Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What if Evolution was false?

Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 3:33:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Evolution, like any scientific theory, can be disproved if evidence is found that contradicts it. The classic example is finding an authentic rabbit fossil in Precambrian rock layers. According to our current theory, rabbits could not have existed then because the environment was unsuitable and their ancestors didn't evolve until later. Finding this fossil would disprove the Theory of Evolution.

So the question is, what would be the political, social and scientific repercussions of this discovery? Post your opinion below.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 3:57:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dude, we have a user named medic who has already convinced us all that evolution
is false with ample sufficient evidence. It's blatantly false.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 5:33:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 3:57:43 AM, tvellalott wrote:
Dude, we have a user named medic who has already convinced us all that evolution
is false with ample sufficient evidence. It's blatantly false.

Either you're taking the piss out of me, or you're all more gullible than I thought.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 6:05:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 5:33:18 AM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/3/2013 3:57:43 AM, tvellalott wrote:
Dude, we have a user named medic who has already convinced us all that evolution
is false with ample sufficient evidence. It's blatantly false.

Either you're taking the piss out of me, or you're all more gullible than I thought.

I would never take the piss out of someone on the internet, ever.

But to seriously answer your question, I believe, like gravity, that evolution has been proven to the point that any evidence could disprove it completely. If something was found that didn't fit into our current understanding of how evolution works, evolution would be modified to account for that discovery. That is the nature of science.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 6:06:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 6:05:46 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 8/3/2013 5:33:18 AM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/3/2013 3:57:43 AM, tvellalott wrote:
Dude, we have a user named medic who has already convinced us all that evolution
is false with ample sufficient evidence. It's blatantly false.

Either you're taking the piss out of me, or you're all more gullible than I thought.

I would never take the piss out of someone on the internet, ever.

But to seriously answer your question, I believe, like gravity, that evolution has been proven to the point that no evidence could disprove it completely. If something was found that didn't fit into our current understanding of how evolution works, evolution would be modified to account for that discovery. That is the nature of science.

Fixed a mistake which makes my entire post nonsensical.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 11:06:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
For me, Evolution is a zombie theory.

I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 4:51:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 6:06:25 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 8/3/2013 6:05:46 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 8/3/2013 5:33:18 AM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/3/2013 3:57:43 AM, tvellalott wrote:
Dude, we have a user named medic who has already convinced us all that evolution
is false with ample sufficient evidence. It's blatantly false.

Either you're taking the piss out of me, or you're all more gullible than I thought.

I would never take the piss out of someone on the internet, ever.

But to seriously answer your question, I believe, like gravity, that evolution has been proven to the point that no evidence could disprove it completely. If something was found that didn't fit into our current understanding of how evolution works, evolution would be modified to account for that discovery. That is the nature of science.

Fixed a mistake which makes my entire post nonsensical.

We could disprove gravity as well. After 300 years we still don't know exactly why objects fall. All we'd need is an observation that contradicts our theory. Here are some examples:

- An object coming OUT of a black hole (disproves Relativity).

- An object that should go into orbit around the Earth failing to do so (disproves Newton).

- An average person throws an apple into outer space without using rockets or other such technology (we can no longer say that what goes up must come down).

Theories aren't sound because they're infallible, quite the opposite. The easier they are to disprove, and the more times we fail to do so, the stronger the theory is.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 5:51:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 4:51:35 PM, Jack212 wrote:
We could disprove gravity as well. After 300 years we still don't know exactly why objects fall.

Lolwut.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 6:18:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 5:51:14 PM, Such wrote:
At 8/3/2013 4:51:35 PM, Jack212 wrote:
We could disprove gravity as well. After 300 years we still don't know exactly why objects fall.

Lolwut.

Basic science.
Scientists don't bother trying to prove theories because this feat is practically impossible since we have limited knowledge. Scientists work to disprove theories and replace them with more accurate ones. All it takes is one experiment or observation.

