Anything else besides evolution?

[MustKnow]

Anyone know of any other theories besides evolution and creationism? Im looking for a theory that unifies creation of life and the laws of physics. I find it odd in the world of physics there is a very thin line for an experiment to work or the laws of physics to work, yet in evolution there is a lot of play i.e. mutation -> new being .

[GDG]

Anyone know of any other theories besides evolution and creationism? Im looking for a theory that unifies creation of life and the laws of physics. I find it odd in the world of physics there is a very thin line for an experiment to work or the laws of physics to work, yet in evolution there is a lot of play i.e. mutation -> new being .

 

First problem: creationism is not a theory (nor is "intelligent design"). In some respects, both creationism and ID are "anti-theories", because they cannot be used to make any useful prediction, and cannot be falsified by an experiment.

 

The theory of the origin of life is generally called "abiogenesis" -- you may want to start with that. As for unifying it with the laws of physics, I'm not sure I see the problem. Any scientific theory will of necessity comport with the laws of physics. As a practical matter, however, you may want to start with those branches of "applied physics" known as chemistry and biology.

[MustKnow]

First problem: creationism is not a theory (nor is "intelligent design"). In some respects, both creationism and ID are "anti-theories", because they cannot be used to make any useful prediction, and cannot be falsified by an experiment.

 

The theory of the origin of life is generally called "abiogenesis" -- you may want to start with that. As for unifying it with the laws of physics, I'm not sure I see the problem. Any scientific theory will of necessity comport with the laws of physics. As a practical matter, however, you may want to start with those branches of "applied physics" known as chemistry and biology.

 

 

I dont see how creationism or Id fail to become theories. Some guy says he thinks some form of God created everything, gathers information on the brilliant engineering marvels of science writes up a paper and presents his point of view. Same as Darwin, Darwin wrote about his observations then presented his point of views. I think one of the biggest problem with creationism besides any wholes it might have which Darwinism has too, is people hate religion and thus associate creationism with it. I don't want to get into a big discussion over which is right, discussing the origins of life is as almost as bad as discussing politics or religion.

 

 

 

Do you know of any good science books worth reading? I prefer to read books which leave their views of darwin, or creationism at the door and just focus on the science at hand. Not some bullshit about how after billions of years a microbe grow a brain, from some proteins.

[Mokele]

I dont see how creationism or Id fail to become theories. Some guy says he thinks some form of God created everything, gathers information on the brilliant engineering marvels of science writes up a paper and presents his point of view. Same as Darwin, Darwin wrote about his observations then presented his point of views.

 

But that's not how science works. Science doesn't just think of an idea, then say 'and here's some evidence that's consistent with it', because you can find evidence that supports almost any idea, from the atom to crop circles.

 

Science works by *testing hypotheses*. Take my current work. There is this idea that elastic tendons allow muscles to shorten in more effective ways. So we said, 'OK, if this is true, then when we track the change in muscle length in a jumping frog, it should display a pattern different from the base expectation'. Then we did the experiment, and found out that yes, the pattern is different. But there was a chance the pattern would have been the base expectation, and in that case, we would have said "We were wrong".

 

The point is that a scientific idea is a testable hypothesis which can be proven wrong by the right data. You don't just say 'and this is stuff that seems to support it', you actually go out and do a test that gathers new information, with a pre-specified criterion of 'I am wrong if this happens'.

 

In contrast, creationism/ID just say 'God did it', and then slap some evidence on top of it. Their ideas cannot be tested, because they require divine intervention, and there's no falsification criteria, because 'God works in mysterious ways'. It's an intellectual dead-end.

 

 

 

I know you said you don't want a discussion, but these are fundamental concept of science. Science isn't just a mass of facts, it's a carefully tested series of theories, constantly refined and re-tested. Claiming that creationism is somehow 'equivalent', is like saying that the medieval ideas of balancing the humours and bloodletting are on equal footing with modern medicine. And I'm not just being mean there - in both cases, it's the difference between just finding support for an idea and actually following the scientific method.

[iNow]

The problem seems to be how the OP defines "theory." He seems to think of it like some random idea thought of at a bar at 2AM after several beers and scribbled on the back of a napkin. That's not a "theory" in the scientific sense, it's a conjecture or hypothesis.

 

 

MustKnow - Once you learn the definition of "theory" in the scientific sense, you'll be a lot better prepared to understand the responses to your thread, as well as the data supporting the concepts about which you're asking.

