jay pettitt on 18/11/2006 at 16:45
Do you doubt that evolution is a theory?
Para?noid on 18/11/2006 at 16:48
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Theory never means fact. Theories don't get tested or proven and at no point do theories become facts. Infact, fact and theory are unrelated things. Theories can however be very cool.
No, theories are conjectures that have been tested and proven "true" to an acceptable extent. (An example of this may be a mathematical theory that has a valid proof.)
Para?noid on 18/11/2006 at 16:50
Quote Posted by Bulgarian_Taffer
That's why I don't believe in evolution.
Also then what the fuck do you use to explain what is happening all around you. Evolution is such a base, inherent scheme that pops up in pretty much every single system ever I can't understand why people can't see it
jay pettitt on 18/11/2006 at 16:53
Quote Posted by Para?noid
No, theories are conjectures that have been tested and proven "true" to an acceptable extent. (An example of this may be a mathematical theory that has a valid proof.)
In science, evolution for example, theory is a model and the parent of hypothesis. Hypothesis can be tested, but theories are not.
Gravity is a theory. Under gravity you can hypothesise that if you drop an egg it will fall to the ground. You can test the hypothesis by way of observation. Whether or not a theory is cool or not depends on how well its sibling hypothesis stand up - but theories will always be theories.
Bulgarian_Taffer on 18/11/2006 at 16:54
There are many objections against the evolution and neo-darvinistic theory at all. For example, a lot of organs are thought to be homologic, however, genetics and molecular biology confirms that it's not a matter of homology, but analogy. There is difference. Also, macroevolution cannot be proved. Simple mutations don't enrich the genetic information.
Bulgarian_Taffer on 18/11/2006 at 16:59
Quote Posted by Para?noid
Also then what the fuck do you use to explain what is happening all around you. Evolution is such a base, inherent scheme that pops up in pretty much every single system ever I can't understand why people can't see it
Let's say that it's a matter of faith. Evolution is a base, right; but panspermy could also be a base, as well as intelligent design.
Francis Crick ( one of the two men that made the first DNA model ) never believed in evolution.
jay pettitt on 18/11/2006 at 17:08
intelligent design and panspermy are bases.
Unfortunately intelligent design or any of its mechanics has yet to be observed. Which is why it's met with a certain amount of disdain. The mechanics of evolution were observed and a theory was formed - which is the way science tends to be done.
I'm not sure why you'd give credence to panspermy but not evolution. Unless you think that fully formed people fell off the back of comets?
Bulgarian_Taffer on 18/11/2006 at 17:25
Well, there are a lot of level of evolution. For example - stellar evolution, chemical evolution and biological evolution.
Let's take, for example, the chemical evolution. Do you believe that all complicated proteins, RNAs and DNAs can form from nothing? I don't. As I said, even Francis Crick didn't believe in that. A simple mutation in DNA could lead to improper comformation of the protein and the protein will be good for nothing.
A simple polypeptid has about 700-800 aminoacids (L-alpha). If chemical evolution is correct, in the first ocean there should be a lot of other aminoacids, for example D-alpha aminoacids. If a single D-alpha aminoacid is mistakenly inserted in a polypeptid, it will lead to improper conformation.
As for me, I believe in intelligent design.
Para?noid on 18/11/2006 at 17:27
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
In science, evolution for example, theory is a model and the parent of hypothesis. Hypothesis can be tested, but theories are not.
Gravity is a theory. Under gravity you can hypothesise that if you drop an egg it will fall to the ground. You can test the hypothesis by way of observation. Whether or not a theory is cool or not depends on how well its sibling hypothesis stand up - but theories will always be theories.
No shit
What I'm saying is that the strict definition of a theory is a conjecture that has been proven true.
Bulgarian Taffer: Why the fuck does intelligent design and evolution have to be exclusive? Your line of thinking is the same kind of bullshit religious people have. Science attempts to explain how things work, wether they are intelligently designed or not, it can never prove and doesn't want to waste time on studying such a fruitless endeavour.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU
EVOLUTION CAN BE A PRODUCT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN! NOBODY IS SAYING OTHERWISE?
take your retarded black and white bullshit somewhere else god i swear to god people are just so fucking STUPID
EDIT: HHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOARGH RNA AND DNA DIDN'T COME FROM "NOTHING" YOU THICK TWAT GOD ARE YOU JUST DOING THIS ON PURPOSE TO WIND MY GEARS UP TO THE FUCKING ROOF READ A BOOK AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALKSDJ:AKLSJdkl;ajsdjklasdjklas meltdown
nucleic acid for instance is a complex molecule which in turn is made up of atoms which in turn is made of subatomic particles and all that shit comes from THE STARS
it didn't just fucking pop up out of nowhere unless you take it all the way to the big motherfucking BANG
jay pettitt on 18/11/2006 at 17:30
Quote Posted by Belgian_Taffer
I believe in fairies
Why? Of all the theories that provide models for the origin of species or for that matter the origin of life Intelligent Design has the least going for it - other than being a protest vote.
Science uses the word theory somewhat differently to common parlance (and differently to mathematics). It helps if the mechanics that form a theory are observed (which is probably what you're getting at) but it's hypothesis that get proven - not theories.
