Evolution is not a scientific theory

[freediver]

Am I the only one?
Yes

So when you posted this you were referring to me alone? Why do you refer to me with the plural?

That frame of thought is a very recent introduction by God botherers trying to discredit the theory without offering a hypothesis or refutation of their own.

Only if you are Popper...and you are not

Am I not allowed to agree with him on that point?

Atomic theory
Information theory
There are many that wouldn't fit into your narrow viewpoint as not scientific

Can you explain why they don't?

No, you haven't. I asked you this before and you answered that you were more interested in the economics rather than the philosophic.

You asked a different question to the one mantra asked. That was the correct answer to your question. I think a lot of your confusion stems from asking the wrong question, then blaming me for not giving you the answer you want.

After all, when atomic theory was first conceived it wasn't falsifiable

Yes it was.

SN:

Darwin's book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection

This is the same thing I said - that natural selection is a scientific theory.

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological.

Same with this one.

[IQ popping]

Still avoiding the question I see

[lisa jones]

I noticed FD just got through carefully explaining how scientific theories are testable and may be supported by or rejected by evidence arising from experimentation. That neither evolution or creation can be directly tested by science.

Evolutionary Theory Can Be Tested.

Because evolution (as common descent) is largely a historical science, testing it is complicated — but it's not impossible. As with other historical investigations, we can make predictions and retrodictions (utilize present information to infer or explain past events or states) based on the theory. We can thus state that we would expect to find certain things (like types of fossils) when looking at the historical record; if they are found, it supports the theory. We cannot perform the direct tests like those often found physics and chemistry, but the theory of evolution is as testable as other historical theories.

[mantra]

I noticed FD just got through carefully explaining how scientific theories are testable and may be supported by or rejected by evidence arising from experimentation. That neither evolution or creation can be directly tested by science.

Evolutionary Theory Can Be Tested.

Because evolution (as common descent) is largely a historical science, testing it is complicated — but it's not impossible. As with other historical investigations, we can make predictions and retrodictions (utilize present information to infer or explain past events or states) based on the theory. We can thus state that we would expect to find certain things (like types of fossils) when looking at the historical record; if they are found, it supports the theory. We cannot perform the direct tests like those often found physics and chemistry, but the theory of evolution is as testable as other historical theories.

Don't plagiarise the work of others. Provide a link.

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionex ... iteria.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Super Nova]

SN:

Darwin's book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection

This is the same thing I said - that natural selection is a scientific theory.

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological.

Same with this one.

FD, when I posted this I saw this and suspected you would pick this up.

Natural selection is an element of the evolutionary process. You cannot just pull it out and argue it separately.

[Super Nova]

Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.

This is the best site I have found. Have a read of this for Evolution 101.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... tion.shtml


When you are looking around you will find. Lines of Evidence: the Science of Evolution
At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.

Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences.

[freediver]

Because evolution (as common descent) is largely a historical science, testing it is complicated — but it's not impossible.

Falsifiability from a scientific perspective does not mean the possibiility of digging up contradictory evidence. It refers to repeatable experiments, not a fixed number of pieces of evidence.

Otherwise you would not be able to make a distinction between history and science. Yet you can, at least for most historical studies.

Natural selection is an element of the evolutionary process. You cannot just pull it out and argue it separately.

Yes I can. Otherwise I could include an element of modern chemistry in my unicorn theory and that would make it scientific.

[IQ popping]

Pedantic troll is pedantic

[annielaurie]

Thanks for the link, Nova. Be sure to have a look at the part about Macroevolution as well,

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to “see” macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we’ve figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms—mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection—can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.

Mutation + gene flow + genetic drift + natural selection + 3.8 billion years = Macroevolution

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... tion.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"

[freediver]

Pedantic troll is pedantic

It is not pedantry IQ. It is the entire point I am making and one that is lost on you. Not everyone is a mindless cheerleader for the evolution vs creationism culture war and your tireless efforts to frame this discussion in terms of that debate have gotten you nowhere.