29 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiHUH?? Didn't you insist that a scientific theory be testable??? Now you are saying that if the theory passes the test, it is a fallacy!!!!đ˛
TOE predicts there was once some bird/reptile creature.
( A implies B )
A bird/reptile creature's fossil is discovered,
( B is true )
Therefore TOE is true
( A is true. )
A classic fallacy.
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou're a 50,000-year-old homosexual?
Try the security guard wearing the shoes and reading the comic with one eye while he keeps the other on a CCTV screen showing the chess-playing automaton in a high security cell.
You're a 50,000-year-old homosexual?
Nah, just a past life, that's all!!
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiExplaining the way the world IS is only one part of TOE. If you're so confused and apparently uneducated in the matter may I suggest that you read a book or take a course in it. By someone who's qualified - not your local parish priest.
You can have both mutations and natural selection, and not TOE. So TOE still played no role. TOE is a theory for explaining how life as we know it came to be. Mutations are observable phenomena. TOE still plays no necessary role. There are no laws of TOE required for the development of pesticides or vaccines. These developments happen in spite of TOE.
Evolutionary theory explains..... no, sod it. I've explained this heaps of times - you simply refuse to actuallt listen to anyone else.
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiGravity exists whether we have a theory regarding it or not, too. But understanding how it works via a scientific theory makes it a little easier to get airplanes into the sky. Understanding the role of natural selection and mutations in the evolution of various life forms makes it easier to treat diseases causes by viruses and develop pesticides that work. Your ignorance and/or stubbornness is appalling.
You can have both mutations and natural selection, and not TOE. So TOE still played no role. TOE is a theory for explaining how life as we know it came to be. Mutations are observable phenomena. TOE still plays no necessary role. There are no laws of TOE required for the development of pesticides or vaccines. These developments happen in spite of TOE.
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe fact that organism adapt to their environment does is not questioned. TOE does not [i]predict[/] resistants to pesticides. TOE is not the theory of mutations or a theory of adaption to the environment.
absolutely not true. Virus' become immune to anti-viral treatments (although bacteria are a better model), likewise, new pesticides have to be developed all the time, because the pests are becoming resistant. TOE predicts they will. Creationism or ID cannot make that prediction.
Scientist did not develop flue vaccines until they observed the way the flue virus mutated from swine flue in Asia. But had they never observed this, TOE would not done so. TOE can not predict how the flue mutates.
Your are taking about observed facts, and saying these observations would not have been possible without TOE. ID and Creationism work with the same observations. There observations are not predictions of TOE.
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by telerionHere's my prediction: if you can give a definition of TOE that definitively predicts any thing, then it will fail to account for much of what we have found. If you give a definition of TOE that is broad enough to incorporate everything we have found, then it will not be definitive enough to be falsified.
Thank you. As others have pointed out, the TOE does not do this. A scientific theory becomes as well-accepted as the TOE by making many successful predictions and not failing by making incorrect ones.
As scott or scribs pointed out earlier, the reasoning really goes as follows:
TOE predicts there was once some bird/reptile creature.
( A implies B ...[text shortened]... ata comes first and that no theory should be accepted if it blatantly violates what we observe.
TOE is too broad in scope to be falsified. The tree of evolution keeps getting re-drawn every time we find something that doesn't fit well. And we are finding things all the time that cause the tree to be redrawn. Tell me one thing that we could find that would falsify evolution. Would scientist reject it if we found a furry fish? Would they reject it if the found a mammal with a beak? Flying fish? Come on. Be honest. You can not falsify TOE - ergo it's a bad scientific theory.
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiWrong, wrong, and wrong.
The fact that organism adapt to their environment does is not questioned. TOE does not [i]predict[/] resistants to pesticides. TOE is not the theory of mutations or a theory of adaption to the environment.
Scientist did not develop flue vaccines until they observed the way the flue virus mutated from swine flue in Asia. But had they never observed thi ...[text shortened]... and Creationism work with the same observations. There observations are not predictions of TOE.
The fact that an organisms adapts (physiologically) to its environment is not part of TOE. The prediction of TOE is that if there is a new selection pressure (in this case pesticides) the population will change genetically to cope with that new pressure. That genetic change is brought about by random genetic mutation, and the reason it changes the population genetic pool is by survival of the fittest - natural selection. TOE does predict this. TAKE A CLASS.
By the way, it's flu, not flue. A flue is a thing for removing exhaust gasses from boilers. Flu is a shortend version of influenza.
TOE cannot predict how the flu mutates. That's absolutely true, in the same way that if i throw 100 coins in the air I cannot predict which will come down as heads and which will land as tails. However, I can predict that they will land. TOE can predict that it will mutate. If we impose a selection pressure then we could make a reasonable prediction as to how it would genetically change and what its new properties would be. Gravity cannot predict when an apple will fall from a tree, but it can predict that it WILL fall from the tree. Does that make gravity wrong? TAKE A CLASS.
ID and creationism cannot allow for genetic mutation to give an organism new abilities, such as the ability to resist antibiotics. That's called evolution. TAKE A CLASS.
by the way, what is the creationist or even IDers line on MRSA? How did that happen? This microbe that wasn't genetically capable of dealing with antibiotics suddenly becomming able to deal with them once they were discovered and started to be used. Did god suddenly decide that Staph a. needed these new abilities or what?
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiInteresting. All of the examples you provide would, if found, probably be described as mutations (which is, of course, the lynchpin of speciation).
Would scientist reject it if we found a furry fish? Would they reject it if the found a mammal with a beak? Flying fish? Come on. Be honest. You can not falsify TOE - ergo it's a bad scientific theory.
Strangely enough (and I'm no 6-day creationist), I think you're right - I can't think of any falsification test for evolution.
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiWhy do you keep banging on that evolution could not be proven to be false? Just because it never has (and probably never will), doesn't mean it couldn't be, were it, in fact, wrong.
Here's my prediction: if you can give a definition of TOE that definitively predicts any thing, then it will fail to account for much of what we have found. If you give a definition of TOE that is broad enough to incorporate everything we have found, then it will not be definitive enough to be falsified.
TOE is too broad in scope to be falsified. The t ...[text shortened]... ying fish? Come on. Be honest. You can not falsify TOE - ergo it's a bad scientific theory.
I've given you several examples of things that would prove evolution to be wrong. And they don't exist! Go figure!
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by Colettibtw fish do have hairs. It's called a lateral line, and it helps the fish to sense changes in water pressure.
Here's my prediction: if you can give a definition of TOE that definitively predicts any thing, then it will fail to account for much of what we have found. If you give a definition of TOE that is broad enough to incorporate everything we have found, then it will not be definitive enough to be falsified.
TOE is too broad in scope to be falsified. The t ...[text shortened]... ying fish? Come on. Be honest. You can not falsify TOE - ergo it's a bad scientific theory.
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou're not an expert either.
Strangely enough (and I'm no 6-day creationist), I think you're right - I can't think of any falsification test for evolution.
Here's some stuff on falsification from talk.origins (scroll down a bit):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html
By the way, is the notion of falsification (introduced by Popper, I think?) universally accepted among scientists?