what is science and what is NOT science
Dale Kelly
and statistically analyzed data
the scientific process starts with a hypothetical conjecture, a hypothesis
if that hypothesis is reproducible, it is testable and called a theory
and this is the first point of contention, things like evolution and
abiogenesis cannot be reproduced and ARE NOT EVEN THEORIES
the mainstream institution and establishment of science is GUILTY of
widespread abuse of the scientific process and its ethics
secondly, when you test a theory, you must apply an analysis of variance
(ANOVA), to determine a confidence interval around the results of your
experiment
the mainstream scientific institution and establishment runs rabid with
statements without ANOVA, and is GUILTY of significant violation of ethics
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Wakboth
> I worked as an engineer, among many other things I designed experiments
> and statistically analyzed data
Salem's law strikes again?
> the scientific process starts with a hypothetical conjecture, a hypothesis
>
> if that hypothesis is reproducible, it is testable and called a theory
>
> and this is the first point of contention, things like evolution and
> abiogenesis cannot be reproduced and ARE NOT EVEN THEORIES
Then neither are the theories of, say, astronomy and geology, since we
can't reproduce a supernova or an earthquake. Obviously you don't know
what you're talking about, but that is not surprising.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA220.html
-- Wakboth
GlobuleStar
> I worked as an engineer, among many other things I designed experiments
> and statistically analyzed data
Prove it. Describe for us the statistical analysis techniques you
used on particular experiments.
>
> the scientific process starts with a hypothetical conjecture, a hypothesis
Not always. There are lots of people out there just gathering data
that maybe someone later will use to help support hypotheses.
>
> if that hypothesis is reproducible, it is testable and called a theory
This is a GROSS oversimplification of the process. For something to
be called a theory (officially, the word theory is often misused even
by scientists) it must have passed tests, not just be testable. It
must also go through extensive peer review. It must also be
predictive or postdictive.
>
> and this is the first point of contention, things like evolution and
> abiogenesis cannot be reproduced and ARE NOT EVEN THEORIES
Evolution can and is "reproduced" all the time, and I'm not even just
talking about evolution that has been observed over human recorded
history or that is produced in laboratories. You really should study
about fossils and all the MYRAID things we know concerning them.
>
> the mainstream institution and establishment of science is GUILTY of
> widespread abuse of the scientific process and its ethics
No, they are only guilty of not agreeing with your cockeyed view of
the scientific process ... thank the Lord.
>
> secondly, when you test a theory, you must apply an analysis of variance
> (ANOVA), to determine a confidence interval around the results of your
> experiment
... and your point is? Of course your point is only valid on those
statements of science that are statistical in nature.
>
> the mainstream scientific institution and establishment runs rabid with
> statements without ANOVA, and is GUILTY of significant violation of ethics
Give an example of a scientific statement that is statistical in
nature in which the scientists did not do error analysis, and I'll
show you a statement that got blasted in peer review. So why don't
you give us just one example of these statements you say are so
ubiquitous.
GS
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Shane
Newsgroups trimmed.
> I worked as an engineer, among many other things I designed experiments
> and statistically analyzed data
>
> the scientific process starts with a hypothetical conjecture, a hypothesis
>
> if that hypothesis is reproducible, it is testable and called a theory
Nope. I hypothesize that you are the result of the fusion of a sperm
and an egg of two people you call your parents. Let us test that
theory Hypothesis and fuse another sperm and egg from those same two
people. This test results in a baby that is not you. Thus, by your
definition there is no scientific evidence to suppor the hypothesis
that your parents had anything to do with your conception. Shall I
break the news to them, or will you?
Theories actually require observation, a hypothesis, a prediction and
a test. Note: in a lot of cases the test is of of the prediction not
the hypothesis.
> and this is the first point of contention, things like evolution and
> abiogenesis cannot be reproduced and ARE NOT EVEN THEORIES
An incorrect premise has, not surprisingly, led you to an incorrect
conclusion.
> the mainstream institution and establishment of science is GUILTY of
> widespread abuse of the scientific process and its ethics
Ditto.
> secondly, when you test a theory, you must apply an analysis of variance
> (ANOVA), to determine a confidence interval around the results of your
> experiment
Only under certain circumstances. It seems that this is not a
requirement for all tests of theories.
http://www.statisticallysignificantconsulting.com/Anova.htm?gclid=CNuV3cH4vosCFRfOggodJDVGJg
> the mainstream scientific institution and establishment runs rabid with
> statements without ANOVA, and is GUILTY of significant violation of ethics
An incorrect premise has, not surprisingly, led you to an incorrect
conclusion.
Publius
@comcast.net:
> I worked as an engineer, among many other things I designed experiments
> and statistically analyzed data
>
> the scientific process starts with a hypothetical conjecture, a hypothesis
>
> if that hypothesis is reproducible, it is testable and called a theory
Nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about.
bul...@bellsouth.net
> and statistically analyzed data
>
> the scientific process starts with a hypothetical conjecture, a hypothesis
WRONG! It starts with the observation of a phenomena. You have to
observe something before you can even attempt to come up with a
hypothesis.
>
> if that hypothesis is reproducible, it is testable and called a theory
That's jumbled up. Try again.
>
> and this is the first point of contention, things like evolution and
> abiogenesis cannot be reproduced and ARE NOT EVEN THEORIES
Wrong, since reproducing *the phenomena* is not a requirement. When
"reproducible" is refered to in the scientific methode, what is meant
is the results of experiments to verify a hypothesis. That means
someone else can look at the same data, or preform the sme experiment
and get the same results.
>
> the mainstream institution and establishment of science is GUILTY of
> widespread abuse of the scientific process and its ethics
And you are guilty of gross ignorance of the scientific methode.
>
> secondly, when you test a theory, you must apply an analysis of variance
> (ANOVA), to determine a confidence interval around the results of your
> experiment
That probably depends upon the nature of the experiment. Also,
"experiment" could also simply mean collecting more field data.
>
> the mainstream scientific institution and establishment runs rabid with
> statements without ANOVA, and is GUILTY of significant violation of ethics
Not as guilty of your misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the
Scientific Methode.
Boikat
Craig T
So I take it you are a big fan of B.F. Skinner and the way he rejected
untestable concepts like free will and turned psychology into an
empirical science.
Bodega
>
[excerpt]
> and this is the first point of contention, things like evolution and
> abiogenesis cannot be reproduced and ARE NOT EVEN THEORIES
>
There is much more to science than laboratory experiments.
You are saying that if (for example) we see a fallen giant sequoia, we
must believe it has actuallly been placed there by god unless we grow
giant sequoias in a laboratory for a few thousand years and actually
witness one falling.
I doubt they'd even argue that in Sunday school.
Fool.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
Could you point out the confidence intervals in the scientific parts of the Bible?
Timberwoof
Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
> I worked as an engineer, among many other things I designed experiments
> and statistically analyzed data
>
> the scientific process starts with a hypothetical conjecture, a hypothesis
>
> if that hypothesis is reproducible, it is testable and called a theory
>
> and this is the first point of contention, things like evolution and
> abiogenesis cannot be reproduced and ARE NOT EVEN THEORIES
There is, AFAIK, no theory of abiogenesis yet; just a lot of
biochemistry.
However, evolution of species is reproducible: The fossil evidence shows
that it happened many, many times.
Now using your logic, Newton's Laws are not reproducible either. Here:
Follow the moon around the Earth for a month. Write down exactly where
it was and where the Earth was. Now do it again for the next month.
You'll get different results. Lunar orbits are not reproducible, for
each time around, it's different.
> the mainstream institution and establishment of science is GUILTY of
> widespread abuse of the scientific process and its ethics
Let's talk about the abuse of ethics by fundamentalists who misrepresent
how science works, set up straw-man arguments, and gleefully knock them
down. Then they try to pretend that "creatopnism" is scientific and
reproducible and pass it off sd science.
> secondly, when you test a theory, you must apply an analysis of variance
> (ANOVA), to determine a confidence interval around the results of your
> experiment
Yes.
> the mainstream scientific institution and establishment runs rabid with
> statements without ANOVA, and is GUILTY of significant violation of ethics
What is "the mainstream scientific institution and establishment"? What
scientific journals did you scour to come up with that broad
generalization? Since every peer-reviewed scientific paper has error
analysis, are you being ethical in saying that they don't? Or are you
lying?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
Sean Carroll
> I worked as an engineer,
Fuck. That's not good.
What did you work on? Buildings? Bridges? I need to know which
structures to avoid.
> the scientific process starts with a hypothetical conjecture, a hypothesis
Hypothetically, anyway.
