• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is evolution a fact?

I hope you realize that scientists STILL believe in the theory of gravity. Every single student still learns it in class. The theory of gravity is correct that there is an attractive force between matter than explains the motion of objects on earth an in the heavens. The problem is that there was more to it, but the basic theory was correct. And it still works in a large scope of phenomena.

Do you really want to debate me about theories of gravitation? I'm happy to do so but be warned, I do know my subject.
 
This is not true, there were several indications that Newton was wrong, before 1905.



This is not how science works - wrong means that observations are not consistent with empirical expectations, we don't pretend wrong is right until a "better" theory is proposed.

Falsification of a theory does not hinge the existence of alternative theories.

You atheist's love to spout off about how educated you are, how much better you understand science than the theist, what a sham.

Has gravity been falsified? How about evolution? In the case of the latter, it has not AND there is no alternative theory. So what is your point, if any?
 
This is not true, there were several indications that Newton was wrong, before 1905.



This is not how science works - wrong means that observations are not consistent with empirical expectations, we don't pretend wrong is right until a "better" theory is proposed.

Falsification of a theory does not hinge the existence of alternative theories.

You atheist's love to spout off about how educated you are, how much better you understand science than the theist, what a sham.

“You atheists......”
 
Try using Newtonian mechanics to design GPS systems and see how well that goes. It's wrong, but it's a sufficient approximation in many cases to calculate how moving (and static) bodies behave on Earth, which is why people still learn about Newtonian mechanics at university (especially engineers).

Indeed, I have never disputed the utility of Newton, nor should we fail to appreciate his incredible achievements (calculus etc).

The point I was striving to make here is that despite some theory appearing to describe reality, its expectations closely aligning with reality, it can nevertheless turn out to be absolutely wrong - not in the sense that calculated values deviate very slightly from measured values, but in the sense the principles, assumptions and mechanisms it assumes are at work are fundamentally wrong.

Newton's theory is very wrong about time, about simultaneity, it is very wrong about the speed at which gravitation changes can be propagated, it is very wrong about the nature of space, the nature of the interaction between masses and very wrong about what light does in a gravitational field.

Yes, calculations done using GR and NG for the most part are so close it doesn't matter, but a theory is far more than a way to calculate values, it is a model, a description of what is believed to constitute nature, it is in this sense that my doubts about evolution should be understood.

(It's very interesting too that one of the solutions of the "field equations" of GR simplifies down to Newton's inverse square law, this is explain why NG was so successful, its a special case of a more complex general scenario).

Just because many observations seem to align with the expectations of evolution, it could nevertheless be hugely wrong and I think it is.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, I have never disputed the utility of Newton, nor should we fail to appreciate his incredible achievements (calculus etc).

The point I was striving to make here is that despite some theory appearing to describe reality, its expectations closely aligning with reality, it can nevertheless turn out to be absolutely wrong - not in the sense that calculated values deviate very slightly from measured values, but in the sense the principles, assumptions and mechanisms it assumes are at work are fundamentally wrong.

Newton's theory is very wrong about time, about simultaneity, it is very wrong about the speed at which gravitation changes can be propagated, it is very wrong about the nature of space, the nature of the interaction between masses and very wrong about what light does in a gravitational field.

Yes, calculations done using GR and NG for the most part are so close it doesn't matter, but a theory is far more than a way to calculate values, it is a model, a description of what is believed to constitute nature, it is in this sense that my doubts about evolution should be understood.

(It's very interesting too that one of the solutions of the "field equations" of GR simplifies down to Newton's inverse square law, this is explain why NG was so successful, its a special case of a more complex general scenario).

Just because many observations seem to align with the expectations of evolution, it could nevertheless be hugely wrong and I think it is.
Dunno wasn't arguing against you just pointing out how Newton's theory is categorically wrong. If EEs used Newtonian mechanics for signal transmission we wouldn't be having this conversation (probably).
 
Indeed, I have never disputed the utility of Newton, nor should we fail to appreciate his incredible achievements (calculus etc).

The point I was striving to make here is that despite some theory appearing to describe reality, its expectations closely aligning with reality, it can nevertheless turn out to be absolutely wrong - not in the sense that calculated values deviate very slightly from measured values, but in the sense the principles, assumptions and mechanisms it assumes are at work are fundamentally wrong.

