DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Link?
That it's a fact, refer to post 95 it's in bold.
So, that's a "consensus" thing for you.
quote:
Here's an experiment for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Didn't see how that applies. Did any of the E. coli change into different forms of life?
quote:
And here are your definitions:
quote:
ORIGINAL: http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
LAW
1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)
2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).
3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).
THEORY
1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)
2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).
3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).
4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].
5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).
6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).
So, what's the difference? Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.
Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science.
You do realize that 3 of the 6 definitions for theory aren't close-ended, right?
Def. #2: Seeking to increase understanding doesn't mean "explain." Either we understand or we don't. We can't increase understanding. We can increase our knowledge, but not our understanding.
Def. #3: An explanation is not necessarily "proof."
Def. #4: You even exposed this one yourself, and it matters not whether you like it, or I like it, or if anyone likes it.
Def. #5: The key? "...accounting for known facts." [bold mine]
Def. #6: As stated earlier, and "explanation" isn't necessarily "proof."
This is exactly what I'm talking about with the Theory of Evolution. Do we know all the facts? Do we have all the data? We have Lucy. Do we have have other skeletal remains? Do we have a clear step by step proof of how we evolved from apes? Without any "gaps?"
Therein lies Evolution's issues. I do not dispute that environmental adaptations occur. I do not dispute that "Survival of the Fittest" is true.
50,000 generations is how many years? 1M? 1.5M? Adaptations galore, yet, no new, biological specie.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Rick Santorum finally speaks truth - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread