Mad_Max:

So you're saying 99% of extinctions, some of which humans contributed to, happened so we could have fossil fuel.

Fossil fuel is a recent find. Is it crucial to our survival as a species? What of all the ages humanity did without fossil fuel? There are alternative energy sources being researched and found as we speak. We're not the only species on the planet. Of what use is fossil fuel to other species that survived as well?

Do you realise fossil fuel is got from DEAD plants and animals, not EXTINCT ones? If 99% of biological organisms had not become extinct,WE WOULD STILL HAVE HAD FOSSIL FUEL, because the death of the organism is all that is required for that, NOT the extinction of the organism.

How you came to be privileged with the information that 99% of biological life perished so a species that hadn't arrived on the scene could drive a car millions of years later, is for you to vouchsafe.

And Deep Sight, there is no way for you to know the motive behind the extinction of most life on the planet. You can only speculate and guess. You can't know. Try acting like it.

Research more on the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. While some theories will always remain theories; some theories may become laws if they are proven to be correct, because technically speaking in science a theory cannever be proven correct.

justcool:

@thehommer,
You still don't get it, and I have a felling that you want to get into 'believers verse atheists' battle. Its a pity that I dont have time now to answer you very well, but as soon as I have time I will answer you in detail. Research more on the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. While some theories will always remain theories; some theories may become laws if they are proven to be correct, because technically speaking in science a theory cannever be proven correct.

@all
I will return with a detailed answer to thehomer, at the moment I have to rush to work.

thehomer:

Your feeling about my desire for a believers vs atheists battle is simply not true. I am more interested in getting across the reasons behind the theory of evolution than in debating whether or not anyone should believe in a God. That would not be useful on this particular thread.

I think you should also research into the difference between scientific theory and scientific law. Like I said before, in science, theories do not get promoted to laws. And like I've also pointed out, they serve different purposes. And are also quite distinct from a hypothesis.

Saying a theory cannot be proven correct indicates a misunderstanding of the purpose of scientific theories. As a sort of generalization, a theory is meant to explain not just an occurrence but reasons behind it by connecting previously acquired facts, experiments etc. It can be falsified by evidence. But until such evidence is available, the theory continues to be valid.
A scientific law describes observed phenomena within some parameters and is usually mathematical.
As such, theories are more comprehensive than laws.

In science, there are no 100% proofs since, there isn't 100% knowledge.

Have a nice day at work.

mantraa:


From wikipedia

"Scientific laws
Main article: Scientific law

Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[9] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law."


There is no such thing as absolute certainty in science. All theories and laws of science are discovered and adjusted, refined and improved as more knowledge is discovered. Just because something is called a law does not mean that it is 100% correct.

mantraa:


From wikipedia

"Scientific laws
Main article: Scientific law

[b]There is no such thing as absolute certainty in science. [/b]All theories and laws of science are discovered and adjusted, refined and improved as more knowledge is discovered. Just because something is called a law does not mean that it is 100% correct.

2. Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven?   

  In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

Mad_Max:

Mantraa. So true. Kunle said he hasn't been shown a species evolving, but the thing is he's witnessed evolution and not known it. Many of us have. When we're innoculated against, say, smallpox, we aren't given a magic potion that kills the organism causing the disease. We're given the organism itself. It's introduced into our body, and our bodies evolve the necessary defences against it.

Microbes survived undisturbed and unchanged for billions of years. Until we discovered them recently. So we manufacture what kills them, antibiotics and other drugs. Now faced with a threat, these organisms start evolving a defence,until, after a while, we have a species of the organism immune to the threat, and which continues to thrive. We grab a few, put them under a microscope, study their defences, and come up with something stronger to kill them. They start evolving a defence again, and on and on.By the time this has gone on for a while, the organism would be begin to look and be very different from its original, undisturbed, un-evolved ancestors.The HIV virus is notorious for its slipperiness and ability to evolve a myriad of forms and defences, and they haven't figure out how to overcome that and kill the thing. They keep coming up with stronger and stronger antibiotics because these organisms evolve a defence against the threat in their environment, and start thriving again. Sometimes we get lucky and eradicate them all before they can evolve a defence. There are microbes that no longer exist in large parts of the world.

justcool:

Theories are never proven correct even in mathematics. The thesis that people write during their PHD are theories, but not laws. If you say that all scientific theories are facts, then every scientific thesis written by a PHD holder is a fact!!!!

An example is the 'Theory of multiple intelligence,' by Dr Gardener of Howard university. He proposed this theory in 1972 and up till now scientists are still trying to prove it correct or disprove it. Once a theory is proven correct, it ceases to be a theory, and a 'Theorem'(in mathematics) or a 'Law' might arise from it.

I have to return to work, before I get fired.

justcool:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html#Q01

Dear madmax,
The above is from PBS. Please give me any article written by an authority which discribs 'scientific theory' as facts. Simply stated, theories offer a possible explanation to facts; the theories themselves are not necessarily facts. They may or may not be facts; but once proven to be facts, they cease to be theories.

