Facts To Prove The Theory Of Evolution

[Estrid]

I have to speak out in defence of @BeyondET on this point. I studied evolution as part of both my palaeontology and botany undergraduate studies. I had read Origin of Species, seminal works of Theodosius Dobzhansky and George Gaylord Simpson, Colbert's book on Vertebrate evolution, biographies of Darwin, scores, if not hundreds of research papers on the topic, and not once encountered the abbrevisation ToE until joining a science forum sometime around the turn of the millenium. If the premise you base your judgement of BeyondET's knowledge upon is valid, then all that study I did is clearly worthless and quarter of a century ago I lacked knowledge about evolutionary theory. I suggest such was not the case.

Gotta agree here, I'd never heard of
ToE, ( or "evos", or "yec" ) outside of
this or other forums.

 

[Estrid]

I would contend that the internet shorthand of ToE was far less common back then. Today it is much more common; especially in a science thread.

Not knowing "ToE Indicates a lack of familiarity w forum
jarg, not subject matter.

 

[NxNW]

Did you just figure that out?

No.

 

[NxNW]

An estimate is a glorified guess.

If you say so.

 

[Ophiolite]

I would contend that the internet shorthand of ToE was far less common back then. Today it is much more common; especially in a science thread.

Perhaps, but the only place I have ever seen it is on internet forums.

In a related issue, both before and after encountering ToE for the first time, I was professionally involved in extensive report writing and proof reading of the report's of others. It was considered essential, in any report, to ensure that the first time an abbreviation was used it was placed in brackets following the expanded phrase. This was applied rigorously even if the anticipated audience would be aware of the abbreviation, because there is no assurance that will always be true.
I am not suggesting that this practice be use here - the thread is not a report. I am suggesting that we do not make hasty judgements, based upon single instances of ignorance, especially such trivial ones. Focus rather on substantive evidence of clear misunderstanding of evidence and interpretation, not ignorance of some TLA.

 

[Ophiolite]

An estimate is a glorified guess.

An estimate is neither glorified, nor is it a guess.

Unlike your unfamiliarity with the abbreviation ToE, the above statement is very clear evidence of your ignorance of the scientifc method and related terminology. As the saying goes, when one is ignorant of a subject it is best to remain silent and be thought a fool, rather than speak and remove all doubt.

 

[Larniavc]

I am suggesting that we do not make hasty judgements,

Fair.

 

[BeyondET]

An estimate is neither glorified, nor is it a guess.

Unlike your unfamiliarity with the abbreviation ToE, the above statement is very clear evidence of your ignorance of the scientifc method and related terminology. As the saying goes, when one is ignorant of a subject it is best to remain silent and be thought a fool, rather than speak and remove all doubt.

You don't know about slang enough because of course a estimate isn't glorified. like I haven't heard of ToE slang. Doesn't make you or me ignorant just uninformed.

explain what a estimate Is?

Definition
A estimate implies a judgment, considered or casual, that precedes or takes the place of actual measuring or counting or testing out.

Show me places other than here that uses ToE abbreviation in science literature or casual talk. I think the poster came up with it in a split moment. Because it's definitely not used much at all by anybody other than the poster.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I would contend that the internet shorthand of ToE was far less common back then. Today it is much more common; especially in a science thread.

The only "ToE" I know of in common usage in science (and used within the field) was the "Theory of Everything" in physics -- an attempt to build a complete theory of fundamental physics. I don't hear that one as much anymore as ToE-like efforts have been focused on string theory for a couple decades. Now back to our usual content on the theory of (biological) evolution...

 

[eleos1954]

What sort of facts could prove it?

Does anyone have any?

There is information collected ... the information is interpreted in various ways. The information collected don't represent facts they form a basis for interpretation .... and there are many of those ... it's unknown ... only "possible explanations" are brought forth ... that's why it is called theory.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is information collected ... the information is interpreted in various ways. The information collected don't represent facts they form a basis for interpretation .... and there are many of those ... it's unknown ... only "possible explanations" are brought forth ... that's why it is called theory.