> if that hypothesis is reproducible, it is testable and called a theory
Um, no. No, it isn't.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'I'm not a baby expert, but I'm pretty sure they're not supposed to
shrink.' --Dr Gregory House
richardal...@googlemail.com
"In statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA, or-sometimes-A.N.O.V.A.)
is a collection of statistical models, and their associated
procedures, in which the observed variance is partitioned into
components due to different explanatory variables. The initial
techniques of the analysis of variance were developed by the
statistician and geneticist R. A. Fisher in the 1920s and 1930s, and
is sometimes known as Fisher's ANOVA or Fisher's analysis of variance,
due to the use of Fisher's F-distribution as part of the test of
statistical significance."
"Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, FRS (17 February 1890 - 29 July 1962) was a
British statistician, evolutionary biologist, and geneticist. He was
described by Anders Hald as "a genius who almost single-handedly
created the foundations for modern statistical science"[1] and Richard
Dawkins described him as "the greatest of Darwin's successors"."
So at least evolutionary biologists are not guilty of violating
ethics.
Mind you, it means that Einstein was, as he worked before ANOVA had
been developed.
Are you going to start a campaign against the theories he developed?
RF
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
The Psychodelic Pope - Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet
> http://www.vedantasite.org WOMP WOMP
Tom
Both amplify and compliment each other also. Thus all guilty anovas
result from alien methane dumping into the atmosphere of our planet.
Trying to comprehend the exact variance and analysis of any so called
science is like trying to buy the entire Star Bucks coffee shop chain
for
a quarter and expect to be given change from the transaction. I think
that
if it makes them stop what they were doing and start to squirm and
fiddle
about then you've got a solod deal brewing. Go for it and remember
that
miracles May happen.
WOMP WOMP
Tom
Ozan Türkyılmaz
> On Apr 12, 11:41 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I worked as an engineer, among many other things I designed experiments
> > and statistically analyzed data
>
> Prove it. Describe for us the statistical analysis techniques you
> used on particular experiments.
>
>
>
> > the scientific process starts with a hypothetical conjecture, a hypothesis
>
> Not always. There are lots of people out there just gathering data
> that maybe someone later will use to help support hypotheses.
>
and i did not start with hypothesis. I started with data colleting (i
took me one year to collect all the needed data, but it'S usually
longer than that). Then i make up theory to explane the data i
collected.
Mike Dworetsky
news:1176452173.0...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 13 Nisan, 08:12, "GlobuleStar" <globule.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 11:41 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I worked as an engineer, among many other things I designed experiments
>> > and statistically analyzed data
>>
>> Prove it. Describe for us the statistical analysis techniques you
>> used on particular experiments.
>>
>>
>>
>> > the scientific process starts with a hypothetical conjecture, a
>> > hypothesis
>>
>> Not always. There are lots of people out there just gathering data
>> that maybe someone later will use to help support hypotheses.
>>
> Actually this is very comman in Geology. i am doing a paper right now
> and i did not start with hypothesis. I started with data colleting (i
> took me one year to collect all the needed data, but it'S usually
> longer than that). Then i make up theory to explane the data i
> collected.
>>
I suspect what you mean is that you created a *model*, based on previously
established and well-tested theories, that best fits your data. I'm betting
that you yourself did not come up with theories of geological principles in
the usual definition.
Too often, there is confusion between the scientific use of words like
hypothesis, model, and theory.
But yes, in science the observation generally precedes the theory.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Bloopen...@juno.com
repeatable, just the experiments, what sort of situation would the
repeatability criterion exclude? If we know, or think we know, about
an event, it must be because of some sort of evidence. If I show you a
picture that appears to show the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and claim
that I took it during one of his miraculous apparitions, isn't that
repeatable evidence for the apparition? After all, you can look at the
picture again any time you like.
Frank J
Watch out for that shark!
Whew! Good save. The Fonz would be proud.
Throwback
wrote:
> However, evolution of species is reproducible: The fossil evidence shows
> that it happened many, many times.
When was the last time one species turned into another?
Alexander
Well no because you aren't actually repeating the 'experiment'. To do
that someone else would have to take a picture of the FSM - ideally
under the same conditions, location and with additional independent
witnesses.
Same applies in science - simply showing lots of people your results
doesn't mean that you are 'repeating' an experiment.
In any event this isn't what Mike was claiming. The principle of
observation preceding theory is well established. Testing further
data (observations) against any resultant theory is what makes science
robust.
Robert Weldon
Well, I am a professional engineer, practicing in the geotechnical and
environmental fields, and I think you are a loon, and an embarrassment
to the field of engineering.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> I worked as an engineer [...]
> [...] and this is the first point of contention, things like evolution and
> abiogenesis cannot be reproduced and ARE NOT EVEN THEORIES[...]
Let me guess why you "worked" and don't still work.
Moron.
(Assuming that the first quote is even true. Given the unhesitating
willingness of morontheists to tell each and every lie that might possibly
deceive another victim into their cult, that's more than questionable)
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Ernest Major
Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> writes
species to turn in three. That happened several times in the wild in the
20th century; some speciation events are regularly replicated in the
laboratory and may well have been repeated this century; and producing
new species is fairly routine in agronomic research programmes, and I
wouldn't be surprised if a novel species had been produced this century.
--
alias Ernest Major
AC
Come back when you even know what science is.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Von R. Smith
> and statistically analyzed data
>
> the scientific process starts with a hypothetical conjecture, a hypothesis
>
> if that hypothesis is reproducible, it is testable and called a theory
Fortunately, that isn't strictly true, otherwise a medical examiner's
job would be even more gruesome than it already is:
ME: "Cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head with a
baseball bat."
DA: "Can you prove that to the court?"
ME: "Sure. Bailiff, if you could just stand over here..."
The Psychodelic Pope - Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet
>
> - Show quoted text -
My upper and lower plates need to be refitted again
and I need to replace the battery in my hearing aid.
My entire box of medicine got misplaced this morning
and I need to redose SOON! If there is anybody that
is reading this and is psychic - PLEASE help me to
find my misplaced box of prescription medicines.
WOMP WOMP
Tom
Chris H. Fleming
Sean Carroll
> Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>the mainstream scientific institution and establishment runs rabid with
>>statements without ANOVA, and is GUILTY of significant violation of ethics
> So at least evolutionary biologists are not guilty of violating
> ethics.
> Mind you, it means that Einstein was, as he worked before ANOVA had
> been developed.
> Are you going to start a campaign against the theories he developed?
SSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
WTF are you doing??? Don't give him any ideas!!
Sean Carroll
Um, never.
Evolution doesn't work that way. Nothing 'turns into' anything. Only
gives birth to children that are slightly different from it.
Few popular misconceptions are so freakin' exasperating.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'If you're considering grabbing my ass, don't start anything you can't
finish.' --Dr Gregory House
Sean Carroll
> Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> writes
>> When was the last time one species turned into another?
> The more normal situation is for one species to turn into two, or two
> species to turn in three.
Even more normal is for a population of one species to all give birth to
a new generation, *some* of which have new special adaptations that set
them off as a new variety within the same species. (All the rest can go
on just fine being the same variety of the same species their parents
were.) Then the individuals in the new variety, over several
generations, produce (in SOME of their offspring) another new variety
that's a little bit more different from the original population. And so
on, and so forth. Eventually, one of the continually generated new
varieties turns out to be better adapted for some niche than all the
intermediate varieties between it and the original population, and so it
drives those intermediate varieties into extinction, which cuts it off
from the original population and makes it into a true new species. The
original population, at this point, may very well still be happily going
on the same way as they ever were.
New species are merely very well-marked varieties of old species who
have become separate from them due to the extinction of all the
lesser-adapted intermediate varieties.
I suppose one could say that 'one species turns into two', but much of
the time one of those two is the same as the original one, so it makes
more sense to say that one species 'gives birth to' another, or a new
species 'splits off from' its parent stock.
No species ever literally 'turns into' another -- merely gives birth to
a lot of offspring, some of whom are a little different. The use of
'turns into' and similar phrases are greatly responsible for the popular
misconception of evolution as an actual transformation of individuals,
when it is in fact merely a matter of the differential survival of
slightly different varieties of offspring.
Many ignorant ideas grow from this misconception, and provide
creationists with ammunition in the popular debate (if certainly not in
the scientific one). How many times have you heard someone ask, 'If
monkeys evolved into humans, then how come we still have monkeys?'
CreateThis
wrote:
When was the last time you had a thought of your own?
CT
Cubist
Bloopen...@juno.com
wrote:
I see. So the empirical data collected to support a theory must be
both repeatable AND controlled for accuracy (since, for example,
eyewitness testimony is unreliable and photos can be faked). Thank you.
Ye Old One
<dale....@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>I worked as an engineer,
Sad your couldn't get a proper job.
> among many other things I designed experiments
Did you? Oh do tell us all about them.
>and statistically analyzed data
Gee! You did live dangerously.
