Re: EVOLUTION. WAS: Brain Swelling

[Guest guest]

ok...so, I'm not going to bed yet...lol

>

> I'll try to explain my viewpoint without insulting you, but I'm not

sure

> I know how. But bear in mind that I'm trying.

>

> 1] Evolution is only a theory: True. [usually the rest of the

> statement is, " ...and has never been proved. {also true}]

By definition it hasn't been proved...I see no need to be redundant...

> 2] Generally the only person who ever says that does not really know

> what it means, and us typically dismally lacking in a knowledge science

> and how science works.

We begin with a theory based on an accumulation of the existing

knowledge that we do have, and especially assumptions that we have

made...a form of speculation or abstract reasoning...

We develop a hypothesis, very similar to a theory except in this case

we attempt to form an explanation to account for the accumulated

knowledge/accepted facts (the theory)...

At which time, we set the parameters, identifying what particular

tests or further investigation will either prove or disprove the

accumulated facts from the original theory...

This is an extremely overly-simplified explanation of the process...my

background is 'applied science'...yes, in electronics, but not in the

everyday sense that immediately comes to most people's minds...I was

in Electronic Development...I came up with theories to attempt to

solve problems...developed a hypothesis of what might be missing from

that theory and what it would take to provide whatever what

missing...then set the parameters that had to be met to either prove

or disprove my theory/hypothesis (at this stage they do tend to merge

into one)...then I built a prototype to those parameters...then I

tested said prototype, also by the originally specified

parameters...if said prototype fulfilled the requirements of the

parameters originally set forth, we ordered hundreds of prototypes

from a vendor who would make them to our specifications (1 of the

original parameters)...I would then test all of those

prototypes...take the data from those tests...enter it into a computer

and analyze things using charts, graphs, bell curves, tolerances,

distribution etc. We would then compare the analyzed data to the

original theory, verify again that all parameters had been met and

determine whether we were ready to move on, or needed to develop a new

hypothesis, then parameter...If we successfully proved our theory,

then we wrote a report, which would move forward in the process to be

peer reviewed by IEEE board members...

I think I have a relatively good grasp of how science

works...although, I will readily admit, the more I learn, the more I

know there is to learn! ;-)

> 3] All that science provides of this nature are " only " theories; and

> they are never " proved " . They are _supported_ by evidence [or not].

I disagree! If that were true, there would be no development of

anything new...development comes from taking what we already know,

merging that with our now-proved theory (it's no longer a theory now,

as it has become one of the 'facts'), to make something new and

previously unknown. Man would never have walked on the moon if all we

ever did is stay in a 'theoretical state'...

Unfortunately many are as you say in #2, dismally lacking in

understanding of how science works...and therefore, unable to

recognize the difference between the theory and the theory being

falsely passed off as fact...I hear over and over and over again,

Evolution passed off as fact...the 'theory' part has somehow been

dropped from our vernacular...the correct term, which you

acknowledged, is the 'Theory of Evolution'...

> 4] Example: That the earth is [MOL] spherical rather than flat is

> " just " a theory; it has not been proved [in the ultimate scientific

sense].

I haven't studied the science of this, so I won't go there...

> 5] The theory that the earth is round is about as well supported as is

> the theory of evolution.

The earth being round was no longer being supported as 'theory' when I

went to school...it was presented as 'fact'...however, evolution was

still being presented as 'theory'...

> Evolution in some form is literally accepted by the vast majority of

the

> better educated and more intelligent people on earth and is based upon

> solid science, so it really doesn't need me [a person in neither of the

> groups above] to support it. You are welcome to operate from any world

> view that seems appropriate to you and you do not have to justify it to

> me or anyone here. I'll claim the same privilege.

This is only the opinion of some, primarily those who prefer not to

even consider the possibility of 'divine intervention' and would also

prefer to keep others from the opportunity to investigate both and

make an 'educated' decision for themselves...and usually

'self-proclaimed' from my experience.

