Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving?

13»

Comments

  • #102
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    anatalist wrote: »
    if humans evolved from apes, why have apes not evolved.:D

    They evolved into gorillas, chimps, orang-utans and humans. So they did evolve. Evolution is not a sequential line, it's a tree.


  • #103
    anatalist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭anatalist


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    They evolved into gorillas, chimps, orang-utans and humans. So they did evolve. Evolution is not a sequential line, it's a tree.

    Prize for best answer goes to AtomicHorror. Signs of intelligent life are stirrring.

    One more point:

    you have your Ohm's Law
    you have your Boyle's Law
    you have your Charles' Law
    you have your Darwin's Law - oops - that should be 'theory'.


  • #104
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Your post is better suited to the B, C & P thread. This is the last time I ask you to take it there. OK?


  • #105
    anatalist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭anatalist


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Your post is better suited to the B, C & P thread. This is the last time I ask you to take it there. OK?

    I have to hold my hands up on this 'trolling'. What is this? Serious, non-sarcastic answer, please.


  • #106
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316566


  • #107
    anatalist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21 ✭anatalist


    anatalist wrote: »
    I have to hold my hands up on this 'trolling'. What is this? Serious, non-sarcastic answer, please.

    Your're not the real Fanny Cradock, are you? Then make us a cuppa tea, luv.


  • #108
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zap!


  • #109
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    anatalist wrote: »
    Prize for best answer goes to AtomicHorror. Signs of intelligent life are stirrring.

    One more point:

    you have your Ohm's Law
    you have your Boyle's Law
    you have your Charles' Law
    you have your Darwin's Law - oops - that should be 'theory'.

    Laws are expressed as equations. Theories contain multiple such equations. They are models built of multiple laws. For example, the Hardy-Weinberg Law is a part of the theory of evolution. As are Mendel's Laws of inheritance.

    "Theory" does not mean quite what you assume. It does not mean idea, educated guess or conjecture. That's what it means in everyday usage. In science, theory is a model that is accepted as accurately representing reality based on our observations. It is the current framework within which we work. Models are conjecture, hypothesis or theory. Theory is as good as it gets.


  • #110
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    You may have to wait a day for his response. He's has taken a little holiday.


  • #111
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    I can't understand it... I really can't understand it. Why do people like anatalist use terms like law and theory in a scientific context when they have no idea what they mean. It's as frustrating and pointless as me claiming Christianity is wrong because Jesus was an armadillo that demanded hamster sacrifices every bank holiday.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Laws are expressed as equations. Theories contain multiple such equations. They are models built of multiple laws. For example, the Hardy-Weinberg Law is a part of the theory of evolution. As are Mendel's Laws of inheritance.

    Cool, I'd been meaning to ask the distinction for a while now...


  • #113
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    You may have to wait a day for his response. He's has taken a little holiday.

    Yeah... saw that one coming. :pac:
    Morbert wrote: »
    I can't understand it... I really can't understand it. Why do people like anatalist use terms like law and theory in a scientific context when they have no idea what they mean.

    I didn't know myself until after I did my science degree. I had to read up on the philosophy of science and the scientific method on my own initiative. Science education kinda sucks in a lot of schools and universities, or at least sucks in terms of telling you the basics. So people without a science education are in for a tough time too- they have to base it all on the TV and newspapers. Ugh. The horror.


  • #114
    A Primal Nut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    anatalist wrote: »
    if humans evolved from apes, why have apes not evolved.:D

    Human did evolve from apes...therefore apes did evolve. Into gorillas, urang-utans, humans, etc. You seem to think that because some apes evolved into humans, therefore all of them should. But humans are no more evolved than gorillas, monkeys, chimps, etc. They are all on the same level on the evolutionary scale.

    Also, evolution is not just a theory, but an accepted theory by anyone with a slight knowledge of the subject which you clearly don't have. It's not a law, because its not mathematical or definite but occurs with too many variable conditions to make a law out of...human beings aren't a law that doesn't mean they don't exist..please read the answers to your questions carefully (such as from AtomicHorror) before posting again.


  • #115
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    A Primal Nut wrote: »
    Also, evolution is not just a theory, but an accepted theory by anyone with a slight knowledge of the subject which you clearly don't have. It's not a law, because its not mathematical or definite but occurs with too many variable conditions to make a law out of...human beings aren't a law that doesn't mean they don't exist..please read the answers to your questions carefully (such as from AtomicHorror) before posting again.

    The theory contains a number of laws. Whilst randomness is a component of evolution, the process can very much be expressed in mathematical terms. It's just far easier to explain in words.


Advertisement