So yeah, maybe objects or circumstances that contradicts the theory of gravity do exist, but there is no proof they do so the current model is correct so far.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 9:12:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Then we'd have find a new theory that makes sense of things. Which does not include creationism, unless we validated some very ridiculous implications. In which case, the world is even more amusing and has made all of us look stupid once again, which is just great.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 2:59:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 3:33:49 AM, Jack212 wrote:
Evolution, like any scientific theory, can be disproved if evidence is found that contradicts it. The classic example is finding an authentic rabbit fossil in Precambrian rock layers. According to our current theory, rabbits could not have existed then because the environment was unsuitable and their ancestors didn't evolve until later. Finding this fossil would disprove the Theory of Evolution.

Maybe.


So the question is, what would be the political, social and scientific repercussions of this discovery? Post your opinion below.

Religious people would claim it as proof of their beliefs, because logic really matters to them. The scientific world would be confused, but most of what is know about genetics would probably remain.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 3:02:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 4:51:35 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/3/2013 6:06:25 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 8/3/2013 6:05:46 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 8/3/2013 5:33:18 AM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/3/2013 3:57:43 AM, tvellalott wrote:
Dude, we have a user named medic who has already convinced us all that evolution
is false with ample sufficient evidence. It's blatantly false.

Either you're taking the piss out of me, or you're all more gullible than I thought.

I would never take the piss out of someone on the internet, ever.

But to seriously answer your question, I believe, like gravity, that evolution has been proven to the point that no evidence could disprove it completely. If something was found that didn't fit into our current understanding of how evolution works, evolution would be modified to account for that discovery. That is the nature of science.

Fixed a mistake which makes my entire post nonsensical.

We could disprove gravity as well. After 300 years we still don't know exactly why objects fall. All we'd need is an observation that contradicts our theory. Here are some examples:

- An object coming OUT of a black hole (disproves Relativity).

- An object that should go into orbit around the Earth failing to do so (disproves Newton).

- An average person throws an apple into outer space without using rockets or other such technology (we can no longer say that what goes up must come down).

Theories aren't sound because they're infallible, quite the opposite. The easier they are to disprove, and the more times we fail to do so, the stronger the theory is.

The Theory of Gravity would probably just be adapted to account for those anomalies though, unless the laws of Physics just happened to changed, but we'd probably have bigger things to worry about, if we still maintained our ability to worry.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 5:52:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 3:02:13 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The Theory of Gravity would probably just be adapted to account for those anomalies though, unless the laws of Physics just happened to changed, but we'd probably have bigger things to worry about, if we still maintained our ability to worry.

The Flat Earth Society claims that gravity is wrong, and that the force is caused by the world accelerating upwards at 9.8 ms-2. Obviously that's incorrect, but it shows that there are other explanations that don't involve a force of gravity.

Also, if Evolution died then then Genetics would be shot. Genetics only makes sense if Evolution is correct. If rabbits were the first life forms on Earth, then Biology doesn't make sense and must be scrapped.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 5:54:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 5:52:39 AM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/4/2013 3:02:13 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The Theory of Gravity would probably just be adapted to account for those anomalies though, unless the laws of Physics just happened to changed, but we'd probably have bigger things to worry about, if we still maintained our ability to worry.

The Flat Earth Society claims that gravity is wrong, and that the force is caused by the world accelerating upwards at 9.8 ms-2. Obviously that's incorrect, but it shows that there are other explanations that don't involve a force of gravity.

It would be very very unlikely for it to not involve gravity.


Also, if Evolution died then then Genetics would be shot. Genetics only makes sense if Evolution is correct. If rabbits were the first life forms on Earth, then Biology doesn't make sense and must be scrapped.

No.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 3:18:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 5:54:44 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/4/2013 5:52:39 AM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/4/2013 3:02:13 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The Theory of Gravity would probably just be adapted to account for those anomalies though, unless the laws of Physics just happened to changed, but we'd probably have bigger things to worry about, if we still maintained our ability to worry.

The Flat Earth Society claims that gravity is wrong, and that the force is caused by the world accelerating upwards at 9.8 ms-2. Obviously that's incorrect, but it shows that there are other explanations that don't involve a force of gravity.

It would be very very unlikely for it to not involve gravity.

Justification?


Also, if Evolution died then then Genetics would be shot. Genetics only makes sense if Evolution is correct. If rabbits were the first life forms on Earth, then Biology doesn't make sense and must be scrapped.

No.

Actually yes. Genetics rests on the assumption that all organisms share a common ancestor, which was not a rabbit, and that they evolved through natural selection. If a rabbit lived in an environment that was hostile to rabbits, then natural selection is wrong. Without evolution, all of our ideas about inheritance and mutation don't work and are therefore unreliable.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 3:45:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 3:18:50 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/4/2013 5:54:44 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/4/2013 5:52:39 AM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/4/2013 3:02:13 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The Theory of Gravity would probably just be adapted to account for those anomalies though, unless the laws of Physics just happened to changed, but we'd probably have bigger things to worry about, if we still maintained our ability to worry.

The Flat Earth Society claims that gravity is wrong, and that the force is caused by the world accelerating upwards at 9.8 ms-2. Obviously that's incorrect, but it shows that there are other explanations that don't involve a force of gravity.

It would be very very unlikely for it to not involve gravity.

Justification?

All the evidence we have?



Also, if Evolution died then then Genetics would be shot. Genetics only makes sense if Evolution is correct. If rabbits were the first life forms on Earth, then Biology doesn't make sense and must be scrapped.

No.

Actually yes. Genetics rests on the assumption that all organisms share a common ancestor, which was not a rabbit, and that they evolved through natural selection. If a rabbit lived in an environment that was hostile to rabbits, then natural selection is wrong. Without evolution, all of our ideas about inheritance and mutation don't work and are therefore unreliable.

It rests on the assumption that genetic code contains the information for the life it creates. I don't see why if evolution was shown to be incorrect, that this would be also incorrect.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 4:46:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 5:52:39 AM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/4/2013 3:02:13 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
The Theory of Gravity would probably just be adapted to account for those anomalies though, unless the laws of Physics just happened to changed, but we'd probably have bigger things to worry about, if we still maintained our ability to worry.

The Flat Earth Society claims that gravity is wrong, and that the force is caused by the world accelerating upwards at 9.8 ms-2. Obviously that's incorrect, but it shows that there are other explanations that don't involve a force of gravity.

Also, if Evolution died then then Genetics would be shot. Genetics only makes sense if Evolution is correct.

If evolution isn't correct then the field of genetics falls apart? Why do you think that? Genetics makes a lot of sense and there are profound findings outside of evolutionary theory, Genetics would still make sense if evolutionary theory were scrapped, and it would take a lot more than a misplaced rabbit fossil to topple evolution.

If rabbits were the first life forms on Earth, then Biology doesn't make sense and must be scrapped?

If we found a rabbit fossil where it didn't belong then Biology must be scrapped?

This is just nonsense.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 5:15:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 3:45:08 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
All the evidence we have?

No amount of evidence supporting a theory can outweigh an observation that contradicts it.

It rests on the assumption that genetic code contains the information for the life it creates. I don't see why if evolution was shown to be incorrect, that this would be also incorrect.

It wouldn't disprove the existence of genes, but it messes with our understanding of how they work. Inheritance, recombination, mutation, genetic drift, etc, are all based on the assumption that natural selection holds and that disadvantageous genes don't get passed on. If you removed that assumption, you'd have to rebuild the field of Genetics from scratch.

At 8/4/2013 4:46:03 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
If we found a rabbit fossil where it didn't belong then Biology must be scrapped?

This is just nonsense.

Modern Biology is built on the Theory of Evolution. If you have an explanation for how that (hypothetical) rabbit fossil got there that doesn't call Evolution into question, then I would like to hear it.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 6:00:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 5:15:24 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/4/2013 3:45:08 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
All the evidence we have?