>
>the scientific process starts with a hypothetical conjecture, a hypothesis
Sometimes.
>
>if that hypothesis is reproducible, it is testable and called a theory
Nope. If you knew anything about science you would know what a
scientific theory is.
>
>and this is the first point of contention, things like evolution and
>abiogenesis cannot be reproduced and ARE NOT EVEN THEORIES
At the moment abiogenesis isn't. It is a collection of data,
experimental results and several hypothesis. It still need more work
to become a full blown theory.
Evolution, on the other hand, is a full blown theory, one of the must
successful scientific theories of all time. The mountains of data
that support it are well known, and the fact that even after 150 years
every new development in biology has supported it is outstanding.
>
>the mainstream institution and establishment of science is GUILTY of
>widespread abuse of the scientific process and its ethics
Is it? Well I do hope you intend to file an official complaint.
>
>secondly, when you test a theory,
How do you "test a theory"?
> you must apply an analysis of variance
>(ANOVA), to determine a confidence interval around the results of your
>experiment
Well, maybe, but I can assure you that one hell of a lot of science
gets done without it.
>
>the mainstream scientific institution and establishment runs rabid with
>statements without ANOVA, and is GUILTY of significant violation of ethics
In my opinion, if you ever get to do some real science you may find
out what it is like.
--
Bob.
GatherNoMoss
Why hasn't somebody simply post the definition of scientific method ?
Words have meanings. It is what it is or communication is impossible.
Dale Kelly was largely correct in what he said and you know it.
See but what people really like to do is not engage in reasonable
debate and reach a concensus....no, they want to ridicule, posture and
belittle others.
Makes them fell better about their short willys.
And that's my hypothesis !
scientific method: A process that is the basis for scientific
inquiry. The scientific method follows a series of steps: (1) identify
a problem you would like to solve, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3)
test the hypothesis, (4) collect and analyze the data, (5) make
conclusions.
Cory Albrecht
> secondly, when you test a theory, you must apply an analysis of variance
> experiment
Say... wasn't ANOVA initally developed by a geneticist?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANOVA>
Free Lunch
Cory Albrecht <coryalbr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<ngc5f4x...@bytor.fenris.cjb.net>:
Math and statistics would be a lot easier if scientists didn't keep
inventing new mathematical tools to help them figure things out.
Cory Albrecht
The "phenomenon" would be the appearing of the FSM, the "experiment"
would be taking a picture of the FSM. "Repeating" that experiment would
would be to take another picture of the FSM the next time he appears.
By your logic, simply rereading the tabular in a previously published
journal article is repeating the experiment. I like to call that
"Dworkinism" after Lord Dworkin in Isaac Asimov's Foundation stories.
Lord Dworkin's idea of the proper scientific method for archaeology was
to read the works of the "old masters" and weigh their theories and
hypotheses against one another. Dworkin was utterly baffled by the idea
actually going out into the field and doing his own first hand research.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale....@comcast.net>:
>I worked as an engineer, among many other things I designed experiments
>and statistically analyzed data
OK, so did I; I was a radar test engineer for 30 years. So?
>the scientific process starts with a hypothetical conjecture, a hypothesis
Not usually. Usually observation comes first; the hypothesis
is composed to explain the observations.
>if that hypothesis is reproducible, it is testable and called a theory
No, it's called a theory *after* it's tested and isn't
falsified. Being testable only makes it a proper hypothesis.
>and this is the first point of contention, things like evolution and
>abiogenesis cannot be reproduced and ARE NOT EVEN THEORIES
Wrong, at least for evolution (abiogenesis is, I believe,
still at the hypothesis stage). To be scientific it must
make testable predictions. These predictions are not limited
to "classic" lab experiments; if they were neither cosmology
nor geology would qualify as science. Predictions in fields
such as these, and in evolutionary theory, involve
predicting further observations. If those observations
conform to the predictions the theory is not falsified.
Also, your comment about "NOT EVEN THEORIES" indicates that
you are unaware that "theory" is as good as it gets. A
theory is an hypothesis which has survived all attempts at
falsification and is thus considered to be as close to
established fact as any explanation of the observed facts
(which is, after all, what a theory *is*) can be. This
comment, along with your contention regarding a requirement
for "classic" lab experiments, marks you as scientifically
illiterate.
>the mainstream institution and establishment of science is GUILTY of
>widespread abuse of the scientific process and its ethics
You're unqualified to make such a claim, since you've
already shown you don't understand science.
>secondly, when you test a theory, you must apply an analysis of variance
>(ANOVA), to determine a confidence interval around the results of your
>experiment
...which is done *if the observations and the dataset are
amenable*; IOW, for repeatable "classic" lab experiments.
Falsifiability does not require statistical analysis.
>the mainstream scientific institution and establishment runs rabid with
>statements without ANOVA, and is GUILTY of significant violation of ethics
As you demonstrate in your post, you don't know what you're
talking about.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Ross Langerak
"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
> I worked as an engineer, among many other things I designed experiments
> and statistically analyzed data
Engineers are not scientists, and generally don't design experiments. Can
you give us an example of an experiment that you designed?
> the scientific process starts with a hypothetical conjecture, a hypothesis
No. The scientific method starts with data.
> if that hypothesis is reproducible, it is testable and called a theory
Again, no. The scientific method is a four step cyclic process.
Step one is data. Data is the result of observation and experimentation.
Step two is a theory. A theory is an explanation for the data.
Step three is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a specific prediction based
upon a theory.
Step four is an experiment. The experiment directly tests the hypothesis.
The result is more data, and we return to step one.
Notice that the definition of hypothesis is not the common definition. If
you have trouble with this usage, just call step three a specific prediction
based upon a theory and go from there. This usage of "hypothesis" was
proposed to address the recognition that it isn't enough to just make any
prediction.
> and this is the first point of contention, things like evolution and
> abiogenesis cannot be reproduced and ARE NOT EVEN THEORIES
Abiogenesis is actually the event to be addressed by a theory. Scientists
are working on theories to explain the data relating to how abiogenesis may
have occurred. It's a bit like an automobile accident: once an accident
occurs, the police show up and try to explain how the accident happenned.
Abiogenesis is analogous with the accident; theories proposed to explain
abiogenesis are analogous to explanations proposed by the police.
Abiogenesis is a difficult subject to study. There are no fossils preserved
from that event, and there are no rocks remaining that may have held
evidence. And based upon all of this lack of evidence, creationists have
come to the firm conclusion that life must have been created. If
creationists really had a valid theory, they would be able to address a
subject for which there is already substantial evidence, such as the fossil
record of horses or the evidence documenting the existence of pseudogenes.
Creationism is based upon ignorance, not evidence.
Also, it is the results of experiments that must be reproducable, not the
subject of a theory. We can scientifically study the Sun without having to
reproduce a star in a laboratory. The results of experiments should be
reproducable in as much as they should be independent of the experimenter.
Evolution is a theory. Evolution explains evidence from the fossil record,
comparative anatomy, and biochemistry.
> the mainstream institution and establishment of science is GUILTY of
> widespread abuse of the scientific process and its ethics
>
> secondly, when you test a theory, you must apply an analysis of variance
> (ANOVA), to determine a confidence interval around the results of your
> experiment
>
> the mainstream scientific institution and establishment runs rabid with
> statements without ANOVA, and is GUILTY of significant violation of ethics
I seem to remember looking into ANOVA and discovering that it applied only
under very specific conditions that excluded it from about 99.999% of
science. If I remember correctly, it is used to analyze variances between
closely related groups of data. Perhaps you can give us an example of how
it can be used to analyze data related to evolution?
ZerkonX
> evolution .. cannot be reproduced
I can not get this maybe some one can help.
Isn't a change in dietary habit which results in a physical change part of
the evolutionary process? This being only one example.
If so, evolution is being reproduced daily, is testable and has moved from
any 'theory' to a matter of historical fact.
If not, why not?
.
Spencer 忽帕
"ZerkonX" <ZER...@zerkonx.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.14....@zerkonx.net...
| On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:41:45 -0500, Dale Kelly wrote:
|
| > evolution .. cannot be reproduced
|
| I can not get this maybe some one can help.
|
| Isn't a change in dietary habit which results in a physical change part of
| the evolutionary process? This being only one example.
You have this the wrong way round.
Physical changes due to genetic mutation may result in changes in dietary
habits.
| If so, evolution is being reproduced daily, is testable and has moved from
| any 'theory' to a matter of historical fact.
Yes.
--
“Humanity cannot separate itself from the ongoing process of evolution
- we are evolution.”
Throwback
> In message <1176474553.462614.278...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> writes>On Apr 13, 2:20 am, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >> However, evolution of species is reproducible: The fossil evidence shows
> >> that it happened many, many times.
>
> >When was the last time one species turned into another?
