Evolution is not a scientific theory

[Super Nova]

Evolution is not a scientific theory.

Natural selection is basic science. Evolution is not even a scientific theory.

FD,

It is nice to see you accept Natural Selection as basic science and therefore I assume you accept it as a valid Scientific Thoery. (I am sure that is said by you somewhere in this long thread... please confirm)

Even though the theory has progressed since Darwin, (let's not debate their refinements since Darwin), do you accept the following elements as valid Scientific Theories?

The five separate theories in Darwin's original formulation, which included mechanistic explanations for:
(1) populations changing over generations,
(2) gradual change,
(3) speciation,
(4) natural selection, [FD recognises this as a valid Scientific Theory]
(5) common descent.

Your considered answer will be important to progress this debate.

[freediver]

What we call evolution is simply natural selection occurring across species of plant and animal life on earth, over very long periods of time, in the billions of years; as one species of plant or animal gradually changes into another because of adaptation to the environment.

Sorry Annie, the evidence does not back up your position. Ever heard of punctuated equilibria?

People tend to forget the aspect of time, long periods of time: epochs, in the billions of years.

Not true Annie. In fact, as I explained earlier, it is the aspect of time that makes the theory unscientific.

They ask, if we came from apes then why are there still apes living alongside us today. They are our cousins on the evolutionary tree, we branched out millions of years ago from a common ancestor, which in turn branched out from an even earlier form which lived millions of years before that.

Who are 'they'?

But with the hypothesis of evolution as the foundation, we can see how natural selection works over long periods of time.

So you are saying you need the theory before you can see the evidence?

The word scientific covers everything by the looks of it. It's definitely over-rated.

It is possible to give it a meaning that is both consistent and familiar.

Eg. My dog only eats kangaroo meat because anything else upsets his tummy. That is a scientific theory - but it can also be called a scientific law because it is a fact - that is unless someone discovers another food that his stomach will tolerate.

I would consider that a scientific theory. It is possible to attempt to disprove it, but not possible to prove it. It is a good example of the principle.

It is nice to see you accept Natural Selection as basic science and therefore I assume you accept it as a valid Scientific Thoery. (I am sure that is said by you somewhere in this long thread... please confirm)

Sure.

do you accept the following elements as valid Scientific Theories?

3 and 5 are not scientific, although 3 is a bit ambiguous. There is usually an assumption of beneficial mutation playing a role in speciation, but it is not necessarily a requirement.

2 is wrong, from an evolutionary perspective. It is a good example of the theory's ability to adapt to any set of facts, and it's inability to predict in a genuine sense.

[Super Nova]

Sure.

Natural Selection approved by FD as a Scientific Theory. - One down

do you accept the following elements as valid Scientific Theories?

3 and 5 are not scientific, although 3 is a bit ambiguous. There is usually an assumption of beneficial mutation playing a role in speciation, but it is not necessarily a requirement.

2 is wrong, from an evolutionary perspective. It is a good example of the theory's ability to adapt to any set of facts, and it's inability to predict in a genuine sense.

The five separate theories in Darwin's original formulation, which included mechanistic explanations for:
(1) populations changing over generations, [FD - you did not comment on this]
(2) gradual change, [FD says it is wrong, from an evolutionary perspective. It is a good example of the theory's ability to adapt to any set of facts, and it's inability to predict in a genuine sense]
(3) speciation, [FD says if not scientific and a bit ambigious. There is usually an assumption of beneficial mutation playing a role in speciation, but it is not necessarily a requirement.]
(4) natural selection, [FD recognises this as a valid Scientific Theory - Confirmed]
(5) common descent. [FD says this is not Scientific]

FD is 1 considered a Scientific Theory by you?
Why is common decent (5) not considered scientific by you?

[Super Nova]

The five separate theories in Darwin's original formulation, which included mechanistic explanations for:
(1) populations changing over generations, [FD - you did not comment on this]
(2) gradual change, [FD says it is wrong, from an evolutionary perspective. It is a good example of the theory's ability to adapt to any set of facts, and it's inability to predict in a genuine sense]
(3) speciation, [FD says if not scientific and a bit ambigious. There is usually an assumption of beneficial mutation playing a role in speciation, but it is not necessarily a requirement.]
(4) natural selection, [FD recognises this as a valid Scientific Theory - Confirmed]
(5) common descent. [FD says this is not Scientific]

FD is 1 considered a Scientific Theory by you?
Why is common decent (5) not considered scientific by you?

