Is evolution even a theory?

[Astrid]

The 'pre-Cambrian Bunny' would wildly revise our understanding of the development of life in the last ~550 million years. The history of complex life would need to be radically re-written from our present understanding.

But, it wouldn't falsify anything to do with the actual underpinnings of the Theory of Evolution. Descent with modification would still be an observed fact, genetic inheritance would still be an observed fact, the facts of molecular biology would remain unchanged, the facts of cell biology would be unchanged.

Given that the Theory of Evolution has multiple facets, it's robust in the way that you could adjust/alter some of those facets and the rest of the framework would largely be intact.

About the only thing that would fundamentally disprove the Theory of Evolution is an observation that organisms don't inherit genetic variations from their parents and are thus static over time and there's no natural selection via differential reproductive success going on.

Ive a somewhat different view but wont gwin2wit

 

[The Barbarian]

What evolutionists can't demonstrate is the idea that foxes CAME FROM dogs.

If they did, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. Just as neither chimpanzees nor humans evolved from the other but from a common ancestor, so did dogs and foxes.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you want to see the evidence concerning evolution in simple and minimally technical source, try Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True.

Amazon.com

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

If you want to see the evidence concerning evolution in simple and minimally technical source, try Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True.

Amazon.com

Great book, to be sure—I have a copy in my personal library—but unfortunately it's by a militant anti-theist.

Those who want to understand the evidence for evolution from a "simple and minimally technical source" that is friendly to Christians, see Denis R. Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Monarch, 2014). Dr. Alexander writes as an evangelical Christian, and this book is one of the most intelligible explanations of evolution I have ever read.

 

[driewerf]

It's an agenda, (and a lie of the devil) so they would.
and Charles lyell started it.

O, really?

With that simple statement - which is a positive claim! - you state that

* the theory of evolution isn't correct - please provide evidence for that claim. Provide evidence that falsifies the ToE.

* that the "sources" that voiced the ToE first know or knew that it was wrong, that it was a deliberate and known falsehood, this in contrast with an error or mistake. Pleas provide for this.

* You state that this source was the devil, start with providing evidence for the devil's existence. Then you can proceed with providing proof that the devil was the primordial source of the Theory of Evolution.

I predict that you will dodge, obfuscate and derail every attempt. And were you to try. You will fail.

But surprise me. Show me wrong. Answer the three bullet points above.

 

[Astrid]

Great book, to be sure—I have a copy in my personal library—but unfortunately it's by a militant anti-theist.

Those who want to understand the evidence for evolution from a "simple and minimally technical source" that is friendly to Christians, see Denis R. Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Monarch, 2014). Dr. Alexander writes as an evangelical Christian, and this book is one of the most intelligible explanations of evolution I have ever read.

Where does he see the supernatural
involved?

 

[The Barbarian]

Great book, to be sure—I have a copy in my personal library—but unfortunately it's by a militant anti-theist.

That happens. I avidly read the papers of Watson and Crick, even though Crick was an atheist. The universe became more understandable after relativity, even though Einstein was a Spinozan deist. In real science, the truth doesn't depend on the faith (or lack of it) of the scientist.

The fact that birds are descended from other dinosaurs was first discovered by an agnostic, Thomas Huxley. His uncertainty about a creator had nothing to do with the facts at hand, or his realization of what they meant.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

(from wikipedia) A scientific theory...

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,

i can admit the wording of this confuses me, maybe it's too late at night. maybe you can just explain how evolution fits this.

"Consistent with" means "does not contradict". Since evolution does not contradict any pre-existing scientific theory that was experimentally verified, it passes test #1. This is the easiest test to pass.

2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,

The "many strands of evidence" are the multitude of fossils found, and the discovery of DNA similarities between species. Evolution does not rest on just one strand of evidence. It passes test #2.

3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,

like what? in a theory that is supposed to have happened over billions of years what possible way could it be tested?

"Testing" a theory about what happened a long time ago is not necessarily restricted to contemporary experiments. It could be a prediction about a relationship that has not yet been found in the fossil record or in living organisms that, when tested, confirms the prediction. That is a test that could have failed, but did not. In the case of evolution, predictions have been that were subsequently confirmed. This is perhaps the hardest test to pass for theories about the ancient past, but evolution passes this test too.

4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,

the only thing that would falsify evolution, as per a thread i started a while back, is the fossil record not supporting it.

That is one way of falsifying evolution, but as I said above, not the only way. Evolution passes test #4.

5. is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and

yes, evolution fits this, at least enough not to argue about it

Agreed.

6. is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Occam's Razor.

i feel we should quote occam's razor:

Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.
For example, a charred tree could be caused by a lightning strike or by someone who used a machine to burn the upper branches of a tree and then replanted the grass leading up to the tree to hide the machine's tracks. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions. (wikipedia)

so creation, a simple idea, is overthrown by the complex, mathmatically improbable, and increasingly complex theory of evolution. hmm...
if i'm wrong on that maybe you could remind me what the chances are of the right changes taking place millions of times in a row to get from pondscum to homosapien.

To use your example, the only reason lighting is the "more reasonable" explanation is that we live in a world where lightning is a common occurrence and already integrated into our system of scientific thought. But if we lived in a universe where there had never been any lightning, or any indication that such a phenomenon might exist, the speculation of such an occurrence (a blazing and destroying light from the sky) would be more of a stretch than the assumption that someone set the upper branches of a tree on fire using a crane and replanted the the grass to hide the tracks of the crane as it withdrew. Even though two separate actions are postulated, both those actions are already understandable, and therefore the "simpler" explanation. Furthermore, it could be called a theory because it is testable. The grass could be examined for signs of recent replanting, etc. On the other hand, postulating the existence of a new "force from the sky" that had never been observed before would be seen as more of a religious belief rather than a scientific theory. Occam's Razor tells us how to decide between two scientific theories. It says nothing about deciding between a scientific theory and a religious belief. That is more descriptive of the debate between evolution and special creation.

