Aliens and evolution

[-Skeptic-]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
If you say so.
Of course, given your obsession with my penis, I'd say it's pretty apparent to all involved who's more concerned about someone's gender.
Now, if you would like to stop trying to change the subject and get back to the actual argument, that would be amazing.
Of course, we both know, THAT's not going to happen.
Still, I'll keep trying to treat you like an adult with an education.
You claimed that science proves things. Dude and I correctly pointed out that science can not prove things, only disprove things.
We gave you examples.
You clearly didn't understand the examples.
Which words were too hard for you?

LOL science can't prove things!! hahahahahaha what a load of f*cking nonsense.

[Nuggin]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL science can't prove things!! hahahahahaha what a load of f*cking nonsense.

Alright, Skippy. Time for you to put your money where your mouth is.

Outline an experiment which definitively PROVES something.

Remember, not _disproves_ something. That's MY position. You need to PROVE something.

Can you do it?

[Aura Mytha]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Alright, Skippy. Time for you to put your money where your mouth is.
Outline an experiment which definitively PROVES something.
Remember, not _disproves_ something. That's MY position. You need to PROVE something.
Can you do it?

Proven is at odds with your ability to falsify it. Can you prove evolution is false?

That's how it is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The fact that 150 years trying to prove it wrong cannot.

[Nuggin]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> Proven is at odds with your ability to falsify it. Can you prove evolution is false?
That's how it is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The fact that 150 years trying to prove it wrong cannot.

Evolution as a whole is a collection of parts. If any one of those pieces were disproven, the theory would be disproven or at the very least would need to be altered to accommodate the change.

For example, one component is genes code for certain features and that changes in the genes result in changes in the features. If that were disproven experimentally by demonstrating the changes in the genes didn't result in changes in features, then variation as a result of genetic changes would be falsified, which in turn would falsify inherited changes, and in turn call all of evolution into question.

Now, do I think that that is going to happen? No. However, science does not rule out the possibility of some as of yet undetected thing being discovered which changes our understanding of what we know.

Newton did not preclude Einstein.

[Nuggin]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> Proven is at odds with your ability to falsify it. Can you prove evolution is false?
That's how it is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The fact that 150 years trying to prove it wrong cannot.

Newton published in 1687
Einstein published in 1916

That's 229 years. Clearly, there isn't a time limit on new scientific revelations.

[Aura Mytha]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Evolution as a whole is a collection of parts. If any one of those pieces were disproven, the theory would be disproven or at the very least would need to be altered to accommodate the change.
For example, one component is genes code for certain features and that changes in the genes result in changes in the features. If that were disproven experimentally by demonstrating the changes in the genes didn't result in changes in features, then variation as a result of genetic changes would be falsified, which in turn would falsify inherited changes, and in turn call all of evolution into question.
Now, do I think that that is going to happen? No. However, science does not rule out the possibility of some as of yet undetected thing being discovered which changes our understanding of what we know.
Newton did not preclude Einstein.

Newton still stands with the laws of motion I don't think they will change.
Einstein superseded the Law of Universal Gravitation.

But with evolution it's pretty much proven , it can be refined and revised but I think it's here to stay. The only part that may turn out false is the concept of a singular beginning , some think it was three things that shared dna to develop into all life here.

[Nuggin]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
Newton still stands with the laws of motion I don't think they will change.
Einstein superseded the Law of Universal Gravitation.
But with evolution it's pretty much proven , it can be refined and revised but I think it's here to stay. The only part that may turn out false is the concept of a singular beginning , some think it was three things that shared dna to develop into all life here.

You are mistaking accuracy in the present time for accuracy in the future.

Yes, I agree that it is unlikely that we will find future information that could significantly revise evolution.

HOWEVER, we say that at the dawn of planetary exploration.

What if, 500 years from now, we send a probe to a planet orbiting a nearby star and we find everything on the planet is identical to life on Earth. Tigers there are 100% DNA match for tigers here.

Then we discover more and more planets and they all have the exact same thing. Even humans.

The fossil records on these worlds look exactly like ours.

There's no sign of any other kind of life other than what we see here.

That would be RADICAL new information that would seriously call into question our current understanding of biology.

If evolution is "proven", then we can NEVER change it, never adapt it, never alter it.

That's what proof means. It means that NO future information of ANY kind can EVER undo what's been decided here right now based on the current information.

Science doesn't do that.

[Lil Ticked]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
You are mistaking accuracy in the present time for accuracy in the future.
Yes, I agree that it is unlikely that we will find future information that could significantly revise evolution.
HOWEVER, we say that at the dawn of planetary exploration.
What if, 500 years from now, we send a probe to a planet orbiting a nearby star and we find everything on the planet is identical to life on Earth. Tigers there are 100% DNA match for tigers here.
Then we discover more and more planets and they all have the exact same thing. Even humans.
The fossil records on these worlds look exactly like ours.
There's no sign of any other kind of life other than what we see here.
That would be RADICAL new information that would seriously call into question our current understanding of biology.
If evolution is "proven", then we can NEVER change it, never adapt it, never alter it.
That's what proof means. It means that NO future information of ANY kind can EVER undo what's been decided here right now based on the current information.
Science doesn't do that.

Uh oh , did you just say that you believe that 500 years from now multiple clones of Earth will be found elsewhere in the Universe?

[Aura Mytha]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
You are mistaking accuracy in the present time for accuracy in the future.
Yes, I agree that it is unlikely that we will find future information that could significantly revise evolution.
HOWEVER, we say that at the dawn of planetary exploration.
What if, 500 years from now, we send a probe to a planet orbiting a nearby star and we find everything on the planet is identical to life on Earth. Tigers there are 100% DNA match for tigers here.
Then we discover more and more planets and they all have the exact same thing. Even humans.
The fossil records on these worlds look exactly like ours.
There's no sign of any other kind of life other than what we see here.
That would be RADICAL new information that would seriously call into question our current understanding of biology.
If evolution is "proven", then we can NEVER change it, never adapt it, never alter it.
That's what proof means. It means that NO future information of ANY kind can EVER undo what's been decided here right now based on the current information.
Science doesn't do that.

We can tell this now Nuggin in fact we have discovered so many different type planets and solar systems.
It is believed they maybe all unique. That negates the possibility
of finding mirror planets. But we could discover though drastically different that evolution on them was similar.
In fact if life is found elsewhere we would to some degree expect it.

[Aura Mytha]

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>Uh oh , did you just say that you believe that 500 years from now multiple clones of Earth will be found elsewhere in the Universe?

If the universe is infinite we expect that result, however physically impossible to verify. Because the limitations of the universal speed limit. But an infinite universe predicts and expects repeats of nearly mirrored image planets.

[Lil Ticked]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
If the universe is infinite we expect that result, however physically impossible to verify. Because the limitations of the universal speed limit. But an infinite universe predicts and expects repeats of nearly mirrored image planets.

It was a joke....

[Nuggin]

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>Uh oh , did you just say that you believe that 500 years from now multiple clones of Earth will be found elsewhere in the Universe?

Nope. I'm suggesting a scenerio (however unlikely) that would introduce new data which would call into question our understanding of biology as a whole.

[Nuggin]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
We can tell this now Nuggin in fact we have discovered so many different type planets and solar systems.
It is believed they maybe all unique. That negates the possibility
of finding mirror planets. But we could discover though drastically different that evolution on them was similar.
In fact if life is found elsewhere we would to some degree expect it.

You are completely missing the point.

The point is not whether or not these planets exist according to what we currently know.

The point is that FUTURE DATA which is _currently UNKNOWN_ to us could radically change our understanding.

Can I tell you right now what that future data would be? No. Obviously. That's why it's called "future data".

I'm trying to give you a scenario that you can grasp which would highlight how a future discovery could change our understanding.

Can you see the forest? Or do you just want to talk trees?

[Aura Mytha]

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>It was a joke....

I knew that, just thought you might like to know. lol

[Aura Mytha]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
You are completely missing the point.
The point is not whether or not these planets exist according to what we currently know.
The point is that FUTURE DATA which is _currently UNKNOWN_ to us could radically change our understanding.
Can I tell you right now what that future data would be? No. Obviously. That's why it's called "future data".
I'm trying to give you a scenario that you can grasp which would highlight how a future discovery could change our understanding.
Can you see the forest? Or do you just want to talk trees?

Yes Yes and Yes but the information is still valid , as well the methods behind them.

But you are adding a wild card by throwing in a "what if".
Science disregards things there is no evidence of , like gods and
what could possibly be to focuses on what we know is to be.
It serves no purpose to speculate on what new discoveries will be made and unless it's a prediction of an hypothesis it's a complete waste of time.

Sorta like the virtual Russell's teapot.

[Aura Mytha]

"to focus" even lol

[nanoanomaly]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. I'm suggesting a scenerio (however unlikely) that would introduce new data which would call into question our understanding of biology as a whole.

Have you been watching Third Rock From the Sun again?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

You should have stuck with Jeopardy.

[nanoanomaly]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
You are completely missing the point.
The point is not whether or not these planets exist according to what we currently know.
The point is that FUTURE DATA which is _currently UNKNOWN_ to us could radically change our understanding.
Can I tell you right now what that future data would be? No. Obviously. That's why it's called "future data".
I'm trying to give you a scenario that you can grasp which would highlight how a future discovery could change our understanding.
Can you see the forest? Or do you just want to talk trees?

You can't pass authority to the future....you're not Ted Kennedy.

[-Skeptic-]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
You are completely missing the point.
The point is not whether or not these planets exist according to what we currently know.
The point is that FUTURE DATA which is _currently UNKNOWN_ to us could radically change our understanding.
Can I tell you right now what that future data would be? No. Obviously. That's why it's called "future data".
I'm trying to give you a scenario that you can grasp which would highlight how a future discovery could change our understanding.
Can you see the forest? Or do you just want to talk trees?

Science can prove that you posted illogical rants and rambling accusations.

It's proven because your posts are written on a harddisk somewhere in the cloud, and we can access your posts by searching.

They are all time stamped. We can have them tranlated into virtually any language, but they all say the same thing - rambling arrogant illogical idiot who couldn't win an argument with a tree.

[Lil Ticked]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
I knew that, just thought you might like to know. lol

knowing is half the battle.