/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4110804
Well, I clicked it. Let's see what they have.

Yep, equating evolution with abiogenesis. One point off.

Bald assertions that evolution isn't scientific. One point off.

Bald assertions that evolution isn't testable. One point off.

More bald false assertions that over time species lose genetic information, and that life cannot come from non-life, and again confusing/conflating evolution and abiogenesis. More points off.

Baldly asserts that evolution by natural selection doesn't exist. Oh that's pro. 10 points off.

Suggests all we have for human evolution is drawings, and not a bazillion fossils and a shitton of genetic evidence. More points off.

Oh boy, again refuting evolution by trying to refute abiogenesis. Man these people are retarded. That's it, there go the rest of the points.

I give it an F.

>>4110808
Oh, and my favorite fallacy, evolution is false implies the bible is true. They need to better read the counter-arguments to Pascal's Wager.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#Criticism
Specifically that there are not just two possible explanations. There's many, and there's no reason to think that the Christians have it right and the Hindus have it wrong.

He uses the exact same reasoning when he says the evolution isn't science that /sci/fags use when they say economics isn't science.

>>4110814
And those are just trolls or idiots who says the study of the economy isn't an empirical science.

>>4110815
They aren't trolls, they get buttmad in arguments too. Being "reproducible in a lab hurr" isn't a prerequisite of science

When did evolution come be scientific FACT as suggested by the video?
I thought it was still theory (a widely embraced theory, yes, but still just a theory).

>>4110826
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Common_misconceptions_about_theories

>>4110827
how about something OTHER than a wiki?

kinda lol'd, it was funnier when I though about ppl actually believing a fast talking man because they are not able to compute that fast lawl

>>4110832
How about you bother to educate yourself by reading ~4 paragraphs instead of being an idiot? It might do you well to not look like a complete retard creationist, because that's what you look like when you say shit like that.

>>4110827

>Wiki

Confirmed for troll.

>>4110839

Fucking TOLD

>>4110839
>>4110844
You misunderstand.
All I'm saying is that wiki's aren't always a very reliable source of information, especially when it includes only a few citations. I'm not necessarily doubting how legitimate the article is.

BTW I personally do believe in evolution.

>>4110847
You don't need cited primary sources to explain the very basics that ought to be covered in first year high school science classrooms.

>>4110847
>>4110849
(I did review it just before I linked to it to make sure it wasn't full of shit, though. Easier than copy-pasting it here.)

>>4110849
Yeah well I guess that's what I get for going to public school.

>>4110826

Ask the fuckface himself, Richard Dawkins. he's forever saying "the scientific fact of evolution". He doesn't even understand what the missing link is.

"We've found the missing link. We're finding new missing links all the time." - Richard Dawkins.

>>4110863
>Disputing evolution
>Claiming we haven't found sufficient fossils of human ancestry.
>Entirely ignorant the other evidence for common ancestry of all life on Earth which is much more compelling than fossils

Yep. Keep being an idiot.

>>4110826
Read popper, Laccan, Kuhn, Chalmers etc...

Okay, now I get it.
In my school they didn't really explain this use of "theory" in this sense.

>>4110868
Will do.

>>4110826
A scientific theory is an explanation for a collection of facts.
Evolution is a fact (we can and have observed change in dna) - Natural selection is a theory that explains the diversity of life through evolution.

>>4110873
>In my school they didn't really explain this use of "theory" in this sense.

A lot of places don't.

Still, for example, if you go into nuclear engineering, you will take courses called "Atomic Theory". There is no point in the future when that class is going to be called "Atomic Fact".

There's two different uses of the word theory. Calling evolution "just a theory" is a sign of ignorance.

>>4110877
>>4110878
Yeah, the definition of "theory" we got wasn't much different than that of "hypothesis". Basically just meaning an idea that wasn't completely proven.

>>4110886
Sorry for being a bitch earlier.

this is the most idiotic person /video I have seen. fuckin shit piss fuck, some people are alive because it's illegal to kill them.
HE DOESNT KNOW A LOT OF SHIT and all he said is lies lies lies lies lies lies lies.

I hope he burts into flames while getting his asshole ripped appart by gigantic dildos with the force of a thousand fists and his balls ripped appart than placed in his eye sockets instead of his eyeballs.

>>4110889
No prob. The trolls are worse anyway.

>>4110891
By which I mean trolls get under my skin more

>>4110808
>Bald assertions that evolution isn't testable. One point off.

The video says that evolution on small time scale is testable and even christians believe it.
The evolution from ape to man is not testable.

>>4110897
First, man didn't evolve from apes. Man and apes evolved from a common ancestor (which was more "ape-like" than "human-like").

Arguably the best evidence we have for the common ancestry part of evolutionary theory is genetic analysis.

