A Rose by Any Other Name....
All-seeing-I
would be named:
"The Law Of Evolution".
You know. Like;"The Law Of Gravity"
But it's not. Why is that?
--
Deal with it sez,,,
The All Seeing I.
Greg G.
> If evolution were in fact everything that so many claim it is, then it
> would be named:
>
> "The Law Of Evolution".
>
> You know. Like;"The Law Of Gravity"
>
> But it's not. Why is that?
Newton's law of universal gravitation is good for simple
approximations but for more accurate calculations you need to use the
Theory of Relativity. For example, "The Law of Gravity" doesn't work
very well for calculating the precession of Mercury while "The Theory
of Relativity" does.
Theories are more powerful than laws because laws are just a part of a
theory.
Caranx latus
> If evolution were in fact everything that so many claim it is, then it
> would be named:
>
> "The Law Of Evolution".
>
> You know. Like;"The Law Of Gravity"
>
> But it's not. Why is that?
From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law>:
"A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a
mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of
the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in
applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is
often found to be false when extrapolated."
Why is it that you *cannot* look this stuff up yourself?
Ron O
Others have corrected your misconception. My P chem prof called
scientific laws the "ugly" sisters of scientific theories. Do you get
the idea of how wrong you are again?
Ron Okimoto
dali_70
> If evolution were in fact everything that so many claim it is, then it
> would be named:
>
> "The Law Of Evolution".
>
> You know. Like;"The Law Of Gravity"
>
> But it's not. Why is that?
To confuse and expose simpletons like you.
All-seeing-I
Your professor was wrong.
Sorry to break that to you. Well. Not really.
Burkhard
> If evolution were in fact everything that so many claim it is, then it
> would be named:
>
> "The Law Of Evolution".
>
> You know. Like;"The Law Of Gravity"
>
> But it's not. Why is that?
Because it isn't one. Theories are structured sets of co-ordinated
laws, definitions and auxiliary assumptions, i.e. lots of laws and
some other stuff as well.
See e.g. Ludwig, G. and Thurler, G., 2006, A new foundation of
physical theories, Berlin: Springer; or
Balzer, W., and Moulines, C. U., Sneed, J. D., 1987, An Architectonic
for Science, Dordrecht: Reidel.
Or in a language you might find easier to understand: A theory is what
a law hopes to become when it grows up.
TomS
<9cb6a33b-d7ac-40ca...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Burkhard
stated..."
Try the entry on "Scientific law" in RationalWiki:
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Scientific_theory>
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Boikat
How the hell would you know, Mr Cambrian Mammal = Trilobite? You are
ignorant of science, since it takes too much effort to understand.
>
> Sorry to break that to you. Well. Not really
You arrogance is ony matched by your ignorance. Besides, you're also
an idiot, to boot.
fnord!
Boikat
Boikat
> would be named:
>
> "The Law Of Evolution".
>
> You know. Like;"The Law Of Gravity"
>
> But it's not. Why is that?
Because you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> --
> Deal with it sez,,,
>
The only thing being dealt with is your ignorance of everything that
has anything to do with science.
> The All Seeing I.
fnord!
Boikat
Mike Dworetsky
> If evolution were in fact everything that so many claim it is, then it
> would be named:
>
> "The Law Of Evolution".
>
> You know. Like;"The Law Of Gravity"
>
> But it's not. Why is that?
Gee, so you think the title "Perfect Gas Law" means that this simple
equation is an exact representation of the reality of behaviour of gases at
all densities, temperatures, and pressures? And if it isn't, that means all
of science is wrong? Presumably you think the "Kinetic Theory of Gases" is
not worth any more thought because it is "merely a theory"?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Devils Advocaat
> If evolution were in fact everything that so many claim it is, then it
> would be named:
>
> "The Law Of Evolution".
>
> You know. Like;"The Law Of Gravity"
Newton's law of universal gravitation (which I presume you are
referring to) only applies in weak gravitational fields, and it cannot
explain the oddities of Mercury's orbit.
And you have already been told by another poster how a scientific law
differs from a scientific theory.
So perhaps you will think about what you have been told in this
thread.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Stop NYM shifting Boikitty. Or I'll rat you out.