No amount of evidence supporting a theory can outweigh an observation that contradicts it.

It could be an anomaly, or it could be orchestrated somehow, or it could mean that the theory needs a correction.


It rests on the assumption that genetic code contains the information for the life it creates. I don't see why if evolution was shown to be incorrect, that this would be also incorrect.

It wouldn't disprove the existence of genes, but it messes with our understanding of how they work. Inheritance, recombination, mutation, genetic drift, etc, are all based on the assumption that natural selection holds and that disadvantageous genes don't get passed on. If you removed that assumption, you'd have to rebuild the field of Genetics from scratch.

Not from scratch.


At 8/4/2013 4:46:03 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
If we found a rabbit fossil where it didn't belong then Biology must be scrapped?

This is just nonsense.

Modern Biology is built on the Theory of Evolution. If you have an explanation for how that (hypothetical) rabbit fossil got there that doesn't call Evolution into question, then I would like to hear it.

Maybe someone planted it. Time travel? It would be a very strange thing to happen, but with all the evidence for evolution, we wouldn't just chuck it straight out the window that quickly over one very strange occurrence. The rabbit would need extensive tests and verification, and so would the surrounding area.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 6:03:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's no such thing as "proving evolution false". If Darwin's specific theory of evolution is INACCURATE, we'd just come up with a new theory that justifies all the evidence we've found over the past 2 centuries. The evidence won't go away; so a scientific theory will not go away.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 6:51:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 6:03:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
There's no such thing as "proving evolution false". If Darwin's specific theory of evolution is INACCURATE, we'd just come up with a new theory that justifies all the evidence we've found over the past 2 centuries. The evidence won't go away; so a scientific theory will not go away.

The laws would actively need to change for the evidence to be invalidated, and we'd have bigger problems if the very laws of nature changed. Either that, or every piece of evidence happened by luck, but what are the chances?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 6:52:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 6:00:28 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
It could be an anomaly, or it could be orchestrated somehow, or it could mean that the theory needs a correction.

We can use statistics to test how likely it is that a rabbit fossil could appear in a "wrong" time period by chance. I imagine that fossil would lie well within the rejection region.

Our scenario assumes that the fossil is legitimate, and not a fraud or hoax.

How would you correct the theory to accommodate a Precambrian rabbit?

Not from scratch.

Justify please.

Maybe someone planted it. Time travel? It would be a very strange thing to happen, but with all the evidence for evolution, we wouldn't just chuck it straight out the window that quickly over one very strange occurrence. The rabbit would need extensive tests and verification, and so would the surrounding area.

As we don't even know if time travel is possible, Occam's Razor suggests it would be more likely that Evolution is incorrect.

Having tested the fossil and area to ensure authenticity, how would you then reconcile it with Evolution? You can't, it contradicts everything.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 6:58:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 6:52:13 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/4/2013 6:00:28 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
It could be an anomaly, or it could be orchestrated somehow, or it could mean that the theory needs a correction.

We can use statistics to test how likely it is that a rabbit fossil could appear in a "wrong" time period by chance. I imagine that fossil would lie well within the rejection region.

Our scenario assumes that the fossil is legitimate, and not a fraud or hoax.

How would you correct the theory to accommodate a Precambrian rabbit?

I don't think I'd be the one to do it.


Not from scratch.

Justify please.

We have knowledge about genetics which is separate from evolution, justify why that would become void.


Maybe someone planted it. Time travel? It would be a very strange thing to happen, but with all the evidence for evolution, we wouldn't just chuck it straight out the window that quickly over one very strange occurrence. The rabbit would need extensive tests and verification, and so would the surrounding area.

As we don't even know if time travel is possible, Occam's Razor suggests it would be more likely that Evolution is incorrect.

And all the evidence suggests that this is some kind of trick or we've made a fundamental mistake somewhere.


Having tested the fossil and area to ensure authenticity, how would you then reconcile it with Evolution? You can't, it contradicts everything.

Evolutionary biology would probably still be useful, since it seems that "by magic" we can still manipulate its effects. So we'd still investigate "evolution", but have in mind that something is probably fundamentally wrong with it.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 7:13:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 5:15:24 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/4/2013 3:45:08 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
All the evidence we have?

No amount of evidence supporting a theory can outweigh an observation that contradicts it.

It rests on the assumption that genetic code contains the information for the life it creates. I don't see why if evolution was shown to be incorrect, that this would be also incorrect.

It wouldn't disprove the existence of genes, but it messes with our understanding of how they work. Inheritance, recombination, mutation, genetic drift, etc, are all based on the assumption that natural selection holds and that disadvantageous genes don't get passed on. If you removed that assumption, you'd have to rebuild the field of Genetics from scratch.
Actually the first three are features of genetics that we use to justify the existence of evolution, not the other way around. Genetic drift is a bit harder but it would conceivably happen even if evolution did not produce more complex and better adapted life forms (or if evolution was not the source of the diversity of life we have today).

At 8/4/2013 4:46:03 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
If we found a rabbit fossil where it didn't belong then Biology must be scrapped?

This is just nonsense.

Modern Biology is built on the Theory of Evolution. If you have an explanation for how that (hypothetical) rabbit fossil got there that doesn't call Evolution into question, then I would like to hear it.
There is a big difference between rejecting evolution wholesale and rejecting it as the 'sole explanation for life on planet Earth'. The latter kind of solution would probably be more likely in the case of this rabbit, some other external force that acts alongside evolution.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 7:14:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Evolution, like any scientific theory, can be disproved if evidence is found that contradicts it.

Jack212: The classic example is finding an authentic rabbit fossil in Precambrian rock layers. According to our current theory, rabbits could not have existed then because the environment was unsuitable and their ancestors didn't evolve until later. Finding this fossil would disprove the Theory of Evolution.

The Fool: Someone is lying to you, because that is not the way in which it is a theory. What you are describing is a hypothesis.

The theory of evolution is better understood as a historical record of how life has branched out on earth to the best of our instruments and evidence. Objective and unbiased historical records, With no "premeditated" Motivation.

It may well be the case that what you have created for yourself, about rabbits, may turn out to be the case, and if we found that fossil it would falsify that one aspect about rabbits. And thus increase and evolve the accuracy of the theory as a whole to continue to grow, change and adapt.

Jack212: So the question is, what would be the political, social and scientific repercussions of this discovery? Post your opinion below.

The Fool:
What makes it a science "as opposed to an ideology and/or religion is that it can "adapt upon new information." It's not a faith where you have fixed principles. It's always to the best of our latest knowledge. It's not Simply ONE Theory but a collection of many, many mini and Rational, theories based from experiments and observations over time. It's like a long growing centipede, that keeps on growing when you damage one area.

Oh don't get me wrong there are Ideologist whom are also Scientist that create, overestimate, cheat and claim MORE without being entitled to the more. But every group has its trash.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 8:16:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 6:58:53 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't think I'd be the one to do it.

You obviously know enough about it to contradict my claim, so try.

We have knowledge about genetics which is separate from evolution, justify why that would become void.

It wouldn't, but the field as a whole would because it's based on Evolution.

And all the evidence suggests that this is some kind of trick or we've made a fundamental mistake somewhere.

Actually, the overwhelming evidence would work against Evolution. If we have a rabbit fossil that has been rigorously tested and shown to be authentic, then all that evidence just makes it harder to modify Evolution because it strongly suggests there should be no Precambrian rabbits. Having two pieces of evidence contradict each other creates a paradox.

Evolutionary biology would probably still be useful, since it seems that "by magic" we can still manipulate its effects. So we'd still investigate "evolution", but have in mind that something is probably fundamentally wrong with it.

Clinging to a debunked theory is religion, not science. Biologists would have two options:

1) Abandon Evolution and build a new theory from scratch.

