Posted on 02/18/2006 1:21:05 PM PST by DeweyCA
Ummm. That's the way science works. It self repairs until the conclusions are as accurate as possible. Finding new evidence is not embarrassing but quite expected.
Pretty darn low I suspect...except it's doubtful that the first proto-life started with DNA, and many chemicals combine in a non-'chance' way. Look up chemical bonds.
Really? How so?
You've got two years on me.
The reason I asked, and not to dredge this issue up again, is because this is the second time someone has made reference to the meaning of terms/concepts/relationships in "earlier times," and in both cases, I find myself in agreement.
Survival of the fittest, from my recollection, was virtually interchangeable with natural selection, since at the very least, they both described a conclusion of the same event in practical terms.
Primordial soup, if memory serves me correctly, was the other time someone brought this issue up, and again, I have to agree that it was taught as being inferred by the theory. Certainly, there was no effort, or campaign like there is today, to disassociate the two...or in the case of the former term, to distinguish the differences, if any....and I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people who grew up circa 1960's probably have similar recollections.
Anyway, that's why I asked, and thanks for the response.
Do you really prefer an approach which cannot change even when shown to be incorrect?
I don't.
Here is a brief discusson of how science works, from an NSF abstract:
As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.
As if the opinions of the dumbed down products of public school education change whether or not evolution is a fact. They can make 'em as dumb as they want but they will not change the fact that evolution is based on facts.
As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence. (emphasis mine)
The underlined seems more of a statement on politics, than it does any objective description of the method, or methods, of science.
It is an indisputable fact that heliocentric theory replaced geocentric theory. It is not an indisputable fact that evolutionary theory is held with a very high degree of confidence.
It seems odd at best, to advocate any particular theory when making a statement on method, unless the particular theories are referenced in historical context, as in the case of heliocentric/geocentric.
Personally, I find this very disturbing.
If it wasn't for "Monks reading John" and studying MANY other things, your "prophet" Darwin would never have sailed on the Beagle.
Incidentally, the captain of said ship didn't want to take Charles aboard, as Mr. Darwin's NOSE was considered by many to be of an undesirable personality trait. This was reasonable and sufficient grounds to beach Darwin, but a number of politicos intervened.
Shcneah!
There has been a side-discussion about the Chistian Millieu which produced science.
I have admitted it. But mythos has also held back science in the name of religion if the science challenged religious doctrines.
This continues today in the guise of Creationism.
I am interested in knowing why you think I'm challenging your understanding of the fossil record. Which I am not. To be very clear to you I am saying that the evolution recorded in the fossil record is the evolution of ideas held and acted upon by a Designer and his team of desginers.
For example archeologists find ancient sundials and water clocks. While many of us today do still have sundails as garden decorations there are no water clocks to be found. Instead we have spring wound clocks, electric clocks, electronic clocks, computer clocks, and very fancy laser and atomic clocks. Very evolved have clocks become.
And every single one -- including the ancient sundail and water clock artifacts -- designed by designers.
And that is exactly parallel to your example of the ancient horse-like fossils, imo.
The MONKEY PEOPLE remind me of all those IDIOTS who 'see' things in modern art. Some untalented nincompoop splashes paint on a canvas and all of the other 'enlightened', 'educated' individuals also 'see' all type of substance and meaning in the piece of crap called art.
THOE has tens of thousands of examples. It is so laughable. The scenario above repeats again and again and again.
"Mokius Man obviously used tools, as evident by a rock being discovered within a proximity of 500 yards to the small bone fragment that MONKIUS MAN was derived from. What we can derive from this is an advanced brain capacity of 23 centimeters. This is a breakthrough discovery upon which several thousand MORONS will write PHD thesis on, and several thousand other MORONS will sit around and claim this is SCIENCE."
I agree that theories should change when incorrect. Eintstien's theories have been subject to revision because of observed events in the universe.
However, Global Warming and Evolution's theories never need revising based on observed events, these events simply get explained as evidence to support the theory.
That is why these theories are superior, they never have to say they are sorry. What grand theories compared to the poor old relativity theory.
Are you trashcanbred? {post #81}
"Sorry, following the rules of courtesy where you ping those being discussed. Please graciously accept my apologies. :) Post #195"
The warmth and depth of your Christian charity and courtesy are duly noted this Sunday morning. Thank you again for showing us how seriously you take your beliefs that you would find it necessary to ping me to 195. It speaks wonders about the kindness of your heart. If I hadn't had a bad sinus attack last night that has left me struggling to read a computer screen, I would elaborate further. As it is, I can barely open one of my eyes and both eyes are so bloodshot and swollen it looks like I went a few rounds with Rocky. I apparently forgot to duck.
Note that the next thing, A. africanus, over from the modern chimp looks a lot like the chimp, and it's the oldest skull in the series at 2.6 million years.
The text immediately preceding the figure:
One of the most celebrated examples of transitional fossils is our collection of fossil hominids (see Figure 1.4.4 below). Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils.From a source which should be familiar to you by now, and yet every thread is like your first thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.