Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Note please the title of Gould's book (even you ignorant folk shoud have heard of Stephen J. Gould)
The structure of evolutionary theory
SJ Gould - 2002 - books.google.com
The world's most revered and eloquent interpreter of evolutionary ideas offers here a work of explanatory force unprecedented in our time--a landmark publication, both for its historical sweep and for its scientific vision. With characteristic attention to detail, Stephen Jay Gould etc.
I am now convinced - raven (by either of his names) really is THAT stupid, and I know we can count on his whining childish ad hominem.
At risk of confusing the children further, I'll observe that some have argued that evolution is so well accepted and lacking competing scientific concepts that it is effectively a "fact." That is subjective and outside the concept of science as facts in biology are data.
from wikipedia (one of its better entries)
A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.
apodictic means expression of a necessary truth or absolute certainty.
further from the wikiedia entry, specifically mentioning evolutionary theory
Characteristics of theories
The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.
In practice, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:
It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
 Non-essential criteria
Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if:
It is tentative, correctable, and dynamic in allowing for changes as new facts are discovered.
It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations—commonly referred to as passing the Occam's razor test. (Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)
This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of these extra criteria.
Recommend Gould's book mentioned above as well as his "It's a Wonderful Life" that considers to immense diversity of life seen in the Burgess shale deposits - that they were wonderfully adapted to the environment but most left no modern evolutionary trace.
I have locked this topic, because the conversation turned into something definitely not related to science. You have been warned, but you didn't care. If you want to continue in your insults, do so in PMs. And if will you continue with such behavior in other topics (no matter who with), you may be banned.
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests