Evolution is not science

Is it not true that for a theory to be scientific you must be able to test it in extreme conditions?For example, the theory of evolution is not scientifically valid because it cannot be tested in a laboratory. You might be able to observe it in nature (Fossil record etc.) but for it to be scientifically valid you must be able to take the theory to extremes (Usually done in a lab) and see if the theory complies with those extremes. This is a necessary in order to thoroughly falsify a theory.Thus, as it is not possible to test the theory of (macro)evolution in a laboratory, it is not a scientific theory but only faith.Edited by Malangyar, : Spelling.Edited by Malangyar, : No reason given.

@crashfrog
Please give me an example or two of macroevolution testing in a lab.@Percy But then, how can you know a theory to be true? For example, you might have 5 dots arranged in a straight line from nature’s side. But how can you know that the sixth dot doesn't lie above or below the straight line? The only way to know this, is testing the theory in extreme cases, and the place to test a theory in extreme cases is usually a lab. Exactly, and, as far as I know, this cannot be done with macroevolution. One of the fundamental pillars of macroevolution is the fact that excavations are perceived as "conducting tests". E.g. every time you perform an excavation you're in effect conducting a test of macroevolution. But this is not testing or experimenting. This is observation. And only an observation of nature at that. You cannot go to the lab and perform an "excavation". Thus, as you're only observing nature, and not performing any real experimental testing (Testing the theory in a lab without extraneous outside influences and in (possible) extreme conditions) you'll never be able to get that last sixth "dot", and you'll lose the scientific basis that the dots are connected by a simple straight line.The dots might as well be connected with a "curling" line.@Annafan
I never said I rejected anything.Edited by Malangyar, : Change of quoting...

So you're saying the fossil record is in fact NOT the largest body of proof of evolution? As far as I understand from your post you're saying science uses inductive logic, not deductive logic, to prove theories. A quick look at wikipedia...: ...and suddenly deductive logic seems to be the way of reasoning.
So which is it? I guess it depends on what you believe those theories are based on. If you believe they are based on the same way of reasoning as evolution, and you reject evolution, then, yes, in order to be consistent you'd need to reject those theories. But by that logic wouldn't most of, say research into cellular biology be irrelevant as it is done artificially in labs? My point is, in physics or chemistry we might observe something in nature, and then be able to test it in the lab. This doesn't seem to be the case with the observations of macroevolution. I mean you can observe fossils in nature, but you can't bring them into a lab and run numerous tests on them.To take it a step further, physics and chemistry seems to be much more testable than say macroevolution, astronomy or plate tectonics. It just seems to me as if science is very loosely defined. Because you'd be able to test it again and again under all sorts of conditions, thereby being able to observe whether or not the theory holds true in "extreme" conditions. I mean this is done in physics and chemistry, is it not?

Oh. I always thought the theory of evolution was thought up BEFORE Darwin and that Darwin was only the guy trying to explain how it happened. (Using natural selection) In fact I'm sure I read somewhere that evolution was around before Darwin, and that his father even wrote poems about it. Well I was only taking Dr Adequate's statement... ...to its logical conclusion. I personally think it's rather obvious that observations of, say cells, in artificial conditions are a great aid in knowing what happens or has happened in nature. But, correct me if I'm wrong... Hmm, maybe I haven't been accurate enough. What I was trying to say is that it's not possible to test the fossils in the same way most testing is done in physics or chemistry. For example, as Modulus said, testing the boundary conditions of macroevolution. If you wanted to find out at what temperature water boils you could go into the lab and heat it up until it boiled. And do it again and again until you found a precise temperature. All I'm saying is that it doesn't seem like this sort experimentation is possible with macroevolution. Of course, you mentioned an example before and I'll have to look into it when I get the time.BUT as far as I understand from all of you, pretty much any kind of experiment will do. A geological excavation or an observation of a planet in orbit has just as much scientific value as a repeatable experiment done in the lab. If this is true, then I'd like some sort of source for it. (Not wiki) No. I never said I rejected evolution or that it couldn't be tested in a lab. I asked a QUESTION about the testing of evolution, and if you'd go back and read the first sentence of the first post that I made, you might be able to see this. No. (?) I'm not deliberately "singling out" anything, but this topic happens to be about evolution and science and I happen to have come here to discuss science and the scientific method from the standpoint of the theory of evolution. Is this okay with you, or are you so prejudiced that you need to firmly put me in a box with "all the rest" in order to establish your superiority? Why don't you just answer my questions about evolution instead of treating me like a lunatic? If this is too much to ask then please don't waste my time with any more of your petty nitpicking.Edited by Malangyar, : Typo.Edited by Malangyar, : No reason given.Edited by Malangyar, : Another typo.Edited by Malangyar, : No reason given.