>
> The more normal situation is for one species to turn into two, or two
> species to turn in three. That happened several times in the wild in the
> 20th century; some speciation events are regularly replicated in the
> laboratory and may well have been repeated this century; and producing
> new species is fairly routine in agronomic research programmes, and I
> wouldn't be surprised if a novel species had been produced this century.
Since we have the fossil evidence, and we can make predictions
on the theory, when will homo sapiens completely
disappear from the face of the earth and be replaced by
a new species (or more than one).
chris.li...@gmail.com
> I worked as an engineer, among many other things I designed experiments
> and statistically analyzed data
>
>
>
> abiogenesis cannot be reproduced and ARE NOT EVEN THEORIES
>
> widespread abuse of the scientific process and its ethics
>
> secondly, when you test a theory, you must apply an analysis of variance
> (ANOVA), to determine a confidence interval around the results of your
> experiment
>
> the mainstream scientific institution and establishment runs rabid with
> statements without ANOVA, and is GUILTY of significant violation of ethics
>
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Salem! I call Salem Hypothesis! I said it first!
Chris
wf3h
Dale Kelly wrote:
> I worked as an engineer, among many other things I designed experiments
> and statistically analyzed data
so do i...now...currently...
>
> the scientific process starts with a hypothetical conjecture, a hypothesis
>
> if that hypothesis is reproducible, it is testable and called a theory
>
> and this is the first point of contention, things like evolution and
> abiogenesis cannot be reproduced and ARE NOT EVEN THEORIES
nonsense. evolution is not a 'theory'...it's a fact...it's seen in
nature. what's theory is HOW evolution happens. and THAT is, indeed,
testable and reproducible. so even by YOUR definition it's science
so you contradicted yourself
as to abiogenesis, your statement is ridiculous. we have the
observation that life did not always exist on earth. if nature is
based on natural laws then we logically conclude life had a natural
beginning...abiogenesis.
> >
> secondly, when you test a theory, you must apply an analysis of variance
> (ANOVA), to determine a confidence interval around the results of your
> experiment
>
> the mainstream scientific institution and establishment runs rabid with
> statements without ANOVA, and is GUILTY of significant violation of ethics
>
>
meaningless trash but very typically creationist
Tiny Bulcher
Depends whether the Republicans get in or not next time.
Desertphile
<saint...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dale Kelly was largely correct in what he said and you know it.
Dale Kelly "largely correct?" In whish alternate universe?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
hersheyh
> I worked as an engineer, among many other things I designed experiments
> and statistically analyzed data
>
>
> if that hypothesis is reproducible, it is testable
Reproducibility is *one* way to test a hypothesis. That is what one
can do with *experimental* science. Another, and more general, way to
test a hypothesis is to look at the expected prediction of the
hypothesis (the part after the word "then") and *observe* whether that
is, in fact, what is *consistently* observed in nature. Actual
repeatable experiments are only one way to see if the prediction of an
hypothesis is *consistently* observed in nature.
Even so, experiments demonstrating the validity, limitations, and
capabilities of genetic change under selective and non-selective
conditions can be and have been performed. Natural selection
happens. Genetic drift happens. Change in allele frequencies over
time is inevitable (and has testable inevitable consequences). The
rates of change by these mechanisms is sufficient to cause the amount
of observed change over the time available.
> and called a theory
Not really. If the particular hypothesis is correct, only that
particular hypothesis is true. A "theory" is usually a coherent
*explanation* that 'explains' the consistent (but not necessarily
perfectly so) observational consequences of many hypotheses.
> and this is the first point of contention, things like evolution and
> abiogenesis cannot be reproduced and ARE NOT EVEN THEORIES
Evolution, as part of the "if" clause of hypotheses, does produce
specic testable "then" predictions that can be tested or observed. It
also *consistently* and *coherently* explains the observations of
multiple hypotheses, ranging from the consistently branched DNA
sequences of currently living organisms, the consistent non-random
pattern of fossils in geologic strata, morphpology, embryology,
geography of species, etc., better than any other *scientific*
explanation.
Abiogenesis involves a number of steps. Many of those steps can be
and are capable of being looked at experimentally. No experiment that
I know of prohibits abiogenesis from having occurred. Many are
consistent with the possibility of abiogenesis because the requisite
chemical steps do occur under conditions thought to be like those on
the early earth. Science, of course, asks the largest currently
answerable questions, not every question.
> the mainstream institution and establishment of science is GUILTY of
> widespread abuse of the scientific process and its ethics
You seem to be guilty of misunderstanding or misapplying the
scientific process by limiting science to only those things that can
be examined in a lab setting.
>
> secondly, when you test a theory, you must apply an analysis of variance
> (ANOVA), to determine a confidence interval around the results of your
> experiment
Which experiment are you talking about? ANOVA is not always the best
tool for indicating confidence limits. Other measures of confidence
are used in the path analyses used in DNA sequencing studies that
estimate the likelihood that a particular pathway is correct. So you
are wrong about claiming that evolutionary biologists don't use
statistics or confidence levels.
> the mainstream scientific institution and establishment runs rabid with
> statements without ANOVA, and is GUILTY of significant violation of ethics
Sounds like you are guilty of using hammer for everything because that
is the only tool you have or can use.
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
chris.li...@gmail.com
Rats. I missed where Wakboth called it in the second post in the
thread.
:(
Chris
Ernest Major
Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> writes
To make predictions you need not only a theory, but a sufficiently
detailed knowledge of the state of the system at an earlier time. Due to
the lack of such knowledge we can't predict the weather accurately. Due
to the lack of such knowledge when can't predict when (or if) Mars will
be ejected from the Solar System. Due to the lack of such knowledge we
can't predict what will happen when two subatomic particles collide
(even without taking quantum uncertainties into account). Similarly we
can't predict the future path of evolutionary change in great detail.
In the absence of genetic engineering or other artificial changes to the
human genome, features of the ecology of Homo sapiens suggest that it is
unlikely that the species will divide into two or more (at least while
restricted to the Earth).
Note also that speciation is often occurs over a prolonged period, and
asking for a time at which speciation occurred is a meaningless
question; what often obtains is at time A there is one species, and at
rime B two species (or a 2nd chronospecies), and at intermediate time it
is unclear whether there is one species or two (or which chronospecies
is present).
--
alias Ernest Major
Mike Dworetsky
news:1176497664.0...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Eyewitness testimony may or may not be reliable, depending on what questions
are being asked of the witness. Photos can be faked, but usually an expert
can do an analysis and advise how likely it is that the photos are indeed
faked.
In science, it is a bit different because the credentials of the scientist
come into play, and usually the initial assumption is that data are not
being faked for the sake of a prestigious scientific publication, say.
Usually such fakery gets found out eventually and that is enough to end
careers, so the risk factor is too high for most people.
In the case of an honest experiment or observation, there is always room for
further investigatins that can corroborate or refute the previous data. The
more confirmed a result is through repeated independent replication, the
more firmly established it becomes.
In legal or criminal cases, fakery or unreliability of eyewitnesses is
something that can be used by the defence (e.g., trying to shake a witness's
testimony), but there is no guarantee that it will be successfully
challenged.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Publius
news:58c60sF...@mid.individual.net...
>> If so, evolution is being reproduced daily, is testable and has moved
>> from
>> any 'theory' to a matter of historical fact.
> Yes.
No.
Theories do "grow up" to be "facts."
Theories are sets of propositions which create an explanatory framework for
some domain of phenomena. All of them include propositions which are not
empirically testable. Those propositions are not testable because they are
*a priori*, or because they refer to unobservable entities or processes, or
because they are universals. But theories also include or imply other
propositions which *are* empirically testable.
As a result theories are not provable. They are neither true not false; they
are only good or bad. They are good if they generate predictions
(hypotheses) of phenomena within their domains, and those predictions can be
confirmed empirically. They are bad if they generate no testable
predictions, of if the predictions they generate cannot be confirmed.
Few theories, especially those of natural science (as distinct from
mathematics or other purely deductive domains), are "perfect," i.e., most of
them either generate predictions which cannot be confirmed, or they fail to
predict observable phenomena within their domains, and thus are incomplete.
But a theory is not rejected on those grounds alone --- instead, those
shortcomings prompt efforts to construct a better theory. But until such a
theory has been set forth, the old theory is retained, warts and all. Why?
Simply because it is the most useful (predictive) theory available as of the
moment.
Spencer 忽帕
"Throwback" <throw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| Since we have the fossil evidence, and we can make predictions
| on the theory, when will homo sapiens completely
| disappear from the face of the earth and be replaced by
| a new species (or more than one).
Just as soon as we transhumanists design a better posthuman species.