Newton's theory is very wrong about time, about simultaneity, it is very wrong about the speed at which gravitation changes can be propagated, it is very wrong about the nature of space, the nature of the interaction between masses and very wrong about what light does in a gravitational field.

Yes, calculations done using GR and NG for the most part are so close it doesn't matter, but a theory is far more than a way to calculate values, it is a model, a description of what is believed to constitute nature, it is in this sense that my doubts about evolution should be understood.

(It's very interesting too that one of the solutions of the "field equations" of GR simplifies down to Newton's inverse square law, this is explain why NG was so successful, its a special case of a more complex general scenario).

Just because many observations seem to align with the expectations of evolution, it could nevertheless be hugely wrong and I think it is.

Biological evolutionists don't think they're wrong, and that is what matters.
 
This is not true, there were several indications that Newton was wrong, before 1905.



This is not how science works - wrong means that observations are not consistent with empirical expectations, we don't pretend wrong is right until a "better" theory is proposed.

Falsification of a theory does not hinge the existence of alternative theories.

You atheist's love to spout off about how educated you are, how much better you understand science than the theist, what a sham.
I have not claimed to be an atheist, and I'll thank you not to make asinine assumptions about me. What I am is a lover of paleontology.

If you think evolution is wrong, then I'd be delighted to hear your alternative explanation for how creatures change into new forms over time. But you haven't got one.

I'd be overjoyed if it turned out that God designed every species himself. That would be amazing. But there's no more evidence for that than there is for the moon being made of cheese.

Evolution, specifically, natural selection, is a great explanation for the existence of life on earth. Furthermore, evolution is the foundation of modern medical science. We base so much of our scientific understanding of the biological world on evolution being true.

Does that means it's flawless? Of course not. I'm sure there are many more discoveries yet to come. But if you aim to prove the whole theory wrong, you're going to have to do a whole lot better than complain about some missing fossil links. Because right now your argument just isn't very convincing when weighed against all of modern evolutionary biology.
 
Do you really want to debate me about theories of gravitation? I'm happy to do so but be warned, I do know my subject.

Ok then. If the theory of gravity is false then why is it an integral part of physics courses?
 
The existence of gravity is not a theory, it is a readily verified fact.


scientific theory

noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
 
There is a growing tendency to refer to the theory of evolution as not a theory at all, but a fact.

It is probably true in spirit if not in detail. Life adapts. I am not sure I believe in the survival of the fittist part of Darwinism though.
 
Looks like you were not telling the truth David, no surprises there since you don't believe in truth.

You are dead wrong about what was actually included in Newton's theory, despite your cherry picked crap from Wikipedia about things that Newton might have said or not.
 
The existence of gravity is not a theory, it is a readily verified fact.

The existence of life is likewise a fact,


I know, they are in fact different things. An atom is not a theory, a falling object is not a theory, a mutated gene is not a theory - I never argue with facts nor do I conflate them with theories.



If it was a fact it happened why would you call it a theory? you are confused.

The fossil record reveals no "step by step" - what is a "step" here anyway? a single gene mutation? a single retrodictive generation?

The fossil record is hugely discontinuous, the antithesis of gradualism, of "step by step" change.

There are no theories without facts. There is no real distinction between facts and scientific theories.
 
More deranged and unhinged waffle David, surely you can see why you remind me of Trump so much, you just make stuff up as you go, your world is the real world everybody else is just wrong.

More useless ad hominem from you and misunderstanding of science.

You think scientific theories can exist without facts.
 
Ok then. If the theory of gravity is false then why is it an integral part of physics courses?

Because it is very instructive to learn how the universe has been perceived and modelled over the centuries.

Newtonian gravitation is never taught as being without problems, it is openly acknowledged to be an approximation that suffices except for untypical scenarios.

Furthermore GR rests upon some very involved math, what's termed non-Euclidean geometry and tensor calculus, usually too advanced to dump on students that are not preparing to work at that level.

Personally I think we should teach relativity at a lower grade/age the roots of relativity are very foundational to physics (origins of inertia, speed of light being constant etc).
 
You are dead wrong about what was actually included in Newton's theory, despite your cherry picked crap from Wikipedia about things that Newton might have said or not.

David, please be specific (you do like to be vague).

You are it seems, stating that you disagree with this post of mine:

But it is wrong, absolutely, emphatically wrong - there is no "action at a distance" there is no "aether" there is no "universal time" there is no "instantaneous propagation" of changes in gravitational field potential - Newton's theory was absolutely wrong as an explanation for what we observe.

All of these things David are inherent, emergent consequences of, Newton's analysis and mathematics.

Did he use the term "aether" No he did not, but is the concept of a medium that can influence without itself being influenced, present in Principia?

Einstein is on record:

Einstein said:
Einstein argued that Newton's absolute space, in which acceleration is absolute, is the "Aether of Mechanics"

Crying shame Prof. Einstein isn't still alive, I'm sure he'd greatly appreciate your erudite insights.

Stop behaving like Trump, stamping your feet shouting "I'm right though, I'm right though" in every other post - you are (and rather often) wrong.
 
More useless ad hominem from you and misunderstanding of science.

You think scientific theories can exist without facts.

Repeatedly stating that I "do not understand science" in a public forum is itself an ad-hominem attack.

By all means disagree with something I may have posted but attributing that disagreement to my lack of understanding is immaterial, I might not understand or I might, no matter - what matters is whether what I say is correct; this discussion is not about your beliefs about my understanding.

Scientific theories rest upon axioms David, once again now, can you tell me what the term "axiom" means to you? why are you so reticent to answer such a rudimentary innocent little question?
 
There are no theories without facts. There is no real distinction between facts and scientific theories.

Please read:

National Center for Science Education said:
In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts.

I trust this closes this matter?
 
Because it is very instructive to learn how the universe has been perceived and modelled over the centuries.

Newtonian gravitation is never taught as being without problems, it is openly acknowledged to be an approximation that suffices except for untypical scenarios.

Furthermore GR rests upon some very involved math, what's termed non-Euclidean geometry and tensor calculus, usually too advanced to dump on students that are not preparing to work at that level.

Personally I think we should teach relativity at a lower grade/age the roots of relativity are very foundational to physics (origins of inertia, speed of light being constant etc).

If Newton's theory was simply taught because its how the universe was percieved in the past, then courses would simply mention it in passing. Instead they devote whole chapters, tests, and exersizes to it. It would be like teaching every astronomy student the old geocentric model of the solar system in several chapters and tests. N

ewton's theory is taught because it is a simplified version of the truth that suffices except for untypical cases. Teaching students the simple version first helps them ease into physics, before relativity and quantum mechanics are thrown at them. Newton's theory isn't wrong, it just isn't the full story. The same goes for the theory of evolution. There will always be room to improve and details we haven't figured out yet.
 
If Newton's theory was simply taught because its how the universe was percieved in the past, then courses would simply mention it in passing. Instead they devote whole chapters, tests, and exersizes to it. It would be like teaching every astronomy student the old geocentric model of the solar system in several chapters and tests. N

ewton's theory is taught because it is a simplified version of the truth that suffices except for untypical cases. Teaching students the simple version first helps them ease into physics, before relativity and quantum mechanics are thrown at them. Newton's theory isn't wrong, it just isn't the full story. The same goes for the theory of evolution. There will always be room to improve and details we haven't figured out yet.
It's wrong. Fundamentally. Call it simplified all you want. The ideal gas law is also a simplified explanation of how gasses really work. But ultimately wrong.
 
It's wrong. Fundamentally. Call it simplified all you want. The ideal gas law is also a simplified explanation of how gasses really work. But ultimately wrong.

Many things aren't 100% wrong or 100% right. Many ideas are in the middle. For example supply and demand is basically correct but isn't perfect at predicting prices. That doesn't mean its wrong, but only that it isn't 100% correct and is only a simplification.
 
Many things aren't 100% wrong or 100% right. Many ideas are in the middle. For example supply and demand is basically correct but isn't perfect at predicting prices. That doesn't mean its wrong, but only that it isn't 100% correct and is only a simplification.
All models are wrong, but some models are less wrong than others.
 
Please read:



I trust this closes this matter?

This should close this thread. You are comparing a false idea of a scientific theory with a false idea of facts. If scientific theories explain facts, that doesn't make scientific theory comparable to a fact. They are inextricably entwined together. You can't have a scientific theory without a basis in facts which the theory explains. There is not both the fact of evolution and theory of evolution. A fact is one part of a theory, and without facts it could not be called a scientific theory. Evolution is not just one single thing, it is an explanation of many facts. And these facts support the theory. All scientific theories work this way; the scientific theory of evolution is not treated any differently than any other scientific theory. And that is a fact.
 
Back
Top Bottom