Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?

I think the minor points will be revised and modified continuously as new information is gathered, but on the bigger question, "Is evolution (ie: the TOE) the mechanism that accounts for all speciation found", I'd say it was an unqualified yes.There is a possiblity of some other explanation coming to light but I think the likelyhood small and decreasing daily.Definitely Science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Totally OT and not for this thread.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually it is, IMHO.The two issues simply cannot be compared.I will be happy to discuss the difference in some other thread, but still believe it is OT here.Trying to stick with this thread: I have no problem with that. They are certainly open to holding that opinion. Equally, I can believe that there is no correspondence between the world we observe and that point of view. I think you may have left a few words out there. Try again.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Wasn't Galileo simply following in the footsteps of a long line of thinkers exploring the heliocentric universe? Far from psuedo-science I would say it was classic science, first making observations and then seeing where those observation led. There was no hint of astrology, it was simply a matter of the observations supported the helicentric system and did not support the universe revolving around the earth.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yup. That's why I'm replying.I think you may be making some errors related to the sequence of events that led to Galileo's pronouncements. He was not the originator of the heliocentric theory but only the person who finally developed the equipment that allowed verification of the predictions that resulted from that theory.You might have a better case comparing Kepler's theories to pseudo-sciece, but not Galileo's.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Two points.First, while astrology is considered a pseudo-science today, I would not say that it was pseudo-science at the time. But regardless, even if he held some opinions that derived from astrology, his technique and method were classic science just as practiced today. He made observation and his conclusions were based on the evidence gathered. He went a step further and subjected his assertions to independent peer review. He published his findings, made his tools available to others and subjected his ideas to criticism.If we look at the general output of his work we find the same techniques used in much that he did, from drawing to mathematics to paralax; all show that he used the classic scientific method.remember, alchemy and astrology were simply wrong. It's not that they were pseudo-sciences at the time, given the knowledge, techinques and equipment of the period. And as they were falsified, they were dropped. It was only when they WERE falsified that they moved from the realm of science to pseudo-science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That is the kind of question that shows someone has not though through the situations. The answer is that both are most likely right.The other point you have not covered in a way I can understand yet is your continual return to using the classification "Pseudo-science" as a source for scientific advancement yet you have not show a single case where that was apparent.For example: I've read that over about a dozen times and all I can get out of it is one "duh" attached to some gibberish.If, by the section 'was possibly some "larger claim" in evolutionary theory that was might be false' you mean that we will find things in the Theory of Evolution that are wrong, then of course. Big 'Duh". We hope and expect to find errors in EVERY scientific theory. That's how things progress.But then you go off into the part I can't interpret at all; "and that this was based on the patterns of science emerging from pseudo-science as knowledge and experimental menthods increasingly became better."For that to make some kind of sense you'd first need to show that there was some practiced psuedo-science. And thus far I have not seen any such exaples in any of your posts.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, not really. Let me take this one example since it is typicl of all the ones you've raised.No, astrology was not pseudo-science. It is today, but was not at the time.But the methods that Galileo used were exactly the same as those used by modern science. He made observations. Then, regardless of what preconcieved notions he held, he based his conclusions on the results of those observations.Sorry but looking at the evidence I do not see where your assertion is at all valid.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Are you still addressing me? It's hard to tell sometimes from your posts who you are addressing? I understand what you're trying to say, I simply think that your connection with pseudo-science is wrong.There's no doubt that ideas can be inspired by almost anything. I'll readily agree with that but still disagree with how you're connecting pseudo-science into the thread.I think by making the connection as you have you miss both the wonder and the message of many of the advances we have made.The key is that inspiration is only a starting point, one that even more often turns out to be a mistake. The real advances we have made over the years are usually accompanied by a chorus of "That's funny?"It's that two step process; first there is the ability to recognize something out of the ordinary. But then the real work starts. When you concentrate on issues such as Pseudo-science (or even inspiration) you miss the value of the scientific method. It's designed to take inspiration as a starting point and then to provided a structure for moving it to something that can actually be used.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

_{There is a peek button. Click on it and learn all the secrets.}

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Wait.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion