution is not a Law of the Universe but rather just a framework we are using to try and arrive at that law.

You don’t really seem to know all that much about religion, and you don’t seem to know all that much about history, and you REALLY don’t seem to know all that much about Evolution as science.

But man have you got Evolution as Religion down pat.

What would you have done before 1975? What are you going to do in 50 years when an 9 million year old proto-human is discovered under the Russian Steppe???? Or maybe it’ll be a 12 million year old proto-human under the Jungles of Western India???

Jason Coleman on August 19, 2011 at 1:53 AM

Somewhere N and E of there huh? Where? Like in the Garden of Eden maybe?

Talk about having faith.

Faith does not give you the answers, it only stops you from asking the questions. Frater Ravus

SauerKraut537 on August 19, 2011 at 1:18 AM

Before you go barking up that tree. Since you obviously haven’t been reading. I’m an atheist.

Just because you’re hung up on Judeo-Christianity doesn’t mean you have to ascribe it to me.

Plenty of other non-J-C creation myths also point to the area that is historically also known as the Cradle of Civilization. It’s very logical and highly probably given the evidence that still older remains (if they were fossilized upon deposition) of proto-humans are somewhere in the area of what is today Iraq/Kurdistan.

Lucy and AL333 are old. To the NE are older remains. NE of that, older still in Ethopia. NE near the coast we find older still, then we hit water, then hostile governments.

We know in the time frames we’re talking about, there was no water there. If we could continue the line it would take us back to the Indus Ganges Valley.

The Fertile Crescent/Cradle/IG Valley also happens to be the place we first started acting human.

What you deride as the garden of eden, shows itself across almost all creation myths. In terms of location if not mythology.

The idea that humanity would carry with it and incorporate into it’s religions the location of humanity’s own origin is not far fetched and certainly not to be derided.

Darwin himself relied on “the Creator” to make Evolution work. Later adherents had to turn back to Huxley to get God out of the Theory. Click my name, it’s a Huxley quote at the top. Huxley was probably more important to Evolution than Darwin, but Darwin had the knack to tell the tale. Huxley is also one of history’s most important atheists.

I’m a huge fan of Huxley and the ToE, but the status you’re giving it is just plain wrong on so many counts.

____________________________________

I have got to address this ignorant bigoted gem of yours now:

You don’t know what a bigot is then apparently because just pointing out some physical traits of humans from a specific part of the world DOESN’T make one a bigot. It’s an acknowledgment of fact. I had no ill intent when I said it so your claim of me being a bigot is unfounded.

1. All human eyes, even ones are on the same plane. No correctly formed humans have “slanty eyes”.
2. Epicanthic skin folds are present in aboriginal and modern Mongoloid, Caucasiod and Negroid populations on all continents save Antarctica.

So which “humans from a specific part of the world” were you referring to?

Native Americans? Mayans? Kahalari Bushmen? Australian Aborigines? Scandinavian Laplanders? Hawaiians? Slavs?

A little bird tells me that you were “refurrin’ to dem Orientals”!

Your “slanty eyes” comment is either one of bigotry or profound ignorance of human evolution. Take your pick there sparky.

Jason Coleman on August 19, 2011 at 4:04 AM

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole.

Very simply put, this is wrong, and invalidates all the rest.

String theory
Q theory
Relativity

All three are not considered TRUE. None are “accepted to be true by the scientific community”.

Law of Thermodynamics
Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy
Law of Energy Momentum Curves Spacetime (E=mc2)

All three of these are considered TRUE. All are “accepted to be true of the scientific community.

Like I said, you’ve taken Evolution to AGW levels, and you’re just as wrong for doing so.

I can’t tell if you’re just as dense as the warmers or you just do damn afraid of god-constructs that you can’t see real science and just hope and pray to yourself that no one rocks your worldview.

It’s insanity to think that we’re at the end of human understanding about how and when and where we came about. If a virus came along and seriously altered our DNA to the point we “lit up” intellectually, that’s a HUGE deal with profound implications for any concept of FUTURE evolution.

You deny the very possibility, and that’s a problem for you, scientifically.

You’re a bigot, plain and simple. Your bigoted against “slanty eyes” and you are against anyone who even might have a viewpoint that may be considered by you “religious”, you insanely fear anyone with faith.

But let me clue you in. I don’t have faith, I have doubt.

You, on the other hand sure seem to be evidencing a heckuva lot of faith.

