"Young Earth" creationist discovers 60MM year old fossil

[Gulo Blue]

I really do not understand why you, a respected scientific minded person, would disagree with that on a scientific, non-layperson, level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Several scientists quoted here calling evolution a fact. The lone quote saying it is not a fact is in large part due to a matter of linguistics and the statement concludes with "An emphasis on associating 'evolution' with 'fact' presents the misguided connotation that science seeks certainty."

Which is an extremely pure sense of what science is, even among scientists. I don't even know if "pure" is the right word, but it's definitely an extremist position.

 

[zyxt9]

There remain too many questions about evolution for it to be considered a scientific fact. We still have not replicated the initial beginning events in a lab for starters. How can any respectable scientist claim evolution to be an absolute fact without the ability to perform experiments that replicate the theoretical beginnings? Sure, there have been replications of various elements of the theory, but not the initial construct. That alone maintains the reality of it remaining a theory, because all we have managed to do is theorize about how it was initiated. Then they will also need to test out the other potential methods for how life began.

That observed data will need to be compared to each other, then analyzed as to the potential for what is known through observation today. If only one method for life on Earth can be identified and the others cannot, then we approach the level necessary for considering as scientific fact.

There are too many unanswered questions at this time, so it is still theory. You can argue it as linguistics all you want, but the organizations responsible for categorizing it as a theory have not upgraded it to scientific fact. Until they have done so, it is still a theory, and currently one that still has many unanswered questions.

 

[Michchamp]

Hi, I'm zyxt. I'm going to ignore what you posted then write a bunch of words.

words words words words. words words words.

words words words.

So therefore I don't agree with you. Stop calling me names and behave like an adult.

 

[zyxt9]

http://www.pnas.org/content/80/10/2981.full.pdf

I realize we have come a long way since 1983, but this is a pretty good read. For a more recent analysis, I think I had posted this previously but now is a good time to repost it:

(Before criticizing that it is from quantamagazine, it is written about the work of an MIT physicist, so that is where the higher degree of respectable science is achieved.)

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

There are many additional websites and a large number of scientists who are proposing the multiple origin concept. Some google searching on it can easily be done if one wishes to read up on it.

You guys can criticize me for following their line of thinking, but it is my opinion and preference to do so. It is a growing movement among scientists too, so maybe one day you might see it overtake the current singular organism support. Whether or not you ever agree with it is your choice, but it does amplify again the truth that evolution in its current form is theory, not scientific fact.

 

[zyxt9]

Hi, I'm zyxt. I'm going to ignore what you posted then write a bunch of words.

words words words words. words words words.

words words words.

So therefore I don't agree with you. Stop calling me names and behave like an adult.

How am I ignoring what was written? Please see the above post providing links to scientific theories supporting the multiple origins of life concept.

Are you suggesting I am not allowed to be free thinking? I'm saying it is perfectly acceptable for you to have an opinion, why am I not entitled to mine? You have supported your opinion with scientific theories, as have I. This isn't something I have solely created, that is without scientific support. Some scientists prefer the singular origin, others prefer the multiple origins. Why does having a preference different from yours necessitate a childish response from you?

 

[Gulo Blue]

There remain too many questions about evolution for it to be considered a scientific fact. We still have not replicated the initial beginning events in a lab for starters. How can any respectable scientist claim evolution to be an absolute fact without the ability to perform experiments that replicate the theoretical beginnings? Sure, there have been replications of various elements of the theory, but not the initial construct. That alone maintains the reality of it remaining a theory, because all we have managed to do is theorize about how it was initiated. Then they will also need to test out the other potential methods for how life began.

That observed data will need to be compared to each other, then analyzed as to the potential for what is known through observation today. If only one method for life on Earth can be identified and the others cannot, then we approach the level necessary for considering as scientific fact.

There are too many unanswered questions at this time, so it is still theory. You can argue it as linguistics all you want, but the organizations responsible for categorizing it as a theory have not upgraded it to scientific fact. Until they have done so, it is still a theory, and currently one that still has many unanswered questions.

By this standard, there are no facts involving any processes that take over 1,000 years and very few that exceed a person's professions lifespan.

...and, (I think you'll appreciate this), since time and space are two sides of a coin, if there is a compelling argument why there can be no facts outside of the timespan of human observers, then there also can't be facts beyond the space-span of human observers. That's not some compelling argument about anything, just an interesting repercussion of your standard for 'fact'.

