Theory of evolution or not? Darwinism and concurrency!

[Janic]

subject moved!

Obamot

Quote:
I don't see your interest in tackling Dedeleco in this way, Janic. If you question the theory of evolution, you have to prove it! Personally not being close enough to do it, I leave it to you to give them to us

The problem with any theory is that it is ... a theory?

When you have so many converging hypotheses that lead to the same conclusion, it may be called a theory, it does not invalidate it ...

In biology, for example, it has been proven for a long time:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évolution_(biologie)

There is little more than the phylogenetic tree where we find some hypotheses, but not so much because we doubt this globally, rather out of prudence. Again, if you are a detractor, bring proof that works or at least some protocol (s) that hold water!

But in principle, all options are open, therefore. it is not contradictory to say that a wall is blue if it has the measurable Kelvin degrees corresponding to its color ...

obamot hello

When you have so many converging hypotheses that lead to the same conclusion, it may be called a theory, it does not invalidate it ... In biology, for example, it has already been proven :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évolution_(biologie)

Indeed, as you point out there are convergences from where the use of genetic or other trees and this speech is extremely attractive (if only because any other opinion like the earth is round, the earth does not is not the center of the universe, etc. is considered to be heretical and sectarian).
This kind of convergence was found with HIV and shared by the vast majority of the medical world, and heretics were and are the subject of all the sarcasm of their opponents (genus Dede). So these are not arguments and counter arguments but a simple opposition in principle.
If this step is not taken, everything else is discussed in a vacuum.

Quote:
There is little more than the phylogenetic tree where we find some hypotheses, but not so much because we doubt this globally, rather out of prudence. Again, if you are a detractor, bring proof that works or at least some protocol (s) that hold water!

Same thing: what protocols? Like AIDS, vaccines, nuclear, chemicals and more?

quote:
But in principle, all options are open, therefore. it is not contradictory to say that a wall is blue if it has the measurable Kelvin degrees corresponding to its color ...

I am a technician by training and professional and I know the possibilities and limits of devices designed and manufactured for a well-defined use and not beyond. So a measure is neutral, it does not take sides for or against the use that will be made of it ... humans yes!
So concerning the theory of evolution, it (its interpreters) retains only what goes in this direction and considers that all the grains of sand of the machine are not to be taken into account. However, it is the grains of sand that stop the machines and scientific research also serves to highlight these grains of sand in question. The (somewhat old) example of the coelacanth is ONE of these grains in question.

[Janic]

comparing Darwin and evolutionary Darwinism is like comparing Marx and the communism of Stalin or Mao.
In his work Darwin is very reserved contrary to current evolutionism which is affirmative, even dogmatic.

[Obamot]

This thread is called a pinned pomegranate!

And no need for a new thread, already 115 pages of debate here:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/l-evolutio ... 11282.html

[Janic]

thank you, I had not found!

[dedeleco]

This thread is called a pinned pomegranate!

And no need for a new thread, already 115 pages of debate here:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/l-evolutio ... 11282.html

At least, we agree, and this thread is to stick in the 115 pages, that only I put with real scientific examples of the multitude of facts proving the reality of evolution, which is not a theory but an armada of experimental facts, of all kinds, fossils, geology, embyions, genetics and epigenetics corroborating.

I'm fed up with the religious denial fanatics of the reality of evolution and I stopped feeding in real images, despite many more precise facts observed, the 115 pages would have become 500 pages !!! .

[sen-no-sen]

that only I put

Me, ME, ME, ME, your ego is grossly developed!

It seems to me that many participants put their contributions, to hear you you would be the only guardian of science, faced with creationist feudalism!

[marco3000]

Hello Janic,

I would like to respond to your comment, to point out the fallacies it contains:

"The problem with any theory is that it's ... a theory exactly?" »==> Classic fallacy. When I hear this phrase from critics of the theory of evolution, or of any theory, I often get the impression that they confuse the word "theory" with the word "hypothesis". A theory is the best we can get in Science when we want to model processes in our universe. When we have a theory, it is because we have successfully passed the stage of “hypothesis”. That is to say that we have observations which validate our theory.
The important feature of a theory is its validity. It only takes a single argument, a single inconsistency, to collapse a theory, and when a theory collapses, it is then abandoned on the spot, or reconsidered with the new elements. Believe me, researchers have other things to do than spend a third of their lives (half for the most passionate) doing work and experiments on an invalid theory.
Evolution is a fact (we know undeniably that living beings evolve), the theory of current evolution is the best modeling that we can do of this fact, since it is validated by all of our knowledge (a dozen disciplines go in the same direction, whether it is paleontology, comparative anatomy, embryology, molecular biology, genetics, etc.) and above all NOTHING allows us to refute it today!


"Which protocols? Like those of AIDS, vaccines, nuclear, chemicals and others? »==> It is difficult to understand where you are going with your AIDS and your vaccines. For AIDS I think you are pointing your finger at the errors of JUDGMENT that have been made on this subject, errors that do not come from experimental protocols, or from observation, but simply from neglect and ignorance, in short, because of behaviors that are the opposite of what Science is. So yes, man is often wrong when he tries to speculate on facts that he does not understand. Yes there are dozens of chemicals that we use every day, for which we have no hindsight to assess their effect on the human organism. Yes, in a few years we risk paying for this negligence. And yes, when there is money at stake, scientific rigor disappears. But that has nothing to do with the establishment of a theory which is done according to a very strict and very rigorous framework (already the simple fact that one leaves the industrial framework, completely changes the context). in a theory must be testable and verifiable. Each researcher who performs an experiment and publishes his results, describes precisely the protocol used so that the entire scientific community is able to produce a replication and to confirm or refute the results. Thus, in establishing a theory, it is objectivity that takes precedence: everyone is able to make the same observations.
And you know, the dream of a researcher is not to validate theories with each of his experiences, but on the contrary to be at the origin of a revolution. This is how we leave an imprint in history.

“So concerning the theory of evolution, it (its interpreters) only retains what goes in this direction and considers that all the grains of sand of the machine are not to be taken into account. »==> Unfounded prejudice. The strictly applied scientific method is very rigorous, theories such as that of evolution or of plate tectonics, needed to reach a very solid validity before being accepted.

“The (somewhat old) example of the coelacanth is ONE of those grains in question. »==> No grain of sand here. "Coelacanth" does not designate a species, but a group comprising several species. Today's coelacanth species are different from those of yesteryear (For example, some species have lungs and gills, while others only have gills).
So evolution does not necessarily imply radical changes. If the species live in an environment that remains relatively stable, they will undergo very little genetic change, the genetic variability then remains essentially the same.
Finally, it should also be borne in mind that morphology represents roughly 5% of the genetic heritage, evolution is therefore not judged only on visual resemblance (Blood group, immune system, chemistry of the digestive system, respiratory system, etc ...)

[dedeleco]

Totally agree with marco3000 on those who despise science without understanding it:

Hello Janic,

I would like to respond to your comment, to point out the fallacies it contains:

"The problem with any theory is that it's ... a theory exactly?" »==> Classic fallacy. When I hear this phrase from critics of the theory of evolution, or of any theory, I often get the impression that they confuse the word "theory" with the word "hypothesis". A theory is the best we can get in Science when we want to model processes in our universe. When we have a theory, it is because we have successfully passed the stage of “hypothesis”. That is to say that we have observations which validate our theory.
The important feature of a theory is its validity. It only takes a single argument, a single inconsistency, to collapse a theory, and when a theory collapses, it is then abandoned on the spot, or reconsidered with the new elements. Believe me, researchers have other things to do than spend a third of their lives (half for the most passionate) doing work and experiments on an invalid theory.
Evolution is a fact (we know undeniably that living beings evolve), the theory of current evolution is the best modeling that we can do of this fact, since it is validated by all of our knowledge (a dozen disciplines go in the same direction, whether it is paleontology, comparative anatomy, embryology, molecular biology, genetics, etc.) and above all NOTHING allows us to refute it today!


"Which protocols? Like those of AIDS, vaccines, nuclear, chemicals and others? »==> It is difficult to understand where you are going with your AIDS and your vaccines. For AIDS I think you are pointing your finger at the errors of JUDGMENT that have been made on this subject, errors that do not come from experimental protocols, or from observation, but simply from neglect and ignorance, in short, because of behaviors that are the opposite of what Science is. So yes, man is often wrong when he tries to speculate on facts that he does not understand. Yes there are dozens of chemicals that we use every day, for which we have no hindsight to assess their effect on the human organism. Yes, in a few years we risk paying for this negligence. And yes, when there is money at stake, scientific rigor disappears. But that has nothing to do with the establishment of a theory which is done according to a very strict and very rigorous framework (already the simple fact that one leaves the industrial framework, completely changes the context). in a theory must be testable and verifiable. Each researcher who performs an experiment and publishes his results, describes precisely the protocol used so that the entire scientific community is able to produce a replication and to confirm or refute the results. Thus, in establishing a theory, it is objectivity that takes precedence: everyone is able to make the same observations.
And you know, the dream of a researcher is not to validate theories with each of his experiences, but on the contrary to be at the origin of a revolution. This is how we leave an imprint in history.

“So concerning the theory of evolution, it (its interpreters) only retains what goes in this direction and considers that all the grains of sand of the machine are not to be taken into account. »==> Unfounded prejudice. The strictly applied scientific method is very rigorous, theories such as that of evolution or of plate tectonics, needed to reach a very solid validity before being accepted.

“The (somewhat old) example of the coelacanth is ONE of those grains in question. »==> No grain of sand here. "Coelacanth" does not designate a species, but a group comprising several species. Today's coelacanth species are different from those of yesteryear (For example, some species have lungs and gills, while others only have gills).
So evolution does not necessarily imply radical changes. If the species live in an environment that remains relatively stable, they will undergo very little genetic change, the genetic variability then remains essentially the same.
Finally, it should also be borne in mind that morphology represents roughly 5% of the genetic heritage, evolution is therefore not judged only on visual resemblance (Blood group, immune system, chemistry of the digestive system, respiratory system, etc ...)

A scientific theory sums up millions of experiments studied and reproduced incessantly in our everyday technological devices, portable, TV, cars, planes, laboratories, CERN, etc. as for Maxwell's theory of 1863 which is a reality .

The evolution of living things is a reality, not just theory.
Hidden retroviruses like AIDS are a reality, participating in the evolution of life, found in our bodies that have become essential (for the placenta for example).

[sen-no-sen]

the theory of current evolution is the best modeling that we can do of this fact, since it is validated by all of our knowledge (a dozen disciplines go in the same direction, whether it is paleontology, comparative anatomy, embryology, molecular biology, genetics, etc.) (...)

(...) The species of coelacanths today are different from the species of yesteryear (For example, some species have lungs and gills, while others have only gills).

Absolutely!
marco3000, welcome to the forum!
Note that the above remarks have been made repeatedly in another subject:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/l-evolution-des-especes-biologiques-et-le-hasard-t11282.html

115 pages!

[marco3000]

Absolutely!
marco3000, welcome to the forum!
Note that the above remarks have been made repeatedly in another subject:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/l-evolution-des-especes-biologiques-et-le-hasard-t11282.html

115 pages!

I saw that there was this subject, but I did not have the courage to read these 115 pages.
Anyway, it will always be the same answers since, despite their refutation, it is always the same arguments that we use opponents from all sides ...