Rejecting evolution with science...

Techne said:
It works with a certain degree of certainty. I.e. the evidence suggest it works. This does not imply that it is proven to work unless you have some sort of mathematical (as in the case of Newton's law) or metaphysical proof (e.g. Aquinas' Second Way).
Click to expand...
Agreed. Lets also not forget that there can always be something you have overlooked or perhaps limitations in technology and knowledge of the time mean you could be unaware of some additional factor that throws the entire result out the window.

Not proven, however the evidence suggests that it works.
 
Swa said:
You seem to think that proof means without a doubt. If someone is proven guilty does that mean they definitely committed the crime?
Click to expand...
People are "found" guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" based on the evidence presented. Nothing is proven, nor is guilt absolutely guaranteed.

@RiaX: No, gravity has never been proven to be true. All that has been proven is either:
  1. That an attractive force between massive (as in having mass, not huge) objects is more likely to exist than not OR
  2. based on certain underlying assumptions it can be mathematically derived that this force exists (with no reference to the truth of the assumptions because they were, again, empirically derived)
As to your earlier example, I never said you needed to know how it works. Further, you have not proven that it has superior effect over a placebo. You have shown that for your specific sample it has superior effect over a placebo and then based on the sample statistics you have "proven" that it is more likely than not that said drug exhibits superior effects to a placebo. Is it more effective in every single case? Will it be more effective on everyone that it is ever used on?
 
Consider the antidepressant reboxetine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboxetine

In its original trials, it was "proved" to be an effective antidepressant, while in subsequent meta-analyses of its trial data, it has been "disproved" to be an effective antidepressant.

From the perspective of a medical worker, a medicine may also have been "proved" safe and effective, but this may be on the basis of fraud by the manufacturer of the medicine. For example, below is a copy of a message which has been used in various lawsuits against Eli Lilly, showing how they instructed their investigators to alter clinical trial data of fluoxetine:

bouchy.jpg
 
Here is a good video explaining the terms used in science:

[video=youtube;mCfisy2FFbw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCfisy2FFbw[/video]
 
ah gotta love science :D ...

Err, they are not entirely clueless about its MoA.
Click to expand...

Most of it is theorised and its far to complex to even bother stating it here. Remember TB drugs were created in the 1950s and 1960s most of the research has just recently been rebooted. The newer current works have disproved the original MoA (this is my field of research) i specialise in the TB drugs
 
RiaX said:
Most of it is theorised and its far to complex to even bother stating it here. Remember TB drugs were created in the 1950s and 1960s most of the research has just recently been rebooted. The newer current works have disproved the original MoA (this is my field of research) i specialise in the TB drugs
Click to expand...
Ok, so what do you research? And what is your opinion on the compound's ability to inhibit fatty acid synthase I?

For example:
Zimhony O, Vilcheze C, Arai M, Welch J, Jacobs WR pi. Pyrazinoic acid and its n-Propyl Ester Inhibit Fatty Acid Synthase I in Replicating Tubercle Bacilli. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007 51 752-754

What the information here:
http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=1046
 
Last edited:
I dont have an opinion on PZA as such. Though that method is not its true nature because PZA takes 2-5 days before any activity is noticed (although plausible). Its also theorized that it has the ability to locally change physiological pH. M.tb is very fussy on its surrounding pH. There are 3 to 4 proposed MoAs just as strong and detailed as the one you have linked to.

Unfortunately I cant disclose what im doing publicly ... under non-disclosure as with most medical research it is very sensitive

EDIT:

perhaps "not" is a strong word I would prefer to say that MoA is incomplete
 
Jehosefat said:
People are "found" guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" based on the evidence presented. Nothing is proven, nor is guilt absolutely guaranteed.
Click to expand...
Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? Does that mean that everybody is considered innocent? The law recognises that nothing can be proven beyond absolute doubt. This is just a battle of semantics with some scientists of the opinion that the word proof shouldn't be used in science because it implies absolute certainty. In the process they then resort to elaborate wording which is just unnecessary. It is really these scientists that are mistaken about the nature of proof.

Now to the original topic
"Evolution is unproven"
should we then rather say
"The evidence does not reasonably support the conclusion of evolution"?

Why the unnecessary elaborating and especially in a debate?
 
adaptation = evolution . Therefore evolution is real. END
 
Keep saying that and maybe someday you'll believe it.
 
I notice a distinct lack of any scientific rejection of evolution. Guess there isn't one.

Well that is that. Thanks for running away scared creotards. Now that you have reused to present an argument when given the chance please stop spreading the unsubstantiated lie that the theory of evolution is not supported by the evidence.
 
porchrat said:
I notice a distinct lack of any scientific rejection of evolution. Guess there isn't one.

Well that is that. Thanks for running away scared creotards. Now that you have reused to present an argument when given the chance please stop spreading the unsubstantiated lie that the theory of evolution is not supported by the evidence.
Click to expand...
creotard? :erm:
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
Here is a good video explaining the terms used in science:

/snip SR clip
Click to expand...

The entire Discovering Religion series is brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Been watching all 5 hours of it here

[video=youtube;pQdkt_JkJQQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQdkt_JkJQQ[/video]
 
DJ... said:
The entire Discovering Religion series is brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Been watching all 5 hours of it here

[video=youtube;pQdkt_JkJQQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQdkt_JkJQQ[/video]
Click to expand...

Lol, I'm watching this exact series at the moment too. On episode 19 now, not getting any sleep though :(

It's probably the most complete series on these topics and this guy covers a ton of topics. I also recommend this series to anybody.
 
porchrat said:
Apparently a fusion between creationist and retard. I saw it on the Internet and thought it was funny.
Click to expand...
So why paint with such a broad brush by labeling creationists as retards?
 
Techne said:
So why paint with such a broad brush by labeling creationists as retards?
Click to expand...

I like to do the same for the flat earth society , flatards. Admittedly its not as eloquent as creotards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X