Boikat
Since you seem to be getting your jollies by making yourself look as
stupid as possible, please do.
Boikat
Kalkidas
018401...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
Because it's a mental fantasy, an idea that sounds really clever and
apparently eliminates God. The atheists have put all their effort into it
for obvious reasons.
But there is no mathematical model, no quantifiable observations, no
detailed step-by-step examples (even hypothetical) of anything beyond
intra-species micro-evolution.
Darwinism is not a law, not even a theory, it's a hoped-for theory that
never materialized, and never will. Those who are lying to the public
about it will pay back every penny they swindled for their "research".
Dan Listermann
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF964CD3...@80.93.112.4...
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:306ea2d5-d7a3-47a0-a663-
> 018401...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> If evolution were in fact everything that so many claim it is, then it
>> would be named:
>>
>> "The Law Of Evolution".
>>
>> You know. Like;"The Law Of Gravity"
>>
>> But it's not. Why is that?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Deal with it sez,,,
>>
>> The All Seeing I.
>
> Because it's a mental fantasy, an idea that sounds really clever and
> apparently eliminates God. The atheists have put all their effort into it
> for obvious reasons.
>
> But there is no mathematical model, no quantifiable observations, no
> detailed step-by-step examples (even hypothetical) of anything beyond
> intra-species micro-evolution.
>
You are probably some sort of weird absolutist who can never be satisfied or
grossly misinformed.
.
Boikat
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:306ea2d5-d7a3-47a0-a663-
>
> > If evolution were in fact everything that so many claim it is, then it
> > would be named:
>
> > "The Law Of Evolution".
>
> > You know. Like;"The Law Of Gravity"
>
> > But it's not. Why is that?
>
> > --
> > Deal with it sez,,,
>
> > The All Seeing I.
>
> Because it's a mental fantasy, an idea that sounds really clever and
> apparently eliminates God. The atheists have put all their effort into it
> for obvious reasons.
>
Scientific theories are gnostic. Unless, of course you can show where
"Goddidit!" fits into the scientific method. So far, all you
creationists seems to always run away from that question.
> But there is no mathematical model,
Population genetics and statistics.
> no quantifiable observations,
Tons. You are just too willfully blind and ignorant to see that.
> no
> detailed step-by-step examples (even hypothetical) of anything beyond
> intra-species micro-evolution.
That's all that's needed, since there is no barrier, other than
genetic lineage, to prevent further speciation inot greater and
greater divergence through time. Unless you can demonstrate what that
barrier would be.
>
> Darwinism is not a law, not even a theory, it's a hoped-for theory that
> never materialized, and never will.
Good thing that there's the Theory of Evolution, then.
> Those who are lying to the public
> about it will pay back every penny they swindled for their "research".
You mean the "creation scientists" that suckered you in with their
disinformation? I agree. You should get your money back. Just out
of curiosity, how much did they sucker you in for?
Boikat
Frank J
Ever notice that those who like to whine that evolution is "only a
theory" never claim that their alternative is "The Law of Creationism"
or "The Law of Intelligent Design"? At *best* the IDers say
"Intelligent Design Theory" suggesting that it is "only a theory" like
evolution.
Ernest Major
<e...@joes.pub> writes
>All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:306ea2d5-d7a3-47a0-a663-
>018401...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> If evolution were in fact everything that so many claim it is, then it
>> would be named:
>>
>> "The Law Of Evolution".
>>
>> You know. Like;"The Law Of Gravity"
>>
>> But it's not. Why is that?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Deal with it sez,,,
>>
>> The All Seeing I.
>
>Because it's a mental fantasy, an idea that sounds really clever and
>apparently eliminates God. The atheists have put all their effort into it
>for obvious reasons.
That assertion of yours is rendered problematical by the existence of
persons of most religions, as well as none, who accept the factuality of
common descent with modification through the agency of natural selection
and other processes. While I don't know the religious affiliations of
any Indian biologists, I expect that Hindu examples could be found.
>
>But there is no mathematical model,
That appears to be a false assertion. Population genetics is a
mathematical model which includes such features as the time to fixation
of a trait under frequency-independent selection, the equilibrium
frequency of a trait under frequency-dependent selection, and the
probability and rate of fixation of neutral traits. Mathematical models
of DNA sequence evolution are to be found in several tools for
estimating phylogeny.
