Is evolution proven science or theory

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Not refuting but am invoking the laws of thermodynamics. For starters see attached paper by Whitesides.

Oh. Well, that explains the duckbill platypus, for sure.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Not refuting but am invoking the laws of thermodynamics. For starters see attached paper by Whitesides.

Still not sure what the starting conditions and time scale are.

Wasn't thinking about thermodynamics.
Was thinking about the timescale evidence associated with geology and astronomy -- the part without "index fossils".

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Not refuting but am invoking the laws of thermodynamics. For starters see attached paper by Whitesides.

TJ, I believe he addresses this at length in his book. It is mentioned in a few of the reviews.

[PRB]

I was unaware that Darwin had doubts about his theory based upon his own observations and lack of real evidence. This period is highlighted by the author referencing what we know now about molecular structure etc. and what exists, not what Darwin hoped for.
I suggest we read the book and not be like some of the reviewers that posted negative comments the day after it came out.
I would guess the real bottom line is that macro evolution is still not science....if it were, it would be incontrovertible.
There would not be learned arguments that could be supported if it were so.
It also seems to me that one specific realm of study will not explain away anything, nor support it. There are way too many variables in this 'stew'.
Any approach has to be multi, multi faceted.
So, is evolution (Darwinian) proven science?...

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by PRB

So, is evolution (Darwinian) proven science?...

Have to be fair to evolution.
Nothing can really be proven in science.

Scientific explanations are never certain or final, and the overused word “prove” is never justified except possibly in mathematics or a court of law. Science is even less certain when dealing with ancient, unrepeatable events, because other starting conditions might work as well or better than the proposed starting conditions. Maybe we have overlooked a physical consequence or have improperly applied the laws of physics. Certainly, we can never consider all possibilities or have all the data.

So, to try to scientifically understand unobservable, unrepeatable events, we must consider many sets of starting conditions, estimate their consequences based on physical laws, and then see how well those consequences meet the [criteria of process, parsimony, and prediction].

-Walt Brown

[PRB]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Have to be fair to evolution.
Nothing can really be proven in science.

Good point....then why do I hear that it is proven science, and why is it taught that way...as is carbon Global Warming by many.....
There are many, many religions out there that have nothing to do with a God.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by PRB

So, is evolution (Darwinian) proven science?...

Wrong question Bro. The question should be, can the theory be disproved? No, IMO.

But, what I am trying to point out is that the origin of life is not Darwinian and that it does not require intelligent design, we need only invoke the laws of nature and the laws of thermodynamics in particular. (Note that i am using the term laws because these are not theories).

I have attached a couple of papers to go along with the Whitesides paper. The bottom line is that the essential macromolecules necessary for unicellular life can self-assemble and the unicellular organisms will also aggregate and propagate as multi-cellular organisms -evolution in the laboratory. No intelligent design here - just the laws of nature. [These were previously posted in this thread and I cannot re-post them here.]

Once life appeared the Darwinian theory probably applies, but certainly does not predict one species suddenly or even slowly transforming into another unrelated species, e.g. a fish becoming a frog. Just subtle accumulating changes in species enabling the exploitation of specific ecological niches that could result in separation and eventual speciation. No intelligent design required, just the laws of nature.

However, I did proved a definitive example of intelligent design and stipulated that this is irrefutable hard evidence for intelligent design. Intelligent design is therefore a fact.

I was wondering if it would be appropriate to discuss the philosophical, moral, ethical, political, and theological ramifications of that evidence?

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Wrong question Bro. The question should be, can the theory be disproved? No, IMO.

Conjectures cannot be disproved.
Theories make testable, falsifiable predictions.

Originally Posted by Trapper John

I was wondering if it would be appropriate to discuss the philosophical, moral, ethical, political, and theological ramifications of that evidence?

Anyone willing to start a thread along those lines?
Maybe some specific ground rules need to be laid out like in this one.

This thread has been awesome.
Thank you, Trapper John, PRB, and others for the orderly discussion.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Conjectures cannot be disproved.
Theories make testable, falsifiable predictions.

If we are going to dwell on semantics then - theory: (noun) a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. [synonyms: thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation]

On the other hand a hypothesis in science is an explanation based upon a limited set of data. The desirable criteria of a good hypothesis are that it (1) be consistent with that which is already known, (2) makes a prediction that (3) can be experimentally testable.

The theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin is by definition a conjecture based upon Charles Darwin's observations. To fully appreciate the contribution that Darwin made to our understanding of the natural world we really need to look at it in the context of what was known at the time. Bare in mind that he was a contemporary of Gregor Mendel and I am not sure he was even aware of Mendel's work at the time that he wrote the Origin of Species.

Through painstaking observation and cataloging of those observations, Darwin provided a comprehensive explanation for the divergence of species that has guided the biological sciences ever since. No credible evidence has come forward since to seriously challenge his theory or even to call it into question its reasonableness. Quite the contrary, biological evidence and in particular the science of genetics are consistent with his suppositions. To dismiss Darwin's work as not scientific or as merely a conjecture or as not verifiable is to fail to understand it in the first place.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by PRB

Good point....then why do I hear that it is proven science, and why is it taught that way...as is carbon Global Warming by many.....
There are many, many religions out there that have nothing to do with a God.