--
Conscious Evolution
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <7js1235nmkk3d1kie...@4ax.com>):
> On 13 Apr 2007 15:35:37 -0700, "GatherNoMoss"
> <saint...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Dale Kelly was largely correct in what he said and you know it.
>
> Dale Kelly "largely correct?" In whish alternate universe?
>
>
>
The one where the sky's a solid dome with hatches to let the water through
when it rains.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Spencer 忽帕
"Publius" <m.pu...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ma2dnSDSl-iakbzb...@comcast.com...
All true but we are now in control of evolution as we change the environment
and evolution is adaptation to the environment.
We also have the knowlege and technology to create new species if we choose
to.
As we are clearly deeply flawed mutant apes we should seek to design a
better species worthy of the name homo Sapiens to replace the humans who
have made such a mess of the Earth.
THE MAN OF THE FUTURE
I belong to the master race
Of genetically superior beings
Who engineer themselves
For technical perfection
I choose to engineer myself
I'm a work in progress
Please pardon my appearance
It's only information
We conform
To the needs of technology
All phenomena
Will be explained
We don't need bodies
Only information
The man of the future
Is an engineered product
Work
Hygiene
Nutrition
Exercise
Those who cannot adapt
Must be destroyed
It's regrettable
It's a technical necessity
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
The signs are that we are already doing so. The larger brained Homo
sapiens evolutionacceptus and the smaller brained Homo sapiens
sciencerejectus. My bets are on the former to survive.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
> Did I miss it ?
> Why hasn't somebody simply post the definition of scientific method ?
> Words have meanings. It is what it is or communication is impossible.
>
> Dale Kelly was largely correct in what he said and you know it.
He may (or indeed may not) have got his name right. So he does score
one mark.
>
> See but what people really like to do is not engage in reasonable
>debate and reach a concensus....no, they want to ridicule, posture and
>belittle others.
Well, consensus is not really an option, acceptance of facts is. If
you can find some creationists that want to debate and reach a
consensus then you will end up with evolutionists.
>
> Makes them fell better about their short willys.
>
> And that's my hypothesis !
>
>
>
> scientific method: A process that is the basis for scientific
>inquiry. The scientific method follows a series of steps: (1) identify
>a problem you would like to solve, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3)
>test the hypothesis, (4) collect and analyze the data, (5) make
>conclusions.
Very simplistic view. Try reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
--
Bob.
Sean Carroll
> Words have meanings.
Oh! THAT'S what they're for! D'oh! *slaps head*
> Dale Kelly was largely correct in what he said and you know it.
Warning! Sudden drop in credibility! Run like hell!
> See but what people really like to do is not engage in reasonable
> debate and reach a concensus....no, they want to ridicule, posture and
> belittle others.
Trying to 'engage in reasonable debate' with a raving lunatic who speaks
nothing but utter nonsense is, um, not particularly ... possible.
Reasonable debate is reserved for those who can actually reason.
> Makes them fell better about their short willys.
Hey, it triples in size when it stands at attention. It's not really
short, just highly compacted in the flaccid state.
> And that's my hypothesis !
Your hypothesis sucks.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'If you're considering grabbing my ass, don't start anything you can't
finish.' --Dr Gregory House
Sean Carroll
> No, it's called a theory *after* it's tested and isn't
> falsified. Being testable only makes it a proper hypothesis.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, a 'theory', as the term is used by
scientists, refers to something on an entirely different level of
complexity from a hypothesis. It is a broad explanation of a number of
diverse phenomena based on relatively simple principles of high generality.
A theory is created from a number of well-tested hypotheses that all
link together, and can spin off many new hypotheses to be tested. It's
more like a background, or a lens through which we view all hypotheses
and experiments in a particular area of study. A theory defines our
paradigm; a verified hypothesis is a particular fact or result within
the framework of that paradigm.
> Also, your comment about "NOT EVEN THEORIES" indicates that
> you are unaware that "theory" is as good as it gets.
I love Helen Hunt.
> A theory is an hypothesis which has survived all attempts at
> falsification
More precisely, an ordered collection of a *number* of hypotheses that
have done so.
Sean Carroll
> Dale Kelly wrote:
>>evolution .. cannot be reproduced
> I can not get this maybe some one can help.
Help you understand what the hell DK's talking about?
Um, sorry. No. It is not physically possible.
> Isn't a change in dietary habit which results in a physical change part of
> the evolutionary process?
Not that I'm aware of.
> This being only one example.
?? What example?
> If so, evolution is being reproduced daily,
Yes, both figuratively and literally.
> is testable and has moved from
> any 'theory' to a matter of historical fact.
Indeed it has. Evolutionary theory is among the closest things in
science to a proved fact. One can never actually *prove* anything
conclusively, outside mathematics, but you can get arbitrarily close.
And evolution is right on the far end of the asymptote, along with such
other 'near-facts' as relativity and quantum theory, about which there
is infinitesimally vanishing doubt among all educated minds.
Sean Carroll
> Since we have the fossil evidence, and we can make predictions
> on the theory, when will homo sapiens completely
> disappear from the face of the earth and be replaced by
> a new species (or more than one).
You cannot really make predictions from evolutionary theory -- at least,
not in terms of predicting evolution's future course. It is a
historically contingent process that is highly nonlinear and impossible
to truly predict, like the weather.
I'm sure there are other hypothetical 'predictions' in a broader sense
that can be made, but what will happen in the future is not one of them.
That doesn't make evolution any less scientific than, say, meteorology
or anthropology, though.
Sean Carroll
> meaningless trash but very typically creationist
'But'??? Don't you mean 'and therefore'?
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "GatherNoMoss"
<saint...@yahoo.com>:
> Did I miss it ?
> Why hasn't somebody simply post the definition of scientific method ?
> Words have meanings. It is what it is or communication is impossible.
> Dale Kelly was largely correct in what he said and you know it.
No, he was not. See my reply (and others) in this thread
regarding *why* he was not.
> See but what people really like to do is not engage in reasonable
>debate and reach a concensus....no, they want to ridicule, posture and
>belittle others.
...or explain why the "others" were incorrect.
> Makes them fell better about their short willys.
I sold my Jeep; sorry.
> And that's my hypothesis !
...and it, like Dale's, is incorrect.
> scientific method: A process that is the basis for scientific
>inquiry. The scientific method follows a series of steps: (1) identify
>a problem you would like to solve, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3)
>test the hypothesis, (4) collect and analyze the data, (5) make
>conclusions.
Correct. Where in this is statistical analysis, or for that
matter controlled lab experimentation, required? Is geology
science? How about astrophysics? Cosmology?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Sean Carroll
<sean...@hotmail.com>:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> No, it's called a theory *after* it's tested and isn't
>> falsified. Being testable only makes it a proper hypothesis.
>
>Actually, if I'm not mistaken, a 'theory', as the term is used by
>scientists, refers to something on an entirely different level of
>complexity from a hypothesis. It is a broad explanation of a number of
>diverse phenomena based on relatively simple principles of high generality.
>
>A theory is created from a number of well-tested hypotheses that all
>link together, and can spin off many new hypotheses to be tested. It's
>more like a background, or a lens through which we view all hypotheses
>and experiments in a particular area of study. A theory defines our
>paradigm; a verified hypothesis is a particular fact or result within
>the framework of that paradigm.
You're probably correct in general, but I see no reason why
a theory can't result from a single tested and unfalsified
hypothesis.
>> Also, your comment about "NOT EVEN THEORIES" indicates that
>> you are unaware that "theory" is as good as it gets.
>
>I love Helen Hunt.
>
>> A theory is an hypothesis which has survived all attempts at
>> falsification
>
>More precisely, an ordered collection of a *number* of hypotheses that
>have done so.
Again, probably true in general.
Bob Casanova
>Throwback wrote:
>
>> Since we have the fossil evidence, and we can make predictions
>> on the theory, when will homo sapiens completely
>> disappear from the face of the earth and be replaced by
>> a new species (or more than one).
>
>You cannot really make predictions from evolutionary theory -- at least,
>not in terms of predicting evolution's future course. It is a
>historically contingent process that is highly nonlinear and impossible
>to truly predict, like the weather.
One point: Although it's impossible to predict in detail the
future course of evolution, predicting that organisms will
change in response to environmental changes in such a way as
to maximize the probability of the survival of the
population of which they're members is not.
At least, that's how I understand it.
>I'm sure there are other hypothetical 'predictions' in a broader sense
>that can be made, but what will happen in the future is not one of them.
>That doesn't make evolution any less scientific than, say, meteorology
>or anthropology, though.
--
Bob C.
Publius
news:ma2dnSDSl-iakbzb...@comcast.com:
> Theories do "grow up" to be "facts."
Ooops. Should be, "Do NOT."
Timberwoof
Sean Carroll <sean...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Throwback wrote:
>
> > Since we have the fossil evidence, and we can make predictions
> > on the theory, when will homo sapiens completely
> > disappear from the face of the earth and be replaced by
> > a new species (or more than one).
