Evolution is not a scientific theory

[freediver]

My argument is, Evolution is falsifiable. Is a scientific theory.

Well at least now I know you disagree with me.

Do you agree with the following defintions:

They seem fine, but only marginally relevant. The macro (group psychology) processes have been largely rejected and replaced by the philosophy of Kuhn. This in particular is not the way science works:

At some point, the weight of the ad hoc hypotheses and disregarded falsifying observations will become so great that it becomes unreasonable to support the base theory any longer, and a decision will be made to reject it.

It was implicit in both models presented.

As Kuhn put it, the new theory does not become universally accepted by the scientific community as a replacement for the old incorrect one until the last of the crusty old holdouts dies. This of course happens at a very different level (macro vs micro) to the issue of what makes a theory scientific. It is an emergent group psychology behaviour.

I can be falsified, it has not been todate.

Just like my unicorn theory. I keep bringing this up to point out that the criteria you appear to be applying for what makes a theory scientific are untenable. Of course, you are hardly clear on what those criteria are - hence the unicorn example, rather than a more direct criticism of your criteria.

The argument that because we cannot understand everything in the past, do not have the detailed data for something does not mean it is "just explained away".

Perhaps I should rephrase it. It is explained in a glorious intellectual victory that avoids the need for the modern scientific method of enquiry.

What is your point?

Natural Selection is a key part fo Evolution... why do you keep separating the two

Because that is where the boundary of the scientific method is. This is why I brought up the titanium unicorn horn as an example of why the inclusion of a scientific aspect does not make the whole scientific.

That's not entirely true. Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific.

If you throw out the requirement for repeatable experiments in falsifiability, my unicorn theory is also scientific.

True. I meant the first form of life once it was created. To be more specific. after the soup created the first life.... all life evolved from that.

This theory - universal common ancestry - is also unfalsifiable. It is also circular in the sense that you end up defining life by the common ancestry.

So you agree the theory stands just that they had to adjust the details of the tree of life that had built when more detail come to light. These ajustment don't disprove the theory, just the details of the what happened here on earth.

Yes SN that is what I said. It did not disprove the theory. It demonstrated the infinite adaptability of the theory.

[IQ popping]

Im still waiting for you to explain why you argue so dogmatically against evolution as a science yet you readily accept climate science not only to not argue against it but to accept it in such a wholesale fashion that you would advocate changing the economy to accommodate it.

Acceptance of the evolutionary theory does not require wholesale changes to other areas and is open to correction. Climate theory and the carbon tax is not.

Why do you give unadulterated support to bad science and economics?

[freediver]

'Climate science' is not one theory, or even a few. It is predictions from a whole bunch of theories, many of which can be tested in the lab.

Whether evolution is a scientific theory and whether it is true are two completely separate issues. Same with climate science. It would be possible to be a mindless cheerleader for evolution in the culture wars while still acknowledging that it is not a scientific theory. Whether climate science is a scientific theory does not directly tell you anything about whether it is worth acting on.

Our society accepts many different standards of proof, and the modern scientific method is the least appropriate for an unfolding political issue. In most cases politics rules out the scientific method on ethical grounds.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Forgive my superficiality, on a library puter, so limited time ..

If you want to take the religious view to it's source, you'd have to accept the hindu dogma that Shiva uttered the sound/word "aum" (pronounced 'om') causing the big bang. Then Brahma gave birth to our planet, and Vishnu causes evolution of life forms.

But if you want to be logical, you'd probably reason (as I have) that the universe always was and always will be. No bigining and no end.

[IQ popping]

'Climate science' is not one theory, or even a few. It is predictions from a whole bunch of theories, many of which can be tested in the lab.
And most of which, can't- even with computer modelling. No prediciton has been correct

Whether evolution is a scientific theory and whether it is true are two completely separate issues. Same with climate science. It would be possible to be a mindless cheerleader for evolution in the culture wars while still acknowledging that it is not a scientific theory. Whether climate science is a scientific theory does not directly tell you anything about whether it is worth acting on.
Its not worth acting due to the expense in any case but If its not scientific and its not true then its not worth acting on period

Our society accepts many different standards of proof, and the modern scientific method is the least appropriate for an unfolding political issue. In most cases politics rules out the scientific method on ethical grounds.

Only if its leftwing politics and ethics. The pragmatic demand a higher level of proof before making wholesale changes- which is why the leftwing parties find themselves where they are

[freediver]

So you think right wingers would be happy to treat people as guinea pigs in order to figure the science out, because that is what matters most?

[Super Nova]

FD,

Any and all sources of scientific credibility conclude that Evolution is a valid thoery that is scientific. Including that Evolutionary Theory Can Be Falsified which you are stating is the bases of your argument. Considering that the scientific community state if can be falsified and I have provided the evidence and explaination for how it can it is back to you to provide evidence that is cannot be.

It is difficult for you to admit you have lost this debate I know.

It meets all the standards set for a Scientific Theory.

Criteria for a Scientific Theory
To fully understand how and why evolution is scientific, it's important to first know what the generally accepted criteria for scientific theories are. Scientific theories must be:
•Consistent (internally & externally)
•Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
•Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
•Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
•Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
•Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
•Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)
•Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Evolutionary Theory Can Be Falsified
Falsification of evolution as common descent would be complicated because of the vast amount of supporting evidence. Evolution rests upon a general and widespread pattern of evidence from many different fields, so a similar pattern of contradictory evidence is needed to falsify it. Isolated anomalies might force modifications, but no more. If we found a general pattern of fossils in rocks dated to different ages than expected, that would be a problem for evolution. If our understanding of physics and chemistry changed significantly, causing us to find that the earth is quite young, that would falsify evolution.

Evolution is Consistent
Although there are gaps in our knowledge, disagreements as to how evolution occurred, and gaps in the evidence, the idea of common descent is still overwhelmingly supported by both historical and contemporary evidence as well as our understanding of how changes occur in living organisms. All evidence we have supports evolutionary theory and common descent; absolutely no evidence points to anything else. Evolution is also externally consistent: it does not contradict solid findings in any other physical science. If evolution did contradict physics or chemistry, that would be a significant problem.

Evolution is Parsimonious
Evolution is naturalistic and does not add unnecessary concepts, entities, or processes to our understanding of the universe. Evolution, which is just genetic change over time, does not rely upon any entities or concepts which do not otherwise exist in any scientific model. Common descent does not require us to imagine anything new or unusual in the universe. This means is the theory of evolution is the simplest and most reliable explanation of the diversity of life on our planet. Everything offered as alternatives requires us to imagine new entities not used or needed in any other scientific model, like gods.

Evolution is Useful
Evolution is the unifying principle of the life sciences, which includes medicine. This means that much of what is done in the biological and medical sciences could not occur without the background premise of evolution. I've yet to see any Evolution Deniers willing to give up modern medicine. Evolutionary theory also suggests lots of problems for scientists to work on because it makes predictions which, in turn, provide experiments to perform in order to better understand what's going on in the natural world. Evolution thus provides an overall paradigm for solving current problems within the life sciences.

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.

Evolutionary Theory is Correctable & Dynamic
Evolution is based solely on the evidence, thus if the evidence changes so will the theory; in fact, subtle changes to aspects of evolutionary theory can be observed by anyone who regularly reads biology journals and pays attention to the scientific debates. Evolutionary theory today is not quite the same as the evolutionary theory which Charles Darwin originally devised and wrote about, though he was correct enough that much of what he discovered continues to b valid. Since there are gaps in our understanding and evidence, we can expect to see more changes in the future as our understanding expands.

Evolutionary Theory is Progressive
The idea that a scientific theory should be progressive means that a new scientific theory should build on earlier scientific theories. In other words, a new theory must explain what previous theories explained at least as well as they did while providing a new understanding for additional material — something which evolution does. Another way to see how scientific theories need to be progressive is that they can be shown to be superior to competing theories. It should be possible to compare several explanations for a phenomenon and find that one does a much better job than the others. This is true of evolution.

[freediver]

OK SN, let's play spot the difference.

Empirically Testable & Falsifiable

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.

[Super Nova]

So what does it mean for a hypothesis to be empirically testable? It simply means that it’s possible to gather evidence that directly supports the hypothesis.

If it is not possible to gather evidence that directly supports a hypothesis, then that hypothesis isn’t empirically testable.

It is. This definition come of a creationist site.

[IQS.RLOW]

So you think right wingers would be happy to treat people as guinea pigs in order to figure the science out, because that is what matters most?

It is the leftwing that are treating people as guinea pigs- wholesale changes to the economy to satisfy the rabid few