I don't think I have it mixed up. As far as I've understood, it's important to distinguish between the theory of evolution, and the theory of natural selection. The theory of evolution has been around long before Darwin and can in fact be considered on its own. It doesn't say HOW it occurs, but THAT it occurs.Darwin's theory is one explanation of how evolution PROCEEDS (Through natural selection), and even if it was proven wrong, the theory of evolution would still remain exactly as it was.That's why it's such a waste of time for creationists to try to prove natural selection wrong. Even IF they proved it wrong, evolution would still be standing. xD

Oh this is great. Really this is great because it just goes to show that I'm not the only one who can learn something in this debate.Now of course I made a mistake, and that mistake was that I left out the definition of evolution. Because that's really where we disagree, what is the TRUE definition of evolution? Actually it happens that we're both right. Is it true that the modern definition of evolution encompasses natural selection? Yes, a quick look at one definition and we see it:evolution: "theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits." (From MSN Encarta)Okay so that settles it right? NO, because that's where a lot of you fail to understand my point. EVEN THOUGH natural selection today is seen as an integral part of evolution, EVOLUTION CAN STILL EXIST WITHOUT IT! Natural selection is just a theory of how it occurs. In fact, YOU CAN SIMPLIFY the definition of evolution, and end up with something like:"evolution is the development, through various stages, of one living organism into another living organism not at all like it"So what's the difference between the two definitions? Well, the latter one is simply a definition of evolution by its effects, not how those effects came about. It basically cuts away all the other stuff one might argue about (Such as natural selection) and gets right to the core of the problem, the effects of evolution.Does this mean that the latter is the RIGHT definition of evolution? No, of course not. Today's evolution encompasses vast amounts of other material and if you ask any person he'd probably choose the first definition over the latter exactly because evolution has come to mean not only the effects, but also how those effects came to be.This doesn't make the second definition wrong though. It's just a much simplified definition of evolution by its effects and it can in fact be proven as a scientific theory without ever mentioning natural selection. Even if one explanation of how the effects of evolution occurred was proven wrong, the effects would still be there.
So evolution, by its most simplified definition, would still be standing. No, I think this is wrong. I don't think it has any negative influence on the theory of evolution to argue by a simplified definition of it. In fact you save yourself a lot of trouble because you don't have to go into ANOTHER proof, for example a proof of natural selection. Exactly. And I think forty years is a long time. (Maybe not by evolutionary standards? Haha) No, in fact it isn't. And you're talking about microevolution here right? Let me get this straight, I'm always talking about macroevolution, because that's where most creationists have a problem. You might say microevolution proves macroevolution, but creationists won't accept that. I NEVER SAID IT WAS A COMPETING THEORY WITH EVOLUTION! I said it was an explanation of how evolution OCCURRED. Which is absolutely 100% true especially from a scientific viewpoint! And to say that it is not a theory is simply absurd! Of course it is a theory, just like magnetism, atomic structures, gravity and electricity.One such as you should know that science doesn't proceed by showing that theories are irrefutably true (Fact). It proceeds by showing, through repeated testing, that they're NOT FALSE.Evolution just happens to be a theory which is so well founded that most scientists see it as fact. Even though it is, essentially, a theory just like gravity. I mean, gravity is also, essentially, a theory. It's just so well founded by repeated testing and observation all over the globe that it is seen as fact.And you don't even have to believe me, believe this post of the month from the Talk.Origins archive: The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: November 2005But you know what I don't really think you're reading this. You don't care what I say, you're just skipping over it and pushing the reply button so you can have the last word. Because if you were really reading this with an open mind, you would have realised that I never said, in the last post, or any other post, that natural selection was a competing theory with the theory of evolution. In fact I explained that it was an explanation of how evolution proceeds.You just misunderstood me because you wanted me to be wrong. So please start reading my posts and stop treating this as some sort of battle. No, Percy, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Natural selection is one explanation of how evolution occurred and even if it was proven wrong evolution (As in my latter definition) would still be standing. I'm not saying this just so I can have an opposite opinion of yours, I'm saying it because it's the truth. Think about it. Actually there is. All you have to assert is that a living organism always comes from at least one living (parent) organism. That's all. Of course, a further explanation would be natural selection, but even if that was proven wrong, you would still have evolution standing. (Notice, I'm not saying natural selection is wrong, I'm just saying you could still argue for evolution even though natural selection WAS wrong) Yes, it's a fact as far as you can say something is a fact in science. You and I both know that a theory is always a theory, just like gravity is a theory. It's just so well substantiated that it is perceived as fact. At the end of the day though, it's still a theory. But wouldn't the repeated observation of the fossil simply be a repetition of the same experiment again and again? I mean wouldn't it be better to have three experiments under three different conditions than three experiments under the same condition? Yes please, a source from a scientist or a scientific article saying that observations of nature are just as good experiments as repeated experiments in a lab. (Not trying to annoy you or anything) Yes of course when the scientific community today talks about evolution they talk about all the theories that have something to do with evolution. But you can, in fact, still simplify that definition and reach something which doesn't include natural selection. All you'd need is the theory that a living organism will always come from another living organism and you're all set.The best part about all of this is that you don't even have to believe me. Ian Johnston at the Malaspina University-College has written an excellent proof of evolution where he does in fact simplify the case of evolution to its utter core, thereby neatly sidestepping 80% of all the bullshit creationist argument.Read it here: ErrorThus, all the crap about natural selection being implausible or whatever doesn't matter because evolution would still be standing. It's a giant red herring. In fact if you present this simple proof to creationists you get right to the core of the problem which is: What is science? How does science proceed? Is biology as much a science as physics and chemistry? What kind of logic does science use?This is why I started out with asking whether or not the testing of evolution (Say, an excavation) could be seen as scientific.Edited by Malangyar, : No reason given.Edited by Malangyar, : No reason given.