 

 

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

A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:

 

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and

2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

 

The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. These requirements vary across different fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

 

<...>

 

In the sciences generally, theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.

 

A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.

 

A major concern in construction of scientific theories is the problem of demarcation, i.e., distinguishing those ideas that are properly studied by the sciences and those that are not.

 

Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world. However, it is sometimes not clear whether the conclusions derived from the theory inform us about the nature of the world, or the nature of the theory.

 

Theories as models

Main article:

Scientific model

 

Theories are constructed to explain, predict, and master phenomena (e.g., inanimate things, events, or behavior of animals). A scientific theory can be thought of as a model of reality, and its statements as axioms of some axiomatic system. The aim of this construction is to create a formal system for which reality is the only model. The world is an interpretation (or model) of such scientific theories, only insofar as the sciences are true.

[MustKnow]

But that's not how science works. Science doesn't just think of an idea, then say 'and here's some evidence that's consistent with it', because you can find evidence that supports almost any idea, from the atom to crop circles.

 

Science works by *testing hypotheses*. Take my current work. There is this idea that elastic tendons allow muscles to shorten in more effective ways. So we said, 'OK, if this is true, then when we track the change in muscle length in a jumping frog, it should display a pattern different from the base expectation'. Then we did the experiment, and found out that yes, the pattern is different. But there was a chance the pattern would have been the base expectation, and in that case, we would have said "We were wrong".

 

The point is that a scientific idea is a testable hypothesis which can be proven wrong by the right data. You don't just say 'and this is stuff that seems to support it', you actually go out and do a test that gathers new information, with a pre-specified criterion of 'I am wrong if this happens'.

 

In contrast, creationism/ID just say 'God did it', and then slap some evidence on top of it. Their ideas cannot be tested, because they require divine intervention, and there's no falsification criteria, because 'God works in mysterious ways'. It's an intellectual dead-end.

 

 

 

I know you said you don't want a discussion, but these are fundamental concept of science. Science isn't just a mass of facts, it's a carefully tested series of theories, constantly refined and re-tested. Claiming that creationism is somehow 'equivalent', is like saying that the medieval ideas of balancing the humours and bloodletting are on equal footing with modern medicine. And I'm not just being mean there - in both cases, it's the difference between just finding support for an idea and actually following the scientific method.

 

i made a few more replys in this thread, with regards to evolutions. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=489148#post489148

 

 

 

I thought facts are the same as the truth. If I understand correctly you got your data on one hand your evidence then you prove your case. Maybe i am making it too straight forward. I think the grand canyon is a result of a huge amount of water not a small slow creek. I head down to the grand canyon to test my theory make my observations gather data then present my side. I think man has an innate idea of God he is born with. I examine the different cultures i find all cultures have some form of God they worship and i present the data, all cultures of man have some form of God, so they must be born with it.

[mooeypoo]

MustKnow, there's a huge difference between facts and a theory.

 

For example, let's consider this list of facts:

All items were thrown off the roof of my building, at the same height, and at free fall (no initial velocity):

 

• A square brick of 1kg hit the ground in X seconds.
  
• A brown feather of 3mg hit the ground in X+400 seconds.
  
• A yellow feather of 2mg hit the ground in X+600 seconds.
  
• A square brick of 2kg hit the ground in X seconds.
  

Now, we do the experiment again, and gather facts again:

 

• The square brick of 1kg hit the ground in X seconds.
  
• The brown feather of 3mg hit the ground in X+1200 seconds.
  
• The yellow feather of 2mg hit the ground in X+800 seconds.
  
• The square brick of 2kg hit the ground in X seconds.
  

Those were facts, they were recorded accurately and impartially, and, for the sake of argument, accurately according to the scientific method.

 

Now come the observers. They look at the facts and offer theories of their own.

 

• Observer A claims: "Gravity is unpredictable only when it applies to feathers."
  
• Observer B claims: "Gravity is only predictable when it applies to bricks."
  
• Observer C claims: "Bricks of the same mass and shape will hit the ground at the same time."
  

All observers have a theory that is falsifiable and measurable. It can be calculated and it can be either proven consistent (and valid) or falsified (and, well, false). Now come the stage of looking for more evidence.

 

The group splits up and starts throwing random items from various heights, calculating the time it took these items to hit the ground.

 

• A random test group discovers that a piece of paper thrown from a rooftop falls slower than a feather thrown from the same roof top. Their square bricks all hit the ground at the same time.
  

Observer A's theory is hereby falsified. Obviously, according to his logic, gravity is "unpredictable" with paper, as well, and not just with feathers.

 

• Another random test group tries throwing large bottles of water off the roof. All bottles are the same shape and have the same amount (and type) of liquid in them. All bottles hit the ground at the same time.
  

Observer B's theory is hereby falsified. Gravity is not just predictable with bricks, it's also predictable with bottles of water.

 

Meanwhile, all these random observers just added more credibility to Observer C's theory.

 

Now comes the point where the observers and other groups need to consider why these facts produce different results. They need to find the common denominator amongst all of the fact and sift away the "noise". They have the task of revising the theories in a way that will include the exceptions and explain them.

 

And that theory that they will come up with must be falsifiable. If it is not, it's not a theory. If it is, then it's only valid until something comes along to falsify it.

 

 

Theories include facts in them, but they are not the same as facts. A Theory is an explanation of a group of facts. The theory of gravity (which is, indeed, a falsifiable theory) gathers the facts about falling bricks, feathers, humans, and other various items, and explains their behaviour. It is absolutely falsifiable: find an object that disobeys gravity (without using an upward force, that is also explained withint the theory).

 

In fact, when the Apollo mission landed on the moon, they conducted this experiment in the vaccum of space: The astronauts dropped a hammer and a feather from the same height and watched (adn filmed) them fall at the same time - proving that the cause of "unpredictability' of the feathers falling was not due to gravity, but due to the friction with the air.

 

Of course, we already proved that on Earth before, but the gesture in space was quite cool nontheless.

 

 

So. There are facts, and there are theories, and they are not the same. Facts can be analyzed and interpreted differently by different people. The scientific method defines a way to make this analysis as unbiased and logical as possible, and the theory holds until a better one shows to explain facts better.

 

When a theory stands for more than 120 years of rigorous investigation, and not only was it never falsified, more evidence are gathered to support it, it will require a much much bigger counter-theory to oppose it.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is not just a catch phrase, it means that the stronger the theory is that a certain claim pretends to "crush", the more the evidence for such claim needs to be supported.

 

Science is *ABOUT* open mindedness. We just require rigor in our theories. We replace old theories all the time (Einstein vs. Newton / Einstein vs. Lorentz / and more), but we don't just do that because the alternative theory "sounds good", or is "comfortable", or is preferable. We do that after a VERY rigorous process that ensures only the most valid theories to replace current scientific thoughts.

 

~moo

[bob000555]

Do you know of any good science books worth reading? I prefer to read books which leave their views of darwin, or creationism at the door and just focus on the science at hand. Not some bullshit about how after billions of years a microbe grow a brain, from some proteins.

 

I think if you read the seminal book on what is and what isn’t science you will find that the Theory of Evolution is and creationism is not. The book is at the link below and if memory serves it doesn’t even mention Darwin.

http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Scientific-Discovery-Karl-Popper/dp/041507892X

 

Oh and before you go straw manning(that’s right I used straw man as a verb) your way through one of the most important theorys ever conjectured why don’t you read the book below so you can understand what your trying to discredit.

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-150th-Anniversary/dp/0451529065/

Edited May 2, 2009 by bob000555

[Mr Skeptic]

I dont see how creationism or Id fail to become theories.

 

What evidence could be gathered that would prove them false? If the answer is "none", then what you have is an unfalsifiable claim. The problem with unfalsifiable claims is that they don't do much in the way of making predictions. I mean, I suppose you could go about saying what you'd expect from the unfalsifiable claim, but if something else was observed, it would still fit the claim. A proper theory will stick out its neck and make clear predictions.

 

For example, we have retrovirus fragments in our DNA (making up about 8% of our DNA). This is consistent with evolution, as they are just one type of mutation that can happen, so they had darned well better be observed. Evolution would also require that certain patterns be followed by these retroviruses: since they are largely the same in all humans, they must be from one of our common ancestors, the amount of retrovirus DNA should match the expected amount considering the rate at which retroviruses can insert themselves into germ cells, the retrovirus DNA would be subject to mutation so that the amounts of mutation observed in them must match the rate of mutation, and the same applies to the other copies of the virus in other descendants of our common ancestor, ...

 

What would creationism say about the retroviral DNA? Huh, didn't expect that. I guess it must have been due to the curse god put on Adam, or maybe god wanted to pretend evolution was true to test our faith, or (excuses, excuses).