>
> You cannot really make predictions from evolutionary theory -- at least,
> not in terms of predicting evolution's future course. It is a
> historically contingent process that is highly nonlinear and impossible
> to truly predict, like the weather.
What do you mean by "truly"? Exact temperatures, pressures, and rainfall
for every day over the next ten years?
> I'm sure there are other hypothetical 'predictions' in a broader sense
> that can be made, but what will happen in the future is not one of them.
> That doesn't make evolution any less scientific than, say, meteorology
> or anthropology, though.
How about this: If we continue to overprescribe antibiotic medications,
we will continue to cause antibiotic-resistant biotics.
Or this: If a biome changes too fast, species that live in it can't
adapt into new forms.
Or this: If you try to use biotics to attack some undesirable plant or
animal species, both species will evolve into forms where the biotic is
less deadly to the weed/vermin.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:28:29 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Sean Carroll
><sean...@hotmail.com>:
>
>>Throwback wrote:
>>
>>> Since we have the fossil evidence, and we can make predictions
>>> on the theory, when will homo sapiens completely
>>> disappear from the face of the earth and be replaced by
>>> a new species (or more than one).
>>
>>You cannot really make predictions from evolutionary theory -- at least,
>>not in terms of predicting evolution's future course. It is a
>>historically contingent process that is highly nonlinear and impossible
>>to truly predict, like the weather.
>
>One point: Although it's impossible to predict in detail the
>future course of evolution, predicting that organisms will
>change in response to environmental changes in such a way as
>to maximize the probability of the survival of the
>population of which they're members is not.
I agree, and of course that is exactly what experiments with creatures
like fruit flies have shown. Provide the environmental pressure
required and evolution is observed.
>
>At least, that's how I understand it.
AOL.
>
--
Bob.
ZerkonX
>> Isn't a change in dietary habit which results in a physical change part of
>> the evolutionary process?
>
> Not that I'm aware of.
Shouldn't this be though? It is real, obvious and testable. It results in
changes of appearance and ability.
>
>> This being only one example.
>
> ?? What example?
Dietary change being one example as well as any sustained change in any
aspect of the environment, either self (human) made or not, that results
in a physical change.
.
chris.li...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:28:29 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Sean Carroll
>
> >Throwback wrote:
>
> >> Since we have the fossil evidence, and we can make predictions
> >> on the theory, when will homo sapiens completely
> >> disappear from the face of the earth and be replaced by
> >> a new species (or more than one).
>
> >You cannot really make predictions from evolutionary theory -- at least,
> >not in terms of predicting evolution's future course. It is a
> >historically contingent process that is highly nonlinear and impossible
> >to truly predict, like the weather.
>
> One point: Although it's impossible to predict in detail the
> future course of evolution, predicting that organisms will
> change in response to environmental changes in such a way as
> to maximize the probability of the survival of the
> population of which they're members is not.
>
> At least, that's how I understand it.
I believe the Grants, working in the Galapagos, could successfully
predict changes in beak size of certain finches from year to year,
given accurate data on precipitation.
http://www.amazon.com/Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution-Time/dp/067973337X
Chris
ZerkonX
> You have this the wrong way round.
> Physical changes due to genetic mutation may result in changes in dietary
> habits.
Could be but could not be. This chicken vs egg viewpoint doesn't
apply here, I think. It could be either or both. Mutations are a result.
.
Spencer 忽帕
"ZerkonX" <ZER...@zerkonx.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.15....@zerkonx.net...
Then you, sir, must be a discredited Lamarkian.
GatherNoMoss
>
> Trying to 'engage in reasonable debate' with a raving lunatic who speaks
> nothing but utter nonsense is, um, not particularly ... possible.
Raving lunatic ?
> Reasonable debate is reserved for those who can actually reason.
No, Dave and I tried to be reasonable, look what we got.
> Hey, it triples in size when it stands at attention. It's not really
> short, just highly compacted in the flaccid state.
You measured ?
Throwback
> Abiogenesis involves a number of steps. Many of those steps can be
> and are capable of being looked at experimentally. No experiment that
> I know of prohibits abiogenesis from having occurred. Many are
> consistent with the possibility of abiogenesis because the requisite
> chemical steps do occur under conditions thought to be like those on
> the early earth. Science, of course, asks the largest currently
> answerable questions, not every question.
>
> > the mainstream institution and establishment of science is GUILTY of
> > widespread abuse of the scientific process and its ethics
>
> You seem to be guilty of misunderstanding or misapplying the
> scientific process by limiting science to only those things that can
> be examined in a lab setting.
Let's not bother to test abiogenesis, since we know it
occured, instead, let's go drink some beer ...
Throwback
> In message <1176560948.681118.21...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 13, 12:04 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message <1176474553.462614.278...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> writes>On Apr 13, 2:20 am,
> >>Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >> However, evolution of species is reproducible: The fossil evidence shows
> >> >> that it happened many, many times.
>
> >> >When was the last time one species turned into another?
>
> >> The more normal situation is for one species to turn into two, or two
> >> species to turn in three. That happened several times in the wild in the
> >> 20th century; some speciation events are regularly replicated in the
> >> laboratory and may well have been repeated this century; and producing
> >> new species is fairly routine in agronomic research programmes, and I
> >> wouldn't be surprised if a novel species had been produced this century.
>
> >Since we have the fossil evidence, and we can make predictions
> >on the theory, when will homo sapiens completely
> >disappear from the face of the earth and be replaced by
> >a new species (or more than one).
>
> To make predictions you need not only a theory, but a sufficiently
> detailed knowledge of the state of the system at an earlier time.
I thought that is what the fossil record contained.
>Similarly we
> can't predict the future path of evolutionary change in great detail.
Bullshit. You have the entire past's fossil record and data
points. You can make a prediction of when the next data
point will occur based on the theory.
chris.li...@gmail.com
> On Apr 14, 6:01 pm, Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Trying to 'engage in reasonable debate' with a raving lunatic who speaks
> > nothing but utter nonsense is, um, not particularly ... possible.
>
> Raving lunatic ?
>
> > Reasonable debate is reserved for those who can actually reason.
>
> No, Dave and I tried to be reasonable, look what we got.
Dale Kelly wrote something that was utterly wrong, and stupidly so.
His assertion that all experiments require an analysis of variance is
stupid. His assertion that if a hypothesis is testable, it is a
theory, is also stupid. Beyond that, he's repeatedly stupid, since
he's been corrected on these issues more than once.
Do you think that mindlessly repeating those stupid, wrong assertions
in the face of multiple corrections is "reasonable"?
If so, you're as barking mad as Dale Kelly. If not, there's some basis
for discussion.
Chris
Ernest Major
<qs...@supahat.com> writes
assimilation. A change to behaviour may favour mutations, which were
previously disfavored, leading to physical changes.
For example if a population of crossbills switches from feeding on one
conifer species to another (a behavioural change) physical adaptation to
the architecture of the cones of the new conifer species will follow.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> writes
Then you though wrongly. The fossil record, as known to use, contains
only a fraction of the species that ever existed, and tells us next to
nothing about the gene pools of the species. How much is sufficiently
detailed is not known to me, but the fossil record is way below that
level.
>
>>Similarly we
>> can't predict the future path of evolutionary change in great detail.
>
>Bullshit. You have the entire past's fossil record and data
>points. You can make a prediction of when the next data
>point will occur based on the theory.
>
>
The fossil record gives us an approximate distribution of species
lifetimes for mammalian species. If we assume that Homo sapiens is a
typical species in this regard, which may not be correct since it is
already observed to be ecolologically atypical, then we would have a
broadpark figure of 100,000-1,000,000 years; but I rather suspect you
wanted a more precise figure.
--
alias Ernest Major
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Spencer 忽帕"
<qs...@supahat.com>:
Nope. A forced change in diet (due, perhaps, to climatic
changes), while it can't *generate* mutations, can result in
selective survival of any which do occur. The converse is
close, but not identical, to the discredited "hopeful
monster" idea.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "chris.li...@gmail.com"
<chris.li...@gmail.com>:
>On Apr 14, 9:35 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:28:29 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Sean Carroll
>> <seanc...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> >Throwback wrote:
>>
>> >> Since we have the fossil evidence, and we can make predictions
>> >> on the theory, when will homo sapiens completely
>> >> disappear from the face of the earth and be replaced by
>> >> a new species (or more than one).
>>
>> >You cannot really make predictions from evolutionary theory -- at least,
>> >not in terms of predicting evolution's future course. It is a
>> >historically contingent process that is highly nonlinear and impossible
>> >to truly predict, like the weather.
