• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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?

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
15,350
Reaction score
3,116
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You disagree with NCSE I do not yet you claim it is I who doesn't understand what a theory is!



No there are facts that are consistent with the expectations of evolutionary theory, just as there are facts that are consistent with Newtonian mechanics and facts that are consistent with Copernican theory, Galilean theory and so on.



A theory cannot exist without axioms, you persist in refusing to tell me if you even know what an axiom is though.



See - axiom.

Note:



I can only assume this is all new to you and that the pop-science books you've been eagerly consuming all these years never go into this kind of detail.



Now you say that facts and theories are different mutually interdependent things yet a few posts ago you wrote "There is no real distinction between facts and scientific theories"!



You should have said that at the outset then, I'd have been delighted to explain.



Yes it has David, it is described by its most ardent advocates as being a "fact" no other theory in the sciences is so described.



It is built upon axioms David and until you look up this term in a dictionary you'll continue to post embarrassing claims like this.

Why are you afraid to tell me what an axiom is?
It does not matter what advocates of the theory of evolution is called by some advocates. All that matters is what it actually is and based upon. It is based upon facts, as all scientific theories are. No scientific theories are based on axioms. Without testable facts, there are no scientific theories.

There are not expectations created by scientific theories, there are explanations of facts. No facts, nothing for the theory to explain, no scientific theory. The theory of evolution is not treated any differently than any other scientific theory. It is fact that evolution occurs, just as gravity occurs. It does so today, so we can safely assume, like gravity, it happened in the past. The details may not all be known perfectly, but that it occurs is known to be factual.
 

Sherlock Holmes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
601
Location
Apache Junction, Arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
It does not matter what advocates of the theory of evolution is called by some advocates.
What are you talking about? did you mean to answer a different post?

All that matters is what it actually is and based upon. It is based upon facts, as all scientific theories are. No scientific theories are based on axioms. Without testable facts, there are no scientific theories.
Your Trumpian tactics won't work with me David, repeating endlessly that "scientific theories are not based on axioms" when every reputable definition of "theory" (including the National Center for Science Education) says the opposite makes you look rather foolish.

I refuse to waste time replying to someone who is unable to distinguish between true and false.
 

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
15,350
Reaction score
3,116
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What are you talking about? did you mean to answer a different post?



Your Trumpian tactics won't work with me David, repeating endlessly that "scientific theories are not based on axioms" when every reputable definition of "theory" (including the National Center for Science Education) says the opposite makes you look rather foolish.

I refuse to waste time replying to someone who is unable to distinguish between true and false.
It is factual that scientific theories are not based on axioms. Provide evidence to the contrary.
 

Sherlock Holmes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
601
Location
Apache Junction, Arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
It is factual that scientific theories are not based on axioms. Provide evidence to the contrary.
I've done so many times and you refuse to acknowledge, this is why I wanted to ask what an "axiom" is or at least what do you understand by the term, this may be a better way to bridge what has become an impasse.
 

Sherlock Holmes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
601
Location
Apache Junction, Arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Igor V. Volovich said:
We shall present a list from seven axioms of quantum mechanics. The axioms are well known from various textbooks but normally they are not combined together. Then, these axioms define an axiomatic quantum mechanical framework. If some proposition is proved in this framework then it could be considered as an assertion in axiomatic quantum mechanics. Of course, the list of the axioms can be discussed but I feel that if we fix the list it can help to clarify some problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics.
Full text of his paper can be found here.
 

Robertinfremont

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
20,234
Reaction score
2,278
Location
Meridian, Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Stephen Jay Gould says that evolution is a scientific fact. Sherlock days it's not. Who to believe?
That one is easy.
If Evolution is actually a FACT, your ancestor is what we see today as bacteria.

Well you might be living as the descendant of some plant.

Wait, a fish

Wait it is just a theory
 

Sherlock Holmes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
601
Location
Apache Junction, Arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Note how David stubbornly refuses to answer the question "what is an axiom" this word seems to really upset him, I noticed this very shortly after we began to exchange posts, he hates "axiom" because it reflects uncertainty, the uncertainty that is inherent in an unprovable assumption and David cannot cope with that, in his world there is no uncertainty, there are no assumptions, only "facts" - if only he knew that that position is itself just an assumption, how much easier all of this would become for him, if only he understood that every theory in science rests upon axioms, unprovable assumptions.

A true phlegmatic would have no aversion to "axiom", they'd not act irrationally when the word was uttered to them.
 

ASHES

A Person
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,091
Reaction score
409
Location
Canada
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
If Evolution is actually a FACT, your ancestor is what we see today as bacteria.

Well you might be living as the descendant of some plant.

