Evolution is not a scientific theory

[IQ popping]

Is is exactly pedantry.

I expect you to create 6 pages on your blog saying that climate science isnt really science if your point isnt pedantic.

[mantra]

I'll explain it to you IQ. Global warming could be a law or it could be a theory - depending on how you view it. It can be called a law because there are layers of fossilised rocks going back billions of years and scientists can view the various weather patterns over the past milleniums, although this proves nothing in my view. GW has occurred before and we know industrialisation didn't cause it, but it is also a theory because advocates and their scientists want to evaluate/validate their findings. They would know full well that they won't prove anything definitive in their lifetime, but it keeps them busy.

Evolution should be law, but according to FD's summations, if I understood correctly, it can also be viewed as a theory because humanity might not evolve the way it has in the past. We have proof of evolution of course - going back 3 million years or so, but as body shapes and heads are changing in size - perhaps our bones will regress over future centuries to the point where we're back where we started - looking like apes.

So the crux of this discussion is that there is very little or no difference between scientific law and scientific theory. No-one is a winner.

[Jovial Monk]

And Mantra gets everything completely wrong!

GW is scientific: models developed using the theory always come true, in fact the models are conservative in the amount of global warming they predict.

Evolution theory is not scientific: it predicts the fittest survive so those organisms that do must be the fittest—no way to test you see. We can trace the evolution and extinction of species including the evolution of our own—the fossil evidence is becoming very rich. But we cannot predict which will survive and prosper.

[Super Nova]

And Mantra gets everything completely wrong!

GW is scientific: models developed using the theory always come true, in fact the models are conservative in the amount of global warming they predict.

Evolution theory is not scientific: it predicts the fittest survive so those organisms that do must be the fittest—no way to test you see. We can trace the evolution and extinction of species including the evolution of our own—the fossil evidence is becoming very rich. But we cannot predict which will survive and prosper.

Monk, you are only describing one of many aspects of Evolution and that is Natural Selection. There are more elements than this,. Go read up on it.

[Super Nova]

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.

Evolution is falsifiable as described by the scientist who first raised it... read somewhere earlier... for example, if the skeliton of a rabbit was found in the layers when dinosaurs where around... evolution would be in trouble. If evidence was foudn that contradicted the theory, the theory would be falsified.

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.

Try harder. Adding elements of other areas of science may help your unicorn theory if that added to the theory being testable. It would not make it more scientific if it didnot add any value to the theory being verify-able.

For example when Hawking add quantium theory to black holes he discovered they could evaporate... this added value.

[freediver]

Evolution is falsifiable as described by the scientist who first raised it... read somewhere earlier... for example, if the skeliton of a rabbit was found in the layers when dinosaurs where around... evolution would be in trouble.

How is attempting to disprove the existence of magic rabbits any more scientific than attempting to disprove the existence of unicorns? Is it because you are really really sure they don't exist?

Try harder. Adding elements of other areas of science may help your unicorn theory if that added to the theory being testable. It would not make it more scientific if it didnot add any value to the theory being verify-able.

The scientific aspects of the theory would be scientific. The unscientific aspects of the theory would be unscientific. Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution is not, even though it partly relies on a scientific theory. This is because there are other aspects of the theory that are clearly unscientific. Your argument would be no different to claiming that my unicorn theory is scientific because the horn is made of titanium and we can do experiments on titanium.

[Super Nova]

Don't buy your argument FD. It is flawed in that you now argue that one component of Evolution, Natural Selection is Scientific but the whole theory is not.

There are 4 pilars of evolution. Mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are all processes of evolution.

Are you saying:
Mutation - does not exist and is not scientific?
genetic drift - does not exist and is not scientific?
Migration does not occur and is not scientific?
National selection is the only element you recognise as scientific?

No you will not say that.

If the sum of the scientific parts that make the whole are scientific and the whole brings together these elements into a joined up theory that can be proven... then the whole is scientific.

Evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors. Evolution is responsible for both the remarkable similarities we see across all life and the amazing diversity of that life.

Fundamental to the process is genetic variation upon which selective forces can act in order for evolution to occur.

Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, and natural selection as mechanisms of change.

Now there are Microevolution and Macroevolution. One is easier to test than the other due to the complexity of the Macro and the timelines associated with it.

Microevolution has been proven.
House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides. These are all examples of microevolution—evolution on a small scale.

You can explore the topic of microevolution through several case studies in which we’ve directly observed its action.

Here is a nice explaination for you to understand: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... isms.shtml

Macroevolution
Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale—what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction.

Read here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... tion.shtml

[freediver]

It is flawed in that you now argue that one component of Evolution, Natural Selection is Scientific but the whole theory is not.

Is it flawed to argue that theories regarding the strength of titanium are scientific, but theories regarding the implications of impaling a unicorn with it's titanium horn are unscientific, despite the inclusion of a role for titanium?

Mutation - does not exist and is not scientific?

Whether it exists and whether it is scientific are two completely separate issues. The existence or implications of beneficial mutations is not scientific.

genetic drift - does not exist and is not scientific?

Sounds like another way of saying natural selection.

Your pillars also makes no reference at all to concepts like universal common ancestry, the evolutionary tree, abiogenisis, chimerism etc, which are all key componenents of the theory.

If the sum of the scientific parts that make the whole are scientific and the whole brings together these elements into a joined up theory that can be proven... then the whole is scientific.

So long as all those parts are.

Evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors.

There you go. I don't see any reference to this in your four pillars.

[Super Nova]

You are playijng with definitions now.

Is Natural Selection the scientific defintion or your own?

[freediver]

Is Natural Selection the scientific defintion or your own?

Now? This entire debate boils down to definitions.

I am not aware of any distinction. For the purpose of this debate, anything up to beneficial mutation is scientific. That seems to fit in pretty well with natural selection.