Originally Posted by MartinLuther

The only thing in science that doesn't have evidence (or has little supporting evidence) is a conjecture which is the starting point of the scientific method.

Originally Posted by MartinLuther

For some reason you seem to think the "aim" of evolution is to produce a single being that is suitable for all niches. It's not; there is no real "aim" of evolution. The "result" of evolution is that it fills all the niches possible with animals suited to each niche. Note that I avoided the word best suited as this does not always happen. Sometime it produces results that are suited enough for a niche which leaves the door open for another later result which may be better suited to a niche. As niches change so will animals. There is still a niche for cockroaches so they still fill that niche.

Secondly I think you are making an assumption that humans are the pinnacle (or the end-game) of evolution. This is not true. Humans are good at filling their niche but are not very good at filling the cockroaches' niche. They are not the pinnacle of evolution as there is no such thing as the pinnacle of evolution.

Note that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor, we didn't evolve from chimps (which answers the question why are chimps still around). Our common ancestor evolved one way to fill the chimp niche and another way to fill the human niche. Humans are not that good at filling the chimp niche (although we may be quite good at chopping it down). And yes they have found this common ancestor.

Originally Posted by burtreynoldsisonit

Conjecture: An educated guess.

The starting point is not the only thing that science doesn't have evidence of. I think it's quite the opposite. I think in the grand scheme of things we only know the science up until now. How can we make an educated guess when we have a very small amount of information in the grand scheme of things. That's all there is, information. Even a simulated experience or a dream; a simultaneous reality and fantasy. Any way you look at it, the information that a person accumulates during a lifetime is just a drop in the bucket.

Originally Posted by northerner

Well, all I can say is that your answer is very, very - oh so very convenient.

I do not mean this presonally at all. It's just so convenient. Google seems to answer everything! I thought we were supposed to have evolved from chimps? This is what all the 'experts' seem to tell us?!

Graham

Originally Posted by MartinLuther

What is the Google comment about?

Originally Posted by MartinLuther

Note that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor, we didn't evolve from chimps (which answers the question why are chimps still around). Our common ancestor evolved one way to fill the chimp niche and another way to fill the human niche.

Originally Posted by northerner

This is the so called 'google' comments I'm talking about. Statements of fact, which are only fact 'cos google tells you so.

Graham

Originally Posted by MartinLuther

I got it out of a book (several books in fact). Not exactly sure where I read it first but more recently it was in one of the Science of Diskworld books.

Originally Posted by MartinLuther

I'm not sure what you're saying. We seem to agree on what a conjecture is. You say that there are other things in science that require little or no proof. What are they?

Just in case you've read me wrong. I would like to clarify that, to me, a conjecture on an existing theory is a new starting point.

Originally Posted by northerner

Science of Discworld? Are you seriously basing your thoughts on that? Seriously? A kids novel?

Originally Posted by MartinLuther

You obviously missed the bit where I said "I got it out of a book (several books in fact)". But that comes as no surprise.

As for Science of Diskworld being a "kids novel" (sic). You obviously got that from one of your "experts". If it was a kids' novel it would be embarrassing for you that it knows more about evolution than you or your experts.

Note Science of Diskworld is NOT actually a Diskworld novel. The primary authors are Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart both genuine experts in their respective fields. However Terry Pratchet does throw in some entertaining analogies.

Originally Posted by burtreynoldsisonit

My point is not that science is wrong as there is no proof of its point of origination. No. My point is we know so little in the grand scheme of things that it would be absurd to rule out pretty much anything. Especially considering the very probable chance that we are totally wrong in every way imaginable. I'm for this debate as long as it's fair to all opinions. Everyone is aware of the scientific point of view but honestly, most shots taken at religions perspective are done in ignorance. I don't know a great deal about religion, I would be perfectly within reason to question it, but never to dismiss it and generalise the people who believe in it. I listen to this debate quite often and a lot of what the science side says makes sense, but also, a lot of what the religion side makes sense. I think the problem around this issue is that everyones searching for an absolute answer. I can't help but reference when everyone thought the world was flat. That was the scientific conclusion at the time. As we learn we grow but it's unlikely that we will grow enough to learn it all.

Originally Posted by TMRE

Forgot I have the Science of Discworld 1,2 and 3 books upstairs. May go and make a start on them now!.

Originally Posted by MartinLuther

Quote: "I can't help but reference when everyone thought the world was flat. That was the scientific conclusion at the time."

I would dispute this. This was popular opinion not a scientific opinion. The Greeks had previously considered the possibility of a spherical earth.

It would also be wrong to take examples from a time before science was formalised. If you look at the middle ages a lot of "scientific" effort went into proving the existence of God. By modern scientific standards this was not good science.

I'm not dissing anyone's religion nor do I think I've done so. I will however challenge the scientific credentials of creationism as it is not science.

Originally Posted by MartinLuther

I hope you enjoy them. They certainly make one think. Personally I preferred number 1 as it tended towards physics but number 2 probably provided more things for me to think about and investigate.