Of course, I agree, I've only asked you to support your positions with

'fact' in the future, rather than 'theory'...and also said, I will do

the same. For example, in one post, you referred to a doctor as a

'quack', followed by the statement 'after-all, he also believes the

world was created...(I believe is how you worded it)...How does

denigrating his 'belief' support your position that he's a 'quack'? :-/

> I won't ask that you accept evolution,

Neither will I ask that you accept divine intervention...

> but since you enjoy reading I

> would suggest that THE PANDA'S THUMB by J. Gould would probably

> be interesting to you. Better yet, the book he wrote with Niles

> Eldridge that dealt with punctuated equilibrium [i think]. Darned if I

> can remember the title.

It's 'Evidence of Evolution: The Theory of Natural Selection'.

> Regards,

>

Ok...now, I really am going to bed! G'night ;-)

[Guest guest]

, just for the record, I attended the UC School of Law and was a CA

practicing attorney, before I lost half my brain to hypothyroidism and the other

half to my 4 kids  for whom I gave up my career to stay home with.  And even

before hypothyroidism and kids, I did not believe in evolution.  Now, while law

may not be the leading area of research on evolution, UC is well know for

its sciences.  I have heard scientists argue about the Theory of Evolution. 

However, I must say, I have never heard of scientists argue about the earth

being flat (at least not while I went there!)  As I said, science is not my

major.  However, it would be a logical fallacy to say the arguments for

evolution are fact.  Just because A has the same ingredients as B does not mean

that B is derivative of A.  It is just as logical to say that C (being an

intelligent creator) made both B and A.  Also, LOL, I have seen pictures of the

earth looking sphere

shape (whether or not this has been proven with scientific certainty, I don't

know)  but I have never seen a picture of the missing link.  Anyways, I know

this is waaay off topic and I am not trying to change your views, but I wanted

to say, THERE ARE EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS DEBATE ON

EVOLUTION and to say otherwise is ignorant.  I know extremely smart people (yes,

in the field of science) who believe that Darwin inhaled to much turtle poop

 

[Guest guest]

Oh ...I just thoroughly enjoyed (even burst out laughing out loud)

the way you so humorously summed it all up...I tend to lean more to

the serious side, otherwise dry...I needed a good laugh...Thank you!

I'll bet it also didn't take you nearly as long as it did me either... ;-)

I do have to wonder why the most frequent argument I see supporting

the theory of evolution is to attack the intelligence of those who

don't...?

[Guest guest]

Still not in bed??? [ggg] More below...

..

..

>

> Posted by: " cindy.seeley " cindy.seeley@...

>

<mailto:cindy.seeley@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20EVOLUTION%2E%20%20WAS%3A%20Bra\

in%20Swelling>

> cindy.seeley <cindy.seeley>

>

>

> Mon Dec 8, 2008 10:34 pm (PST)

>

> ok...so, I'm not going to bed yet...lol

>

>

> >

> > I'll try to explain my viewpoint without insulting you, but I'm not

> sure

> > I know how. But bear in mind that I'm trying.

> >

> > 1] Evolution is only a theory: True. [usually the rest of the

> > statement is, " ...and has never been proved. {also true}]

>

> By definition it hasn't been proved...I see no need to be redundant...

..

..

True enough. But the usual statement from a creationist [or should I

say " divine interventionist " ?] Is: " Evolution is just a theory; it's

never been proved " . The person making it typically does not know it is

redundant, as you obviously do.

..

..

>

> > 2] Generally the only person who ever says that does not really know

> > what it means, and us typically dismally lacking in a knowledge science

> > and how science works.

>

> We begin with a theory based on an accumulation of the existing

> knowledge that we do have, and especially assumptions that we have

> made...a form of speculation or abstract reasoning...

>

> We develop a hypothesis, very similar to a theory except in this case

> we attempt to form an explanation to account for the accumulated

> knowledge/accepted facts (the theory)...

>

> At which time, we set the parameters, identifying what particular

> tests or further investigation will either prove or disprove the

> accumulated facts from the original theory...

..

..

As you pointed out, you're coming from the applied science viewpoint.

But even then [in electronics design I'm rather surprised if often you

didn't start with a description of the desired end result and then work

through a reasonable method to achieve that desired end. However, I've

never formally worked in electronics design. But I _did_ create a

circuit in a ground canceling metal detector that would also

discriminate between many types of desired and junk targets at a time

when the professionals in the business said it couldn't be done. But I

must admit, it was an extremely simple circuit; and a couple of years

later all of the better models had it.

I would think that in scientific research it would be better to start

with the evidence and begin the speculation/hypothesis/theory process

from that. Then test/modify test again and so on...

..

..

>

> This is an extremely overly-simplified explanation of the process...my

> background is 'applied science'...yes, in electronics, but not in the

> everyday sense that immediately comes to most people's minds...I was

> in Electronic Development...I came up with theories to attempt to

> solve problems...developed a hypothesis of what might be missing from

> that theory and what it would take to provide whatever what

> missing...then set the parameters that had to be met to either prove

> or disprove my theory/hypothesis (at this stage they do tend to merge

> into one)...then I built a prototype to those parameters...then I

> tested said prototype, also by the originally specified

> parameters...if said prototype fulfilled the requirements of the

> parameters originally set forth, we ordered hundreds of prototypes

> from a vendor who would make them to our specifications (1 of the

> original parameters)...I would then test all of those

> prototypes...take the data from those tests...enter it into a computer

> and analyze things using charts, graphs, bell curves, tolerances,

> distribution etc. We would then compare the analyzed data to the

> original theory, verify again that all parameters had been met and

> determine whether we were ready to move on, or needed to develop a new

> hypothesis, then parameter...If we successfully proved our theory,

> then we wrote a report, which would move forward in the process to be

> peer reviewed by IEEE board members...

..

..

In science theories aren't " proved " . They are considered valid, and

accepted as factual if they are well supported by evidence, consistent

with other accepted theories, and not contradicted by anything

considered valid. So the meaning of " proved " is different in scientific

research than it is in other fields. In any event you've gotten far

deeper into it than I have. My career was in electricity and I had to

understand a lot of the basics in order to do that.

..

..

>

> I think I have a relatively good grasp of how science

> works...although, I will readily admit, the more I learn, the more I

> know there is to learn! ;-)

>

> > 3] All that science provides of this nature are " only " theories; and

> > they are never " proved " . They are _supported_ by evidence [or not].

>

> I disagree! If that were true, there would be no development of

> anything new...development comes from taking what we already know,

> merging that with our now-proved theory (it's no longer a theory now,

> as it has become one of the 'facts'), to make something new and

> previously unknown. Man would never have walked on the moon if all we

> ever did is stay in a 'theoretical state'...

..

..

Again, you're looking at it from the applied science perspective. From

that viewpoint and from the viewpoint of us lay persons it is

conclusively proved that the earth is round rather than flat. But in

science and logic in order for something to be " proved " there can be no

alternative explanations, regardless of how remote. And there is a

simple argument that will effectively dispute any " factual " statement

that you care to make.

So the science " facts " that we used to get to the moon are the result of

theories that have not nor can they be proved. And some of these

" facts " may well be slightly different at some point than they are now.

..

..

>

> Unfortunately many are as you say in #2, dismally lacking in

> understanding of how science works...and therefore, unable to

> recognize the difference between the theory and the theory being

> falsely passed off as fact...I hear over and over and over again,

> Evolution passed off as fact...the 'theory' part has somehow been

> dropped from our vernacular...the correct term, which you

> acknowledged, is the 'Theory of Evolution'...