Lets begin with Common Descent as it is a valid scientific theory.
Evidence of common descent of living things has been discovered by scientists working in a variety of fields over many years. This evidence has demonstrated and verified the occurrence of evolution and provided a wealth of information on the natural processes by which the variety and diversity of life on Earth developed. This evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis, the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time.

DNA
One of the strongest evidences for common descent comes from the study of gene sequences. Comparative sequence analysis examines the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species,producing several lines of evidence that confirm Darwin's original hypothesis of common descent.

Comparison of the DNA sequences allows organisms to be grouped by sequence similarity. Sequence comparison is considered a measure robust enough to correct erroneous assumptions in the phylogenetic tree in instances where other evidence is scarce. For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons.Genetic sequence evidence thus allows inference and quantification of genetic relatedness between humans and other apes as an example.

DNA testing shows there is a relationship between all life on Earth.

FD, do you accept DNA as scientific evidence between the relationship between existing life on Earth?

Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns

All known surviving organisms are based on the same biochemical processes: genetic information encoded as nucleic acid (DNA, or RNA for viruses), transcribed into RNA, then translated into proteins (that is, polymers of amino acids) by highly conserved ribosomes. Perhaps most tellingly, the Genetic Code (the "translation table" between DNA and amino acids) is the same for almost every organism, meaning that a piece of DNA in a bacterium codes for the same amino acid as in a human cell.

FD, This is important has it show we are made of the same arrangement and supports the common descent theory.

Endogenous retroviruses

Endogenous retroviruses (or ERVs) are remnant sequences in the genome left from ancient viral infections in an organism. The retroviruses (or virogenes) are always passed on to the next generation of that organism that received the infection. This leaves the virogene left in the genome. Because this event is rare and random, finding identical chromosomal positions of a virogene in two different species suggests common ancestry.

FD, As it always is passed on, this is another proof point for common descent.

Proteins

The proteomic evidence also supports the universal ancestry of life. Vital proteins, such as the ribosome, DNA polymerase, and RNA polymerase, are found in everything from the most primitive bacteria to the most complex mammals.

FD, all life is made i nthe same way. Further evidence.

Pseudogenes

Non-functional pseudogenes may be passed on to later species, thereby labeling the later species as descended from the earlier species.

FD, evidence of this everywhere is further evidence.

There is so much evidence to support this theory I cannot be bothered to state each part of it. It is a valid and current scientific theory.

I think it is on you to explain why Common Descent is not a Scientific Theory when there is so much evidence to support it. It passes all the tests for a scientific theory. More than a one line response would be appreciated.

Here is a link for you to look at.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

[Super Nova]

FD,

While you ponder the evidence for Common Ascent, let's look at your site on the issue.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/theo ... ntial.html

The earth is an ark. The organisms currently living on the earth contain all the genetic information required to breed any of the organisms that have ever lived on the earth. This would require no beneficial mutations, just a careful and prolonged selective breeding program, and the exchange of DNA that often occurs naturally between different species. This genetic information has been available for the entire time that life has existed on earth.

This is in error in a couple of parts.

There is no careful and prolonged selective breeding program. Are you suggesting God has been running one? If you are we need to demonstrate that God is not Falsifyable and therefore should not be the basis of your constructs in challenging a scientific theory.

Without such guidance mutations do occur - do you agree on that?
There are mutations that occur that are neither beneficial or negative to the species survival.
Benefitical mutations, when they do occur will but not ensure, improved survivability of the new subspecies. They do occur and they have been proven by science.

Q: Is your theory better than evolution?

Why yes it is, and that's a good question. See, evolution would lead you to believe that it would take millions or billions of years to breed a chihuahua from a wolf as you waited for the required mutations to arise. If chihuahuas and wolves were found in the fossil record in the absence of other information, that is what the evolutionists would assume happened. Of course, the selective pressure applied to wild dogs to get chihuahuas was only applied to a very limited number of individual animals. Pressure applied to an entire population would yield much faster change. My theory also explains the fossil record better than evolution, as the fossil record tends to show species emerging spontaneously, with no fossil record of the transitory organisms and know way of knowing for certain which species a new species developed from. These species then remain unchanged throughout the fossil record until their extinction.

The fossil record doesn't tend to show species emerging spontaneously. It shows there are gaps in the record. You are making a broad assumption that is not true.

"with no fossil record of the transitory organisms and know way of knowing for certain which species a new species developed from"

The further we go back the gaps are bigger. Using more recent timelines with less gaps they have proven this with more detailed steps between species.

Saying there is "no fossil record" is just untrue. They have linked between certain species for periods of time. They just cannot connect all the dot to the current time. The evolution of feathered birds is a good enample of such evidence however every fossil for every step of the evolution has not been found.

