Evolution not scientific

I personally do not believe in evolution. I think the theory has alot of faults it also can not be backed up with Science, as Science is testable and observable..

Evolution is not testable or observable we can not witness or test it, the theory has alot of errors and unsolved questions..

What are other peoples opinions on evolution?

I'm sorry, but you've already demonstrated that you do not know enough about this topic to have a serious discussion of it.

Saying that science does not back the theory of evolution is patently ridiculous.

I'm sorry, but you've already demonstrated that you do not know enough about this topic to have a serious discussion of it.

Sorry i would say the same about you for posting the above comment.

Obviously you do not know the definition of the word Science.

Science is defined as "Knowledge from observation" which has to be testable and observable.

Science is Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

Nobody has ever observed evolution happening. Nobody.

Nobody has ever experienced Evolution.

Nobody has ever tested evolution.

Science is Science, Evolution is not Science.

Religion: Soto Zen Buddhism

Btw Zen Buddhists do not believe in evolution as the theory of evolution is a dualistic theory. Buddhism (every school) as far as i know is non-dualistic. So you may want to study your religion more.

I'm not trying to be rude, but you've again demonstrated my point that you are not prepared to discuss this topic from an informed vantage.

Science is a method, based on observation, hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, testing it again, forming new hypotheses to explain observations, making predictions based on hypotheses and then seeing if such predictions are true, abandoning hypotheses that do not stand up to evidence, etc.

The theory of evolution has passed every test with flying colors. It is not the least little bit unscientific.

May I ask where you get your notions about the theory of evolution?

forest wrote:

Religion: Soto Zen Buddhism

Btw Zen Buddhists do not believe in evolution as the theory of evolution is a dualistic theory. Buddhism (every school) as far as i know is non-dualistic. So you may want to study your religion more.

Now you're going to tell me about my own religion? Do you have any kind of an actual education at all? Are you 12 years old?

Evolution is not testable or observable? Tell that to Richard Lenski... Evolution can be and has been observed numerous times at the bacterial level. The only reason we can't observe it at a higher level is that it takes too bloody long. Oh, there's also the problem of the entire fossil record...

Ebon wrote:Evolution is not testable or observable? Tell that to Richard Lenski... Evolution can be and has been observed numerous times at the bacterial level. The only reason we can't observe it at a higher level is that it takes too bloody long. Oh, there's also the problem of the entire fossil record...

That, of course, would be the observable fossil record, the one that consistently shows evolution to be true no matter where fossils are found. The one that is so consistent that scientists have successfully predicted the existence of creatures with specific features in specific time periods, and then later found them right where they expected them to be. The fossil record with incredible antiquity backed by findings in geology and astronomy. The fossil record that leads to a hypothesis, that can be tested by further fossil discoveries and by making predictions like the one I mentioned.

And the fossil record is only the teensiest, tiniest bit of the mountain of evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

And you are right, evolution can be observed in populations that go through many generations in rapid fashion.

Ditto what ZenYen and Ebon said. Couldn't say it better myself.

Evolution is not science because we can't see it???? What about all the fossils found?

OMG! I'll just have to follow Dot's lead and say Ditto what Zenyen and Ebon said.

Oh, while I'm thinking about it... What kind of rude ass takes it upon themselves to tell someone ELSE what their religion does or does not follow? Esp. one who does not have the balls to state one's own religion?
Very rude... Bad first impression.

Forest is there a reason that you capitalize the word "science?" The reason that I ask is that that there are some Evangelical branches that are trying to suggest that "science" is a religion and one either believes in their version of Christianity or science and that they are incompatible beliefs.

Forest, have you read On the Origin of Species? Yes, yes, there are parts of it that have had to been corrected with the advancement of Evolutionary Theory, but it is still the number one book that is pretty much required reading for anyone wanting to discuss the concept, either for or against. I don't think you are really up to challenging it, unless you have read the book and can use it as a launching point to critique specific concepts within the theory.

I'd like to see such a critique myself.

How about it, Forest?

forest wrote:

I'm sorry, but you've already demonstrated that you do not know enough about this topic to have a serious discussion of it.

Sorry i would say the same about you for posting the above comment.

Obviously you do not know the definition of the word Science.

Science is defined as "Knowledge from observation" which has to be testable and observable.

Science is Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

Nobody has ever observed evolution happening. Nobody.

Nobody has ever experienced Evolution.

Nobody has ever tested evolution.

Science is Science, Evolution is not Science.

My BSc in Developmental Genetics says otherwise. Evolution is not only observable, demonstrable, and verifiable, but its rate in some species is so absolutely predictable that the mutation rate of some virii are used to more accurately date samples of stored grains from tomb grave offerings than standard C14 dating would allow.

It is not just geneticists on the molecular level who can demonstrate the progression of evolution, but any ecologist can show the ongoing competition and adaptive radiation of competing species within ecosystems. The interaction between inter and intra species competition, and of diversity both within and between species is something that more scientific journals are published monthly and quarterly than I have time to list. There are literally thousands of textbooks in any modern language in several disciplines that study this.

Saying Evolution is not Science is only correct in the sense that one theory is not the whole of any science. Pythagoras Theorem is not Math, it is a cornerstone of the discipline, but it is hardly the whole of it.

Scientific theories are always being changed as our understanding of the universe improves, the fact that the theory of evolution has shared this progression indicates that it has never been disproved, but that specifics have been modified as individual assumptions either succeeded or failed their tests. The same with Newton and Einsteins work in physics actually.

Tmarie64: Thanks for the backup. You rock.

I've heard it said before that Evolution happened, the theory is just about how.

Personally I thought this was a very profound statement, and could be applied to everything.

Reality is what it is. All our descriptions are just the best we can do at any given time to describe what we think reality is.

Statements that are honest, and recognize this, are better than those that don't. Statements that are willing to adapt in the light of new information are more complete than those that are not.

Evolution does this. Other "conjecture" about life on this planet does not.

all

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:I've heard it said before that Evolution happened, the theory is just about how.

Personally I thought this was a very profound statement, and could be applied to everything.

Reality is what it is. All our descriptions are just the best we can do at any given time to describe what we think reality is.

Statements that are honest, and recognize this, are better than those that don't. Statements that are willing to adapt in the light of new information are more complete than those that are not.

Evolution does this. Other "conjecture" about life on this planet does not.

all

Profound, All. Quite profound.

Evolution is still a theory and it's a theory that is constantly changing as our understanding evolves.

Humans do not yet fully understand exactly how the brain works, let alone the entire universe. We simply take what understanding we have and apply it the best way possible.

IMHO, it makes very little difference if someone believes or disbelieves in evolution since the belief, itself, changes very little.... if anything.

Sakhaiva wrote:Evolution is still a theory and it's a theory that is constantly changing as our understanding evolves.

Humans do not yet fully understand exactly how the brain works, let alone the entire universe. We simply take what understanding we have and apply it the best way possible.

IMHO, it makes very little difference if someone believes or disbelieves in evolution since the belief, itself, changes very little.... if anything.

I would agree with you entirely if it were not for all the people out there who actively fight against teaching valid science in schools. Raising generations of scientifically illiterate people is dangerous in a world where increasingly complex problems demand leadership that understands and applies science.

Many people who feel the way forest does do not stop at their own beliefs. They insist on trying to wedge those beliefs into the science curriculum, and insist on fighting campaigns against teaching rigorous, honest science.

Sakhaiva wrote:Evolution is still a theory and it's a theory that is constantly changing as our understanding evolves.

Humans do not yet fully understand exactly how the brain works, let alone the entire universe. We simply take what understanding we have and apply it the best way possible.

IMHO, it makes very little difference if someone believes or disbelieves in evolution since the belief, itself, changes very little.... if anything.

I agree Sak, but I have to stress the difference between the common definition of a "theory" and a scientific theory.

If I have a "theory" that means that I think I know how something is going to work enough to make a prediction about it. Then I will go out and see if things behave in the manner that I predicted it will. I can get pretty attached to my theories. I do have a pretty big ego after all. It holds me back on some things, and keeps me going on others. Anyway....

A scientific theory is not formulated in that manner. First you will observe something. Then you will formulate a hypothesis. Then you will compare this hypothesis to the null hypothesis (that there is no difference) over and over using mathmatical models. If, and only if it is first shown that there is a difference there to discern, then you can start thinking about why. Then you can test these against null hypothesis. Only after years of testing can you say that in specific circumstances, something might hold true. This is called a "scientific theory".

Proponents of other speculation make it sound like a scientific theory is something that is thought up after or during a night of hard drinking.

all

All is quite correct about the nature of a scientific theory.

I believe it was Richard Dawkins who said once that the theory of evolution is fact for all practical purposes. Scientists still refer to it as a theory because that's its technically correct label.

Essentially, we're merely amassing more and more support as time passes for the validity of Darwin's revolutionary idea.

And grotesques such as that Ben Stein swill, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, largely serve to keep people ignorant, people who unfortunately prefer to deny knowledge in favor of deliberate ignorance.

ZenYen, ALL, Dot.... very, very excellent points. I appreciate the distinctions between a 'theory' and a 'scientific theory'

I remember speaking to a family member who was so upset that her daughter's science curriculum included evolution that she removed her daughter from school. I tried to talk to her about evolution being a 'theory' and that it was, perhaps, a good opportunity to explore both creationism and evolution. Better still, see if the two could be woven together. It might double the homework, but it could produce some interesting things and give her the opportunity to think outside the box; be creative.

~~~~~~

Looking at life from a programmer's point of view... it is far more complex than our wildest fears. The way a heart cell knows it's job is to beat ... even when removed from other heart cells.... it's marvelous, marvelous stuff. The more we learn, the more sacred every interaction becomes.... to me.


Which is why I'm a fan of sites like this: http://biologos.org/

So, forest... Do YOU have any thoughts on this? Or are you going to hold true to the ignorant anti-everything-I-don't-know brigade and just copy and paste someone ELSE'S ideas?

Because, until you actually say what YOU think, and stop copying and pasting the words of OTHERS here, you have zero credibility and my friends will eat you alive.
Evolution CAN be proven... Viruses EVOLVE.

For future textbooks: