How could you falsify macroevolution?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
And for many, that "uncertainty" is beyond negligible, and irrelevant.

Wrong. Again. Will GePap ever learn?

Not all fields of science have the existencial angst of physics. Maybe cause most fields of science don't have to keep looking at the bounderies of our abilities to observe.

All fields of science other than elementary physics are approximations by definition.

[Jon Miller]

The knowledge that the charge of an electron was measured as 1.60217733 (49) x 10¯19 coulombs in 1906 (in a certain experiment) does what for you now? (Just the Knowledge, no theory now)

Not to say that to even make that measurement, science (as theory) had to be used.

Jon Miller

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
but yes, science is about the theories...

they allow one to predict

a bunch of observations are just history...

Jon Miller

What is wrong with history? Fine subject.

As for theories, I still haven't heard WHY all theories are simply models to be proven wrong eventually. There are various fields of science in which you don't keep measuring smaller and smaller intervals. So, why must we assume that say in 5000 years we won't have THE MODEL of how the human body works? What, all of a sudden the workings of our atoms will make some new fundamental change?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Wrong. Again. Will GePap ever learn?

Wait, like I was worng amount IMINT satellites...OOh, woops. I forgot. Its you that got pwned...

All fields of science other than elementary physics are approximations by definition.

Or so the phycists tell themselves. Conceited bunch of asses. Dare get uppity at the metaphycisists though...silly buggers.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
The knowledge that the charge of an electron was measured as 1.60217733 (49) x 10¯19 coulombs in 1906 (in a certain experiment) does what for you now? (Just the Knowledge, no theory now)

It means I know more than before. Thats pretty good.

Not to say that to even make that measurement, science (as theory) had to be used.

Jon Miller

The act of seeking that measurement, to KNOW through empirical observation, that IS science.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Wait, like I was worng amount IMINT satellites...OOh, woops. I forgot. Its you that got pwned...

IMINT satellites aren't the only satellites there are.

Nevertheless, I believe it is up to you to provide a number of good examples of scientific experiments in which there is not a non-negligible degree of error.

Or so the phycists tell themselves. Conceited bunch of asses. Dare get uppity at the metaphycisists though...silly buggers.

Do you think you can predict the behavior or something exactly without reduction to elementary physics?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
It means I know more than before. Thats pretty good.

Have a cookie. Try knowing stuff that's actually useful.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


IMINT satellites aren't the only satellites there are.

BUt they are the only type that would take battlefield photos. Give it up.

Nevertheless, I believe it is up to you to provide a number of good examples of scientific experiments in which there is not a non-negligible degree of error.

Error is different from uncertainty, and JM was talking about OBSERVATIONS. Chjeck it up, read his post. As for an exmaple of such an observation, If I weighted an animal. Wether its 179.475657 lbs, or 179.475655 really means, well, ****.

Do you think you can predict the behavior or something exactly without reduction to elementary physics?

Define "exactly". I can predict the behavior of a billiard ball hit just the right way and with the right amount of force without having to worry about it to the quantum level.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

All fields of science other than elementary physics are approximations by definition.

Thanks for insulting every other field that isn't elementary particle physics. What theoratical physics research in the last 50 years has had an impact on biology?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Have a cookie. Try knowing stuff that's actually useful.

knowledge is useful, just by itself.

[Odin]

Originally posted by GePap


What is wrong with history? Fine subject.

First time I agree with GePap in this thread.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
knowledge is useful, just by itself.

Knowledge is only useful if you can do something with it. Knowing the charge of an electron is completely worthless without a [generally correct] theory of electromagnetism.

[Ramo]

What theoratical physics research in the last 50 years has had an impact on biology?

NMR imaging, for one.

There's a lot of important biophysics research going on today, which will be pivotal in the next 50 years. Figuring out how protein folding works, etc., etc.

Biology consists of abstractions of complicated physical systems that aren't practical to model with fundamental physical principles. It is an approximation.

What is wrong with history? Fine subject.

The finest history involves cogent generalizations. Individual factoids are just trivia. Which is ok for Jeopardy, but not terribly useful otherwise.

Define "exactly". I can predict the behavior of a billiard ball hit just the right way and with the right amount of force without having to worry about it to the quantum level.

Aren't you looking for THE MODEL? How can both the classical picture for billiard balls be THE MODEL and the slightly more accurate quantum picture be THE MODEL?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
Thanks for insulting every other field that isn't elementary particle physics. What theoratical physics research in the last 50 years has had an impact on biology?

Extend that to 100 years and you get quantum mechanics, without which we wouldn't understand chemistry, without which we wouldn't understand biology (except perhaps ecology at the highest level). Shorten that and I can't point to anything specific, but then again, I'm neither a theoretical physicist nor a molecular biologist.

[Kuciwalker]

Error is different from uncertainty, and JM was talking about OBSERVATIONS. Chjeck it up, read his post. As for an exmaple of such an observation, If I weighted an animal. Wether its 179.475657 lbs, or 179.475655 really means, well, ****.

And how would such a measurement meaningfully contribute to our understanding of the world and the rules by which it operates?

Define "exactly". I can predict the behavior of a billiard ball hit just the right way and with the right amount of force without having to worry about it to the quantum level.

Without error. And you cannot.