I will give an example: The death of Sani Abacha is a fact. The notion that he was killed by Viagra is a 'theory.' This is a theory that explains why he died; but as long as this theory has not been proven wrong or correct, it remains a theory. If however, one finds an irrefutable evidence that Abacha was killed by Viagra, then notion that he was killed by Viagra becomes a fact and no longer a theory. From this fact a law may manifest. The law maybe that "whoever takes 1000mg of Viagra will die witten 10 minutes."
This law cannever be falsified, no matter howmany times you try it it will always be true. You see how theories and laws work. Theories a educated hypothesis based on facts, they offer an explanation; while laws predict the behavior of obiects to mathematical acuracy, and therfore are facts.

The above(about Abacha) is just an illustration, don't take it literally. I am not suggesting that Viagra killed Abacha; I dont know what killed him.

Theories are not hypothesis the major difference is that hypotesis have not been undergone extensive testing. Hypothesis are just plausible explanations which have not been tested. If there were not facts backing the theory of evolution(ie if there were no fosills found that show gradual change), and if scientits have not tried to disprove the idea of evolution, then the idea of evolution would have been just a hypothesis.

I will give another example: Fossils have been discovered which can be arranged to portray a gradual transition one specie to another. This is a fact.
The idea that species evolve(the theory of evolution) is a theory based on the aforementioned fact(fossils). This will remain a theory it is proven, ie until species are observed evolving from another species. Due to the gradual nature of evolution, this may never be possible, ie it may never be possible for scientists to observe creatures evolve. Here I am talking of complete evolution like the evolution of amphibians from fishes; I am not talking about adaptation. 

Although evolution is very likely, it makes sense, it is supported by facts, and I personally believe in it, it is still, scientifically speaking, a theory. As long as their are still some missing links, it remains a theory. When all the ins and outs of evolution have been discovered and known by scientists, then evolution will no longer remain a theory; laws may emerge from it. Ie a law may emerge which states that "Under certain given conditions(Lets call this condition 'A'), and within a definet period of time(lets say 'Z' number of centuries) a perticuler creature(lets say a fish) will evlove into another creature(lets say an anphibian). With the theory, the way it is today, no one can decifer 'A' and 'Z' acurately. Nobody can make an acurate prediction bassed on the theory as it is today. Otherwise, scientisits would have known by now, with certainty what creatures will look like in one million years to come.

But is we are dealing with a 'law' then such prdictions would be possible. Ie scientists can predict the speed and position of an object in motion even in one one million years time, provided that certain conditions remain the same.

justcool:

madmax my friend, what you described above is only adaptation and not evolution. A lot of people, including scientists, confuse adaptation with evolution.

What is the difference then?

Evolution deals with change of a species from one species to another, over a very long period of time. While adaptation is only a refinement of a species to better cope with the demands of its environment.

As long as the species remain the same species, evolution is out of the question; it is rather adaptation. No matter how much defense a bacteria develops against penicillin and antibodies, as long as it remains a bacteria, it has not scientifically speaking, evolved.

No human, however, can mate(reproduce) with primates because they are of different species.

Mad_Max:

We contributed to the extinction of some species. Like the dodos. How you managed to transmute that into humans contributed to the extinction of some species so we could find fossil fuels is beyond me.

If we do not require fossil fuel to survive, and we don't need biological creatures to provide it, and you have no idea of the kind of creatures that existed in Precambrian times, how can you give us the fact that they became extinct so you may have fossil fuel?

Of what use is this fuel when we have alternative energy sources? We may talk about the incidental benefits that accrue from long dead plants, but to imply that is a valid reason and motive for the extinction of 99% of the species is something I won't continue to argue with you about.

That millions of species thrived for millions of years and then vanished without a trace, when the PURPOSE OF BIOLOGICAL LIFE AND NATURAL SELECTION IS SURVIVAL, plainly shows all that time and effort to be a waste. 99%!

Whatever incidental  and temporary benefits dead plants may have towards powering your car has nothing to do with the fact that the destruction of 99% of biological life was a waste.

Our toil, sweat, science, medicine, architecture, culture, language, lives, love, history, kinship, friendships, technologies and everything else would vanish without a trace, but it's all right: Maybe some new species down the line will find our decayed bodies and use them as make-up.

Deep Sight:

@ KAG - before you dare use my above post in refutation of any past argument of mine (you know which one) remember that in this argument I refer to effects that extinct things have on a continuing world - whereas the previous argument reflected on a state of cessation altogether: to wit - if society is NOT eternal what does that the past mean in the context of an eventual absolute zero. We are not at that zero yet since we still exist, and recall it is my postive contention that zero in fact does not exist, and s such there will never be such a state of "nothingness" either in cosmic terms or in the existence of an individual being.

