9th December 2005, 5:02 PM
So we reach the point where you say that it's all basically conjecture. "Where evidence ends we just have to theorize" is a false usage of science.
Face it, you are just being an iconoclast here.
At this point, you are basically arguing the same things intelligent designs proponents argue. First, I just have to say holes in a theory don't invalidate the whole theory or mean you can just make stuff up. The theory of gravity as we understand it has a LOT of holes. Does that mean we must explain all "holes" by invoking "intelligent falling"? Must we actually revert to the Aristotelian view that things fall because "of a desire to be one with the Earth"?
Evolution OR mutation? Mutation is just how we get new genes. Evolution is merely the process by which the genes are selected. It's very simple really. And, as to WHY certain things developed as they do, in some cases we don't have a clear idea of how that came about. In others, it's rather clear. Just be more imaginative. Why does a walking stick look so very convincing right down to actually wiggling about? Think about it. A random mutation that alters color happens often enough. If that color leads to increased survivability, that gene lives on. That's evolution right there. It doesn't need to WANT to change color, that's just how it is.
But, at this point you have basically admitted that you are just hypothesizing at this point. Don't get me wrong, hypothesis is a healthy thing. Just remember that this has to be supported by evidence. Even the failed hypothesis have some value when examined thoroughly by those willing. However, if a road leads to nowhere long enough, eventually it's just best not to even bother until there is reason enough to look into it again.
Rather than state this is a FACT, when it clearly isn't actually viewed as such, merely state you present this potential explanation for the gaps in the theory. How do we test this? Is it falsifiable? What predictions does this make that the previous explanation, mere natural selection, does not make, which we can thus test for?
ALL science involves proper observations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Empiricism is what science actually is. What you are doing is philosophy. Logic is a very important tool, and it can lead to further predictions and more hypothesis, but for it to reach the lofty heights of "theory", it must be tested. The real world sort of plays a part.
Face it, you are just being an iconoclast here.
At this point, you are basically arguing the same things intelligent designs proponents argue. First, I just have to say holes in a theory don't invalidate the whole theory or mean you can just make stuff up. The theory of gravity as we understand it has a LOT of holes. Does that mean we must explain all "holes" by invoking "intelligent falling"? Must we actually revert to the Aristotelian view that things fall because "of a desire to be one with the Earth"?
Evolution OR mutation? Mutation is just how we get new genes. Evolution is merely the process by which the genes are selected. It's very simple really. And, as to WHY certain things developed as they do, in some cases we don't have a clear idea of how that came about. In others, it's rather clear. Just be more imaginative. Why does a walking stick look so very convincing right down to actually wiggling about? Think about it. A random mutation that alters color happens often enough. If that color leads to increased survivability, that gene lives on. That's evolution right there. It doesn't need to WANT to change color, that's just how it is.
But, at this point you have basically admitted that you are just hypothesizing at this point. Don't get me wrong, hypothesis is a healthy thing. Just remember that this has to be supported by evidence. Even the failed hypothesis have some value when examined thoroughly by those willing. However, if a road leads to nowhere long enough, eventually it's just best not to even bother until there is reason enough to look into it again.
Rather than state this is a FACT, when it clearly isn't actually viewed as such, merely state you present this potential explanation for the gaps in the theory. How do we test this? Is it falsifiable? What predictions does this make that the previous explanation, mere natural selection, does not make, which we can thus test for?
ALL science involves proper observations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Empiricism is what science actually is. What you are doing is philosophy. Logic is a very important tool, and it can lead to further predictions and more hypothesis, but for it to reach the lofty heights of "theory", it must be tested. The real world sort of plays a part.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)