 

[The Barbarian]

On the other hand, postulating the existence of a new "force from the sky" that had never been observed before would be seen as more of a religious belief rather than a scientific theory. Occam's Razor tells us how to decide between two scientific theories. It says nothing about deciding between a scientific theory and a religious belief. That is more descriptive of the debate between evolution and special creation.

There's actually a case of such things. There was a belief that stones could not fall from the sky, and that hypotheses that they did were wrong. And yet, evidence eventually showed that such things do happen regularly. But it required evidence to support those predictions.

 

[Ophiolite]

O, really?

With that simple statement - which is a positive claim! - you state that

* the theory of evolution isn't correct - please provide evidence for that claim. Provide evidence that falsifies the ToE.

* that the "sources" that voiced the ToE first know or knew that it was wrong, that it was a deliberate and known falsehood, this in contrast with an error or mistake. Pleas provide for this.

* You state that this source was the devil, start with providing evidence for the devil's existence. Then you can proceed with providing proof that the devil was the primordial source of the Theory of Evolution.

I predict that you will dodge, obfuscate and derail every attempt. And were you to try. You will fail.

But surprise me. Show me wrong. Answer the three bullet points above.

I wanted to apply the "Like", "Agree" and "Optimistic" icons, but since we are only allowed on I went with "Winner".

Anyone who has studied the development of evolutionary theory would recognise the profound implausability of it being an intentional lie.
(For one thing, if it were a lie, it would have been constructed with more elegance and conviction. For example, we wouldn't have Darwin vacillating over the role of Lamarkian style mechanisms and reflecting this in later editions of On the Origin of Species.)
Since the claim, nevertheless, is made I conclude that the claimant has not studied the development of evolutionary theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

Since the claim, nevertheless, is made I conclude that the claimant has not studied the development of evolutionary theory.

"People are usually down on things they aren't up on." - Senator Everett Dirkson

 

[Ophiolite]

"People are usually down on things they aren't up on." - Senator Everett Dirkson

The senator was channeling Dunning-Kruger.

 

[driewerf]

I wanted to apply the "Like", "Agree" and "Optimistic" icons, but since we are only allowed on I went with "Winner".

Thank you for those very kind words.

Anyone who has studied the development of evolutionary theory would recognise the profound implausability of it being an intentional lie.
(For one thing, if it were a lie, it would have been constructed with more elegance and conviction. For example, we wouldn't have Darwin vacillating over the role of Lamarkian style mechanisms and reflecting this in later editions of On the Origin of Species.)
Since the claim, nevertheless, is made I conclude that the claimant has not studied the development of evolutionary theory.

I just like to confront science denyers with the very logical consequences of their own words.

 

[The Barbarian]

The senator was channeling Dunning-Kruger.

Yes. Senator Dirkson was before that research, but he already knew from personal experience.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

That happens. I avidly read the papers of Watson and Crick, even though Crick was an atheist. The universe became more understandable after relativity, even though Einstein was a Spinozan deist. In real science, the truth doesn't depend on the faith (or lack of it) of the scientist.

The fact that birds are descended from other dinosaurs was first discovered by an agnostic, Thomas Huxley. His uncertainty about a creator had nothing to do with the facts at hand, or his realization of what they meant.

You will observe that I spoke of Coyne as an "anti-theist." The fact that a science educator or communicator is an atheist is mostly irrelevant to me. I have a number of books in my library written by atheists that I would not have a problem recommending to fellow Christians. But some of those atheists are anti-theists (e.g., Victor Stenger). I do not recommend those.

 

[The Barbarian]

You will observe that I spoke of Coyne as an "anti-theist." The fact that a science educator or communicator is an atheist is mostly irrelevant to me. I have a number of books in my library written by atheists that I would not have a problem recommending to fellow Christians. But some of those atheists are anti-theists (e.g., Victor Stenger). I do not recommend those.

I get that. I haven't found any anti-theistic ranting in his book. I found no sign of racism in Watson's The Molecular Biology of the Gene, either. Watson, for all his scientific accomplishments, is a racist. But it did not affect his work on the structure and function of DNA. Likewise, unless I find overt anti-theism in Coyne's work, I will take it for what it is.

 

[Psalm 27]

O, really?

With that simple statement - which is a positive claim! - you state that

* the theory of evolution isn't correct - please provide evidence for that claim. Provide evidence that falsifies the ToE.

* that the "sources" that voiced the ToE first know or knew that it was wrong, that it was a deliberate and known falsehood, this in contrast with an error or mistake. Pleas provide for this.

* You state that this source was the devil, start with providing evidence for the devil's existence. Then you can proceed with providing proof that the devil was the primordial source of the Theory of Evolution.

I predict that you will dodge, obfuscate and derail every attempt. And were you to try. You will fail.

But surprise me. Show me wrong. Answer the three bullet points above.

Only just checked in, sorry. Genesis 1 and 2 answer all three. They did for me. Faith is a gift from God

 

[driewerf]

Only just checked in, sorry. Genesis 1 and 2 answer all three. They did for me. Faith is a gift from God

We 're speaking about a scientific theory here. So I want an evidence based answer. Not a faith based answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

* that the "sources" that voiced the ToE first know or knew that it was wrong, that it was a deliberate and known falsehood, this in contrast with an error or mistake. Pleas provide for this.

Jeremiah 2:27a Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face:

 

[driewerf]

Jeremiah 2:27a Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face:

As I wrote in the post here above:

We 're speaking about a scientific theory here. So I want an evidence based answer. Not a faith based answer.

You failed. Once more.