Can Someone Explain Evolution to Me?

[Jaskalas]

Can I try a different explanation?

Theres the thing, and our explanation about how the thing works.

So theres gravity, and our theory of gravity.
Now gravity undoubtedly exists. You can see how it affects things all the time. It's a fact that it exists.
Our theory of gravity is our explanation about how that works. That explanation might not be perfect and it might change as we get more information but it doesn't change that gravity exists.

(Gravity used as an example as it seems to hurt religious peoples heads less than evolution)

Nice, but anyone who is hurt by accepting evolution should be give a proper demonstration of gravity!

 

[Ajay]

Hmm, does evolution have the ability to predict future events based on current states and some sort of selective pressure? (Even if the result a probability function/graph, etc.).

 

[whm1974]

I said GET THEE BEHIND ME, SATAN!!!

My name isn't Satan.

 

[PowerEngineer]

As the scientific definition of 'fact', no. As the more commonly-used definition, as in, 'close enough to fact that we can probably disregard anyone that presents a different fact, unless it's super close to the first fact', it passes muster.

The issue with repeating over and over again that scientific principals such as gravity and evolution are 'just theories', it lends credence to the notions of imbeciles that something not-considered-fact by even the scientists that believe/develop them can be simply disregarded, or replaced with an equivalently impassioned presentation of a bearded man in the sky.

At least part of this discussion has been describing science and its definitions of its terms, and it really undercuts the validity of any supposedly science-grounded assertion to adopt a non-scientific definition no matter how popular it might be.

There is value in repeating over and over again that the products of science are actually "just theories'. It reminds us that theories cannot be proven to be true, and that we must remain open to the near certainty that all theories will need (at least) some tweaking to accommodate new facts as we discover them. As an example, the hoped for resolution of inconsistencies between general relativity and quantum physics will surely require changes to both. I suggest to you that our ability to harbor some doubt about our best current theories and our willingness to change them as needed is what differentiates science from a faith-based 'system of beliefs' that JediYoga could otherwise equate it to.

But I could be wrong...

 

[nakedfrog]

My name isn't Satan.

It's fun because you don't understand jokes

 

[whm1974]

It's fun because you don't understand jokes

The expression "GET THEE BEHIND ME, SATAN!!!" Wasn't meant to be a Joke in the first place.

 

[Muse]

Yeah, well, humans are primates. The earlier primates evolved from fish. Case closed.

 

[Muse]

Evolution is a theory. Period.

So are you..........

 

[nakedfrog]

The expression "GET THEE BEHIND ME, SATAN!!!" Wasn't meant to be a Joke in the first place.

Not relevant because it's clear that the way I was employing it, it was a joke

 

[whm1974]

Not relevant because it's clear that the way I was employing it, it was a joke

Sarcasm is hard to notice in replies without a sarcasm tag.

 

[nakedfrog]

Sarcasm is hard to notice in replies without a sarcasm tag.

It wasn't sarcasm, it was a joke. There is a difference, and most people would be aware I wasn't literally calling you Satan, hence illustrating my point about your consistent failure to grasp jokes

 

[whm1974]

It wasn't sarcasm, it was a joke. There is a difference, and most people would be aware I wasn't literally calling you Satan, hence illustrating my point about your consistent failure to grasp jokes

I was the one being sarcastic.

 

[nakedfrog]

I was the one being sarcastic.

Ah, yes, it could be hard to tell with you.

 

[whm1974]

Ah, yes, it could be hard to tell with you.

Yes I am one of The Sarcastic who are have either the Gift or Skill of Sarcasm who can this so well that people who have neither nor the ability to recognize when someone is being sarcastic in Word or Print.

 

[snoopy7548]

Yes I am one of The Sarcastic who are have either the Gift or Skill of Sarcasm who can this so well that people who have neither nor the ability to recognize when someone is being sarcastic in Word or Print.

Microsoft Word?

 

[nakedfrog]

Yes I am one of The Sarcastic who are have either the Gift or Skill of Sarcasm who can this so well that people who have neither nor the ability to recognize when someone is being sarcastic in Word or Print.

I don't think that's exactly a "gift"...

 

[whm1974]

I don't think that's exactly a "gift"...

Oh Yes it is. It is both a Gift and a Learned skill.

 

[nakedfrog]

Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but I disagree.

 

[zinfamous]

Yes I am one of The Sarcastic who are have either the Gift or Skill of Sarcasm who can this so well that people who have neither nor the ability to recognize when someone is being sarcastic in Word or Print.

huh?

 

[Ajay]

Suddenly, a weird conversation appears....who knew.

 

[soulcougher73]

Suddenly, a weird conversation appears....who knew.

Evolution of a thread?

 

[WelshBloke]

At least part of this discussion has been describing science and its definitions of its terms, and it really undercuts the validity of any supposedly science-grounded assertion to adopt a non-scientific definition no matter how popular it might be.

There is value in repeating over and over again that the products of science are actually "just theories'. It reminds us that theories cannot be proven to be true, and that we must remain open to the near certainty that all theories will need (at least) some tweaking to accommodate new facts as we discover them. As an example, the hoped for resolution of inconsistencies between general relativity and quantum physics will surely require changes to both. I suggest to you that our ability to harbor some doubt about our best current theories and our willingness to change them as needed is what differentiates science from a faith-based 'system of beliefs' that JediYoga could otherwise equate it to.

But I could be wrong...

You're kinda glossing over the whole proving a theory wrong with evidence and facts and putting forward a different one that fits the evidence better to overturn an existing theory.

Most of whats happening re evolution is just people going "Well I have this really old book and this really strong belief that this is wrong"...

 

[Ajay]

There is value in repeating over and over again that the products of science are actually "just theories'. It reminds us that theories cannot be proven to be true, and that we must remain open to the near certainty that all theories will need (at least) some tweaking to accommodate new facts as we discover them. As an example, the hoped for resolution of inconsistencies between general relativity and quantum physics will surely require changes to both.

Seriously, sometimes I want to pound this into the heads of young folks who think of science in nearly mystical terms - whereas it's a philosophy that has developed and been refined over thousands of years. FWIW, I think that the resolution the relativity and quantum physics will be found in an entirely new theory (maybe even new math) where the former theories will be degenerative cases of the new one.

I suggest to you that our ability to harbor some doubt about our best current theories and our willingness to change them as needed is what differentiates science from a faith-based 'system of beliefs' that JediYoga could otherwise equate it to.

The same thing is useful for faith, it's just that the bar is *real* high, given the long histories (2k years for Christianity). A lot of what science has uncovered is fairly new (given the exponential increase in knowledge and technique).

 

[WelshBloke]

The same thing is useful for faith, it's just that the bar is *real* high, given the long histories (2k years for Christianity). A lot of what science has uncovered is fairly new (given the exponential increase in knowledge and technique).

Nooooo.

Thats just not how religion works. You don't get to change it because you can prove things in it are incorrect.
The whole point of religion is that you believe in it regardless of the facts. Its pretty much the opposite of the scientific principle.

 

[whm1974]

Nooooo.

Thats just not how religion works. You don't get to change it because you can prove things in it are incorrect.
The whole point of religion is that you believe in it regardless of the facts. Its pretty much the opposite of the scientific principle.

Well said. Which is way Humanity should totally abandon all Religions completely enmass.