Concrete evidence for the theory would be something that I could mathematically model without much error. You give me a theory like that, and I will gladly entertain it in terms of the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. A large declaration such as this demands equally large evidence substantial error. Isn't that what people say about the "lofty" claims of religion?
I have mentioned the simplicity of the error associated with evolution in its stochastic modeling several times on these forums. Either it has gone completely over the head, or it was ignored (because of its simplicity.)
I will present it again:
Let's assume we are extrapolating data from a source of hard, concrete evidence over 1000 years. And, let's assume our dating methods are 100% correct up to 40,000 years (this is an extremely liberal latitude.)
The planet is 4,500,000,000 +/- 45,000,000 years. So far, we already acknowledge a 1% error in the age of the planet. Now, we are taking 1000 years of absolute hard data, and extrapolating that data over the age of the planet. Why is this a problem? We have ignored the many variables, external influences and elements of the solution sets that can provide the same answers, but do not work for every collection of parameters in determining the data. In other words, we assumed that this hard data is "good" enough to extend over the rest of the history of earth. We are missing 4,500,000,000 of the history and hard evidence, variables, external forces and perturbations, and parameters for which we are ignorant.
We are working with 0.00002% of the timescale data we need in order to be 100% accurate - assuming we had 1000 years of hard, verifiable evidence. Our dating methods, then, would be 0.000001% of the allowable timescale we can observe - breaking down after 40,000 years.
This is error - precisely because of the missing aforementioned data.
Now, let's see how error compounds in general:
Let r = 2 be the radius of a unit circle. Clearly, we are off by 50% (not 99.99998% with evolutionary evidence.) Then,
P = 2πr = 4π is the circumference of a unit circle - 100% error because our operations carry over linear error.
A = πr^2 = 4π is the area of a unit circle - 300% error because our operation carries over quadratic error.
V = (1/3)4πr^3 = 32π/3 is the volume of a unit circle - a 700% error because our operations carry over cubic error.
Let's take, for example, the exponential decay of some known substance (this is related to dating.) If we choose a rate constant that is only 25% off from the real value (1.25 = k, versus the real value of k = 1,) then lets see how that error evolves. We can say a sample decays as dN/dt = -kN.
A rate constant of 25% error means we have a decay value that is 22% error - if we choose a time of t=1, for example.
Do you see how assumptions, small errors in parameters, and missing information also extrapolates error? And, this is even worse for stochastic modelling, which must make some of take some of these latitudes. No human was alive in 100,000BC, and we depend on extrapolating recorded history (no more than 1000 years) and combining it with what we think we know today (also based on extrapolations). If this type of error is fine with you - if you are comfortable with accepting it in order to accept the theory - then that is your prerogative. I cannot accept that magnitude of error for something that not only declares its scientific authority, but also allows for social judgment placed upon those who do not accept it.
It is religion.