Jason Coleman on August 19, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Like the Law of gravity leading to the theory of gravity.

You realize you have that backwards right?

Have you read “the Principia”? IF not, start there.

Yes, one sentence can invalidate the rest, that’s how logic and science works.

You’re the one claiming that absolutes, “We all came from Africa”. That’s not absolutely true. It was UNTRUE before 1975, and evidence suggests that will be confirmed UNTRUE again in a relatively short time-scale.

Your problem is you are claiming this absolute certainty of science (TRUTH) when it doesn’t exist in the case of Evolution.

Again there is NO difference between what you are doing and the warmers. You made ludicrous absolute assertions and refuse to consider the scientific history or future and assert that the understanding you have right now is accurate. Let me clue you it, IT IS NOT.

If it is, you’ve just won trillion to one bet. 99.9 percent of scientific theory falls over time. Failure by you to recognize that will make you just as absurd to future generations as you see religious creationists today.

We do not live in a special time or special place where we have special knowledge of how things are. Most of what we know is wrong, and failure to recognize that shows you’re going on faith, not science.

Jason Coleman on August 19, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Prove to me that laws don’t lead to theories in science

Can you please provide me with the quote where I said that they couldn’t?

You stated that

Like the Law of gravity leading to the theory of gravity.

I stated that according Newton’s the Principia exactly the opposite happened. And it did.

It’s bad enough you’re playing with absolutes in an inabsolute world, but don’t go ascribing things to me I didn’t say and then demand proof.

the Principia is in the public domain, go read it.

Jason Coleman on August 19, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Thanks Kraut for manning the fort here. It might be a lost cause with Jason though – its sad to find someone that dedicated to ignorance.

mythicknight on August 19, 2011 at 8:42 PM

The only thing I’m dedicated to is the knowledge that our science is grossly incomplete, historically very inaccurate and that the total understanding of our natural world is still currently beyond us.

When the AGW folks can give me next months weather with the certainty they can tell the weather was like millions of years ago, I’ll change my tune a bit on them. When they can make a computer model that can run accurately backwards, I’ll take them seriously.

When Evolutionists can get some accurate predictions together and do so accurately and repeatedly, I’ll give them credit and points for it. When they are stuck telling me that something MUST be true because we haven’t found anything else I’ll be satisfied. . . IF THEY’VE LOOKED IN ALL THE OBVIOUS PLACES which so far, they haven’t/can’t.

When evolutionists can explain the problem with Sulphur and Carbon based life in the same system, I’ll be leaning their way a bit more. Right now, they can’t and don’t even really have a place to even start without tossing out most of the base work already done.

When we can settle Junk DNA and explain things like the dolphin and cow (which according to evolution should not be the way it is), I’ll be alot easier on Evolution.

I simply don’t buy that the ephemeral “evolved Church of near-Darwinian Evolution” has the basis to state that they are 100% right (or even 50% right yet) and they should start making absolute statements. Leave that for the Catholics.

Jason Coleman on August 19, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Whether the life form is silica based, sulphur based, carbon based or whatnot. The Theory of evolution still would apply. Whether the life form is silica based, sulphur based, carbon based or whatnot. The Theory of evolution still would apply.

That’d be true if we were talking about that.

My point is specifically “in the same system”. The ToE in it’s “current ‘evolved’ state” is currently in quiet crisis over the discoveries of sulphur based life forms discovered not long ago. A major revision to the theory is necessary RIGHT NOW.

Your “multiple times life emerged” throws you in conflict with “current evolved Evolutionary theory”.

You’ve now made my point, that Evolution is probably not correct for me. Thanks.

Unfortunately, you still are tossing out quotes with the force of scripture as counterpoints to christian scripture and trying to preach your church my current evolutionary theory of the moment which according to me is 100% true and while I admit that it’s been wrong and had major revisions before it won’t have any major revisions in the future because we do live in a special time”.

We don’t live in a special time or place and we don’t have any special knowledge. The probability is approaching certainty that ToE will indeed have MORE major revsions to it and be largely changed from it’s current form.

You’re treating evolution as religion, just like warmers treat AGW like a religion.

You’ve committed one of the cardinal sins of science or atheism, faith.

Give it up, embrace doubt it’s one certainty in science that ALWAYS moves us forward.

Jason Coleman on August 22, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Nothing I’ve said is anti-evolution, the only thing I’m anti- is treating current science like unassailable gospel as you have done.

Jason Coleman on August 22, 2011 at 7:56 PM