Wait, a fish

Wait it is just a theory
No, modern bacteria are not a good example of a common ancestor. We are not descended from what we consider plants today.

We are descendants of gilled aquatic vertebrates, as are all lung breathing terrestrial animals.
 

Robertinfremont

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
20,234
Reaction score
2,278
Location
Meridian, Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No, modern bacteria are not a good example of a common ancestor. We are not descended from what we consider plants today.

We are descendants of gilled aquatic vertebrates, as are all lung breathing terrestrial animals.
Gee the question is for us all. Is that true?

Scientists first question is always, is that true?
 

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
15,350
Reaction score
3,116
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What are you talking about? did you mean to answer a different post?

Your Trumpian tactics won't work with me David, repeating endlessly that "scientific theories are not based on axioms" when every reputable definition of "theory" (including the National Center for Science Education) says the opposite makes you look rather foolish.

I refuse to waste time replying to someone who is unable to distinguish between true and false.
Here is what your authoritative source says. Do you agree?

Evolution

There is no scientific debate about the fundamentals of evolution. Life evolves; species descend with modifications from other species. However, fewer than 50% of American adults know that humans developed from earlier species. The fact of evolution is seen by some as a threat to personal worldviews. Added to this social controversy is a general lack of understanding about what evolution is and how it works. Together, these factors can make it challenging for teachers to present the science honestly, accurately, and completely. NCSE is committed to helping teachers gain the confidence and support they need to teach evolution effectively.
Did they say "the
What are you talking about? did you mean to answer a different post?



Your Trumpian tactics won't work with me David, repeating endlessly that "scientific theories are not based on axioms" when every reputable definition of "theory" (including the National Center for Science Education) says the opposite makes you look rather foolish.

I refuse to waste time replying to someone who is unable to distinguish between true and false.
Here is what your source says about evolution:

Evolution

There is no scientific debate about the fundamentals of evolution. Life evolves; species descend with modifications from other species. However, fewer than 50% of American adults know that humans developed from earlier species. The fact of evolution is seen by some as a threat to personal worldviews. Added to this social controversy is a general lack of understanding about what evolution is and how it works. Together, these factors can make it challenging for teachers to present the science honestly, accurately, and completely. NCSE is committed to helping teachers gain the confidence and support they need to teach evolution effectively.
Did they say the "fact" of evolution?
 

Sherlock Holmes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
2,737
Reaction score
601
Location
Apache Junction, Arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
No, modern bacteria are not a good example of a common ancestor. We are not descended from what we consider plants today.

We are descendants of gilled aquatic vertebrates, as are all lung breathing terrestrial animals.
If the development of life on earth (about 4 billion years) is represented as a 24 hour clock then all we had for the first 21 hours was bacteria, then in the space of 2 minutes the entire range of phyla in the Cambrian appeared.

How can you say that bacteria are not a common ancestor?
 

ASHES

A Person
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,091
Reaction score
409
Location
Canada
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Gee the question is for us all. Is that true?

Scientists first question is always, is that true?
The answer is, yes, that is what all the evidence says, and nothing explains all the evidence better. You can tell because instead of putting forward a better competing theory, they just attack evolution.
 

ASHES

A Person
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,091
Reaction score
409
Location
Canada
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
If the development of life on earth (about 4 billion years) is represented as a 24 hour clock then all we had for the first 21 hours was bacteria, then in the space of 2 minutes the entire range of phyla in the Cambrian appeared.

How can you say that bacteria are not a common ancestor?
Because the bacteria that exist today have also been evolving along their own path the last 4 billion years.
 

watsup

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
2,468
Reaction score
494
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If Evolution is actually a FACT, your ancestor is what we see today as bacteria.

Well you might be living as the descendant of some plant.

Wait, a fish

Wait it is just a theory
No, it’s not “just a theory”. According to evolutionary biologists like Stephen Jay Gould, it is a scientific fact because it is fully accepted as the manner in which life on this planet has come to its present form.
 

Robertinfremont

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
20,234
Reaction score
2,278
Location
Meridian, Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No, it’s not “just a theory”. According to evolutionary biologists like Stephen Jay Gould, it is a scientific fact because it is fully accepted as the manner in which life on this planet has come to its present form.
Well you put a lot of faith in Jay Gould is all I can tell you.
 

Robertinfremont

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
20,234
Reaction score
2,278
Location
Meridian, Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Because the bacteria that exist today have also been evolving along their own path the last 4 billion years.
A very good scientific book on that issue is by Professor William Schopf from UCLA called the Cradle of Life. It is worth studying.
It isn't because Gould said so. It is because the observations, facts, and testing have established it as true, independent of human opinion.
But you mean you studied each and every one of what you mention above in detail?
 
Top Bottom