OR

2) Cling to Evolution despite evidence against it, thus justifying claims from Creationists that Evolution is wrong, and claims from Chemists and Physicists that Biology is "not real science".

More important question for this thread: What would be the Social effects of this fiasco? Would people lose faith in Science altogether? Would there be wars? Suicides? A Christian totalitarian government?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 8:24:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 8:16:54 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/4/2013 6:58:53 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't think I'd be the one to do it.

You obviously know enough about it to contradict my claim, so try.

I don't know what you're saying here.


We have knowledge about genetics which is separate from evolution, justify why that would become void.

It wouldn't, but the field as a whole would because it's based on Evolution.

Nonsense. The field is the totality of the knowledge, how can one become void and the other not?


And all the evidence suggests that this is some kind of trick or we've made a fundamental mistake somewhere.

Actually, the overwhelming evidence would work against Evolution. If we have a rabbit fossil that has been rigorously tested and shown to be authentic, then all that evidence just makes it harder to modify Evolution because it strongly suggests there should be no Precambrian rabbits. Having two pieces of evidence contradict each other creates a paradox.

It could be aliens implanting the evidence, it could be misplanted evidence, or a fake. Sure, evolution would be in the firing line, but for so much evidence to accumulate for it, we wouldn't just instantly abandon the idea.


Evolutionary biology would probably still be useful, since it seems that "by magic" we can still manipulate its effects. So we'd still investigate "evolution", but have in mind that something is probably fundamentally wrong with it.

Clinging to a debunked theory is religion, not science. Biologists would have two options:

It works though. We breed animals in certain ways, and they have certain kinds of children.


1) Abandon Evolution and build a new theory from scratch.

We wouldn't be so quick to just abandon the idea.


OR

2) Cling to Evolution despite evidence against it, thus justifying claims from Creationists that Evolution is wrong, and claims from Chemists and Physicists that Biology is "not real science".

Creationists claims that "evolution is wrong" would be kind of "justified" either way. And foolishly, they would think that such a thing validates their claims. Chemists, Physicists and Biologists banter about this stuff all the time, but they would never claim that one of the fields is truly not a real science.


More important question for this thread: What would be the Social effects of this fiasco? Would people lose faith in Science altogether? Would there be wars? Suicides? A Christian totalitarian government?

Only idiots would "lose faith in science". Why did you capitalise science? There are always wars and suicides. A Christian totalitarian government would still be stupid.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 8:27:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 7:14:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Evolution, like any scientific theory, can be disproved if evidence is found that contradicts it.


Jack212: The classic example is finding an authentic rabbit fossil in Precambrian rock layers. According to our current theory, rabbits could not have existed then because the environment was unsuitable and their ancestors didn't evolve until later. Finding this fossil would disprove the Theory of Evolution.

The Fool: Someone is lying to you, because that is not the way in which it is a theory. What you are describing is a hypothesis.

The theory of evolution is better understood as a historical record of how life has branched out on earth to the best of our instruments and evidence. Objective and unbiased historical records, With no "premeditated" Motivation.

It may well be the case that what you have created for yourself, about rabbits, may turn out to be the case, and if we found that fossil it would falsify that one aspect about rabbits. And thus increase and evolve the accuracy of the theory as a whole to continue to grow, change and adapt.


Jack212: So the question is, what would be the political, social and scientific repercussions of this discovery? Post your opinion below.

The Fool:
What makes it a science "as opposed to an ideology and/or religion is that it can "adapt upon new information." It's not a faith where you have fixed principles. It's always to the best of our latest knowledge. It's not Simply ONE Theory but a collection of many, many mini and Rational, theories based from experiments and observations over time. It's like a long growing centipede, that keeps on growing when you damage one area.

Oh don't get me wrong there are Ideologist whom are also Scientist that create, overestimate, cheat and claim MORE without being entitled to the more. But every group has its trash.

I repeat my question to you then. How could the Theory of Evolution be adapted to accommodate Precambrian rabbits?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 12:28:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The theory of evolution is better understood as a historical record of how life has branched out on earth to the best of our instruments and evidence. Objective and unbiased historical records, With no "premeditated" Motivation.

It may well be the case that what you have created for yourself, about rabbits, may turn out to be the case, and if we found that fossil it would falsify that one aspect about rabbits. And thus increase and evolve the accuracy of the theory as a whole to continue to grow, change and adapt.


Jack212: So the question is, what would be the political, social and scientific repercussions of this discovery? Post your opinion below.

The Fool:
What makes it a science "as opposed to an ideology and/or religion is that it can "adapt upon new information." It's not a faith where you have fixed principles. It's always to the best of our latest knowledge. It's not Simply ONE Theory but a collection of many, many mini and Rational, theories based from experiments and observations over time. It's like a long growing centipede, that keeps on growing when you damage one area.

Oh don't get me wrong there are Ideologist whom are also Scientist that create, overestimate, cheat and claim MORE without being entitled to the more. But every group has its trash.


Jack212:-----> I repeat my question to you then. How could the Theory of Evolution be adapted to accommodate Precambrian rabbits?<--------------

The Fool: I have a Question too. If jack helped you of the horse would you help jack off the Horse?

Early On the Very Same Page.
Jack212: ------------------>>>>>>>>>>>>So the question is, what would be the political, social and scientific repercussions of this discovery? Post your opinion below.<<--

The Fool: ah, but a question is always an admittance of ignorance, is it not. The very opposite of an argument. But you can't possibly be twice as ignorant, with more information, so you must've just missed the answer the first time, or have projected yourself over it. Or perhaps you just read the last line, because it resonated more with your presumptions and personal biases. . Perhaps"--

Earlier on this very same page....
The Fool: Oh don't get me wrong, there are Ideologiest whom are also Scientist that create, overestimate, cheat and claim MORE without being entitled to the more. But every group has its trash.

The Fool: --Perhaps. There was at least 5 individual explanation packed in there. And like a kind mother, I even chopped it up in many mini- segments for easy digest. So you wouldn't have to concatenate more than 3 sentences in one serving. And although we are children of our parents, we ought not remain their children.

"Concatenate," means join together. <(86)
Just in case.

The Fool: First off, it is "us" who gives things, their Labels. We call a rabbit a "rabbit" because of a certain set of consistent features "we perceive it to have", Not the other way around. (Hint: doctor Doolittle is just a movie.)

Theories in Natural Science work by matching the most consistent sets of observed features with other observed feature to form the best possible Continuum. With the Least amount of assumptions.

Thus what makes a Species, is based on whatever categorization system WE assign TO ACCOUNT for it. It doesn't matter what we call it, it's a matter of keeping the best possible consistency through similar things and demarcations between different things"

Fool Fact. ...Species Is just an Aristotelian Category. "It just mean a Kind of Thing."

The Fool: A logical ideal. Would be to categorize what is most like under the same terms and what is different under different terms. Self-explanatory. I think.
<(86)

That is, we might confuse them to be more alike from a limited perspective of what we know about them, because of us shared set of features.

For example, we may classify, organisms.. as the same species, because their phenotype, that is how they look on the outside, is similar. However, we might find out that their genotype, what they look like on the inside, is a more consistent and thus closer relation. Upon doing so, A.k.a. Upon new information" we change the classification, system to match " the new information". It is "US" that define what the Term rabbit refers to. And that is a very process by which we understand what a rabbit is at all".science itself is simply the constant refining of information.

The Fool: or maybe that was a bit too. True. . Perhaps I owe it to you to be more digestible.

Jack212: How could the Theory of Evolution be adapted to accommodate Precambrian rabbits?----

The Fool: It wouldn't, because it would be more consistent than our notion of Precambrian RABBITS , and therefore our understanding of what Constitutes A RABBIT WOULD CHANGE. BANG!!

I like surprise endings..

