Evolution is not a scientific theory

[mantra]

Wiki defines evolution as social anthropology, which is why it was probably taught under social studies or similar at public schools

That is very interesting. Was it actually taught that way, or are you guessing? When I went through it was definitely taught in science class.

All the states have a different curriculum - or they did unless Howard or Gillard changed it. Science - after the 2nd or 3rd year of high school became an elective subject - so only those interested chose it. It was the same when my children went to school - one dropped it. Perhaps evolution was discussed more deeply in the senior years? Social studies which commences in primary school, was a huge umbrella and covered subjects like archeology, past and present agriculture, basic economics etc. and although evolution wasn't specifically called social anthropology from memory, that's the only category it seems to fit in today - in my view.

Those who say that evolution - particularly Darwinism - is a scientific theory, believe that it is but it is also described as creationism. It's all a matter of opinion.

[Neferti]

[Aussie]

All the states have a different curriculum - or they did unless Howard or Gillard changed it. Science - after the 2nd or 3rd year of high school became an elective subject - so only those interested chose it. It was the same when my children went to school - one dropped it. Perhaps evolution was discussed more deeply in the senior years? Social studies which commences in primary school, was a huge umbrella and covered subjects like archeology, past and present agriculture, basic economics etc. and although evolution wasn't specifically called social anthropology from memory, that's the only category it seems to fit in today - in my view.

Those who say that evolution - particularly Darwinism - is a scientific theory, believe that it is but it is also described as creationism. It's all a matter of opinion.

One complete contradiction (in the first sentence), a 'perhaps,' a 'from memory' and two matters of opinion. When will you get definite mantra? Further, what era are you describing? In my High School days (the early to mid 60's in Qld) ) if you wanted an academic pass you could not avoid science, and there was not one mention of either a big bang theory, god-bothering, or Darwin. It was just physics and chemistry.

This entire Thread is esoteric, irrelevant conjecture laced with pseudo intellectual posturing, and bullshit. As I said earlier, when all you geniuses have the answer wake me and the rest of the World up.

[Jovial Monk]

Darwin’s theory was not scientific the way he phrased it: the fittest would survive and breed so those who survived and bred by definition were the fittest. What Darwin hypothesised was a tautology not a theory.

Nowadays we have the science of genetics detailing the mechanism by which favorable traits are passed on and no one argues that the theory of evolution as phrased nowadays is not scientific.

Darwin called his book the Origin of Species and not the Origin of Life. The origin of life is for molecular biologists to unravel and is a matter of molecular energetics.

FD talks a lot about science but does not really know what he is talking about: a theory does not become a law on gaining universal acceptance! A theory is always a theory and always will be! A law just summarises certain findings, like Boyle’s Law but does not attempt to explain them.

As to not teaching evolution at school in the biological science curriculum, well, how fucking ridiculous! Might as well say don’t explain the atomic theory of matter in physics and chemistry! Both underly every aspect of genetics, botany and zoology on one hand and chemistry and physics on the other!

Sure, students have to learn how to think but it is best to do that by discussing scientific discoveries, e.g. how Kekulé worked out the structure of the benzene ring.

And mutations have very little role in evolution: most mutations are detrimental to the organism that inherits a somatic genetic mutation. Genetic variation provides plenty of material for natural selection to work on. For example, in Geology III we were given several sets of fossil sea urchins, all found in strata, faces, in one location. We had to measure certain measurements and calculate means. Long story short, these sea urchins lived in a spot that was getting increasingly muddy and the mouth had to rise more and more. There was no sudden jump, as in mutation, just a steady increase in one measurement, each statistically significantly different from the ones below and above it in the strata.

So these days evolution though the handing down of genetic advantages is a scientific theory. There has never been scientific dispute, just religious and dogmatic resistance (the Russians and the idiotic Lysenkoism they championed) that evolution does not occur and explain how the various species were formed.

[mantra]

One complete contradiction (in the first sentence), a 'perhaps,' a 'from memory' and two matters of opinion. When will you get definite mantra? Further, what era are you describing? In my High School days (the early to mid 60's in Qld) ) if you wanted an academic pass you could not avoid science, and there was not one mention of either a big bang theory, god-bothering, or Darwin. It was just physics and chemistry.

This entire Thread is esoteric, irrelevant conjecture laced with pseudo intellectual posturing, and bullshit. As I said earlier, when all you geniuses have the answer wake me and the rest of the World up.

I don't pretend to know much about science. I hated it and dropped it like a hot potato at the first opportunity, but we didn't really have science as a subject until high school. Science was all about test tubes and cutting rats open - so we agree to an extent. Darwin was mentioned briefly, but never in science and evolution fell under the subject of archeology of sorts. I hadn't thought about it much until this thread - but I am trying to make an effort to understand this esoteric, irrelevant conjecture - difficult and contradictory as it is.

[mantra]

Darwin’s theory was not scientific the way he phrased it: the fittest would survive and breed so those who survived and bred by definition were the fittest. What Darwin hypothesised was a tautology not a theory.

I disagree with Darwin's 'tautology' to an extent, but that's a subject to discuss another time.

[freediver]

FD talks a lot about science but does not really know what he is talking about: a theory does not become a law on gaining universal acceptance!

Can explain the difference between a hypothesis, theory and law then? My version is straight from my high school physics textbook, is all over the internet, and is the only one that makes sense.

A theory is always a theory and always will be! A law just summarises certain findings, like Boyle’s Law but does not attempt to explain them.

A law does no more or less 'explaining' than a theory or hypothesis.

And mutations have very little role in evolution: most mutations are detrimental to the organism that inherits a somatic genetic mutation.

Beneficial mutation is what distinguishes natural selection from evolution.

Genetic variation provides plenty of material for natural selection to work on.

Ah, so you are a supporter of freediver's theory of sufficient genetic potential?

So these days evolution though the handing down of genetic advantages is a scientific theory. There has never been scientific dispute, just religious and dogmatic resistance (the Russians and the idiotic Lysenkoism they championed) that evolution does not occur and explain how the various species were formed.

This isn't really about whether the theory is true.

I disagree with Darwin's 'tautology' to an extent, but that's a subject to discuss another time.

There is no time like the present.

[Aussie]

Can explain the difference between a hypothesis, theory and law then? My version is straight from my high school physics textbook, is all over the internet, and is the only one that makes sense.

Your version of exactly what in the context of 'hypothesis, theory and law?'

[Fed up]

I suggest you go back to your High School books and look up laws and theories BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG! Boyle’s law just talks about volume and pressure, evolution explains why, for example, each galapagos island has it own breed of finches. Until you brush up on that you cannot argue your case.

Beneficial blah blah.

No it is about whether the modern theory is scientific. Any comment on that?

[freediver]

So evolution is unique - different from other scientific theories?