>

> > 4] Example: That the earth is [MOL] spherical rather than flat is

> > " just " a theory; it has not been proved [in the ultimate scientific

> sense].

>

> I haven't studied the science of this, so I won't go there...

>

> > 5] The theory that the earth is round is about as well supported as is

> > the theory of evolution.

>

> The earth being round was no longer being supported as 'theory' when I

> went to school...it was presented as 'fact'...however, evolution was

> still being presented as 'theory'...

..

..

A fact is just something that is generally agreed upon by all those

discussing it or operating within its confines. A fact may be true or

false. Prior to Copernicus it was a well accepted " fact " that the earth

was the center of the universe.

..

..

>

> > Evolution in some form is literally accepted by the vast majority of

> the

> > better educated and more intelligent people on earth and is based upon

> > solid science, so it really doesn't need me [a person in neither of the

> > groups above] to support it. You are welcome to operate from any world

> > view that seems appropriate to you and you do not have to justify it to

> > me or anyone here. I'll claim the same privilege.

>

> This is only the opinion of some, primarily those who prefer not to

> even consider the possibility of 'divine intervention' and would also

> prefer to keep others from the opportunity to investigate both and

> make an 'educated' decision for themselves...and usually

> 'self-proclaimed' from my experience.

..

..

OTOH some _have_ considered " divine intervention " and found it about as

well supported as the tooth fairy. And further have grasped more than a

cursory glimmer of the nature of creation myths.

None of which can invalidate divine intervention; nor does it attempt

to. Science is based upon physical evidence and the mathematical and

theoretical interpretations thereof. Religion is based upon faith. And

IMHO both science and religion have failed to describe a logically

consistent ultimate genesis theory.

..

..

>

> Of course, I agree, I've only asked you to support your positions with

> 'fact' in the future, rather than 'theory'...and also said, I will do

> the same. For example, in one post, you referred to a doctor as a

> 'quack', followed by the statement 'after-all, he also believes the

> world was created...(I believe is how you worded it)...How does

> denigrating his 'belief' support your position that he's a 'quack'? :-/

>

> > I won't ask that you accept evolution,

>

> Neither will I ask that you accept divine intervention...

>

> > but since you enjoy reading I

> > would suggest that THE PANDA'S THUMB by J. Gould would probably

> > be interesting to you. Better yet, the book he wrote with Niles

> > Eldridge that dealt with punctuated equilibrium [i think]. Darned if I

> > can remember the title.

>

> It's 'Evidence of Evolution: The Theory of Natural Selection'.

>

> > Regards,

> >

> Ok...now, I really am going to bed! G'night ;-)

>

..

..

Goodnight,

[Guest guest]

see below...

> >

> > By definition it hasn't been proved...I see no need to be redundant...

> >

>

> The popular meaning of the word " theory " is very different from what

the word means in science. Both definitions are in the dictionary. The

popular definition would be called a " hypothesis " by a scientist. So,

to be clear, the theories of evolution, relativity, plate tectonics,

and quantum mechanics are all well beyond the stage of speculative

hypothesis. To call any of them " just a theory " is abusing the proper

use of the language.

>

> Chuck

hmmm...I looked both up in the dictionary last night just to make sure

wasn't on to something I wasn't aware of... ;-)

....but according to the American Heritage dictionary, 'hypothesis', in

one definition became the same as a theory, which is also more or less

how we used it from an applied science perspective.

I have studied both 'evolution' and 'divine intervention'; I even

attended a 5 day seminar that analyzed both and the odds of each

happening from beginning to present (present being at that time)...of

course, evolution was the only option presented in all of my science

classes throughout school and college. I've studied the history of

the Bible, read several old history (not the 'revised' history being

presented to our kids today, but history books that were written by

the people who actually lived through those times--not to say that the

'modern history' parts of today's history books aren't). I've

searched out ancient historical records, and found

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/index.htm to be a phenomenal website.