<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 1:01:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/5/2013 12:28:23 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The theory of evolution is better understood as a historical record of how life has branched out on earth to the best of our instruments and evidence. Objective and unbiased historical records, With no "premeditated" Motivation.

It may well be the case that what you have created for yourself, about rabbits, may turn out to be the case, and if we found that fossil it would falsify that one aspect about rabbits. And thus increase and evolve the accuracy of the theory as a whole to continue to grow, change and adapt.


Jack212: So the question is, what would be the political, social and scientific repercussions of this discovery? Post your opinion below.

The Fool:
What makes it a science "as opposed to an ideology and/or religion is that it can "adapt upon new information." It's not a faith where you have fixed principles. It's always to the best of our latest knowledge. It's not Simply ONE Theory but a collection of many, many mini and Rational, theories based from experiments and observations over time. It's like a long growing centipede, that keeps on growing when you damage one area.

Oh don't get me wrong there are Ideologist whom are also Scientist that create, overestimate, cheat and claim MORE without being entitled to the more. But every group has its trash.


Jack212:-----> I repeat my question to you then. How could the Theory of Evolution be adapted to accommodate Precambrian rabbits?<--------------

The Fool: I have a Question too. If jack helped you of the horse would you help jack off the Horse?

Early On the Very Same Page.
Jack212: ------------------>>>>>>>>>>>>So the question is, what would be the political, social and scientific repercussions of this discovery? Post your opinion below.<<--

The Fool: ah, but a question is always an admittance of ignorance, is it not. The very opposite of an argument. But you can't possibly be twice as ignorant, with more information, so you must've just missed the answer the first time, or have projected yourself over it. Or perhaps you just read the last line, because it resonated more with your presumptions and personal biases. . Perhaps"--

Earlier on this very same page....
The Fool: Oh don't get me wrong, there are Ideologiest whom are also Scientist that create, overestimate, cheat and claim MORE without being entitled to the more. But every group has its trash.

The Fool: --Perhaps. There was at least 5 individual explanation packed in there. And like a kind mother, I even chopped it up in many mini- segments for easy digest. So you wouldn't have to concatenate more than 3 sentences in one serving. And although we are children of our parents, we ought not remain their children.

"Concatenate," means join together. <(86)
Just in case.

The Fool: First off, it is "us" who gives things, their Labels. We call a rabbit a "rabbit" because of a certain set of consistent features "we perceive it to have", Not the other way around. (Hint: doctor Doolittle is just a movie.)

Theories in Natural Science work by matching the most consistent sets of observed features with other observed feature to form the best possible Continuum. With the Least amount of assumptions.

Thus what makes a Species, is based on whatever categorization system WE assign TO ACCOUNT for it. It doesn't matter what we call it, it's a matter of keeping the best possible consistency through similar things and demarcations between different things"

Fool Fact. ...Species Is just an Aristotelian Category. "It just mean a Kind of Thing."

The Fool: A logical ideal. Would be to categorize what is most like under the same terms and what is different under different terms. Self-explanatory. I think.
<(86)

That is, we might confuse them to be more alike from a limited perspective of what we know about them, because of us shared set of features.

For example, we may classify, organisms.. as the same species, because their phenotype, that is how they look on the outside, is similar. However, we might find out that their genotype, what they look like on the inside, is a more consistent and thus closer relation. Upon doing so, A.k.a. Upon new information" we change the classification, system to match " the new information". It is "US" that define what the Term rabbit refers to. And that is a very process by which we understand what a rabbit is at all".science itself is simply the constant refining of information.

The Fool: or maybe that was a bit too. True. . Perhaps I owe it to you to be more digestible.

Jack212: How could the Theory of Evolution be adapted to accommodate Precambrian rabbits?----

The Fool: It wouldn't, because it would be more consistent than our notion of Precambrian RABBITS , and therefore our understanding of what Constitutes A RABBIT WOULD CHANGE. BANG!!

I like surprise endings..

<(8D)

You spent all that time writing out a response that makes no sense and uses semantics? No wonder you're a fool.