>>
>> One point: Although it's impossible to predict in detail the
>> future course of evolution, predicting that organisms will
>> change in response to environmental changes in such a way as
>> to maximize the probability of the survival of the
>> population of which they're members is not.
>>
>> At least, that's how I understand it.
>
>I believe the Grants, working in the Galapagos, could successfully
>predict changes in beak size of certain finches from year to year,
>given accurate data on precipitation.
>
>http://www.amazon.com/Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution-Time/dp/067973337X
I believe you're correct. I read _Beak of the Finch_ several
years ago and it's now packed awaiting our move to a new
house in July, but as I remember that was one of their
predictions (after a few seasons of study and evaluation).
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "GatherNoMoss"
<saint...@yahoo.com>:
>On Apr 14, 6:01 pm, Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Reasonable debate is reserved for those who can actually reason.
> No, Dave and I tried to be reasonable, look what we got.
Dave didn't "try to be reasonable"; he posted false claims
regarding requirements for scientific validity. Several,
including myself, posted replies showing where he was
incorrect; he has yet to address these replies, which seems
to be characteristic of him. Now just *who* is being
reasonable in this exchange?
<snip>
Spencer 忽帕
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ZIMh6iEm$oIG...@meden.invalid...
| In message <1176661867.2...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
| Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> writes
| >On Apr 14, 12:49 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| >> In message <1176560948.681118.21...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
| >> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> writes
| >> >On Apr 13, 12:04 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| >> >> In message <1176474553.462614.278...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
| >> >> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> writes>On Apr 13, 2:20 am,
| >> >>Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
| >>Similarly we
| >> can't predict the future path of evolutionary change in great detail.
We can determine the future path of evolutionary change as we can take
control of the process.
--
Let us reject the cowardly instincts of the Bio-Luddites and embrace
the technology by which to correct the design faults imposed on us by
nature.
Conscious Evolution
http://www.euvolution.com/
jillar...@webtv.net
the best? Aristotle and Newton are my favorites. The latter wrote the
purpose of his book was...
"not to explain the Properties of Light by Hypotheses, but to propose
and prove them by Reason and Experiments." [_Opticks_ Newton]
Point one: That word "propose" is exactly what Publius pointed out in
his 4/14 post. Bingo! No need to insult the field of philosophy on AP.
It deals with the usage of "propositions" and "reason" and the greatest
scientist in history writes his science in language like a philosopher.
Point two: It is reasonable then to use Newton's phrases and discover
the opposite and what science is not, by logic.
Thank you Aristotle, for answering the second part of the opening
poster's topic.
Point three: _Opticks_ is quite confident without ANOVA because Newton's
experiment involving two prisms, is brilliant in demonstration through
logical interpretation. Newton's science concluded logical and positive
results, a reasonable explanation of the interpretation of properties in
his devised experiment.
Point four: Newton obviously followed Aristotle's rules about science
from _Topics_ which outlined the issue of "demonstration" and "science"
to avoid contentious reasoning. Newton proved a lack of light
differentia in the light coming from the first prism by employing a
second prism, then used the same reasoning for both. This exemplified an
Aristotlean rule of reasoning for the discovery of a genus of light
properties. Bingo!
Point five: The Newton quote can be classified as 'logical empiricism'.
That is obvious from his own choice of words. But he also included and
isolated out "hypotheses" which means there were scientists that started
that way. And here is the difference IMO. Optics became a "finished"
science and "research" sciences retained the hypothetical moniker.
Philosophers like Nagel, Pap, Scheffler, Grunbaum, Sellars, who
introduce "hypothetico-deductive" language under the branch of logical
empiricism, complicate the issue. But it would be foolish and
contentious to conclude that philosophy as a 'genera' does that as I
have presented Aristotle as Newton's pillar.
Vjillar
[2]
Spencer 忽帕
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:8ea523
| On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:06:55 +0100, the following appeared
| in talk.origins, posted by "Spencer 忽帕"
| <qs...@supahat.com>:
| >"ZerkonX" <ZER...@zerkonx.net> wrote in message
| >|
| >| > You have this the wrong way round.
| >| > Physical changes due to genetic mutation may result in changes in
| >dietary
| >| > habits.
| >|
| >| Could be but could not be. This chicken vs egg viewpoint doesn't
| >| apply here, I think. It could be either or both. Mutations are a
result.
| >
| >Then you, sir, must be a discredited Lamarkian.
|
| Nope. A forced change in diet (due, perhaps, to climatic
| changes), while it can't *generate* mutations, can result in
| selective survival of any which do occur. The converse is
| close, but not identical, to the discredited "hopeful
| monster" idea.
If we look at the genetic difference between chimps and humans we notice
that point mutations are trivial and the big difference is the loss of one
chromosome pair.
This occured through the fusing of two chromosomes with a deletion and an
inversion.
Such a chromosomal macromutation would be a unique event and most such
events do not give rise to viable embrios. We were given this information
near the end of my studies and pressure of work and the approaching finals
meant I was never able to raise this point with my tutors. It has bothered
me ever since. I joined a moderated evolution NG just to ask how this was
possible. It seems to me that an ape must have given birth to the first
human who would then have to breed with an ape having an extra chromosome
and then produce offspring with human chromosomes giving rise to a new
species in one generation.
This proves to me that we are "hopeful monsters".
The answer I got was that similar chromosomal changes have been observed in
the evolution of horses.
This never really satisfied me and I think the "hopeful monster" hypothesis
explains why we have so many maladaptive features (hair where we don't need
it and none where we could use it is the most obvious) along with the
advantages of a big brain. It is also interesting to note that the big brain
means large-headed babies and difficult, painful births. No other species
has such painful births.
Spencer The Hopeful Monster.
Spencer 忽帕
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI
It boggled my mind!
Comments and/or refutations would be very welcome.
--
Spencer The Hopeful Monster.
eyelessgame
No, we don't. We have very little of it. We have as much as we can
find, but it's a vanishingly miniscule portion of "the entire past".
We don't have the DNA of any extinct creature. We don't have the
entirety of the environment of any extinct creature.
> You can make a prediction of when the next data
> point will occur based on the theory
No. We know that mutation and environmental change are essentially
random -- while we can aggregate mutation rates and predict some
overall things about it, and we can look at an environment as a whole
and predict a rough rate of speciation and extinction, we cannot make
predictions about individual species.
No more than probability theory permits us to predict the outcome of
the next throw of a fair die.
Science can tell us a lot. But it can't tell us the outcome of a
random event.
eyelessgame
Timberwoof
"Spencer 忽帕" <qs...@supahat.com> wrote:
> "Conspiracy of Science - Earth is in fact growing"
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI
>
> It boggled my mind!
>
> Comments and/or refutations would be very welcome.
The basic thesis is that at one point the Earth had 1/4 of its current
surface area (so that the continents all fit nicely together), therefore
1/2 its diameter and 1/8 is volume. Therefore, either the Earth had 8x
its present density or gained 7/8 of its mass after it initially formed.
There is no mechanism for either and plenty of problems, mostly having
to do with violations of conservation laws: where did the mass come
from? How did it acquire the correct rotation and orbital speed?
If the continents all fit nicely together, then there would be similar
geology across the torn-apart seams. While this has been demonstrated
between South America and Africa, North America and Europe, South Africa
and india, and some other places, it is specifically lacking in the
splits across the Pacific.
If the Earth had been smaller, then the continents would have stretched
or broken to fit the greater radius of curvature.
I wrote a longer post on this subject in this newsgroup some months
back. Just wait for Don Findlay to rear his wacky head.
Timberwoof
> "Conspiracy of Science - Earth is in fact growing"
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI
>
> It boggled my mind!
>
> Comments and/or refutations would be very welcome.
By the way, I am a cratonist. :-)
Ernest Major
<qs...@supahat.com> writes
>
In some ways chromosomal fusion can be considered a large change, but in
others it does not. It need not change the genome, nor transcriptome, as
all that need be lost is a stretch of telomeric DNA. Therefore a mutant
with a chromosomal fusion can develop in the same way as the rest of the
population and be morphologically indistinguishable.
A chromosomal fusion may cause some slight disruption to meiosis, but
other chromosomal rearrangement case more.
Many species are polymorphic for chromosome number, representing fusions
or fissions. These polymorphisms are observed in humans, but are rare.
Chromosomal rearrangements - fusions, fissions, translocations,
inversions, duplications, deletions ... - can be near enough to neutral
to be fixed by drift. The accumulation of fixation of different
rearrangements in different populations is, I believe, the major
contribution to the disruption of meiosis in hybrids between closely
related species, and hence a cause of speciation.
--
alias Ernest Major
Throwback
> In message <1176661867.234125.285...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
I better turn in my colour by numbers 'history of fossil
record' poster; shit, I even sent in three proofs of purchase from
my cereal box for it.
