breh insinuated that i bought my ACS mug hours after being told I lied about my membership with them
he let them luken threads go to his head, sounding like a whole fiend
The theory of evolution. Fact or fiction?
- Thread starter Complexion
- Start date
he let them luken threads go to his head, sounding like a whole fiend
Again, a theory will never become a law. That is not how it works.
A theory is comprised of various laws, this is why theories are the highest level of explanations we have in science.
This is due to how science is structured and how integrity works-- no scientist will ever unironically state anything to be 100% true. They will say 99.99%, and that is to allow for future understandings of certain concepts.
However, this context is evolution-- for all intents and purposes, evolution is a LAW, if we're using the correct definition of what a law is, which is an observation:
Natural Selection is the current THEORY for evolution. Evolution is a fact; it's a natural phenomenon that has been observed. The only thing that could possibly change is the explanation, which is natural selection (and a few other theories, I'm being brief for clarity's sake).
The problem is that natural selection is so well supported, it is incredibly unlikely that it will ever be supplanted in the future. But, we still say 99.99%, just in case.
There is a lot wrong with your understanding of this.
- You are not wrong that it is possible to supplant a scientific theory. What you don't seem to understand is that the only thing that could supplant it is ANOTHER SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
- Theories are quite literally the end result of the scientific method. You are confused-- as I stated above, the only thing that will replace a theory is another theory. Nothing else will be in its place. So, while one individual theory is not necessarily the end of that field of study, the concept of the theory IS.
- Perhaps you aren't reading what you are quoting: "...theories are continually improved or modified... so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time". What do you think that means? Your own source is telling you that a theory will still be the best explanation we have for a phenomenon. You're quoting things you clearly do not understand.
As I just showed, no you don't.
Your original premise was that theories haven't yet become laws, but as I've shown, theories don't become laws, EVER. A law is an observation about the world. A theory explains that observation. It's impossible for the explanation to become the observation. This means your premise is faulty from the jump.
Further, you used sources that themselves state a theory is still the end goal of the scientific method. A hypothesis becomes a theory if it can be shown to be true. That's the end.
Theories are refined these days, almost never discarded, and that's because they have been tested thoroughly and to an incredible degree. The only theories these days that end up getting replaced are quantum theories, and that's because we have only just begun to scratch the surface of quantum physics.
Evolution is incredibly well understood, so much so that we can induce it in laboratory settings, and have been for thousands of years with selective breeding of dogs, cats, fish, etc. Again, evolution is not the theory; evolution is an observation. Evolution will never be supplanted in the future-- we will only ever get better at explaining it.
Again, a theory will never become a law. That is not how it works.
A theory is comprised of various laws, this is why theories are the highest level of explanations we have in science.
This is due to how science is structured and how integrity works-- no scientist will ever unironically state anything to be 100% true. They will say 99.99%, and that is to allow for future understandings of certain concepts.
However, this context is evolution-- for all intents and purposes, evolution is a LAW, if we're using the correct definition of what a law is, which is an observation:
Natural Selection is the current THEORY for evolution. Evolution is a fact; it's a natural phenomenon that has been observed. The only thing that could possibly change is the explanation, which is natural selection (and a few other theories, I'm being brief for clarity's sake).
The problem is that natural selection is so well supported, it is incredibly unlikely that it will ever be supplanted in the future. But, we still say 99.99%, just in case.
There is a lot wrong with your understanding of this.
- You are not wrong that it is possible to supplant a scientific theory. What you don't seem to understand is that the only thing that could supplant it is ANOTHER SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
- Theories are quite literally the end result of the scientific method. You are confused-- as I stated above, the only thing that will replace a theory is another theory. Nothing else will be in its place. So, while one individual theory is not necessarily the end of that field of study, the concept of the theory IS.
- Perhaps you aren't reading what you are quoting: "...theories are continually improved or modified... so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time". What do you think that means? Your own source is telling you that a theory will still be the best explanation we have for a phenomenon. You're quoting things you clearly do not understand.
As I just showed, no you don't.
Your original premise was that theories haven't yet become laws, but as I've shown, theories don't become laws, EVER. A law is an observation about the world. A theory explains that observation. It's impossible for the explanation to become the observation. This means your premise is faulty from the jump.
Further, you used sources that themselves state a theory is still the end goal of the scientific method. A hypothesis becomes a theory if it can be shown to be true. That's the end.