I will give an example: The death of Sani Abacha is a fact. The notion that he was killed by Viagra is a 'theory.' This is a theory that explains why he died; but as long as this theory has not been proven wrong or correct, it remains a theory. If however, one finds an irrefutable evidence that Abacha was killed by Viagra, then notion that he was killed by Viagra becomes a fact and no longer a theory. From this fact a law may manifest. The law maybe that "whoever takes 1000mg of Viagra will die witten 10 minutes."

thehomer:

Theories in science are formulated using observations and experiments that have been borne out. They are to be demonstrated to be false with good evidence not to be proven true. The proponent of the theory says it is correct for some reasons when it is examined, it may be found to hold, or its predictions may hold or it may fail. If it fail, it will be discarded.
A thesis is not yet a theory until it has withstood several probes.
Before one can even start to compose a thesis, the person must first have some facts at hand. These facts must also be correct.

KAG:

While you're correct in stating that theories aren't fact, it is wrong to think that theories will or can ever become facts. Theories are never proved, because science doesn't do proof. So, except when they have been falsified, theories never cease being theories no matter how rigorous the evidence.

Evolutionary biologists make predictions all the time: it's what helped with the finding of tiktaalik, it preceded the finding of shared ERV's, and is done many times in laboratory experiments, etc. While you're right that there's no useful prediction on what - if anything - a particular species will look like, there are plausible projections based on certain parameters.

Mad_Max:

Deep Sight, how could you write so much and say so little? Forgive me, but your circular reasoning and peculiar, self-congratulatory logic is beyond me. When you have something to say lesser mortals may understand as digestible, I'll try and stop getting on your bad side and pay attention. Don't let me stop you and justcool from walking off hand-in-hand into some Technicolour sunset though.

I give up on the 'war' of 'laws' and 'theories', Justcool. It's just semantics and pet definitions at cross-purposes. Changes nothing. Have it your way.

JeSoul:

If I may jump in . . .  Homer, you may want to re-read and re-phrase the bolded. Are you saying a theory stands as truth unless evidence to the contrary is provided? then what is the point of calling it a theory in the first place? Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

JeSoul:

I like this quote. I have a few questions if you don't mind KAG.
Are you saying a theory can never be proven to be fact? And also, care to explain what you mean by "science doesn't do proof"? Thanks.

 I share the opinion that making predictions or projections based on current evidence is infact good science. I think the problem Justcool has (and I share) is that often these predictions can have a knack of keeping one in a theoretical box, a box with dimensions that have been predicted or guessed, and hence may not be accurate, and hence may limit our scope of research.

That being said, I'm not sure there is necessarily a better alternative. We go by what we know, and what we know is limited. The minute we step outside of that, it becomes bias and conjecture.

Buzzzzzzzz:

I'm a reader here but I refrain from posting lest my throat be cut. I just need to drop my two cents quick.

Fact is a proven theory or simply a discovered fact. Laws are processes based on facts. Laws say that if this and this happens, this will occur. A law is not a fact or vice versa but laws are based on facts. Theories are processes based on some facts and educated guesses and conjecture. The reason why science is reluctant to label and box anything as fact and law any more is not because they aren't facts and laws but because they are facts and laws only under certain conditions. We cannot project all the possible conditions there can be and we thus box these facts and laws with a clause. The anomalous expansion of water. Superconductivity. The 'Special' theory of relativity. Absolute temperature. And a host of other similar things are good examples.

Mad_Max:

Makes tons of sense. I did wonder why scientists stuck to calling stuff 'theories' and then operate as if those things are facts. Welcome Buzzzzzzzz, and thank you for clarifying that.

Buzzzzzzzz:

I'm a reader here but I refrain from posting lest my throat be cut. I just need to drop my two cents quick.

Fact is a proven theory or simply a discovered fact. Laws are processes based on facts. Laws say that if this and this happens, this will occur. A law is not a fact or vice versa but laws are based on facts. Theories are processes based on some facts and educated guesses and conjecture. The reason why science is reluctant to label and box anything as fact and law any more is not because they aren't facts and laws but because they are facts and laws only under certain conditions. We cannot project all the possible conditions there can be and we thus box these facts and laws with a clause. The anomalous expansion of water. Superconductivity. The 'Special' theory of relativity. Absolute temperature. And a host of other similar things are good examples.

JeSoul:


@Buzzzz, perhaps you should post more sir. That was a very good explanation.

Buzzzzzzzz:

I'm a reader here but I refrain from posting lest my throat be cut. I just need to drop my two cents quick.

Fact is a proven theory or simply a discovered fact. Laws are processes based on facts. Laws say that if this and this happens, this will occur. A law is not a fact or vice versa but laws are based on facts. Theories are processes based on some facts and educated guesses and conjecture. The reason why science is reluctant to label and box anything as fact and law any more is not because they aren't facts and laws but because they are facts and laws only under certain conditions. We cannot project all the possible conditions there can be and we thus box these facts and laws with a clause. The anomalous expansion of water. Superconductivity. The 'Special' theory of relativity. Absolute temperature. And a host of other similar things are good examples.