We have had the "theory" of taxonomy many centuries before the theory of evolution (or at least before Darwin). Just recently, when we were finally able to sequence the DNA of a shitton of species, we noticed that when we plot the species based on genetic difference, it forms a tree. What's really cool is that it forms the same tree as taxonomy.

This is a falsifiable prediction of evolution. If we started finding a bunch of animals who taxonomy classification didn't match the genetic evidence, then evolution would be wrong.

As another example - just recently were we able to sequence the entire human and chimp genomes. We've known for a long time that we've had a common ancestor with the 3 great ape species. We've also known that the 3 great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. We've had 23. Thus evolution makes the prediction that one pair of human chromosomes should be a near exact fusion of two chimp chromosome pairs. If we find that there isn't such a human chromosome pair, well then human and chimp shared ancestry is wrong. Again, this is a prediction made from evolutionary theory long before we sequenced the two genomes.

When we looked at the sequenced genomes, which was done in the last decade - guess what. Yep, we found that fused pair of chimp chromosomes in the human genome. Exactly as evolution predicts.

That is testing the theory of chimp and human common ancestry. And this is just the beginning, although it's one of the examples much more readily grasped by the lay person.

>>4110897
That's because observational science experiments typically don't last millions of years....

Anyways, arguing with a creationist is like trying to teach differential calculus to a cat. It's physically impossible.

>>4110907
This is not testing the theory, it's just providing more evidence. The evidence tells us that the theory of evolution is not complete bullshit, it even allows us to assume that evolution is the most likely theory so far.
Yet testing means we could make a testable hypothesis and design an experiment. This is impossible for events happening on a millions of years time scale.

>>4110919
I'm sorry. You are mistaken. That is not the commonly accepted definition of scientific theory, model, scientific process, nor test.

Science is the art and practice of learning about the world around us by gathering evidence, using inductive reasoning on the evidence to create models which give falsifiable predictions, and then trying to falsify or verify those models.

There is no requirement of "experiment" in the sense that you're using.

The model of common ancestry have been thoroughly tested, and as we gather more evidence, we more thoroughly test it as the evidence we gather matches the predictions of the model basically every time.

To use not an analogy, but another example. In a court of law, when determining if someone has murdered someone else or not, you would never hear these kinds of stupid retorts if you had him with a bloody shirt, the knife in his pocket, and him on video tape doing the deed.

>>4110919
Evolution HAS been observed and tested
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breeding

It's just impossible to observe one species turning into another on a macro scale because it would take so long.

>>4110926
To continue, by this bad reasoning, you would throw out geology, cosmology, astronomy, plate tectonics, and a broad swath of other sciences.

>ratings disabled
>comments disabled
Yeah, didn't see that coming.

>>4110930
This was exactly my point.

>>4110926
>gathering evidence, using inductive reasoning on the evidence to create models which give falsifiable predictions, and then trying to falsify or verify those models.
Yes, and the theory of evolution is lacking the falsifiable predictions. It is solely based on gathered evidence and inductive reasoning.

>>4110931
That is exaclty why these are considered "softer" sciences.

>>4110942
>plate tectonics
>soft

>>4110948

>>4110942
>Yes, and the theory of evolution is lacking the falsifiable predictions. It is solely based on gathered evidence and inductive reasoning.

I gave you two falsifiable predictions. Here's some more.

1- For every new species we find, its place on the tree of taxonomy will match its place on the genetic tree of life.
2- (Already done) There exists a human chromosome pair which is the fusion of two chimp chromosome pairs.
3- There will be no out of place fossils in the geologic layers, i.e. a pre-cambrian rabbit.
4- All fossils will match and fit in with the broadly established common ancestry tree.
5- There is no case of irreducible complexity. (This one admittingly would be hard to demonstrate due to Orgel's Second Rule.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rule

That enough falsifiable for you?

I lol'd.

Ok. Time to be serious again.

>There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code.

>>4110953
Circular reasoning?

Your point number 2 is result of an observation, not a prediction.
The other points are part of the theory itself.
Waiting for evidence to disprove the theory is not a testable hypothesis.

We've observed evolution happening before our very eyes. Case fucking closed. Natural selection is the theory which isn't falsifiable, but evolution in itself is a fact.

>>4110963
If the evidence would contradict the theory, then yeah, that makes it a testable hypothesis. That's basically the definition of "testable" and "hypothesis". Go suck on a dick.

>>4110963
The Lenski experiments made predictions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

>>4110964
>Natural selection is the theory which isn't falsifiable,
Please stop repeating this. It is very falsifiable.

>>4110964
If you're not retarded, you mean "Natural Selection is the contested theory that was put forward by Darwin, but evolution was directly observed even before that."

>>4110963
>Your point number 2 is result of an observation, not a prediction.

I don't think you understand. Let me say it again, slowly, for the third time.

/Before/ we sequenced the human and chimp genomes, we did not know if one human chromosome pair was a fusion of two chimp chromosome pairs. That is, we were in a state of ignorance over this question with regard to direct evidence. 20 years ago, we did not have these genomes sequenced. 20 years ago, we did have the model of common ancestry. That model predicted that one of the human chromosome pairs is a fusion of two chimp chromosome pairs. Again, this prediction was made decades before it was actually tested and observed.

With this prediction in hand, less than a decade ago, we sequenced both genomes. We found that chromosome pair, and thus the prediction was not falsified.

With me yet?

>>4110963
>Your point number 2 is result of an observation, not a prediction.
It had been predicted *before* it was actually observed.

>>4110970
Look at the theory "c is the upper speed limit".
Just making the prediction "we won't observe anything faster" is not a testable hypothesis.
It just means waiting for serendipity.
Maybe some day we are lucky and observe counter-evidence.
Saying that velocities in a designed experiment won't add up beyond c, although they should, is a testable hypothesis for you can conduct the experiment and measure the results.
Maybe the term "testable" should be refined to "actively testable".

>>4110971
Didn't read the thread?
We're not talking about small scale evolution.

Just drop it, GL. Your position is indefensible.

>>4110982
>Look at the theory "c is the upper speed limit".
>blah blah blah
So, now the Theory of Newtonian Gravity isn't testable? I mean... we just have to wait until one day an object doesn't obey F = MA.

Such an asshat.

>>4110977
Okay, I didn't know that one. Thanks.
My point still stands.

>>4110982
Same shit. Small scale evolution is just large scale evolution given more time. If you can prove it on the bacterial level (which are actually rather large compared to cells), you've proven the theory.

>>4110989
Your point of what? That the model of common ancestry isn't testable? You just agreed with me that it is. Pick one.

>>4110982
>Look at the theory "c is the upper speed limit".
>Just making the prediction "we won't observe anything faster" is not a testable hypothesis.
This is just an issue of phrasing. You could easily turn this into a more readily testable hypothesis by predicting that "every moving object we observe will be moving within this speed range".

>>4110989
No, it doesn't. We've pretty much refuted the fuck out of it.

>>4110988
Nice try troll. I'll give you 4/10.

>>4110990
Nope.
On a small scale it holds because it is observable.
Going from small scale to large scale is something that is not directly observable.
Btw theories are never "proven".

>>4110991
I agreed with you that there was one example of a prediction that was verfied. Please correct me, if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this prediction was based on taking a closer look at the chromosomes and not on the theory of evolution itself.

>>4110995
Hurr?
Your point being what?

>>4111004

Except it is observable. DNA motherfucker.

Here's an explanation of common descent that anybody can understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY

>>4111004
>Your point being what?
I specifically said what my point was, you obstinate asshole. Your example of an untestable hypothesis was shit, because it was only rendered untestable by clumsy phrasing. Rewording it could easily turn it into a more testable prediction.

>>4111011
Except that I don't deny common descent, troll.
DNA is the evidence the theory is based on, it's not result of a test for the theory.

>>4111004
>Nice try troll. I'll give you 4/10.
I wasn't trolling. I was demonstrating how you are being wildly incoherent. The prediction that nothing travels faster than c is quite testable. That's what all the habub about those FTL neutrinos is about.

>Nope.
>On a small scale it holds because it is observable.
>Going from small scale to large scale is something that is not directly observable.
You are making a false dichotomy between those things directly observable and those things only indirectly observable. This is a false dichotomy. Consider atomic theory. No one has ever seen an atom. Instead, atomic theory is wildly successful at making useful (and falsifiable) predictions about observable phenomena.

>Btw theories are never "proven".
Only if we're being excessively pedantic.

>I agreed with you that there was one example of a prediction that was verfied. Please correct me, if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this prediction was based on taking a closer look at the chromosomes and not on the theory of evolution itself.
So, you agree with me that the model of common ancestry is testable, right?

Also, I don't even understand what you just wrote. To test a theory, you test its falsifiable predictions. There is no other kind of testing.

To test the Theory of Newtonian Gravity, you drop a hammer. Is that "looking closely at how the hammer and the Earth interact", or testing the theory itself?

The theory of evolution (which includes the theory of common ancestry) is greatly concerned with the genetics of all living creatures, just as the Theory of Newtonian Gravity is greatly concerned with falling hammers.

You just have a horribly wrong idea of what science is.

>>4111016
Rewording changes nothing. The point is still that there's a difference between testing for a specific hypothesis and passively waiting for conter-evidence.
In your trolly rewording the latter would be "testing every single object in the entire universe whether it behaves according to my theory".

>>4111026
Ok. Here's an experiment. The first object you see, I predict that its (relative) speed will be less than c. There. No passive about it.

