Evolution is not a scientific theory

[IQS.RLOW]

According to Kitcher, good scientific theories must have three features – unity, fecundity, and independent testability of auxiliary hypotheses:



From Kitcher's point of view, Darwinian theory not only meets the three conditions for a good scientific theory; it is without question an extraordinarily successful theory:
The heart of Darwinian evolutionary theory is a family of problem-solving strategies, related by their common employment of a particular style of historical narrative. A Darwinian history is a piece of reasoning of the following general form. The first step consists in a description of an ancestral population of organisms. The reasoning proceeds by tracing the modification of the population through subsequent generations, showing how characteristics were selected, inherited, and became prevalent. Reasoning like this can be used to answer a host of biological questions.[71]
The same kind of story can be told again and again to answer all sorts of questions about all sorts of living things. Evolutionary theory is unified because so many diverse questions ... can be addressed by advancing Darwinian histories. Moreover, these narratives constantly make claims that are subject to independent check.[72]
Darwin not only provided a scheme for unifying the diversity of life. He also gave a structure to our ignorance. After Darwin, it was important to resolve general issues about the presuppositions of Darwinian histories. The way in which biology should proceed had been made admirably plain, and it was clear that biologists had to tackle questions for which they had, as yet, no answers.[73]

[SN’s primary school teacher]

How did this SN simpleton get out of grade 2?

Boyle’s Law is pressure and volume.

A scientific law is just a statement of what happens to A if you do B. It does not explain.

You cannot make a prediction from the Theory of Evolution so it is not scientific. It is not a law either.

[IQS.RLOW]

How many times do it have to bashed into your thick fucking skull

The national academy of science says it is scientific and it's a theory- your opinion hold less weight than hydrogen

[mantra]

You would not be sorry if you watched those lectures, FD. They are an introduction to the basics of physics, presented in layman's terms that are easy to understand

I watched most of the first one - which was just a revision of what many of us learnt in primary school. I'll give the last one a try a bit later and see if it's an improvement. It was just so slow - it's no surprise Cox's class were paying little attention to him.

[Super Nova]

How did this SN simpleton get out of grade 2?

Boyle’s Law is pressure and volume.

A scientific law is just a statement of what happens to A if you do B. It does not explain.

You cannot make a prediction from the Theory of Evolution so it is not scientific. It is not a law either.

Wanker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law

Relation to kinetic theory and ideal gases

Boyle’s law states that at constant temperature for a fixed mass, the absolute pressure and the volume of a gas are inversely proportional. The law can also be stated in a slightly different manner, that the product of absolute pressure and volume is always constant.

Most gases behave like ideal gases at moderate pressures and temperatures. The technology of the 17th century could not produce high pressures or low temperatures. Hence, the law was not likely to have deviations at the time of publication. As improvements in technology permitted higher pressures and lower temperatures, deviations from the ideal gas behavior became noticeable, and the relationship between pressure and volume can only be accurately described employing real gas theory.[7] The deviation is expressed as the compressibility factor.

You used an example that you called a law that was wrong and clearly seeen as so soon after it was established.

"real gas theory" describes it better. Just because that label it "Law" it is just a title normally recognising it's author. Also their valuable contribution.

Science is built on the shoulders of the giants that come before them.

Wanker... try better next time please.

[mantra]

You are marginally right in this assumption, but I was thinking more along the lines of global warming. In the 70's we were warned of a looming mini ice age - yet a few decades later that theory has disappeared and the planet appears to be heating up.

That is not a change in the science. That is a change in the reality. The planet was cooling - slowly. Now it is heating - rapidly. The theories that explain both have not changed. You don't need one theory to explain floating and one to explain sinking.

So therefore global warming is Scientific Law as is evolution? We've got records going back millions of years to show reasonable proof that evolution exists - but we haven't for global warming.

Global warming shouldn't be law because at the moment it's a theory and people want to test it.

[Educating f*ckwits]

How does any of what you posted re Boyle’s Law contradict what I said? And it did NOT involve temperature, again just like I said.

IQ makes an appeal to authority—science does not work like that.

Mantra with the nonsense. Global temperatures are climbing as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are climbing and governments have to act to safeguard their citizens’ interests, even those of morons like you, SN & IQ.

[mantra]

Mantra with the nonsense. Global temperatures are climbing as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are climbing and governments have to act to safeguard their citizens’ interests, even those of morons like you, SN & IQ.

Wrong! Governments aren't acting in our interests or they would apply a carbon tax to coal and gas exploration, oil drilling and to those companies dumping their toxic waste in our water supplies. Foreign investors are not subject to the tax.

Instead of adaptation - as Sappho pointed out in another thread and rightly so, we are supporting a hypothesis in the interests of big business only and the governments they bribe.

In another 40 years - our mini ice age might rear it's threatening head again. No-one has any proof that this won't occur.

[annielaurie]

Wrong! Governments aren't acting in our interests or they would apply a carbon tax to coal and gas exploration, oil drilling and to those companies dumping their toxic waste in our water supplies. Foreign investors are not subject to the tax.

Instead of adaptation - as Sappho pointed out in another thread and rightly so, we are supporting a hypothesis in the interests of big business only and the governments they bribe.

In another 40 years - our mini ice age might rear it's threatening head again. No-one has any proof that this won't occur.

I agree with Mantra on this one.

And here are some thoughts I'm having about it. It seems certain there is a gradual rise in overall global temps and an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere around the world, but there are possible natural factors accounting for global warming, not just human industrialization.

The energy output of the sun and the precession of the equinoxes (planetary wobble on earth's axis so that the north pole points to a different part of the heavens in different eras) are two factors which could account for climate change in long slow cycles over many thousands of years.

Inbetween these long epochs of snowball earth in deep ice age and warming earth in tropical climates worldwide (such as during the age of dinos 100 million to 65 million years ago) there can be regional climate change where some areas grow colder and some areas warmer at the same time, and a rise in frequency and severity of storm patterns. I think we are noticing some of these things right now.

A mini ice age could slap certain parts of the world at any time, while other parts of the world get hotter.

We should be focusing on adapting to an overall warmer world as a planetary population. If governments are going to mandate a carbon tax to help reduce human polution then it should be worldwide, and not just for some.

There will be no appreciable reduction or modification in human output unless everybody everywhere is required to cut down on polution at the same time.

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

If governments are going to mandate a carbon tax to help reduce human polution...

Just thought I'd inject a little science into this and remind the readers that Carbon is not a pollutant.