Evolution is not a scientific theory

[Super Nova]

Just because it may be refined or even replaced does not mean for now it is not a "Scientific Theory".

Of course not. I was actually arguing the opposite - that being wrong is what makes an accepted theory scientific.

Great. Does that mean now you accept evolution as an accepted "Scientific Theory". A meta theory that brings together many sub-theories.

[Jovial Monk]

Beneficial mutation, as I have already said {sigh} is particularly smelly bullshit because:

1. Almost all mutation is harmful

2. Evolution involves populations not individuals

Genetic variability is enough to drive evolution.

BTW, Newston’s Laws of Motion are Laws not theories.

[annielaurie]

Why not necessarily? Can you explain the difference between transitional and non-transitional fossils without invoking punctuated equilibria?

Because we don't know for a fact that fossils that seem to "stop" are really non-transitional.

There are gaps in the record, but there are other factors to consider, such as Dawkins' suggestion that migration of populations has played a part - making it appear that evolution has stopped in a species in one place, while it is actually continuing within that species in another place.

Some scientists have kicked around other ideas as well - hierarchical evolution, saltationism, quantum evolution and mass extinction.

As a lay person who studies science but without being a scientist, I would go with phyletic gradualism, which states that

evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated ... #Criticism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm bumping mine from the previous page because I doubt you have seen it, while busy posting your own.

[Super Nova]

Beneficial mutation, as I have already said {sigh} is particularly smelly bullshit because:

1. Almost all mutation is harmful

I'm not sure about that. Many are benign and have no real effect on the individual.
Any mutation that are trually harmful will result in the individual or population not surviving.
Those that do... may have an advantage.

Even if almost all but not all are harmful, it's a numbers games. Some will have benefit and only those will survive.

2. Evolution involves populations not individuals

Strange statement. It's starts with an indivudal that influences the population through breeding.

Genetic variability is enough to drive evolution.

That is just wrong.

BTW, Newston’s Laws of Motion are Laws not theories.

Yes as you have said before.

Laws are an explaination for what happens.

There is still debate over the details in all of science, so this does nothing to elucidate why one thing is a "theory" and another a "law."

A better answer would be to follow Karl Popper and say that in science we have nothing but theories - even the so-called "laws" are theories, and the only reason why certain concepts are known as "laws" is because there's an easy formula to state them. Everything in science is necessarily provisional - not just because of human fallibility, but also because induction is logically unjustified, and there's really no rational reason why, say, the "law" of gravitation shouldn't suddenly cease to be valid tomorrow - so strictly speaking all reference to "law" in science is an abuse of language.

[freediver]

Because we don't know for a fact that fossils that seem to "stop" are really non-transitional.

You don't seem to get what I am asking you Annie. I am attempting to point out that your distinction between transitional and non-transitional fossils relies on punctuated equilibria.

There are gaps in the record, but there are other factors to consider, such as Dawkins' suggestion that migration of populations has played a part

Dawkins did not contradict punctuated equilibria.

As a lay person who studies science but without being a scientist, I would go with phyletic gradualism, which states that

Is this based on the evidence? Why are you even talking about transitional fossils if you believe in gradualism?

Great. Does that mean now you accept evolution as an accepted "Scientific Theory". A meta theory that brings together many sub-theories.

No. What made you jump to this conclusion?

Genetic variability is enough to drive evolution.

So you do subscribe to freediver's theory of sufficient genetic potential?

BTW, Newston’s Laws of Motion are Laws not theories.

That is merely a reference to their level of acceptance (prior to being disproven of course). They were theories before, and hypotheses before that.

There is still debate over the details in all of science, so this does nothing to elucidate why one thing is a "theory" and another a "law."

The difference is the level of acceptance within the scientific community.

[IQS.RLOW]

The level of acceptance in the scientific community for evolution is well known...only among laymen, idiots, the religious and pedants (usually with a religious agenda that they try to conceal) is it questioned...

Which one are you?

[freediver]

This is not about whether it is true, or whether it is accepted as true. It is about whether it is scientific.

[Super Nova]

Great. Does that mean now you accept evolution as an accepted "Scientific Theory". A meta theory that brings together many sub-theories.

No. What made you jump to this conclusion?

This is why.

Using your the logic above I would argue that evolution is the currently accepted theory and like all theories will wrong in parts and the process will improve the theory.

I agree with that, however I doubt it will ever become a victim of the fundamental paradigm shifts we see in science.

I thought you agreed that "evolution is the currently accepted theory...." and therefore is a "scientific theory". Which is the key point of this debate.

Also it will be a victim of any shift that disproves it as a valid theory. The issue is that it is broadly on the right track and could be right in its fundamental constructs so I can see why you would think it will not fall away.

[Super Nova]

And just to add, here is the best definition of why Evolution is a "Scientific Theory".

The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. In the vernacular, "theory" can refer to guesswork, a simple conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts and need not be framed for making testable predictions.

Scientific theories also contain speculation at first as scientists necessarily reach past the threshold of current knowledge, but they develop heuristically (experience-based techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery) or through axillary claims as observations from experiments are explained and cause-effect relations are understood.

Theories are constructs having both explanatory and predictive capacities that are built on inferential sets of logic (consilience of inductions, abductions, and deductions), models, and syllogistic schemes or laws that can be falsified through well designed experiments. In this way, theories that survive and develop through critical testing, such as Charles Darwin's theories on evolution, become richly informative as they explain cause-effect relations among many observable phenomena.

The "theory of evolution" is actually a network of theories or a meta-theory that has developed through the practice and understanding of the science involved in research programs within evolutionary biology. Charles Darwin, for example, proposed five separate theories in his original formulation, which included mechanistic explanations for: (1) populations changing over generations, (2) gradual change, (3) speciation, (4) natural selection, and (5) common descent.[17] Since Darwin, evolution has become a well-supported body of interconnected statements that explains numerous empirical observations in the natural world. Evolutionary theories continue to generate testable predictions and explanations about living and fossilized organisms.

FD,

You also warmed to the notion that it is a meta theory. That too is a scientific theory. It is just an unbrella over other sub-theories. That doesn't make it less scientific.

"theory of evolution" is actually a network of theories or a meta-theory is a key point to understand.

[annielaurie]

Freediver, I've replied in this thread in the best way I can, as a layperson who is not a scientist but appreciates and accepts science.

As IQ has just said,

The level of acceptance in the scientific community for evolution is well known ... only among laymen, idiots, the religious and pedants (usually with a religious agenda that they try to conceal) is it questioned ...

Which one are you?

Freediver, are you religious? I asked you that early on in this thread. Did you answer? I don't think so.

You sound like a creationist apologist. I don't trust creationist apologists. The ignorant ones are just tiresome. But the educated smart ones are downright dangerous. They have an agenda, to cast doubt on empirical science and confuse people who aren't sure or who don't have all the facts on the subject, leading them astray.