Would a living Dinosaur disprove Evolution?

[Albumen]

Living Dinosaur:

Here's another

 

[Triggaaar]

Presumably the environment in which they live is relatively stable so there would have been no need for them to evolve?

I'm not an expert in the field, but that would make sense. From a layman's perspective, that explanation would certainly work for ceolacanths, being deep ocean fish. It works perhaps less well for crocodiles?

A stable environment can help remove a species' need to evolve, but it's not a prerequisite. For a species to survive and stop evolving, it's offspring needs to be successful (reproduce) using the same features as the parent. Eg, if one of the offspring have bigger teeth, and that creature is more successful than it's siblings, then the species will evolve to have bigger teeth. But if variants of offspring are not more successful, the species won't evolve. It doesn't prove anything.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Of course these guys are talking nonsense and anyone with a basic school knowledge of science can find holes in their arguments. As others have said, some species haven't evolved in millions of years and you also need to take into account how dinosaurs were wiped out and the latest theories don't seem to suggest that it was evolution. And I guess you could add to that what is and isn't a dinosaur? Are crocodiles? In short, even discovering a T-Rex would not disprove evolution.

I guess what irks me is that it only takes a few fundamentalists with an agenda and poor analytical skills and then all of religion is under attack but the science that a lot of people put their faith in never gets such scrutiny or scorn. Consider this article by Amir Aczel, a very well respected physicist and writer. He's written about the way that a lot of scientists get away with pseudophysics unchallenged especially when writing about popular science.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amir-aczel/pseudophysics-the-new-high-priesthood_b_5340183.html

He's blown out of the water a lot of assertions from authors of best-selling science books where they make all sorts of extraordinary and untested claims, yet the general public don't use this bad science to beat the whole scientific community with and deny everything it holds dear.To paraphrase Papa Lazarou, the articles make equally sweeping statements without anything to support them. Exactly the same as the creationists. EXACTLY the same.

Funnily enough, I'm re-reading Hawking's A Brief History Of Time and there's a couple of points that he makes that are relevant to this thread. The first is where he talks about trying to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity. The two are incompatible but for the vast majority of cases they work so we're happy to accept these theories. I guess that was my point with my previous reply to Albumen.

The other thing that piqued my interest with Hawking is where he writes "An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on where he might have carried out his job". Hawking is clever enough to know that his atheism is a belief and that his and others' work doesn't prove or disprove intelligent design. And that article that I linked to also states that contrary to popular belief, scientists do NOT know where the universe came from.

At the risk of going off on a serious tangent here. I think you make an interesting point about science versus religion, but I am not sure I agree that science does get an easy ride. There is a vast amount of psuedo-science, whether it is used to justify miracle anti-ageing creams, or to support some half cock political theory. There is more than enough evidence to give science a bad name.

Specific to this forum though there is a prevailing strong anti-religion sentiment and whilst I classify myself as an atheist, I think I have seen enough variations on "The world would be a better place if religion had never been invented". If you can not take some inspiration from the massive body of buildings, art, literature, philosophy and song produced in the name of god(s) then you have to have a completely closed mind and never contemplate, how we came to be here or why.

 

[Igzilla]

Their explanation of a theory earlier on in the article seems more relevant:

"In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."

As a scientific theory, the theory of evolution is an explanation for a collection of observations and facts. Not the everyday use of the word theory. So I'm not entirely sure why they then go on to say evolution is a "fact" - it's not, it's a collection of facts and evidence pointing towards a probable explanation.

This. As a person with a science degree, it really annoys me when these creationist idiots say "Well, evolution is just a theory, it's not a fact." Numpties - they just don't understand the terminology.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

The likes of Simon Singh, Adam Rutherford and especially Dr Ben Goldacre do a great job in highlighting pseudo science and quackery wherever it may reside.

 

[Buzzer]

It just happens that it is also now - in the mind of most rational scientists at any rate - accepted fact.

Therein lies my own in-built prejudice. I had a few physics professors who taught me that scientists never state anything as 'fact'.

 

[Triggaaar]

I guess what irks me is that it only takes a few fundamentalists with an agenda and poor analytical skills and then all of religion is under attack

It isn't. A few nutty creationists doesn't mean you can't believe in a god.

but the science that a lot of people put their faith in never gets such scrutiny or scorn.

Science is constantly scrutinised, that's the basis of science. I'll take a look at your link.

Hawking is clever enough to know that his atheism is a belief and that his and others' work doesn't prove or disprove intelligent design. And that article that I linked to also states that contrary to popular belief, scientists do NOT know where the universe came from.

Is it really popular belief that scientist know where the universe came from? That's news to me. I thought all scientists accept that they can't prove a god doesn't exist. What they do prove, is that the events claimed in the bible are not correct, not that there can be no god.

If I saw a video where two ****wits claimed to prove that there could be no god, I'd treat them with the same contempt that I treat those in the video in the first post.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The data is fact. The theory is 99% proven. That's enough fact for me. And I have a BSc (Hons)!

Biologists would no doubt contest that biological evolution is a fact, as you say the observable data can be considered conclusive. The mechanisms for evolution however are still very much theories.

Just the same could be said for universal gravity, it would appear to be a fact, however it does remain just a theory.

 

[Buzzer]

Science is constantly scrutinised, that's the basis of science. I'll take a look at your link.

