Evolution is not a scientific theory

[annielaurie]

What are we talking about in this thread?

I'm talking about evolution as the single most important scientific theory in the natural sciences. I'm talking about the Theory of Evolution as it is defined today, and not in Darwin's time.

I am talking about evolution as it is defined and studied today by the modern scientific community. It's an hypothesis, a framework onwhich to hang the evidence and supporting facts, and open-ended in order to learn more.

Over the many decades since Darwin, the findings that did not fit the hypothesis were tossed out and the ones that did fit were added.

It has been rigorously tested according to scientific method, to the point where they don't need more proof, they know it's true now. Evolution is a fact.

I think this entire thread is ridiculous. Somebody on the internet making a claim that evolution isn't scientific? No, the burden of prrof is on the one making such a ridiculous claim.

[Aussie]

What are we talking about in this thread?

Pseudo clevah dick drivel.

[IQS.RLOW]

What are we talking about in this thread?

Pseudo clevah dick drivel.

You must feel right at home

[boxy]

But that doesn’t prove or disprove Darwin’s theory since any survivors are assumed to be the fittest to survive.

See, there you go again. The theory is about more than just survival. A key feature is the heritability of that "fitness". Such a test would sink the theory, if it wasn't true.

[freediver]

How about this? It's a scientific theory because scientists say it is. To argue otherwise would be to take on the entire worldwide science community.

Are you the spokesperson for the global scientific community?

Are you a scientist? Have you actually studied it yourself?

This is a question of philosophy, not science. It is possible to have a successful career in science without ever pondering any of these questions.

Show evidence that it is not a scientific theory.

I have presented an argument in this thread. It is not an issue that will be resolved by physical evidence.

The reason it hasn't been falsified up to this point is because it is obviously true.

Most scientific theories are false. The rest, we are not too sure about.

What are we talking about in this thread? I'm talking about evolution as the single most important scientific theory in the natural sciences.

I noticed. Yet you are also pretending to understand whether it is scientific.

I'm talking about the Theory of Evolution as it is defined today, and not in Darwin's time.

So is everyone else except Monk. Not that the fundamentals have changed since Darwin's time. This should be another hint about whether the theory is scientific. All other fields of science have moved on from that time to completely new paradigms. Evolution has not, because it cannot use the scientific method.

Over the many decades since Darwin, the findings that did not fit the hypothesis were tossed out and the ones that did fit were added.

See, there you go again. The theory is about more than just survival. A key feature is the heritability of that "fitness". Such a test would sink the theory, if it wasn't true.

It would sink the theory of natural selection. Natural selection is a scientific theory.

[Ferombah Hynde]

It always puzzles me as to why religious folk get their panties bunched about the theory of evolution.

Not only does the theory offer no explanation as to how life started (so you can still run with your magic-poof-with-magic-wand story, if you must), but even if the theory WAS bogus, there would STILL be not one shred of evidence to believe in said magic poof.

With or without the TOE, your favourite god stills blows.

[annielaurie]

FD, it seems you keep wanting to separate natural selection and evolution, as if they are not related.

But think in terms billions of years of time. Try to picture the first amino acids and the formation of simple RNA, and gradually the formation of the more complex DNA strands, then the first single celled life forms, the first replicating multi-celled forms, and keep going. Imagine a diversity of simple forms climbing out of the stinking swamp waters, imagine the first complex plant and animal organisms spreading over the land, competing for territory and food, changing just a little bit, and a little but more, imagine the diversity of the species spreading out across the planet, imagine all the multitudes swarming over the earth across more than three billions of years of time—

—natural selection over long periods of time is evolution.

[freediver]

FD, it seems you keep wanting to separate natural selection and evolution, as if they are not related.

Not quite. I am distinguishing between them, as if one was a scientific theory and the other wasn't.

But think in terms billions of years of time.

That is part of the reason why evolution is not a scientific theory.

Try to picture the first amino acids

I am having trouble forming the mental picture. I forget what they look like.

natural selection over long periods of time is evolution

That depends on the extent to which you believe the theory of sufficient genetic potential.

[Jovial Monk]

Ron Paul does not believe in evolution, apparently.Mad and madder.

[Super Nova]