- Joined
- Jun 11, 2017
- Messages
- 5,544
- Reaction score
- 1,061
- Location
- Arizona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
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.
Newton'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.
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.
Frequencies? Please explain.Evolution, that is "the change in allele frequencies over time", is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution exists to explain and detail that fact.
Frequencies? Please explain.
What is the current religious dogma?That we sprung from the primordial ooze is the current scientific dogma.
Thank you.allele frequency
A number that represents the incidence of a gene variant in a population.www.nature.com
That we sprung from the primordial ooze is the current scientific dogma.
Thank you.
To be honest, the Urey-Miller hypothesis really isn't rigorous. It's evidence, not not a theory or proof, that life can rise from simple chemistry. The fact that life is dictated by chemistry, is however, good evidenc etht the Urey-Miller hypothesis holds water.That we sprung from the primordial ooze is the current scientific dogma.
To be honest, the Urey-Miller hypothesis really isn't rigorous. It's evidence, not not a theory or proof, that life can rise from simple chemistry. The fact that life is dictated by chemistry, is however, good evidenc etht the Urey-Miller hypothesis holds water.
What is the current religious dogma?
That we didn't.
The **** you talkin about famBut at it's core, it's still a statement of "life COULD have arisen this way". It might be widely accepted (AFAIK its the single most accepted biogenesis theory), but I don't know if science will ever be able to definitively say where life on Earth came from.
Nature would appear to be where the answers of such questions might be found.But at it's core, it's still a statement of "life COULD have arisen this way". It might be widely accepted (AFAIK its the single most accepted biogenesis theory), but I don't know if science will ever be able to definitively say where life on Earth came from.
David please take this up with the National Center for Science Education, they said " In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts" whereas you said "There is no real distinction between facts and scientific theories" I agree with NCSE, you do not so take it up with them now.
That we didn't.
The **** you talkin about fam
Nature would appear to be where the answers of such questions might be found.
Many things simply cannot be known with absolute certainty though some theories appear to be more reasoned and rational than others.Except there is no way to definitively say if life arose due to abiogenesis, panspermia, or any of the other possible scientific explanations because no evidence remains from nearly billion years ago that would prove it.
What is the current religious dogma?
Many things simply cannot be known with absolute certainty though some theories appear to be more reasoned and rational than others.
It's for each individual to make such a decision, or not.Of the primary competing theories for biogenesis, I don’t know how anyone can confidently say which is more reasoned or rational than the others.
No, I'm taking it up with you. The theory of evolution needs facts to explain.
These are the facts of evolution.
Do you see how a theory cannot exist without facts?
These facts are what makes up the theory.
Axioms -
are not self-evident truths in any sort of rational system, they are unprovable assumptions whose truth or falsehood should always be mentally prefaced with an implicit ``If we assume that...''. Remembering that ultimately ``assume'' can make an ass out of u and me, as my wife (a physician, which is a very empirical and untrusting profession) is wont to say. They are really just assertions or propositions to which we give a special primal status and exempt from the necessity of independent proof.
The facts come first, the theory second. One cannot exist without the other.
Your OP question is meaningless.
The theory of evolution has not been treated any different than any other scientific theory.
It is built upon facts, just like any other scientific theory. If new facts come along, the theory may be altered. Nothing has come to light to question the basic facts of evolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?