Re: Are Theories Facts?

Elijahovah wrote:
fact or theory is a linguistic issue
Facts and theories are the same, they are both facts.

Nope.

The atomic theory is fact, we just define fact in a scientific way
that says we havent tested it enough yet to prove it fact.

Not even close. Science isn't in the business of proving anything. The only
thing science can do reject or fail to reject an hypothesis.

So too electric theory is fact and yet we dont accept it as fact, we
call it theory unless the testing is sufficient.
Therefore those who call evolution a theory do beleive it as fact
equal to the atomic theory. It isnt fact.

Neither is atomic theory. It is a fact that matter is primarily composed of
atoms. The theory correctly predicts how many electrons and protons atoms
have. But there is much that we don't understand about atoms.

Likewise, evolutionary theory correctly predicts many things (e.g. genomes
of apes will be more similar to cetaceans than fish, closer to fish than
trees, closer to trees than yeasts). As a model, evolutionary theory has
great predictive value.

Evolutionary theory is very complicated. Arguably much moreso than atomic
theory. And the specifics of both are similarly difficult to reign in, but
for different reasons.

The atomic theory is fact, the evolution theory is not.

Atoms are a fact. Atomic theory is a theory. There is a difference. Remember
this the next time you are at a bar, you order a beer and the barkeep brings
you an advert for Guinness.

Evolution fails to produce better organs from mutation, no one has yet
been able to damage and organ by
radiation or chemical to obtain better.

So by your logic, gravitational theory must be false. We observe gravity,
but we have no idea what causes it, much less able are we to reproduce it.
On the other hand, evolutionary theory explains in detail many of the
mechanisms by which mutations can occur.

And to say that we just havent
seen enough damaged changes to
make something better is a real big joke. So natural selection is NOT
evolution, but rather it sorts out and
kills the mutations. Natural selection is God's way to attack

Wait...is it natural or is it a god? It can't be both.

evolution of deformities, it is his way to prevent
damaged mutations from surviving to the point of wiping out halthly
long-lived things. Natural selection kills
deformities, limits them, so they dont become a majority in DNA.

True enough if a mutation is not beneficial. But a beneficial mutation will
be selected for. Are you implying that all mutations are bad?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Natural Selection
    ... > "Natural selection allows the successes, ... "Evolutionary theory requires change by random action alone." ... then centuries of butterfly and moth watchers failed to notice ... which are in fact the majority of mutations, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Can Steven J produce the testable details concerning emergence
    ... Random mutations coupled to natural selection explains ... Very little in evolution is de novo.) ... species and populations, and that evolution took place not slowly over ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Does Natural Selection have the causal power to direct a random source of change towards a fitness
    ... Nucleotide point mutations are random variables in the sense that they ... temperate forest environment or one born into a desert environment. ... "Random natural selection" seems, at ... This also applies to examples of anti-bacterial resistance. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: POTM Nomination: Re: Can Steven J produce the testable details
    ... Random mutations coupled to natural selection explains ... In evolution, "novel" features (as ... species and populations, and that evolution took place not slowly over ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Tuesdays elections
    ... >>>Then the claim that life arose by accident and that all mutations came ... >the use of mass spectrometers to measure the mass of atoms in those ... >of biology (where evolution is defined as there are mutations, ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)