For the alternative theorists:

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Evolution as fact and theory:

Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


Digesting the above, I would see Abiogenesis as even more certain.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.notjustatheory.com/


You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.ted.com/conversations/1962/why_don_t_people_believe_the_f.html"

Why don't people believe the fact of evolution?

Biological evolution, the principle that species change over time due to the combination of random mutations and natural selection is a well accepted scientific fact (about a clear a fact as any).

Why do so many people insist on denying it? Why do people feel such a need to protect an archaic world view that they deny science?
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Good questions.

 

yes, and "alien intervention" was the entire point of my post.
a biomolecule from earth would be "alien intervention" if it made it to mars.
why don't you infract posters for making 5 posts in a row and hardly ever comes off with anything original.

 

paddoboy, the ^^above quoted^^ are spurious assertions.

1.) - I have NEVER had one single Thread that I Started "deleted".
Produce evidence to the contrary!

2.) - I have only had ONE of my Threads sent to the "cesspool", as a direct result of YOUR Tro...err, whatever it is that YOU DO incessantly on SciForums.
Again, Produce evidence to the contrary!

Everyone on SciForums is acutely aware of exactly how Knowledgeable you are, paddoboy.
Everyone on SciForums knows "exactly how you practice" the "12 simple procedures" that you, yourself Posted, and that you, yourself demand of everyone else.
Everyone on your SciForums knows exactly how you will respond when given the simple task of following just these Two of your "12 simple procedures" :

paddoboy, I ask you to produce concrete evidence of your spurious assertions.
Simply Man Up.
Produce the evidence that I requested above.

 

As I have told you repeatedly...I also am attracted by Panspermia theory, but I am big enough and ugly enough to realise that it is still speculative....
Abiogenesis and Evolution occurred, as much as you see fit to deny it, and show your angst when you read it.
The details are what is in question...nothing else.

 

Certainly!
I will gladly abide by the rules and decency.

 

beware of false knowledge, it is more dangerous than ignorance [george bernard shaw]

 

If you are referring to me, I see nothing wrong in posting reputable links to support the fact that Evolution and Abiogenesis did occur, in answering your continued inferences and claims that they are just "theories" and your rather boring, often repeated "life from non life is absurd" remark, when it is obvious to everyone else, that it is factual and the only choice we have.

 

why do you refer to them as "little green men"?
i was too.
a biomolecule could be considered a "little green man" in regards to abiogenesis when it hitches a rides on a meteor.
or maybe you are talking about tacks and i'm talking about CD-ROMs.

 

Maybe? sure.
But for the umpteenth time, we have no evidence for it as yet.
All we know for certain, is that Abiogenesis occurred somewhere and Evolution then took hold here on Earth.

 

The following is an interesting little video by a Professor David Deamer: Professor of Chemistry:
University of California, Santa Cruz:
entitled:
Astrobiology and the Origins of Life:
Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaWliRVmytU

 

My bad, Trippy.

I evidently misread, and/or misunderstood, leopolds intent, behind his Post #1615.

I was under the impression that he was 95% in agreement with your response to humbleteleskop's post #1576 :

The remaining 5% being that leopold thought : "alien intervention" has WAY more going for it than divine inspiration.
Especially since he stated "divine inspiration"- instead of "divine intervention" - as you had stated.

In all actuality, Trippy, I only have a basic education in Chemistry and Biology, so I can follow along quite well, but as you probably have noticed I do not Post much input in those areas.

At any rate leopold only "quoted" the one single "Alien intervention" sentence from your Post #1582. I did not realize that he was "Trolling" your whole Post #1582.

I sincerely apologize for any misunderstanding on my part, and for any and all discomfort or insult that you or anyone else experienced that was caused by my misunderstanding of leopolds intent.

If I deserve a "warning" or a "Ban" for my Post, then I should receive a "warning" or a "Ban".

I do not feel that I, dmoe, should be treated differently, in any way, than any other Member of SciForums when it comes to following the "Sciforums - Rules, Posting Guidelines and Advice to Members".

Again, my sincerest apologies for my grievous misunderstanding of leopold's Post #1615.