Q: Is your theory scientific.

No. While it is easy to show that it is better than the theory of evolution by showing that the genetic potential of life on earth is far greater than evolution would lead one to believe, there is no way of testing the theory of sufficient genetic potential as I have shown it here. If I were to modify the theory into one that could be tested, it would be nothing more than observing the obvious.

Genetic potential is one thing. Allowing that line of life to survive is another. Please explain this waffle. "While it is easy to show that it is better than the theory of evolution by showing that the genetic potential of life on earth is far greater than evolution would lead one to believe"

It's not easy because you have not explained anything from what I have read on your site.

Q: Will your theory be more popular than evolution?

No. People want science to provide an alternative to faith based religions. Evolution explains our current observations in a way that also explains the origins of life. My theory explains current observations in a way that doesn't explain the origins of life. While my theory is better, it won't have the same popular appeal among the members of the public that are ignorant of the facts. Evolution is a bit like Freud's theories. Most people are aware of Freud's theories to some extent and can use them to explain observations, but the psychology community has come up with much better theories. Of course, these theories don't have the glamour of a dirty old man blaming everyone's problems on childhood sexual issues, which is why the public is not aware of the more valuable theories

"People want science to provide an alternative to faith based religions"

No, I want science to explain it how it is based on our best evidence.

"My theory explains current observations in a way that doesn't explain the origins of life. While my theory is better"

Wrong, Evolution, as we have agreed does not deal with the origins of life. I rule this point out of scope and pointless.

The rest is unrelated waffle on does not build any argument.

FD, Please respond to the "Common Descent" page above.
.

[mantra]

DNA
One of the strongest evidences for common descent comes from the study of gene sequences. Comparative sequence analysis examines the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species,producing several lines of evidence that confirm Darwin's original hypothesis of common descent.

Comparison of the DNA sequences allows organisms to be grouped by sequence similarity. Sequence comparison is considered a measure robust enough to correct erroneous assumptions in the phylogenetic tree in instances where other evidence is scarce. For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons.Genetic sequence evidence thus allows inference and quantification of genetic relatedness between humans and other apes as an example.

DNA testing shows there is a relationship between all life on Earth.

To a simple layperson DNA is quite interesting. It works in mysterious ways. Although generally it applies to people who are related - it sometimes appears to work in animals and non related people. If unrelated species of animals and humans live together they can actually become alike and surely over many thousands, millions, billions of years their DNA could be passed on to eventually change that animal or human into another species. I've observed animals all my life and seen generations of birds in particular change in size and appearance - which could be natural selection, but of course they will never be genetically tested. We can see adopted children from birth eventually end up looking like their non-biological parents regardless of their race - although we are the same species. On the other hand dogs, cats, pigs, birds etc can behave almost identically if raised in the same environment. They can also take on human traits. These can be passed on through their DNA to the next generation. Eventually they would have to physically change as their original natural instincts become extinct.

It might take another thousand years to test successive generations from different species to prove it though. I can't see "scientists" ever discovering our true origin.

[darwin]

Apparently they have just found another line on hominid that is "unrelated" to the apes. Does this mean we might not be that related to them after all? Does this mean that even though species "evolve" that the Theory of Evolution involving our species may not be as once postulated?

[Aussie]

'apparently.' Duh!!!!!!!

[annielaurie]

Apparently they have just found another line on hominid that is "unrelated" to the apes. Does this mean we might not be that related to them after all? Does this mean that even though species "evolve" that the Theory of Evolution involving our species may not be as once postulated?

No, it means the line they've discovered isn't directly related to the apes we know today. It could have been related to species of apes that are already extinct, and not the line that led to us.

It doesn't mean we are not related to them. It means there were earlier common ancestors that branched off in a different direction.

There have been a great many branches on the evolutionary tree, not just the hominid line that led to homo sapiens - us.

Scientists have been discovering fossils that fill in some of the gaps, that's all.

[mantra]

No, it means the line they've discovered isn't directly related to the apes we know today. It could have been related to species of apes that are already extinct, and not the line that led to us.

There are so many scientific theories about evolution. How do we know we didn't evolve from the ptesoraur or a similar creature? Even if the DNA of old fossils had been tested - it's possible that there would be very little recognisable DNA remaining from our original being.

Man in modern history has always strived to fly - as he has strived to explore the oceans. We also dream of being able to fly. Could these desires be the last remnants of a prehistoric instinct? We have to also look at ancient murals were man has been represented as an animal - usualy a mammal or a reptile. Have these ancient murals ever represented man as an ape? How do we know the very old extinct civilisations didn't know as much as us - if not more?