This summer I read an old college history book I found in an antique

store... It was 'Medieval History of Europe'...it was absolutely

fascinating!

I found historical records at the previously mentioned website

(translated into English--it would be really slow going, but I can

also understand written French--have done a little bit of

translating--for Nupedia, the root of Wikipedia--I was involved in

that project when it was initially getting off the ground; I'm not

very comfortable with spoken French even though French people have

told me I have an excellent accent...and although I don't read

Spanish, I do understand some orally)...many different perspectives

can be found there.

I never had enough interest to investigate relativity or plate

tectonics...so I wouldn't declare either one to be either 'theory' or

'fact'...I did however assist my husband in writing a semester term

paper in college when the 'theory of quantum mechanics' was in its

infancy, then known as the 'theory of quantum physics'...dial-up

Internet was not even an option back then, so all research really did

depend on a lot of leg work, and miles on the car to travel to

universities to access their libraries for sources for the project.

Scientists were still trying to identify all of the possible

applications 'quantum theory' might be applied to, if they could just

figure out a way to harness it...it was a very intriguing subject to

say the least...my ears/eyes still perk up when I hear 'quantum'

anything new...you've provided me a moment of deja vu (accent on the

e)...I really enjoyed researching that project.

Regarding 'evolution', it was still being presented as a 'theory', in

high school science books, when my youngest daughter graduated last

year...so I guess I'll leave that up to you to take up with the

publishers/authors of those textbooks...

If you, and , haven't already figured it out, I CRAVE learning!

I rarely read fiction books...usually only to force myself to take a

break from some project I've set for myself. This is probably one of

the most disturbing aspects of my own hypoT...how much my brain has to

struggle to learn anything new now...when prior to all of this,

learning anything new was a breeze! It gets very frustrating!!!

[Guest guest]

You seem to not have understood what I wrote; as your implications from

same are inaccurate.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Alaniz " anadonalaniz@...

>

<mailto:anadonalaniz@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20EVOLUTION%2E%20%20WAS%3A%2\

0Brain%20Swelling>

> hypomomof3boys <hypomomof3boys>

>

>

> Tue Dec 9, 2008 8:23 am (PST)

>

> , just for the record, I attended the UC School of Law and

> was a CA practicing attorney, before I lost half my brain to

> hypothyroidism and the other half to my 4 kids for whom I gave up

> my career to stay home with. And even before hypothyroidism and kids,

> I did not believe in evolution. Now, while law may not be the leading

> area of research on evolution, UC is well know for its

> sciences. I have heard scientists argue about the Theory of

> Evolution. However, I must say, I have never heard of scientists

> argue about the earth being flat (at least not while I went there!)

> As I said, science is not my major. However, it would be a logical

> fallacy to say the arguments for evolution are fact. Just because A

> has the same ingredients as B does not mean that B is derivative of

> A. It is just as logical to say that C (being an intelligent

> creator) made both B and A. Also, LOL, I have seen pictures of the

> earth looking sphere

> shape (whether or not this has been proven with scientific certainty,

> I don't know) but I have never seen a picture of the missing

> link. Anyways, I know this is waaay off topic and I am not trying to

> change your views, but I wanted to say, THERE ARE EXTREMELY

> INTELLIGENT PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS DEBATE ON EVOLUTION and to

> say otherwise is ignorant. I know extremely smart people (yes, in the

> field of science) who believe that Darwin inhaled to much turtle poop

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Yes, IF we were working to improve an existing product to add more

capabilities, features or sensitivity to it...OR if we were reverse

engineering a competitor's product...

No, If we were doing a 'feasibility study' to answer a question such

as 'Would it be possible to...', which would possibly lead us a

'proposal' for a new development project...

....

> As you pointed out, you're coming from the applied science viewpoint.

> But even then [in electronics design I'm rather surprised if often you

> didn't start with a description of the desired end result and then work

> through a reasonable method to achieve that desired end.

....

> Goodnight,

>

>