If you mean that there is not overarching mathematical model linking
microbes to men, mice, moles and manatees, and also mushrooms, mallows
and mahoganies, then that is a red herring. There is no overarching
mathematical model linking the proto-Earth to the current distribution
of rocks, but geology is not a mental fantasy. There is no overarching
mathematical model linking a protogalactic dust cloud to the current
distribution of stars, but astronomy is not a mental fantasy.
>no quantifiable observations,
That appears to be another false assertion. The whole cladistics program
for phylogeny inference is based on quantifiable observations. The
change in E.Q. in hominids over time is another quantifiable
observation.
> no
>detailed step-by-step examples (even hypothetical) of anything beyond
>intra-species micro-evolution.
That is another assertion that turns out not to be the case. Speciation
has been observed in the field, under domestication and in the
laboratory. Even if you don't think that polyploidy counts, there's
still Verne Grant's experiments on Gilia, the recent appearance of
Senecio eboracensis, and the work of Rieseberg et al on the replication
of speciation in Helianthus. If think also think that hybridisation
doesn't count, there still Mimulus cupriphilus.
>
>Darwinism is not a law, not even a theory, it's a hoped-for theory that
>never materialized, and never will.
Darwinism is a term of ill-defined application, but in spite of your
denial, while evolutionary biology is not a law - it's better - it's a
theory.
>Those who are lying to the public
>about it will pay back every penny they swindled for their "research".
>
It would be nice to see Kent Hovind and Ken Ham reimburse their victims,
but I doubt that they have the assets to do so..
--
alias Ernest Major
Ye Old One
Your ASSinine claims just get more stupid every day.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Mitchell Coffey
Do! Rat the bastard out! The sumbitch been getting away with it far
too long.
Boikat
Yah! That'll teach the sumbitchin' schmuck!
Boikat
Boikat
Frank J
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:306ea2d5-d7a3-47a0-a663-
What is *your* alternative? Is it a law? a theory? a hoped-for theory
that never materialized, and never will?
john wilkins
I also want the facts about this sumbitch. Give us the facts, ma'am...
bpuharic
wrote:
>All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:306ea2d5-d7a3-47a0-a663-
>018401...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> If evolution were in fact everything that so many claim it is, then it
>> would be named:
>>
>> "The Law Of Evolution".
>>
>> You know. Like;"The Law Of Gravity"
>>
>> But it's not. Why is that?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Deal with it sez,,,
>>
>> The All Seeing I.
>
>Because it's a mental fantasy, an idea that sounds really clever and
>apparently eliminates God. The atheists have put all their effort into it
>for obvious reasons.
it certainly eliminates YOUR god. but the pope doesnt agree with you.
and he knows something about god.
>
>But there is no mathematical model, no quantifiable observations, no
>detailed step-by-step examples (even hypothetical) of anything beyond
>intra-species micro-evolution.
you mean other than the fossil record, the nested hiearchy, genetic
info and comparative anatomy?
yes, if you elminate the evidence, you're right. there's no evidence.
and that, i suppose, is how creationists argue
>
>Darwinism is not a law, not even a theory, it's a hoped-for theory that
>never materialized, and never will. Those who are lying to the public
>about it will pay back every penny they swindled for their "research".
and not a single scientist agrees with you.
but, you go ahead. tell us how your religion explains stuff...when
it's not explaining why certain human beings are 'untouchable'...one
of the most offensive ideas ever developed.
tell us about your 'truth'
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>If evolution were in fact everything that so many claim it is, then it
>would be named:
>
>"The Law Of Evolution".
>
>You know. Like;"The Law Of Gravity"
you mean like the 'theory of gravity'
or 'atomic theory'
or 'quantum theory' on which your computer is based?
>
>But it's not. Why is that?
because you're a scientific cripple. you're a scientific helen keller.
except she was smart compared to you.
Mark Evans
> If evolution were in fact everything that so many claim it is, then it
> would be named:
>
> "The Law Of Evolution".
