L wrote:
Direct and indirect evidence, each with its particularities, has been used and referred to as needed.
Here is the definition of a scientific theory:
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.
We both can agree what constitutes a scientific theory.
Observation and measurement are vital to a theory.
If circumstantial evidence is included in the weaving of sets of facts to build a
complete theory, I am unaware of that being a part of the definition.
More here:
A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.
How have we
tested hypotheses that are based on circumstantial evidence with, say, the missing two C's?
Or does circumstantial evidence play a vital role here?
I am aware of what follows:
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.
You wrote this:
Chromosomes: as many times mentioned by me, and also easily googlable: the evidence is not number of C's. IT is the precise exact fusion observed in the DNA sequence, and its significance in terms of the common ancestry - as I also mentioned many times, and referred to funnier misinterpretations of the evidence of the DNA sequence fused precisely, many jump on chromosome numbers to make inferences about levels of complexity in terms of brain functions / intelligence
How is our theory incomplete without knowledge of the 2 missing C's?
Are we anticipating that the theory in question would not change? Are they not a significant portion of hard evidence (not circumstantial)?
True, the fusion in the sequence is telling us something. Something big. But two missing C's are, uh, inconsequential?
I haven't a clue what you mean by "funnier misinterpretations of the evidence"
L wrote:
Clothing: I stated this, and re-re-re-stated N times, it was first mentioned as an example and specific in e.g. ice age period, to make the point of habitat factors that one species was exposed to and other could protect itself from. I stated than and several times after, this was not a "claim" about any "direct evidence" about hominids across 1.7 millions years... check the sentences word by word, there was and is not such statement in that context. I can't repeat this more, if you keep losing context completely despite the many re-re-stating of both context and the particular "claim". Then I moved on to the larger timeline, the timelines I mentioned and later pointed to the entire story via a handy summary article that saves many pages.
okay - no evidence. it's a claim with no evidence.
thanks for clarifying.
L wrote:
Thefore, again and again, and I am doing this the last time in circles: nobody said that there was (even see the article unless you wish to read much much more) direct evidence on the hygiene issues being THE reason for fur loss, nor for the clothing in the entire timeline talked about.
Okay - no evidence for this as well.
clear
L wrote:
s stated many times, are we comparing like with like? Did chimps, after the forking from our common ancestor, evolve in same ways to end up in similar environmental factors and minor "crutches" that came from others' higher intelligence?
you're right. from what I understand what you are saying here, we are comparing "like" to "unlike" for that is all we have for now.
We both agree I think that we are missing something more "like" us than chimps. But for now, it's "logical" given evidence and
circumstantial evidence, that a theory can do without evidence that is based on observation, and is able to be tested to be replicated and confirmed in a controlled setting.
Unfortunately, nature is not a controlled stage in the manner we would like it to be for the purpose of prediction.
Do you agree?
Ps
my definition of "theory" was from here:
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-i ... heory.html