>
> >>Similarly we
> >> can't predict the future path of evolutionary change in great detail.
>
> >Bullshit. You have the entire past's fossil record and data
> >points. You can make a prediction of when the next data
> >point will occur based on the theory.
>
> The fossil record gives us an approximate distribution of species
> lifetimes for mammalian species. If we assume that Homo sapiens is a
> typical species in this regard, which may not be correct since it is
> already observed to be ecolologically atypical, then we would have a
> broadpark figure of 100,000-1,000,000 years; but I rather suspect you
> wanted a more precise figure.
No, I wanted a ballpark figure.
How many of the species between homo sapiens and
it's closest evolutionary species that still exists are
extinct?
Throwback
Looks like there are some limits here ...
ZerkonX
> Then you, sir, must be a discredited Lamarkian.
The nutritional requirements of contemporary humans represent the
end-result of dietary interactions between our ancestral species and their
environments extending back to the origins of life on earth. Primates of
modern aspect are thought to have emerged about 50 million years ago and
appreciating the basic range of primate nutritional patterns over this
lengthy evolutionary period is critically important because only when the
original simian baseline is characterized can subsequent dietary
modifications within the hominid lineage be fully appraised. These
nutritional changes have had significant evolutionary impact in the past
and they now affect the health of contemporary human populations. The
nature of these interactions can best be understood when the dietary
alterations are measured against a fundamental primate benchmark.
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/sboydeaton/eaton.htm
I just do not see anything more obvious than this.
.
Ernest Major
Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> writes
The chimpanzee and bonobo are equally the closest living species to Homo
sapiens.
In general we can't tell that a fossil represents an ancestral
population rather than an extunct side branch. Chimpanzees and bonobos
have no identified fossil record, so we very little evidence on which to
estimate the number of species in that lineage.
In the human lineage 5 would seem like a minimum estimate - in the form
of something like Homo erectus (African Homo erectus aka Homo ergaster
is considered more likely to be ancestral to Homo sapiens than Asian
Homo erectus), something like Homo habilis (or Homo rudolfensis),
something like Australopithecus africanus (or Kenyapithecus platyops),
something like Australopithecus afarensis, and something like
Ardipithecus anamensis. The number may be higher. Firstly there may be
several species between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens; Homo
neanderthalensis and Homo floresiensis are generally accepted to be
side-branches, but there's still Homo rhodesiensis, Homo georgicus, Home
heidelbergensis and Homo antecessor as candidates. Secondly it is
suspected that fossil species often include several biological species.
Thirdly typical mammal species lifetimes suggest a greater number.
--
Alias Ernest Major
eyelessgame
Yes, by gosh, it's almost like it's /science/ or something. All
science is limited by what can be observed, systematically
investigated, and validly inferred from the data.
(And it's a lot easier to predict the past than the future. Of course
we know more about what has happened than about what is going to
happen.)
We know that all life has a common ancestor. That's a valid inference
from the data. We know that speciation occurs, and that the primary
mechanisms of speciation include mutation, natural selection, drift,
biogeographic isolation, and sexual selection. That's valid inference
from the data.
Claiming "Humans will speciate (or go extinct) in X number of years"
is not a valid inference from the data. Yes, of *course* our knowledge
is limited. You expected scientists knew everything? They're more
keenly aware of what they don't know than most of the rest of us are.
But be clear on this: by being both honest and meticulous about what
they do not know, their credibility is quite high on what they *do*
know.
The universe is 13.7 billion years old. The earth is 4.5 billion years
old. Life on the earth is nearly four billion years old. All life on
earth has a common ancestor. Human ancestry reveals that humans are
metabolic organisms; they are eucaryotes; they are animals; they are
chordates; they are vertebrates; they are tetrapods; they are
synapsids; they are mammals. they are eutherians, they are primates,
and they are apes. (ref. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may03.html)
We know our past. We only know a little about our future, and it
depends very heavily on our behavior (which we cannot necessarily
predict), as well as on random events (which by definition we cannot
predict).
Did you really think this was not so?
eyelessgame
Desertphile
<timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article <58ftobF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Spencer 忽帕" <qs...@supahat.com> wrote:
>
> > "Conspiracy of Science - Earth is in fact growing"
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI
> >
> > It boggled my mind!
> >
> > Comments and/or refutations would be very welcome.
>
> The basic thesis is that at one point the Earth had 1/4 of its current
> surface area (so that the continents all fit nicely together), therefore
> 1/2 its diameter and 1/8 is volume. Therefore, either the Earth had 8x
> its present density or gained 7/8 of its mass after it initially formed.
> There is no mechanism for either and plenty of problems, mostly having
> to do with violations of conservation laws: where did the mass come
> from? How did it acquire the correct rotation and orbital speed?
>
> If the continents all fit nicely together, then there would be similar
> geology across the torn-apart seams. While this has been demonstrated
> between South America and Africa, North America and Europe, South Africa
> and india, and some other places, it is specifically lacking in the
> splits across the Pacific.
>
> If the Earth had been smaller, then the continents would have stretched
> or broken to fit the greater radius of curvature.
>
> I wrote a longer post on this subject in this newsgroup some months
> back. Just wait for Don Findlay to rear his wacky head.
Earthquake wave propagation studies show a very hard center
surrounded with a liquid shell and a thin hard surface crust. When
I watched the video in question I fully expected a cartoon funnel
to come along, stick its spout into the Earth, and suck up various
moons and wandering planets to fill the empty expanding-Earth
space.
Where the bloody hell did the new magma come from? Did gods add
it?
The video claims that real scientists are AFRAID of an expanding
Earth.... but doews not say why scientists are afraid.
The video is so silly and insane one may wonder if it is meant to
be a joke.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
Bob Casanova
>| <qs...@supahat.com>:
Ernest Major, who is apparently far more qualified than I
am, has answered this.
That said, your post doesn't really seem to address my basic
point, which was that selection based on a change in
environment, such as available diet, is in no sense
"Lamarckian".
The Merry Prankster Pope - Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article <58ftobF2ftjc...@mid.individual.net>,
Are you a heart doctor that lives in Arizona and drives a BMW bike?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Desertphile
<deser...@nospam.org>:
Obviously there's a Hawking White Hole at the center of the
Earth.
>The video claims that real scientists are AFRAID of an expanding
>Earth.... but doews not say why scientists are afraid.
Sometimes it's wise to fear nutcases; some turn violent if
thwarted.
>The video is so silly and insane one may wonder if it is meant to
>be a joke.
I'd bet on sophisticated parody, but it's *so* easy to be
wrong, given the large class of actual loons infesting
modern society.
Dick C
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:21:36 -0400, Sean Carroll wrote:
>
>>> Isn't a change in dietary habit which results in a physical change
>>> part of the evolutionary process?
>>
>> Not that I'm aware of.
>
> Shouldn't this be though? It is real, obvious and testable. It results
> in changes of appearance and ability.
>
>>
>>> This being only one example.
>>
>> ?? What example?
>
> Dietary change being one example as well as any sustained change in any
> aspect of the environment, either self (human) made or not, that results
> in a physical change.
Nope, dietary change in general is not evolution. However, if a population
of organisms evolves the ability to eat something it was not able to
eat before, then that is evolution.
A simple dietary change simply means that you eat brussel sprouts when you
did not eat them before.
You were always able to eat them.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Spencer 忽帕
| >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:8ea523
| >| On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:06:55 +0100, the following appeared
| >| in talk.origins, posted by "Spencer 忽帕"
This is a big question for me and I remain unsatisfied with the replies.
The fusion that occured between apes and humans involved a deletion and an
inversion.
It accounts for all the major differences as the point mutations are
trivial.
It is as if other biologists have a blind spot for my question. When I saw a
simple phylogenetic tree of Primates with this event marked on it, in a
textbook, I was amazed that no-one asked the obvious questions it raised for
me.
I remain Spencer The Hopeful Monster.
ernobe
> I worked as an engineer, among many other things I designed experiments
> and statistically analyzed data
>
> the scientific process starts with a hypothetical conjecture, a hypothesis
>
> if that hypothesis is reproducible, it is testable and called a theory
>
> and this is the first point of contention, things like evolution and
> abiogenesis cannot be reproduced and ARE NOT EVEN THEORIES
>
> the mainstream institution and establishment of science is GUILTY of
> widespread abuse of the scientific process and its ethics
>
> secondly, when you test a theory, you must apply an analysis of variance
> (ANOVA), to determine a confidence interval around the results of your
> experiment
>
> the mainstream scientific institution and establishment runs rabid with
> statements without ANOVA, and is GUILTY of significant violation of ethics
Theories are subject to evolution, and so you are right, evolution is
not a theory, because the cause of evolution preexists the development
of theories, and preexistences are not dependent on phenomena produced
by them.