But getting to the question I asked before, regarding "the organizations responsible for categorizing it as a theory have not upgraded it to scientific fact." Who are you talking about? And more importantly, who calls evolution a theory and gravity a fact? Or are you prepared to say gravity isn't a fact?

 

[zyxt9]

Champ, you never answered my prior question: Do you believe life exists on other planets?

If not, that is fine. I'm just curious why you never answered the question.

 

[Gulo Blue]

http://www.pnas.org/content/80/10/2981.full.pdf

I realize we have come a long way since 1983, but this is a pretty good read. For a more recent analysis, I think I had posted this previously but now is a good time to repost it:

(Before criticizing that it is from quantamagazine, it is written about the work of an MIT physicist, so that is where the higher degree of respectable science is achieved.)

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

There are many additional websites and a large number of scientists who are proposing the multiple origin concept. Some google searching on it can easily be done if one wishes to read up on it.

You guys can criticize me for following their line of thinking, but it is my opinion and preference to do so. It is a growing movement among scientists too, so maybe one day you might see it overtake the current singular organism support. Whether or not you ever agree with it is your choice, but it does amplify again the truth that evolution in its current form is theory, not scientific fact.

This model assumes evolution as a part of the system.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The argument in this paper is not that the life we see today stemmed from multiple origins. The argument is that there were likely several starts that then went extinct before one caught on.

The fact that all present-day life appears to have descended from a single ancestor does not void the possibility of multiple origins because most such origins
would have aborted as a consequence of the birth-death process at the level of lineages.

 

[zyxt9]

By this standard, there are no facts involving any processes that take over 1,000 years and very few that exceed a person's professions lifespan.

...and, (I think you'll appreciate this), since time and space are two sides of a coin, if there is a compelling argument why there can be no facts outside of the timespan of human observers, then there also can't be facts beyond the space-span of human observers. That's not some compelling argument about anything, just an interesting repercussion of your standard for 'fact'.

But getting to the question I asked before, regarding "the organizations responsible for categorizing it as a theory have not upgraded it to scientific fact." Who are you talking about? And more importantly, who calls evolution a theory and gravity a fact? Or are you prepared to say gravity isn't a fact?

From http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/why-isnt-evolution-considered-law:
Evolution, and most of Biology, cannot be expressed in a concise mathematical equation, so it is referred to as a theory. A scientific law is not "better" or "more accurate" than a scientific theory. A law explains what will happen under certain circumstances, while a theory explains how it happens.

From http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

 

[zyxt9]

So I consider Gravity to be a Law and Evolution to be a Theory.

No scientist should consider them to be "scientific fact".

 

[zyxt9]

The argument in this paper is not that the life we see today stemmed from multiple origins. The argument is that there were likely several starts that then went extinct before one caught on.

Yes, that is what is written in the paper. I am of the opinion that the multiple life starts did not result in all but one strain of life becoming extinct. It is my opinion that more than one survived. I was using that as an example that as far back as 1983 there has been support for the multiple origins of life concept.

 

[zyxt9]

This model assumes evolution as a part of the system.

Yes, that is what my opinion is, that evolution is a natural process that will happen regardless of the planet/origin of lifeforms. The process of evolution is a universal process.

My opinion is that Earth had multiple origins of life, each following the evolution processes once established as a lifeform. Their similarities are attributable to the composition across the earth being similar. That is my opinion, you prefer to hold to everything following a singular origin that all species evolved from.

 

[zyxt9]

Conclusive support for the singular vs multiple will eventually take place via experimentation in labs. Once they are able to generate viable lifeforms with DNA structures in the lab, they can use multiple environmental controls to see how different each lifeform is from each other. My opinion is they will be more similar than different. That their gene sequences will have enough identical traits that it will support the multiple origin theory. Each origin then follows the processes detailed in the Theory of Evolution.

That is my opinion of what the future experiments will discover. I could be wrong, but there is nothing to say I am wrong at this time.

 

[Gulo Blue]

So I consider Gravity to be a Law and Evolution to be a Theory.

No scientist should consider them to be "scientific fact".

Sure, law, theory...depends on the type of statement. But would you not call it a fact, and you don't need to add an adjective here, "absolute fact", "scientific fact"...just a "fact"?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Yes, that is what my opinion is, that evolution is a natural process that will happen regardless of the planet/origin of lifeforms. The process of evolution is a universal process.