Theories are refined these days, almost never discarded, and that's because they have been tested thoroughly and to an incredible degree. The only theories these days that end up getting replaced are quantum theories, and that's because we have only just begun to scratch the surface of quantum physics.
Evolution is incredibly well understood, so much so that we can induce it in laboratory settings, and have been for thousands of years with selective breeding of dogs, cats, fish, etc. Again, evolution is not the theory; evolution is an observation. Evolution will never be supplanted in the future-- we will only ever get better at explaining it.
you conflate genetic variability and variation with evolution. You're using too much smoke and mirror logic, while being heavily pendantici with your explanations. You only refute your own arguement
Theory is not scientific fact, there for it will never be proven. You have proven that in your own posts.
You did.
Oh really? Did you take "thermodynamics class" at College State University?
If you actually knew anything about thermodynamics, you would know it has nothing to do with disproving evolution.
I mean, do you hear yourself?
"Scientists, who understand thermodynamics, don't understand that evolution violates thermodynamics"
You're trying to invoke science to disprove science. Throwing gas on a flame in the hopes of extinguishing it.
I don't respond to juvenile reverse psychology tactics: you are the one that said it violates thermodynamics. I'm here to dispute that claim, but you haven't given anyone anything here to work with, because you clearly don't understand what you're talking about and are repeating the words of grifter creationists.
You will not shift the parameters of the argument.
Explain to everyone here how evolution violates thermodynamics.
I will debunk the claim. Go on.
(Edit-- Spelling, grammar)
Last edited:
tbh your erractic posting is on some the number 23 shytYou did.
aint no damn way id ever spend 50 on a mug let alone more than one (because i have multiple)
just cause you can lie and even worse insinuate other people are lying doesnt make it true. You use hoe tactics because you are a hoe
keep trying to put words in peoples mouthsyou literally make me sick
This is a repackaged "micro-evolution vs macro-evolution".
Small changes to a creature add up over time. After a large enough period of time, that creature will look or behave completely different than its ancestor.
Next.
In other words, you can't refute anything I'm saying. I mean, we all knew that, but thanks for confirming it yourself. 'Preciate you
You're right: scientific theories are not scientific facts-- they explain scientific facts.
2 Up 2 Down
Veteran
Grown ass adults believing creationism in 2023
Grown ass adults believing creationism in 2023
Its really amazing tbh.
who observed the big bang?
many pro evolutionist will try to pass off genetic variation as evolution
Bruh scientists can look at the big bang right now
BigBlackSea
All Star
It's called a 'theory' for a reason. Meaning while it still has strong evidence supporting it, it can't be 100% guaranteed true. That said, we pretty much do know that natural selection was a primary driver of evolution. The only thing stopping it from being a concrete law is that nobody has lived long enough to see it in action. We're literally forced to do detective work with bones.
The theory is that advantageous mutations led to more offsprings carrying the same mutation, but those who didn't make the cut...well Mother Nature sorted them out. So it makes sense.
Science is a lot of guess work. 99% of the time, it requires throwing shyt at the wall and seeing what sticks.
The theory is that advantageous mutations led to more offsprings carrying the same mutation, but those who didn't make the cut...well Mother Nature sorted them out. So it makes sense.
Science is a lot of guess work. 99% of the time, it requires throwing shyt at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Bruh scientists can look at the big bang right now
Phitz either misunderstands these concepts completely, or he is misrepresenting them on purpose.
The reasons scientists understand there was a "Big Bang" is because we have observed the universe (or rather, the things in the universe) expanding.
This means they were all at one point in the past, known as the singularity. When there is too much energy in one place, gravity collapses spacetime, and eventually, it may begin to expand outward, which is the basis of the hypothetical concept of white holes.
but this is one of the grand fallacies of evolution, that the traits we see today are because of mutation when it could be because of the loss of traits
mutation is assumed to have happened, but as you said we have yet to witness a true mutation actually occur. So the assumption of mutation over millions and billions of years is purely conjecture
and another reason evolution is just a proposed theory that has yet to be proven in any measurable way
2 Up 2 Down
Veteran
Some of y'all in here on some "I feel..." "I think..." type shyt with nothing to back up yalls claims. And when presented with evidence not from some rabbit hole YouTube channel y'all get mad and confused and double down on yalls unbacked claims