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
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Options
Comments
-
-
-
The main problem you have is that you seem to have forgotten that neo-Darwinism is just a theory.
Any excuse to post this tbh;
Firstly, facts are not included in this hierarchy. Something does not go from hypothesis to theory to fact, it goes from hypothesis to theory with facts used to make that jump. Facts are observed properties of the world.
Secondly, in the traditional science world, a hypothesis comes in this form:
If ... then ... because.
If I hit you, then it will hurt, because your nerve endings translate damage to your body as pain.
With all that out of the way, here's an example of the scientific hierarchy at work:
Hypothesis: If I make a sound underwater, then it will travel slower than it would in air, because water is thick and it takes time for things to move through it.
To prove this hypothesis, we must perform reliable, testable, and repeatable experiments, in which our observed facts may or may not hold up to our hypothesis.
Fact: It takes .05 seconds for a sound generated at point A to be heard at point B, above water. Points A and B will stay the same distance apart throughout this experiment.
Fact: It takes .03 seconds for a sound generated at point A to be heard at point B, below water.
Our original hypothesis has just been disproved.
Because an observed fact just contradicted our hypothesis, that means we must change our hypothesis to fit the data. So:
If I make a sound underwater, then it will travel faster than it would in air, because water and air are made up of particles that carry sound, and in water they're closer together.
This new hypothesis supports the data, so that should be it, right? Wrong. The new hypothesis puts forth an interesting statement: Water and Air are made up of sound-carrying particles. That, in itself, is a hypothesis. So how do we prove it? We devise a cunning and imaginative experiment to prove it!
First, we need another hypothesis we can use to help guide this experiment:
If I make a sound underwater, then it will travel through the water, because sound is a wave translated through the water particles.
Obviously, now we have to show that sound is a wave. Then, we'll have to show that particles transmit waves.
So, let's see how we can show that sound is a wave. According to the equations of wave-dynamics, different frequency waves will set up troughs of cancelation and fortification. In that: sometimes, waves will cancel each other out, and other times they'll fortify themselves; add to themselves. So let's prove that sound does the same thing.
Firstly, let's get a clear plastic tube. In this tube, we will put a bunch of tiny, light, white, ball-like particles. On one end of the tube, we will have two variable sound-transmitters. We set one of these transmitters to emit a sustained note, and we observe a fact: the particles begin to vibrate and move, and arrange themselves into a wave! But we haven't proved anything yet; they may look like a wave, but we haven't shown that they behave according to the set laws of wave dynamics. So we start the other note (carefully tuned to produce the cancelation and fortification effects when it reacts with the first note), and lo and behold, the particles show cancelation and fortification troughs, in the exact frequency the equations of wave-dynamics predict!
So, with one experiment, we've shown that particles can transmit waves, and that sound is a wave.
Back to water and air:
Our third hypothesis, "If I make a sound underwater, then it will travel through the water, because sound is a wave translated through the water particles" has been proven. This should help to support our second hypothesis: "If I make a sound underwater, then it will travel faster than it would in air, because water and air are made up of particles that carry sound, and in water they're closer together". But how do we show that sound travels faster when particles are closer together? We perform experiments and observe facts! (I'm running low on creativity here, so like hell I'm describing another experiment. I'll just give you the results
Fact: In denser materials, particles are closer together, and so have less distance to cover when they bump into each other.
Since waves are transmitted when particles bump into each other, we can show that, since water is denser than air (and so its particles are closer together), a sound wave is transmitted faster through water than air. And so, our hypothesis is proven, and now we have a theory.
Theory: Sound travels faster as the medium gets denser.
This theory will never become fact. Ever. It will always remain theory. Unless, of course, someone can come up with contradictory evidence, in which case we'd have to go through the whole process again to fit the new data.
So, let me say it again:
1. Observed fact.
2. Hypothesis.
3. Contradictory data.
4. New hypothesis.
5. Supportive data.
6. (test, test, test, test ,test!!!)
7. Theory!
8. Contradictory data
9. Hypothesis
Ad infinitum.
Tl;DR: http://readingeggs.co.uk/0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
You're being a bit slippery here.
Yes, there are changes in populations. The length of finchs' beaks change and the colour of peppered moths change. They are facts.
That all life forms descended from a single life form isn't a fact. It can't be proved.
Ok, you say it can't be proved. What's your alternative hypothesis? Scientific, preferably but if you've got something else I'd enjoy hearing it anyway for the comedy value.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
You're being a bit slippery here.
Yes, there are changes in populations. The length of finchs' beaks change and the colour of peppered moths change. They are facts.
That all life forms descended from a single life form isn't a fact. It can't be proved.
Slippery? Moi? I guess you oughta know, what with avoiding everyone's points.
Anyway, just what exactly can't be proven? Is it that we can't prove that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor? Or maybe it's that homininae and ponginae didn't evidently arise from hominidae? Or maybe it's that primatomorpha didn't descend from euarchonta, or maybe euarchonta didn't arise from euarchontoglires? For your suggestion to have any merit there must be some point in our phylogenetic tree where everything breaks down. So where is it?
Here I'll even give you a visual aid so you can point to the spot where evolution fails:
Sorry for the large image but I need it to make my point.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[-0-]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9fe3689003eb73770da7be6d014ea6d5.svg)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement