NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:Typhoon wrote:noddy wrote:the cool bit about evolution is if anyone actually does find evidence that disproves the current theory, it will become the new theory.
aint that nifty.
the fact some folks dont find it convincing or emotionally satisfying isnt relevant, only better theories with more evidence will work.
You've noted a common theme of crackpots with regards to science be it evolution, physics, or chemistry. Also mathematics.
They typically assert that "It's all wrong" without being able being able to offer a coherent alternative theory that accounts for the experimental and/or observational data.
However true this typically is, I think it is a step too far to criticize someone for asserting "it's all wrong" just because they are unable to produce an alternative. Pointing out problems, offering solutions, and creating practical applications from abstractions are three different skills.
no. thats all wrong.
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:noddy wrote:the cool bit about evolution is if anyone actually does find evidence that disproves the current theory, it will become the new theory.
aint that nifty.
the fact some folks dont find it convincing or emotionally satisfying isnt relevant, only better theories with more evidence will work.
Au contraire, it's highly relevant. We do and think what is pleasing to us. Yes, I'm being that obtuse.
If it weren't the case, we wouldn't have Chuck "I saw a duck" Darwin kicking this whole thing off-
natura non facit saltus.
If there arose a rival to the theory of natural selection to explain the facts of evolution tomorrow, it would turn into an extremely emotional battle of supporters and detractors; as there is so much personal identity wrapped up into natural selection [the Darkwins crew] and financial interests [from museums to textbooks] I do not see how a new theory is accepted willingly, merely on the arrival of "more" evidence.
if their is reproducable evidence that a cornerstone of evolution is incorrect and human politics causes that evidence to be smothered then ill accept this thought experiment.
i have no doubt that changing the careers and opinions of many thousands of biologists will be a long hard job if that evidence is not super obvious and easy to replicate.
this however is a completely different story to strawman assertions, 100 year ago simplifications and outright untruths - the things mr p has brought to the table so far
im not knocking people who dont like evolution, i dont think they are stupid, i dont look down on them. i dont think believing in evolution is important.
still, i cant honestly say i think their arguments on this topic are relevant until they make them relevant by showing some basic grasp on the subject matter.
i dont waste my time in theoretical physics arguments because i dont have the time or carefactor to get up to speed on it all, i dont expect anyone to think i have a relevant opinion on it.