/sci/ - Science & Math

>almost 2012
>biology
>hard science
costanza.avi

The scientific community is keen to destroy anything radically different than what they hold to be true. That doesn't pertain just to evolution but to many, if not all fields.

But evolution is a theory just like gravity.

We KNOW gravity exists, just like we KNOW evolution exists

Did he provide any evidence that disputes evolution or it was just "meeh this doesn't feel right"?

We know evolution is real. If a person in a teaching position starts saying it isn't, then he is teaching incorrect things. Then he gets fired and blacklisted.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Seventh-Day%20Adventist/walter_veith_heretic.htm

>>4173920
You are dogding the issue of evolution by focusing too much on Walter Veith.

If a biology teacher is claiming evolution is not true then he is likely to start teaching his students things that are false. Evolution is as close to an objective fact as you get in science. It would be like a physics teacher telling his students gravity is not real.

>>4173933
I don't get the comparison with gravity that people throw all the time with these discussions. Gravity has been observed and its effect has been measured.
Evolution on the other hand hasn't been observed (minor mutations do eccur in all species though) and we don't see its effect in nature at all.

>>4173933
or a history teacher denying existence of ancient aliens

>>4173949
You can see it pretty clearly with bacteria.

>>4173906
>... dealing with the fact that they are putting their academic and scientific pursuit on the line when they start to question the evolution theory.
It's probably because their questions are stupid.

>>4173949
So, how's getting homeschooled working out for you?

>>4173949
>Evolution hasn't been observed or measured

Well, for one, you have fossils and such of our ancestors, but if you need something more recent, then there's always Richard Lenski: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

>>4173949
>Evolution on the other hand hasn't been observed

Are you trolling?

>>4173952
But bacteria are spawns of Satan: they are not mentioned in the bible.

>>4173952
I said that mutations do occur and definitely bacteria do mutate.
More than small changes in the genome (which is nothing more than minor mutations) there is no convincing evidence that for example whales, elephants, giraffes have evolved from non-whales, non-elephants, non-giraffes through intermediate species, let alone human beings evolving from ancient primates.

inb4 200 Posts.

Guys please. Stop feeding the trolls. Each post makes them 10 times stronger

>>4173966
So the fossil record and modern genetics are just made up by those evil biologists eh? Fuck off and stop trolling in such an obvious overdone manner.

>Well, for one, you have fossils and such of our ancestors

How do you know they are your early ancestors? The only thing you know for certain is that they are fossils, the 'fact' that they are our ancestors is pure speculation and interpretation on our part.

>>4173968
lrn2sage

>>4173906
We in the scientific community tend to assassinate the characters and reputations of those who are
1- idiots,
2- or deny basic science because of religious faith.

If they had legitimate evidence, then there would be a legitimate discussion. They have none.

>>4173966
You're mixing evolution with speciation there. Evolution itself certainly is easily observable, even on the macroscopic level. Just think of evolution by artificial selection, like in dog breeding, for example.

gravity doesnt exist

>>4173976
The fossil record is arguably one of the least compelling evidences we have for evolution. The most compelling is probably how the taxonomy tree of life coincides near perfectly with the genetic tree of life.

>>4173966

Dude, we observe large changes in the genome regularly, for example chromosome duplication is really common, and isn't always negative.

So, what were the guy's objections specifically?

>>4173912
>The scientific community is keen to destroy anything radically different than what they hold to be true. That doesn't pertain just to evolution but to many, if not all fields.
Except this is clearly false, as demonstrated by
- Relativity taking over Newtonian mechanics.
- Discovery that there wasn't an ether for light.
- Quantum mechanics in general
- Big bang theory
- Recent discovery that the universe is actually expanding at an increasing speed
- And so on

>>4173984
aspie fet?

>>4173956
public education system:
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

>>4173949
>I don't get the comparison with gravity that people throw all the time with these discussions. Gravity has been observed and its effect has been measured.
>Evolution on the other hand hasn't been observed (minor mutations do eccur in all species though) and we don't see its effect in nature at all.

Both make falsifiable predictions of comparable accuracy and magnitude and both have been verified to comparable degrees. This whole idea that you need "an experiment in a lab" to do science is simply wrong.

>>4173906
>a quite different view as opposed of the evolution theory

If you have a fucked up view, THAT ISN'T SUPPORTED BY FACTS, THEN YOU ARE A DUMBSHIT AND SHOULDN'T BE A SCIENIST.

Scientists will also treat you as a dumbshit.

It is as simple as that OP

\thread

>>4173988
Anyone?

>>4173949
>Evolution on the other hand hasn't been observed

Evolution has been observed actually THOUSANDS OF FUCKING TIMES ALREADY. In nature and also in the Lab. It is fucking fact son, READ A FUCKING BOOK!

>>4174008
Nope. I don't give a shit about some nut jobs views. It actually doesn't matter why either. WRONG IS FUCKING WRONG, it doesn't matter his reasons.

>>4174019
It would just help putting things into perspective. "He opposed evolution" doesn't tell me anything useful.

>>4174019
How do you know know the reasons are wrong, if you haven't heard the reasons before hand?
Doesn't make sense.

amish evolved 6 finger hands. wheres their god now?

>>4174039
How do I know alien abductionists are wrong? Or that religious people are wrong? Because I have used science and inductive reasoning to conclude that people who say "X" are full of shit. Again - future evidence can change my mind, but that appears to be the current state of affairs.

>>4174039
If you reach a shitty fucked up retarded conclusion, IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER YOUR "REASONS". YOUR CONCLUSION IS STILL FUCKING WRONG.

>I don't give a shit about some nut jobs views. It actually doesn't matter why either. WRONG IS FUCKING WRONG, it doesn't matter his reasons.

The above statement is not science or inductive reasoning.

>>4174050
Nope,
bullshit = bullshit
is indeed a mathematically, logically, and scientifically valid statement.

So, anyway, does anyone know what his specific objections were, or how he "started to doubt" the theory?

>>4174056
you're hopeless

>>4174063
I do hope you realize there are more than 2 people in this thread. Just checking. I think at least 4 now.

>>4174050
Actually that is a sound statement, it is the basic "bijection" from basic logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection

Basically, the "guy" starts off with some initial ideas, "I", and formulates a false conclusions, "F".

I => F

Now, we know that the bijection, T => F is false always. Hence "I" must be False, hence F => F.

Hence, since the guy derived a shit claim, he must have started with some shit assumptions. We don't need to know what they were TO ACTUALLY KNOW THEY WERE SHIT!
BASIC LOGIC BRO.

>>4174071
Cock sucking mods - how do they work?

>>4174077

>>4174077
You 'assume' that the conclusions that are derived at are false. Because you are are assuming this without testing or validifying, your line of logic is surely faulthy.

>>4174077
What the bijection from basic logic tells us.

1) It is impossible to form a false statement from just true statements.

2) It is possible to form a true statement from just false statements. If you combine just the right amount/type of bullshit, eventually by coincidence you can get a true statement.

3) It is possible to form a false statement from false statements. This is what common sense you make you suspect.

4) It is possible to form a true statement from true statements. This is what common sense you make you suspect.

>>4174089
I don't "assume" they are false. I know they are false, so do all other scientists. Evolution has already been observed and documented countless fucking times.

It isn't my fucking fault you don't stay apprised of scientific progress son.

>>4174124
It's not his fault either. Maybe his teachers and parents just haven't updated their knowledge since two hundred years ago.

also sage for shit thread