>
> You know. Like;"The Law Of Gravity"
>
>
> Deal with it sez,,,
>
> The All Seeing I.
There is one "law" of evolution: Things Change.
Mark Evans
Mark Isaak
> If evolution were in fact everything that so many claim it is, then it
> would be named:
>
> "The Law Of Evolution".
Gravity is a fact, and yet we refer to the "Theory of gravity" a heck of
a lot more than "law of gravity" (despite the musings of some stupider
trolls).
There are also "Murphy's law" and "Moore's law," neither of which anybody
expect to be completely accurate.
But then, contemporary facts do no matter to you, so we will go back to
ancient writings. "Theory" is related to the root "theo-", god. But
"law" is related to the word "lie." Theories are better.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>If evolution were in fact everything that so many claim it is, then it
>would be named:
>
>"The Law Of Evolution".
>
>You know. Like;"The Law Of Gravity"
>
>But it's not. Why is that?
What is the name of the law that compels you to post scientifically
illiterate imbecilities here?
Like the one above.
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Stop NYM shifting Boikitty. Or I'll rat you out.
>
That is highly doubtful. Your primary occupation in this group thus
far, has been to serve as a paradigm of how to fail.
You have been prodigiously successful at this.
If you were correct in this assertion, it would be the first time that
you were. You do not want to jeopardize your phenomenal record as the
perennially wrong usenet imbecile.
Andre Lieven
The Law of Cretinists Being Stubbornly Stoopid.
Andre
Wombat
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:306ea2d5-d7a3-47a0-a663-
>
> > If evolution were in fact everything that so many claim it is, then it
> > would be named:
>
> > "The Law Of Evolution".
>
> > You know. Like;"The Law Of Gravity"
>
> > But it's not. Why is that?
>
> > --
> > Deal with it sez,,,
>
> > The All Seeing I.
>
> Because it's a mental fantasy, an idea that sounds really clever and
> apparently eliminates God. The atheists have put all their effort into it
> for obvious reasons.
>
> But there is no mathematical model, no quantifiable observations, no
> detailed step-by-step examples (even hypothetical) of anything beyond
> intra-species micro-evolution.
I started reading Darwin Defended by Michael Ruse some years ago. I
had to skip to Part II (where he demolishes creationism) because the
mathematics involved in evolution in Part I were way above me. No
maths! What a joke.
>
> Darwinism is not a law, not even a theory, it's a hoped-for theory that
> never materialized, and never will. Those who are lying to the public
> about it will pay back every penny they swindled for their "research".
What the f*** is Darwinism? As I understand it, Darwin's original
theory was moribund by the early 20th century. Ever heard of the
modern evolutionary synthesis - THAT is what you should be fighting.
Good luck, you'll need it.
Wombat
g...@risky-biz.com
We can add "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" to the list
of concepts you don't quite understand. It means that a rose would
remain a rose no matter what we decided to call it. Likewise,
evolution would still happen, whether we call it a law, a theory or a
blurgenferst.
Greg Guarino
Ron O
> On Jan 7, 6:44�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > If evolution were in fact everything that so many claim it is, then it
> > > would be named:
>
> > > "The Law Of Evolution".
>
> > > You know. Like;"The Law Of Gravity"
>
>
> > > Deal with it sez,,,
>
> > > The All Seeing I.
>
> > scientific laws the "ugly" sisters of scientific theories. �Do you get
> > the idea of how wrong you are again?
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Your professor was wrong.
>
What a bonehead. When have your sources ever been right when they
want to denigrate what science actually is? You could demonstrate
that he is wrong, but you never will. Why is that?
Ron Okimoto
Mitchell Coffey
Now hold your horses, John! How's you expect Madman 't rat the fellah
out ifin he gonna have'ta limit himself?
Mitchell
JTEM
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> If evolution were in fact everything that so
> many claim it is, then it would be named:
>
> "The Law Of Evolution".
>
> You know. Like;"The Law Of Gravity"
>
> But it's not. Why is that?
A lack of understanding at a fundamental level.
If you want to speak in terms of "laws," as
opposed to "theories," then the "Law" would
more accurately (note the "more") apply to,
say, the sexual recombination of DNA. You would
then employ that "Law" within your "Theory" of
evolution.