If you prefer, here's another experiment. I want you to get the biggest rocket humans have, and launch it. I predict that its (relative) speed will be less than c.

This kind of prediction is easily falsifiable, as exemplified by the whole FTL neutrino stuff at CERN.

>>4111017

>We look at DNA sequencing and find that whales and hippos are closely related.
>We predict that there will be fossil evidence of a whale/hippo ancestor
>we look for a series of transitional fossils from an early Cetartiodactylate to both hippos and whales.
>we find them.

Testable hypotheses motherfucker

>>4111020
>I was demonstrating how you are being wildly incoherent. The prediction that nothing travels faster than c is quite testable. That's what all the habub about those FTL neutrinos is about.
Of course it's testable, that was what my post said.
The neutrino thing on the other hand was an example of said serendipity because the experiment wasn't even designed to prove c as a limit wrong.

>You are making a false dichotomy
The point was less the dichotomy of directly vs indirectly observable and more the dichotomy of having testable predictions vs not having them.

>You just have a horribly wrong idea of what science is.
Maybe you got me there. Gotta think about it.
It's definitely not healthy to mix serious discussion with trolling.

>>4111031
Bullshit. You didn't even read my posts.
I correct my rating up to 6/10.

>>4111026
>The point is still that there's a difference between testing for a specific hypothesis and passively waiting for conter-evidence.
Yes, and my rewording accounts for that by making the *specific* prediction that, whenever we measure the speed of a moving object, it will be moving within a certain range. This isn't passively waiting for counter-evidence. It's giving the hypothesis ("c is the maximum speed limit") active predictive powers.

And stop calling everyone a troll, for fuck's sake. That's just /b/-grade "arguing".

>>4111069
7/10

>>4111082

>>4111042
>>4111042
>>4111042
>>4111042
>>4111042
>>4111042
>>4111042
>>4111042
>>4111042

Ugg, I'm probably making myself look bad now, I've been anon-ing it up in this thread, and goddamnit, how the hell can you compare me to this trash?

Well, back to anon.

>>4111090
>this trash
What do you mean?

>>4111090
By lining you up against other posters and comparing.

>>4111090
By making a list of criteria, and then evaluating both you and trash as pictured here by those criteria.

>>4111090
With a ruler.

GL demonstrating once again that he's just EK without the reaction images.

>>4111088
>still trolling

Is 8/10 okay for you?

>>4111090
Wat?

>>4111090
Both qualitatively and quantitatively..

>>4111107
Fucker, "You're trolling" is not a counterargument. Go suck dicks in hell.

>>4111106
Here, have some shitty reaction image, hun.

>>4111107

trolling? You asked for a testable hypothesis and i gave you a testable hypothesis. Rather than admit you're wrong you just ignore my response and say that I'm trolling.

>>4111112
Ignoring arguments that were posted more than once is a form of trolling.
Yes, I actually assume that you're not that retarded.

>>4111112
He's doing it in a vain attempt to save face.

"I DIDN'T WANT THIS TO BE A SERIOUS DISCUSSION ANYWAY OLOLOLOL".

>>4111090
By making use of various literary devices such as metaphor and analogy.

>>4111128
>>4111109
>>4111103
>>4111101
>>4111095

>>4111090
What? You asked?

>>4110804

GUY IN THE VIDEO SAYS IT IS EVOLUTION IS NOT POSSIBLE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ADD GENETIC CODE, BUT HE TOTALLY IGNORES THE POSSIBILITY OF THE CODE BEING THERE ALL ALONG.

>>4111551
He also ignores that mutation create a diverse genetic code. Even though any one organism doesn't gain genetic information, lots of genes are floating around. If all but those with a particular adaptation are killed, that's pretty significant.

A long while ago I read something about some guy that was trying to make some sort of glass(might be something completely different, but I think it was glass) and accidently created life.

There are some papers on this on the internet and a few other scientists repeat that experiment and got same results, but I can't find it anywhere, and I'm sure it exists.

Anybody knows anything of this? been looking for it for a while.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

>>4111564
This video is great. QualiaSoup is one of my favorite youtube channels.

Hey guys, how is this debate going?
Can I join in?

>>4111584
There is no debate. There's only GL being ignorant, getting called out on it and pretending to have been trolling all along.

Whoa that was fast!!
The video went from promising to utter shit in THIRTY SECONDS FLAT.

I do believe we have a new record.

>>4111596
To be fair, the whole channel belongs to Ken Ham's AnswersInGenesis.com, so there wasn't much promise in the first place.

>>4111603
But that's bias. Not knowing the source, the beginning was promising, with "rational christians will believe in evolution".

Alas, it was not to be.

more substantial evidence here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdk4MqNRqbo&feature=related
/thread

lol'd at the captcha: Cristian edermso