For the alternative theorists:

Oh yesss, our knowledge seems to be growing at an exponential rate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here's another lengthy, many linked summary of Evolution and Abiogenesis.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Another link from the above site......
Not sure if I would go this far, but it highlights what I have been saying [and others] about scientific theories and how their certainties change depending on the evidence, and quality thereof.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory:
by Laurence Moran



When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:


In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."


Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.


Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.


Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.


Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms


much more at.....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Yes, In the main they are discussing evolution, [the same evolution that leopold admits to not accepting] which supports Abiogenesis.

Quite a lot there so those that feel like refuting it have plenty of trees to review and decipher...as long as they don't forget about the forest!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No, I havn't read it all as yet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The part of the evolution that is not taught involves the impact of the water on the formation and progression of life. If you leave out one of the most important variables, that represents about 9 out of very 10 molecules in the cell, the theory can't be right. This is called common sense.

What justification does the consensus theory use to leave out a variable, that represents 90% of the molecules in the cell? There must be a good excuse that indicates we can leave out water and the theory will be perfect as is. Evolution is 150 year old science. That is one of the last old science theories that is left over because of political science and spin. What is the consensus spin that leaves out water?

Water is the second most abundant molecule in the universe, with all its anomalous properties based on hydrogen bonding. Water is the most anomalous substance known to science making it the wild card needed for life. Water is not solely a medium but a metabolic reactant, product, catalyst, chaperone, messenger and controller. The water is essential for bimolecular recognition and orchestrates the cell machinery. The hydrogen bonding within bio-materials mimics the hydrogen bonding within water, since water came first and set the stage yet water is not taken into account.

If we take out water and replace the water with any other solvent, the cell will not work right down to enzymes. The interaction between water and life is key to the activities of life, since all the bio-materials and molecular integration are tuned to the water.

Real science of life will need to take water into full consideration. Real science that does not ignore important variables, but would see modern evolution as an alternate theory being spun as a done deal science. This is why it needs censor in schools. Like other liberal alternate half baked theory, brain washing, propaganda and bullying is needed to overcome the truth of second rate theory.

 

Real science is not ignoring anything.
Real science is doing real science.
Real science has no time to post loads of half truths and unsupported nonsense and then disappear.
Real science are doing the required tests and experiments, using advanced equipment while you sit at youe monitor and keyboard.
Real science as opposed to alternative rubbish and pseudoscience are showing the way.
Real science has no need for delusions of grandeur and tall poppy syndrome to hinder their work.

 

There seems to be an apparent contradiction between the first post in this thread:

And the title of this more recent thing he quoted off of talk.origins.

Isn't Mr. Moran doing precisely what paddoboy told us not to do?

Facts are states of affairs that objectively exist. Hypotheses and theories are something else, they are human-constructed models that endeavor to describe and perhaps even to explain the observed facts.

In other words, it's probably a mistake to imagine 'fact' as something that exists on the same continuum as 'theory', 'hypothesis' and 'speculation'. Theories, hypotheses and speculations can be and oftentimes are wrong. At the very least, they are almost always simplifications of far more complex states of affairs. Facts on the other hand aren't true or false, they just are. Where error enters into our discussions of facts is when we make linguistic statements that 'X is a fact', when in fact it isn't. Our statement 'X is a fact' doesn't itself constitute the fact, rather it's an expression of our conceptual model of the fact.

Obviously something is happening out there in the world. Those are the facts and they are whatever they are.

If we say that the universe changes over time (the broadest definition of 'evolve'), I think that we can all agree that the statement has a very high probability of corresponding to the facts and hence of being true.

If we say instead that biological evolution takes place by natural selection (the 'Darwinian' version of 'evolve'), I'm still inclined to think that the statement is very likely true, but the certainty is significantly lower.

And if we start making statements about how life originally appeared here on Earth, or even about many of the small details of how evolution by natural selection actually progressed over time for particular kinds of organisms, our assertions can be quite speculative and may or may not have a whole lot of resemblance to whatever the facts actually are.

In other words, the "hierarchy of confidence" does exist and I think that virtually all scientists think that it's important to recognize it.

 

Every single molecule in the cell is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons, if you leave out the protons in the theory of evolution it can't be right. Common sense, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@ - Yazata

...concerning your Post #726...

Grok'd!!

 

Right, but saying evolution takes place by natural selection is the theory part.

The fact part is that animals have evolved over the time life has existed on earth.

See the difference?

 

Not really.

It may or may not be a fact that animals have evolved over the time life has existed on earth. That's one thing.

It's another thing when human beings say 'Animals have evolved over the time life has existed on earth'. That's a linguistic expression. It expresses a theory, hypothesis, speculation or whatever we want to call it, that in turn purports to state the facts of the matter. If the facts really do correspond to to what we believe the facts are (and I'm reasonably confident that they do in this case) then our linguistic expression is true.

That's why I don't think that we should conceive of facts as lying on a continuum with beliefs, assertions, theories, hypotheses and speculations. The latter might better be thought of as our conceptual representions of what we believe (with varying degrees of confidence, justification, abstractness and generality) the facts actually are.

 

I would say evolution would be considered a fact by any reasonable person who was shown all of the evidence.

There are people who do not consider it a fact that the earth is not flat or that we went to the moon.

Anyone can obfuscate a point, personally I find it tiring and unproductive.

 

Can we say that there are only two states of physical existence.

b) Devolution by variuos means; Entropy, catastrophy
a) Evolution by verious means: Negentropy, eucatastrophy

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

 

No Yazata, what you are trying to infer is just not on.
Try applying that quality we know as common sense.
If you jump up in the air, what will happen?
Will you keep going or come back down to Earth.....I'm presuming you cannot jump up at 11kms/sec or more.
Of course you'll come back down....That's Newton's theory of gravity....and I don't believe anyone would be jailed for calling it a fact.
I would also review point 10......

[10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:

Now I reiterate for you.......
Evolution is fact.....Abiogenesis is inferred by Evolution....The BB/Inflationary model of Universal evolution also entails life arising from non life.
Both the theories of Evolution and the BB are so near to being fact, that they are sometimes logically considered as fact....particularly Evolution.
As I have stated many times, I ignore the divine deity as a non scientific hypothesis.

 

You don't even need to ignore creationism to conclude that life was/is made from inert materials.

from a theist website.

IMO, it is an inescapable conclusion that life is made from inert material, regardless of the method used.
And if god created man from an animal (hominid), then that would confirm evolution.

 

Inescapable and logically the only conclusion anyone not burdened with some agenda must arrive at.

 

Yes, I am amazed at the stubborn rejection of this, IMO, incontrovertible cosmic evolutionary process.

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

and the origin of hydrogen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)

I believe there is consensus that Hydrogen was absolutely necessary in the formation of life as we know it. Thus Life could not have existed prior to the formation of Hydrogen atom.

 

Summed up beautifully with Sagan's "We were all born in the belly of stars"

 

an we say that the origin of human life was in the belly of Mother Earth or Gaia.

Question: Can we consider the earth (Gaia) as a living organism or just a perfect incubator.? If not, it sure comes close,imo.

 

If I'm standing on the surface of the earth, and if I jump upwards, those are facts. They are actual events, things that happen. If I decelerate rapidly and then accelerate back to the earth's surface, those are facts too.

Newton's theory of gravity is something different. It's a conceptual model that seeks to describe the forces that the earth and I exert on each other, in precise mathematical form, in terms of our masses and the distance between us.

In other words, Newton's theory of gravitation is one of the better accounts that human beings have managed to produce to precisely describe the facts of gravity. But it shouldn't be confused with gravity itself. Countless astronomical bodies were already moving in accordance with gravity for billions of years before Newton was born.

Facts aren't true or false, they just are. (If they aren't, they aren't facts.) Our human linguistic propositions can be true or false. In other words, facts and propositions are fundamentally different kinds of things.

What concerns me about confusing the things that we say about facts with facts themselves is that it threatens to elevate a whole class of human beliefs to effectively inerrant status. Not only that, our confidence that we have in fact identified which of our beliefs are indeed facts seems to be at least in part an expression of our own faith. And condemnations of continued damnable "denial" of these "facts" starts to resemble medieval attacks upon heresy.

There's a weird fundamentalist religious odor in this that worries me a little.

As for me, I'm inclined to say that the facts are whatever the facts are. That's reality (literally). Our job is to understand better what's happening. In doing that, we produce all kinds of descriptions, models, theories and hypotheses. Some of these are more likely than others, some have stronger justification, and we typically have a sliding of scale of confidence regarding them.

But no matter how confident we are in the truth of something that we believe, there's probably always going to be some small chance that it still might be wrong.

 

Yazata I agree with you entirely. No matter how well established a principle or theory becomes, there is a philosophical difference between one of these and a fact. Theories in science MUST remain provisional or they become dogma - which is a religious term and, as such, unscientific.

Of course we treat very well established theories, principles and laws as if they are facts on a day to day basis, whenever we use them, and that's fair enough. But, at the back of his mind, the scientist knows his knowledge of the world consists of models, not necessarily ultimate reality.