I meant by the public, not by peer review. Take this thread started by Papa Lazarou and he quite rightly points out there's lots of stuff out there about bad science but you'll be hard pushed to find him or anyone else mention it let alone start a thread about it but there's often a religion thread where everyone piles in trying to outdo each other with their religion put-downs/sarcastic comments. I take on board fully that it's easier to discredit a creationist than a quack scientist but as the article I linked to shows, there are bestselling books out there doing as much damage to science as creationism does to religion.

It isn't. A few nutty creationists doesn't mean you can't believe in a god.

Or indeed be agnostic and maybe not in this thread but definitely on this forum in the past, I've seen people say that all religion is mental on the basis of some weird cult or other. Science doesn't and can never prove if there is a God or not.

 

[Buzzer]

I thought all scientists accept that they can't prove a god doesn't exist. What they do prove, is that the events claimed in the bible are not correct, not that there can be no god.

As way of an example, this from the BBC, no less - "In this clip, scientist Professor Richard Dawkins explains that the age of the universe is believed to be 14 billion years and no one knows exactly what happened at the Big Bang. He explains that physicists believe that there is no such thing as 'before' this event, precluding the existence of God."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/the-big-bang-a-scientists-view/444.html

The Big Bang Theory does nothing of the sort as that earlier quote from Hawking shows. That isn't even what Dawkins says in the clip either but it's this sort of bad science that seems rarely to get challenged and/or corrected and consequently becomes 'general knowledge'.

Is it really popular belief that scientist know where the universe came from? That's news to me

It's been written by enough scientists for the author of the article I linked to, to have to make the point that he asked various Nobel laureates what they thought.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

[MENTION=5200]Buzzer[/MENTION] Quoting Richard Dawkins, the arch-athiest is always going to provide an extreme pointing view. He really does give a sh#t who he upsets in his quest for rational though; which I'll hasten to add, he applies to both religious and secular subjects. I guess the anti-religion rants are more high profile.

 

[Buzzer]

@Buzzer Quoting Richard Dawkins, the arch-athiest is always going to provide an extreme pointing view. He really does give a sh#t who he upsets in his quest for rational though; which I'll hasten to add, he applies to both religious and secular subjects. I guess the anti-religion rants are more high profile.

Are you typing that with your feet?

 

[Papa Lazarou]

On your other point, it does depend where you read as to whether you are exposed to the quackery debunking of the good people I mentioned earlier.

Singh and Goldacre have both written best selling books on the subject, and I think both write for a national paper covering the same stuff.

Plus, religious numpties making up bollox to support an archaic world view is much easier to dismantle.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Are you typing that with your feet?

Er, no, on my phone, on a train.

 

[Norman Potting]

Thinking about the original thread title surely the correct response is "no, because he would eat anyone who disagreed". Assuming he wasn't a herbivore of course.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Are you typing that with your feet?

But I see what you mean. Poor quality control there. Sorry

 

[Buzzer]

Er, no, on my phone, on a train.

Ah. That would explain it.

 

[Silk]

At the risk of going off on a serious tangent here. I think you make an interesting point about science versus religion, but I am not sure I agree that science does get an easy ride. There is a vast amount of psuedo-science, whether it is used to justify miracle anti-ageing creams, or to support some half cock political theory. There is more than enough evidence to give science a bad name.

Specific to this forum though there is a prevailing strong anti-religion sentiment and whilst I classify myself as an atheist, I think I have seen enough variations on "The world would be a better place if religion had never been invented". If you can not take some inspiration from the massive body of buildings, art, literature, philosophy and song produced in the name of god(s) then you have to have a completely closed mind and never contemplate, how we came to be here or why.

Pseudo-science isn't science though, is it?

 

[Triggaaar]

I've seen people say that all religion is mental on the basis of some weird cult or other.

The problem is that the religions do tend to be mental. That doesn't mean that there wasn't/isn't a creator, and when people post that they believe that there is a creator, but they don't know anything about that creator, then I don't think they get much grief. But when people say that they believe every bullsh*t word of their chosen religion, they're making a fool of themselves, and the *******s like me can't help but take the piss.

Is it really popular belief that scientist know where the universe came from? That's news to me. I thought all scientists accept that they can't prove a god doesn't exist.

As way of an example, this from the BBC, no less - "In this clip, scientist Professor Richard Dawkins explains that the age of the universe is believed to be 14 billion years and no one knows exactly what happened at the Big Bang. He explains that physicists believe that there is no such thing as 'before' this event, precluding the existence of God."

He isn't saying that there is proof that god doesn't exist. He's saying that physicists say that there was nothing before the big bang. He says that you may just as well say the big bang just happened as say that god just happened - ie, the suggestion that there was nothing before the big bang is not proof that god does exist.

The Big Bang Theory does nothing of the sort as that earlier quote from Hawking shows.

As above, he hasn't said it is proof that god doesn't exist, and the Hawking quotes in this thread doesn't show anything new.

 

[Curious Orange]

There is a vast amount of psuedo-science, whether it is used to justify miracle anti-ageing creams...

Advertising waffle! My wife (a chemical engineer for a major household goods manufacturer) is a right pain to sit through the adverts with, as she scoffs at all the dubious claims that her company's competitors make about their products (eg "90% of women say product X works!", when only 100 were actually surveyed and there therefore isn't a statistically relevant data set to back the claim) when her company goes to the bother of doing proper scientific trials before making a claim.

I'm not sure how the above is relevant to the topic, other than to highlight that nonsense can be talked without there being any connection to any particular religion.