"Science, Theories, and Man"

BedRock

[BedRock]

Why does Science now refuse to tie the Big Bang theory or any of the universe's theories of how it came to be what it is, with a theory of where the first living cell, glob, whatever, "sign of life", that eventually evolved into what we know as life on this Earth that we see around us today together into one huge scientific theory?

Would it not seem likely that, when dealing with one theory concerning life's existence, and where it exists, the next step in that formula, would have to fit somewhat into the context of the next formula, and so on? But from what I have seen, Science has shyed away from this aspect of scientific reasoning, and has instead resorted to treating each as a seperate issue altogether.

Evolution states that Man evolved from a totally different form of life. Different in respect to looks, shape, even perhaps cell structure. It also states, if I am not mistaken, Man evolved from something akin to the ape, millions of years ago.

Science is able to show examples of genetic change in humans today. But the changes that are shown, especially when shown in DNA strands, are for the worse and not for the better when studied within the mammalian species.

Would it not be a legitemate hypothesis to raise the question that it may be plausible that instead of Man evolving from apes, perhaps because of documented & proven DNA scientific/medical study, that it is likely more plausible that apes evolved from Man? And this happened through devolution because of changing DNA strand structure? And based on the "proof" avaliable to us today it should be considered as part of the ever evolving theory of evolution?

Although it has been acknowledged that viruses have mutated in developing resistance against better vaccines in the medical field, they still remain in the viral strain, and are still fully recognizable as such.

This is the same thing Man did when coping with changing climatic conditions as he began to eat meat as part of his regular diet when the plant life was was harder to find because of harsh weather conditions. As Man's diet changed, over time, so did some of the physical structures. And eating meat, provided different elements from the food comsumed, directly affecting the body's structural changes/both outwardly(jaw muscles/teeth) and inwardly(brain cell enhancement).

[Soliton]

There is way too much solid science to refute this, for me to one-finger type it here, but apes have existed for millions of years and homo Sapiens for only 200k. That would be a start.

[kipita]

Why does Science now refuse to tie the Big Bang theory or any of the universe's theories of how it came to be what it is, with a theory of where the first living cell, glob, whatever, "sign of life", that eventually evolved into what we know as life on this Earth that we see around us today together into one huge scientific theory?

I'd say science is very, very specialized and scientists rarely venture outside their area of expertise. I'm an analytical environmental chemist and only studied physics in college. I think most scientist are the same way, specialist and nowadays most scientist worry about funding as there are limited opportunities to work and earn money to live.

[Dimensio]

Would it not seem likely that, when dealing with one theory concerning life's existence, and where it exists, the next step in that formula, would have to fit somewhat into the context of the next formula, and so on?

Do we have to know where air molecules ultimately originated to speak meaningfully about the weather?

[elfman2]

" a theory of where the first living cell, glob, whatever, "sign of life" "

That theory’s called abiogenesis, different from and more controversial than evolution.

[pharmamom]

PH: In case you weren't doing anything...snicker.

[PatrickHenry]

No chance.

[pharmamom]

Coward. (Runs off into the distance, laughing hysterically.)

[BedRock]

I full well know what the theory is called.

What does not make sense is that one theory in science that purports to explain the origin of life of the very species that is so thoroughly discussed in the ToE is

"not even up for discussion among the scientists in the neighboring fields?"

You have got to be kidding.

That's like having a child ask how an airplane flies. And the scientist responding by explaining only the part about the shape of the wing passing through the air and how it causes lift. But not going on further to also explain that the airplane needs thrust, or something to move it forward, so that the air moves across the wings to provide that much needed lift. Which without the latter, the airplane would forever remain grounded.

It seems that the Evos want to only explain the parts that are easily noted, and want no questions asked that require vast study or reasoning on thier part or that of the scientific community.

[elfman2]

I remember seeing this explained to you above my first post. I don’t know what your problem is. Ask your podiatrist to do your heart surgery if it’s still not clear.

[shubi]

I don't think there is enough evidence to call abiogenesis a scientific theory. It is a hypothesis.

[shubi]

Actually, scientists would like it if laymen, like yourself, would study actual science instead of misrepresenting it.

[MHalblaub]

Abiogenesis is neither a theory nor a hypothesis.

It's a very special part of molecular biology.
Like astronomy not being a theory but being a field of physics.

[BedRock]

OK, so by your reasoning, we should leave the philosophy of the ToE out of our lower educational classes because no one without a masters in any specific field of science is able to understand it, let alone question it.

Therefore the only ones who are eligable to question the theory are the ones who make up the rules that apply to the theory.

So if I and others aren't in the "click" we are banned from questioning the "hypothesis".

[elfman2]

"Abiogenesis is neither a theory nor a hypothesis. It's a very special part of molecular biology. Like astronomy not being a theory but being a field of physics"

I stand recalibrated.

[shubi]

Philosophy of ToE? I don't think I broached the subject and I don't think the subject exists.

To argue against science, you need to understand scientific methods and principles.

A Theory like the ToE is not granted the high status of scientific theory until massive amounts of evidence are accumulated and hypotheses verified.

You can question the ToE, but it is not a hypothesis. The rhetorical tricks you use to mock science are typical of creationists. I therefore assume UR 1.

[BedRock]

I must disagree with you, and say with all honesty, that there is, to some extent, a certain degree of philosophy placed into the argument for the ToE, as defined in Merriam Websters dictionary:

4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group

and that group being those heard from on FR that espouse that the ToE is much more than a "theory", even in the scientific realm, simply because of gathered evidence, and proven hypotheses.

And because the aforementioned can be stated with some degree of truth, that bolsters my argument that the ToE has to some extent become a philosophical argument in today's discussion groups, because it is taken even a step further with some who argue on the side of the ToE to say that it "must be disproven" to become non-science.

In other words, those individuals who share the most basic of general beliefs and concepts concerning the ToE can be categorized into one group, therefore making the case for classifying it as a philosophical argument about the ToE.

[shubi]

The creationist side tries to argue against science using sophistry, a form of philosophy I guess. However, the only thing science cares about is actual data and evidence.

So, I just don't buy your argument, except to the extent that all science falls under "Philosophy of Science". But the equivocation that science is philosophy is simply a logical fallacy.

[BedRock]

I have no need to use sophistry.

And I am not arguing this point from a certain side.

I too, am using a hypothesis, gathered facts, and a resultant outcome to come to a theoretical conclusion.

And that being that many on FR are using philosphical arguments to uphold the basis for the ToE.

How you can classify that as sophistry I can't quite figure out. And not all science is based on philosophy, but the ToE does contain a certain degree of philosophical argument in certain groups, just as I stated.

[shubi]

Evolution is a fact. Philosophize all you want about that, but it won't get very far in refuting it.