Science has always been perverted, co-opted, misrepresented, and even fabricated to promote or justify a particular theology, politic, or ideology. Probably always will be. That is why critical thinking is so very, very important!

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

If we are going to dwell on semantics then - theory: (noun) a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. [synonyms: thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation]

On the other hand a hypothesis in science is an explanation based upon a limited set of data. The desirable criteria of a good hypothesis are that it (1) be consistent with that which is already known, (2) makes a prediction that (3) can be experimentally testable.

The theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin is by definition a conjecture based upon Charles Darwin's observations. To fully appreciate the contribution that Darwin made to our understanding of the natural world we really need to look at it in the context of what was known at the time. Bare in mind that he was a contemporary of Gregor Mendel and I am not sure he was even aware of Mendel's work at the time that he wrote the Origin of Species.

Through painstaking observation and cataloging of those observations, Darwin provided a comprehensive explanation for the divergence of species that has guided the biological sciences ever since. No credible evidence has come forward since to seriously challenge his theory or even to call it into question its reasonableness. Quite the contrary, biological evidence and in particular the science of genetics are consistent with his suppositions. To dismiss Darwin's work as not scientific or as merely a conjecture or as not verifiable is to fail to understand it in the first place.

Not sure what the definition would be, but these would demonstrate scientific rigor WRT evolution:
-Specific starting conditions (initial assumptions).
-Specific timelines (or at least upper and lower bounds - some leeway in this area is obviously needed).
-Process (actual mechanism, measurable or testable with the possibility of being falsified).
-And most importantly: Testable, falsifiable predictions; published prior to collecting new evidence.

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Wrong question Bro. The question should be, can the theory be disproved? No, IMO.

But, what I am trying to point out is that the origin of life is not Darwinian and that it does not require intelligent design, we need only invoke the laws of nature and the laws of thermodynamics in particular. (Note that i am using the term laws because these are not theories).

I have attached a couple of papers to go along with the Whitesides paper. The bottom line is that the essential macromolecules necessary for unicellular life can self-assemble and the unicellular organisms will also aggregate and propagate as multi-cellular organisms -evolution in the laboratory. No intelligent design here - just the laws of nature. [These were previously posted in this thread and I cannot re-post them here.]

Once life appeared the Darwinian theory probably applies, but certainly does not predict one species suddenly or even slowly transforming into another unrelated species, e.g. a fish becoming a frog. Just subtle accumulating changes in species enabling the exploitation of specific ecological niches that could result in separation and eventual speciation. No intelligent design required, just the laws of nature.

However, I did proved a definitive example of intelligent design and stipulated that this is irrefutable hard evidence for intelligent design. Intelligent design is therefore a fact.

I was wondering if it would be appropriate to discuss the philosophical, moral, ethical, political, and theological ramifications of that evidence?

That is some huge supposition right there......
Has anyone observed the creation of life as you mention it....self assembled?
Inert to living thru the process you describe? I find that most interesting.
Is evolution controlled by any dynamic....no evolution, slow evolution, whiz bang overnight construct of complex elements?

[GratefulCitizen]

Been to trying to find a way to express the idea.
This guy is much more articulate than I:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/...ification.html

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.

2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.

3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")

7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

[miclo18d]

Originally Posted by PRB

I once met a German scientist who told me he lost his faith in Darwinism after realizing he could not make self-consistent genetic trees (but he is not willing to come out of the closet out of fear for his career). In general, although I don't think there are a lot of theological stakes in the question of universal common descent, I am surprised at how weak the case for it is.

I am by no means anywhere near you guys' level in this debate, but the words above ring true to me, that Darwinian evolution is just as much a religion as Christianity or Islam. This German scientist he talks of is scared of excommunication from his church. There was another point that the scientists talk about the lack of evidence behind closed doors but their "public" side denies these problems. Where is the science in that?

To Thine Own Self Be True!

Arguing over the definition of theory vs speculation is a straw man. There is either evidence or not. The search continues.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by PRB

That is some huge supposition right there......
Has anyone observed the creation of life as you mention it....self assembled?
Inert to living thru the process you describe? I find that most interesting.
Is evolution controlled by any dynamic....no evolution, slow evolution, whiz bang overnight construct of complex elements?

The answer to the first two questions is of course - No. But is it possible? Yes, as the experimental evidence suggests. But because the experimental observation for the creation of life has yet to be duplicated in the laboratory, does that mean we should discard the theory altogether and replace it with something else? Should we also discard Newtons theory on gravitational attraction because it fails at the quantum level? Should we also discard Einstein's theory of relativity because we have not discerned the cosmological constant? (He himself rejected that idea.)

One of the subtle elements of Darwin's conjecture is that it inferred a process of inheritable traits that can be preferentially selected for depending upon the conditions, i.e. natural selection. Mendel's work inferred the same thing and it was 100 years later before we understood what it was.

I think the more interesting and perhaps relevant question is - why is the Darwinian theory so threatening to some and so vehemently defended by others? Not, is it valid science? To pursue that line of thinking we will need to discuss the 'apparent' conflict between faith and science. Frankly, I don't believe that these are inconsistent with each other at all. In fact, I will argue that in the end they are entirely consistent and converge on the same fundamental truths that are very, very humbling.