Evolution is not a scientific theory

[boxy]

If you're not interested, fuck off out of the thread, old man.




Of course evolution is falsifiable. The only reason it hasn't been, is because it's obviously is correct, and has been backed by year upon year of confirmation.

[annielaurie]

Of course evolution is falsifiable. The only reason it hasn't been, is because it's obviously is correct, and has been backed by year upon year of confirmation.

That is obviously correct. It's a fact already. Scientists are overwhelmingly convinced evolution is a true, there are mountains of evidence, have been for decades, all the facts are there, and they have stopped arguing about it.

All the natural sciences are now based on the fact of evolution. Natural selection and evolution are not separate. Evolution on a macro scale is natural selection over very long periods of time, in the billions of years.

Just because there are people who still question it, try to cast doubt on it, believe otherwise, believe religious scripture literally which contradicts it, does not mean evolution didn't happen. Nature hardly cares what you believe.

It most surely did happen, and is still happening, on a grand scale over long periods of time.

We are still evolving, and will continue to do so, and so are all the other plant and animal species on this planet.

Evolution is a fact.

[freediver]

Of course evolution is falsifiable. The only reason it hasn't been, is because it's obviously is correct, and has been backed by year upon year of confirmation.

Whether it is correct, confirmed etc and whether it is scientific are two completely separate issues.

Natural selection and evolution are not separate. Evolution on a macro scale is natural selection over very long periods of time, in the billions of years.

There are fundamental differences that completely change the tools and methods used to investigate each theory. Once your theory involves beneficial mutation (ie evolution, beyond natural selection), you exclude most of the tools and methods that are actually used to investigate natural selection (the key one being the controlled experiment) and replace them with fundamentally different tools and methods (as used mostly by historians).

Just because there are people who still question it, try to cast doubt on it, believe otherwise, believe religious scripture literally which contradicts it, does not mean evolution didn't happen. Nature hardly cares what you believe.

It most surely did happen, and is still happening, on a grand scale over long periods of time.

We are still evolving, and will continue to do so, and so are all the other plant and animal species on this planet.

Evolution is a fact.

This is irrelevant to whether the theory is scientific.

[Jovial Monk]

Scientists agree Darwin’s theory is not formulated as a scientific theory. If natural selection guarantees survival of the fittest then those individuals that survive are the fittest—self fullfilling prophecy you see, not falsifiable.

None of this has to do with not believing in evolution or being a creationist.

The theory of evolution could be recast in terms of genetics and ecology—but we are talking about the theory of evolution as Darwin formulated it.

[boxy]

Jesus. You really think that all Darwin said was that the fit survive?

Idiot.

[Jovial Monk]

I have read “The Origin of Species” and I have read “The Voyage of the Beagle” and studied the subject in geology and zoology.

That is what his theory boils down to, well that in that the fit son’t just survive but also breed.

Now, either you have a better version or more likely you are just expressing dislike of me, in which case fuck off out of this thread.

[boxy]

The fit are more likely to survive to breeding age, and to have more offspring (and it's much wider than just physical fitness, it includes behaviour, appearance, child rearing, etc.). Over many generations random mutations are either selected for or against, based on the filtering through that "natural selection" process, slowly changing a population. Isolated populations, in diverse ecosystems, that start out the same, can change into new species through this process, explaining the diverse range of species we now have, and their astonishing suitability for the niches they find themselves in.

Totally falsifiable. Totally scientific.

Genius, given some of the nutbag theories that were acceptable before (and still hold ground with the delusional to this day).

[Aussie]

Why do you peudo know alls use the expression 'falsifiable?' Is there not a less confusing, more readily relevant term?

[Jovial Monk]

I never said it was physical fitness—nice strawman argument there boxy!

Thing is, you cannot predict which traits make one or more organisms the fittest. By definition, the fittest are the ones that survive (and breed, I took that as read.)

I was reading about Darwin’s theory not being falsifiable back when I was studying evolution at Uni—that was late 60s.

[IQS.RLOW]

Why do you peudo know alls use the expression 'falsifiable?' Is there not a less confusing, more readily relevant term?

It's only confusing to the dumbfucks, dumbfuck