My opinion is that Earth had multiple origins of life, each following the evolution processes once established as a lifeform. Their similarities are attributable to the composition across the earth being similar. That is my opinion, you prefer to hold to everything following a singular origin that all species evolved from.

At the root of it, it seems you believe evolution is real, but not a fact, and that we aren't discussing a matter of linguistics. Is that all correct?

 

[zyxt9]

Sure, law, theory...depends on the type of statement. But would you not call it a fact, and you don't need to add an adjective here, "absolute fact", "scientific fact"...just a "fact"?

IMO, a fact is something so concrete it is no longer explored, studied, analyzed, or need any tweaking. A theory is still doing scientific work on it to define it 100 percent. Sorry, that is my interpretation. The heliocentric theory, IMO, is not being scientifically explored now, so maybe that could be changed to a fact, but maybe someone is studying the finer aspects such as periodic shifts due to the galactic orbit or something that I'm not aware of that needs more data. As long as data is being collected, I categorize it as a theory or law.

 

[Gulo Blue]

IMO, a fact is something so concrete it is no longer explored, studied, analyzed, or need any tweaking. A theory is still doing scientific work on it to define it 100 percent. Sorry, that is my interpretation. The heliocentric theory, IMO, is not being scientifically explored now, so maybe that could be changed to a fact, but maybe someone is studying the finer aspects such as periodic shifts due to the galactic orbit or something that I'm not aware of that needs more data. As long as data is being collected, I categorize it as a theory or law.

That's how I see evolution. There's no research going to looking to prove or disprove it, just to better understand the finer points. The basic premise is settled. Either way, you seemed to not understand why I'd call it a fact. I think I've demonstrated that that's the mainstream usage of the word.

 

[zyxt9]

That's how I see evolution. There's no research going to looking to prove or disprove it, just to better understand the finer points. The basic premise is settled. Either way, you seemed to not understand why I'd call it a fact. I think I've demonstrated that that's the mainstream usage of the word.

Sorry, I cannot be so casual with my definitions. Facts to me are the pieces of evidence upon which theories are developed. They are so concrete, they no longer require further analysis and studying them serves only the purpose of education. The theory the is encompassing thise facts is not considered a fact itself until every minute question has an answer...and it is okay if some questions are never answered.

You seem upset that I will not proclaim the theory to be a fact. My background requires me to maintain a distinction between them even if others do not care or the lay person uses it so frequently that it might as well be fact. No, sorry...for me and in accordance with every official scientific organization, evolution remains classified as a theory. The theory has a large amount of facts within it though. Does that help provide my take on it?

Evolution still has a large number of unanswered questions that are being explored. Why do some species stop mutating? What was the last species to evolve from the crocodile, alligator, tortoise, and turtle line? Are those species no longer able to mutate once they reached a certain degree of complexity? Will humans spin off a new species one day? The unanswered questions are not just about past evolutionary events, but future.

So no, evolution to me is far from being a scientific fact, for their are too many remaining questions and opinions, despite all the facts supporting the theory.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Sorry, I cannot be so casual with my definitions. Facts to me are the pieces of evidence upon which theories are developed. They are so concrete, they no longer require further analysis and studying them serves only the purpose of education. The theory the is encompassing thise facts is not considered a fact itself until every minute question has an answer...and it is okay if some questions are never answered.

You seem upset that I will not proclaim the theory to be a fact. My background requires me to maintain a distinction between them even if others do not care or the lay person uses it so frequently that it might as well be fact. No, sorry...for me and in accordance with every official scientific organization, evolution remains classified as a theory. The theory has a large amount of facts within it though. Does that help provide my take on it?

Evolution still has a large number of unanswered questions that are being explored. Why do some species stop mutating? What was the last species to evolve from the crocodile, alligator, tortoise, and turtle line? Are those species no longer able to mutate once they reached a certain degree of complexity? Will humans spin off a new species one day? The unanswered questions are not just about past evolutionary events, but future.

So no, evolution to me is far from being a scientific fact, for their are too many remaining questions and opinions, despite all the facts supporting the theory.

I'm not upset. I was actually trying to explain why I'm posting in my last thread. You asked me to weigh in and you said you didn't get why I'd use the language that way. I tried to explain, but I'm not upset.