I'm pretty sure it's been explained to you multiple times why you're wrong on that.

Do you hold the same view on gravitational theory, germ theory and nuclear theory? That they're all 'only "possible explanations"', or is that only reserved for the theory of evolution?

 

[rambot]

I'm pretty sure it's been explained to you multiple times why you're wrong on that.

Do you hold the same view on gravitational theory, germ theory and nuclear theory? That they're all 'only "possible explanations"', or is that only reserved for the theory of evolution?

or cell theory

 

[Ophiolite]

Error.

 

[Ophiolite]

There is information collected ... the information is interpreted in various ways. The information collected don't represent facts they form a basis for interpretation .... and there are many of those ... it's unknown ... only "possible explanations" are brought forth ... that's why it is called theory.

Others have pointed out why this is a flawed description and understanding of theory. I shall just add, by way of comparison, this observation:
Napoleon was French**, however this description, while reasonably accurate, fails to convey any sense of the character, or importance of the man to history. Likewise, theories do indeed represent possible explanations, but to suggest that is their only important feature, or even an important feature, is to seriously mislead. An informed person would not make this kind of error.

** Or if you favour pedantry, Corsican. (And Hitler was Austrian.)

 

[Estrid]

Others have pointed out why this is a flawed description and understanding of theory. I shall just add, by way of comparison, this observation:
Napoleon was French**, however this description, while reasonably accurate, fails to convey any sense of the character, or importance of the man to history. Likewise, theories do indeed represent possible explanations, but to suggest that is their only important feature, or even an important feature, is to seriously mislead. An informed person would not make this kind of error.

** Or if you favour pedantry, Corsican. (And Hitler was Austrian.)

I'd call it fibbin', with the truth.

Like saying Ms Universe has crooked teeth
and lopsided face.

Like everyone else on earth.

 

[sjastro]

Hopefully the statement scientific theories cannot be proven only disproven has finally made an impression in this thread.
In the hard sciences such as physics which relies heavily on mathematics, has seen the emergence of physics theorems (as opposed to theories) which can be proven.
Theorems and their proofs are in the realm of mathematics but occasionally the theorem has its origins in physics which impacts on the resultant theory.

Here are some examples.

Theorem​	Statement​	Impacted theories​
Virial​	The general relationship between the average over time of the total kinetic energy of a system with its total potential energy.​	Quantum mechanics Special relativity Celestial mechanics Statistical mechanics​
Noether's​	Every continuous symmetry of the action of a physical system with conservative forces corresponds to a conservation law. ​	Newtonian physics. Quantum mechanics. General relativity. Cosmology.​
Birkhoff's​	Any spherically symmetric solution of the vacuum field equations must be static and asymptotically flat.​	General relativity​
Shell​	A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its center. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object’s location within the shell. Inside a solid sphere of constant density, the gravitational force varies linearly with distance from the center, becoming zero at the center of mass​	Newtonian physics.​
Goldstone​	If a continuous symmetry of the Lagrangian (the mathematical description of the system) is spontaneously broken, then there must exist massless particles, known as Goldstone bosons​	Quantum field theories. ​
Equipartition​	The relationship of the temperature of a system to its average energies. ​	Statistical Mechanics Thermodynamics​

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Just had a thought that's only tangentially related to this topic but I got to get it out

I said earlier (possibly in another thread) that "Time is our perception of increasing entropy." My next thought is that the arrow of time, or the tick rate of time is an average of the rate of the increase of entropy relative to the observer. Would this explain why time slows down around massive objects and near the speed of light? Because entropy increases at a slower rate in those situations?

IDK. I'm no physicist or mathematician.

 

[BCP1928]

Just had a thought that's only tangentially related to this topic but I got to get it out

I said earlier (possibly in another thread) that "Time is our perception of increasing entropy." My next thought is that the arrow of time, or the tick rate of time is an average of the rate of the increase of entropy relative to the observer. Would this explain why time slows down around massive objects and near the speed of light? Because entropy increases at a slower rate in those situations?

IDK. I'm no physicist or mathematician.

That sounds really kinky. And are open systems where entropy is decreasing actually moving backwards in time? At the very least your insight could form the basis of an entirely new approach to time travel science fiction.

 

[SelfSim]

tI said earlier (possibly in another thread) that "Time is our perception of increasing entropy."

Hmm .. Entropy is a calculated concept. It may be associated with our perceptions (observations) of states of disorder, randomness or uncertainty, but entropy, itself, cannot be directly observed.

The time concept differs from that, because we first notice that our own minds possess memory, which stores and recalls perceptions. (An example of such perceptions might then be the above mentioned observations of disorder, randomness or uncertainty).
The time concept, is then how we make sense of those memories/recollections.

I don't think entropy necessarily helps us in making sense of our own recollections(?)
In the field of enquiry into thermodynamic principles, the entropy concept helps us explain what happens with changes in other fundamental parameters, (ie: heat and temperature) and the logical consequences of that in our physical models, but making sense of those logical consequences, almost undeniably, requires use of our human memory and its concept of time.
(Try doing it without using memory .. I myself, certainly can't do it!?)

My next thought is that the arrow of time, or the tick rate of time is an average of the rate of the increase of entropy relative to the observer.

The term 'rate' there, invokes time as the basis for arguing an increase in entropy. This suggests (to me) time is more fundamental to us than entropy(?)
Calculating entropy, (in the thermodynamic context, for eg), also requires the concepts of heat and temperature (thermal kinetic energy) to be in place as well .. both of which, again, make use of the time concept.

Would this explain why time slows down around massive objects and near the speed of light? Because entropy increases at a slower rate in those situations?

Space-like singularities lie in the future or past of all events, within a certain region. (One such singularity is theoretically considered as being within a non-rotating, uncharged Schwarzschild black hole). Our theoretical concept of space-time, shifts to being theoretically perceived, as being more space-like. There's little-to-no-more time left to consider there .. and that's why time theoretically appears as slowing down to a standstill.
The concept of forces inducing (the concept of) thermalisation in the proximity of a black hole, allows us to conclude its extremely high entropy, in theory. (Recent direct images the support the theory there also).

Hope all that is reasonable .. and hope it helps(?)
Cheers

 

[sjastro]

Just had a thought that's only tangentially related to this topic but I got to get it out

I said earlier (possibly in another thread) that "Time is our perception of increasing entropy." My next thought is that the arrow of time, or the tick rate of time is an average of the rate of the increase of entropy relative to the observer. Would this explain why time slows down around massive objects and near the speed of light? Because entropy increases at a slower rate in those situations?

IDK. I'm no physicist or mathematician.

Entropy defines the direction of time not the rate at which time elapses.
A scientific and philosophical question is whether the laws of physics time are symmetrical where the arrow of time can be in both directions.
It happens that the second law of thermodynamics is not time symmetrical as the universe is an isolated system hence entropy always increases according to the second law as the universe gets older.

Time slows down due to gravitational time dilation according to general relativity and also depends on the motion of the observer according to special relativity.
A practical application of this are the synchronization of GPS satellite atomic clocks prior to launching as the clocks run faster in orbit due to a combination of general and special relativity effects.
The clocks are set to run at a frequency of 10.22999999543 Mhz prior to launch so they will run at 10.23 Mhz when in orbit which is at the same rate as the atomic clocks on Earth.
The mathematics is described in this post.

Time...? Sound waves, and light waves...?

Time runs more slowly for the accelerated object relative to the unaccelerated one. But when it is returned back to the unaccellerated one, we're sure that time has gone more slowly for the accellerated one, etc...?

www.christianforums.com