Fair enough. All I'm asking is that people try to assume at least some good faith. I hope this is not too much to ask.I just came here to find some answers to questions (or statements) about evolution that I've stumbled upon. I guess I COULD just say "Oh well this has been in the hands of scientists for 200 years so it's probably true", but would you be satisfied with that? I'd rather get to the core of the problem and figure out on my own why the purported fallacy isn't true.

Actually it does. ”Through various stages” (e.g. reproduction). It doesn’t need to explain it in detail. And no there is no direction in the definition, it just says that living organisms will develop into other living organisms not at all like them. There is not “intended direction” in this. 1. I never said they were.2. In fact I said the exact same thing you’re saying: 3. No, the evidence doesn’t prove evolution by itself. You need to set up a theory for it to prove evolution. You can furthermore set up a theory of how evolution proceeds. (Natural selection) You can even combine those two theories and call them the theory of evolution. (Which is what is usually meant by evolution today)
Of course you can always take the opposite step and simplify the theory to not include natural selection. Evolution would still hold even without natural selection. One evidence of this is the fact that the theory of evolution (Without natural selection) had been around for decades before Darwin came forth with natural selection. Eh, what’s your point? I was just stating that I’m talking about macroevolution here. Thank you. So my understanding is that observations of nature that are in accordance with a specific theory can be interpreted as experiments on the same level as lab experiments. I never said it was crap. Yeah I did a couple of posts ago but crashfrog provided an article about a way of testing macroevolution and I regarded that as answer enough. I must admit though that I haven’t gotten around to reading it yet.My other question was about the nature of science, more precisely if repeated observations of nature (Such as excavations) could be used as experimental evidence on the same level as repeated observations of experiments in labs. This has also been answered with a yes and a source.What I’m trying to argue now is that evolution can in fact be proved even without pulling natural selection into the fray, as Ian Johnston does. Fair enough. What I mean by macroevolution is a change from one organism into another not at all like it over a succession of generations. What I mean by microevolution is small changes over a smaller amount of generations. Yes I do understand the relationship between the two. Natural selection is an explanation of how evolution occurs. You can prove the (Simplified) theory of evolution even without natural selection. I’ve already provided proof of it here: Error Yes that would be what most people understand as microevolution. I know that macroevolution and microevolution according to science is one and the same, but people still distinguish between the two in the way I presented above. (For whatever reason) And the fact remains that you don’t even have to use microevolution to prove evolution. The fossils are enough. No, evolution is a theory and I provided a link to talk.origin where a teacher explained this. Here it is: The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: November 2005Now you might not want to read it, but it’s still there. Observations are facts, the theory of evolution connects these observations. It’s all in the link. The teacher explains that evolution, just like gravity is a theory. It wouldn’t take make than a couple of minutes to reach the post and understand. My understanding might be somewhat flawed, but if you won’t even take the time to see where I got my understanding from how can you ever convince me that your understanding is better? No, but a lot of you guys are acting like it just cause I’m not the ordinary run of the mill "servant of the elite". You guys aren’t really reading my posts or trying to understand where I’m coming from. You just think I need to be “beaten down”. The attitude of your posting reflects this. It's really laughable to call yourselves scientific and post with such an attitude. At least I don’t rule out I might have a few misunderstandings, you act as if you’re the one and all. No it doesn’t, but I never said it did. That’s where natural selection (Or any other scientific theory you might have) comes in, to further explain how evolution proceeds. The fact of the matter is, you can link the fossils together by reproduction, if you want further detail, you take natural selection. Many creationists attack natural selection, but even if they did disprove natural selection, there would still be the additional layer of reproduction which would be sheer insanity to try to disprove. They would have to disprove that living organisms always come from living organisms which isn’t scientific in any way because we’ve only observed living organisms coming from living organisms. Microevolution might be, but macroevolution? For macroevolution we have the fossils (fact) and the difference between organisms (fact). Then we have the theory that living creatures always come from at least one parent living creature. (We’ve never observed anything else) So how do connect these facts? How do we explain them? With the theory of evolution. From the fossils we see that simple organisms existed millions of years, and that the organisms become more complex the further you go up through the layers. If you combine this with the fact that living organisms always come from living organisms you get the theory of evolution: That organisms develop through various stages into other organisms not at all like them. And we can make a prediction with this theory: That every time we do an excavation we’ll find the same pattern of simple organisms at the bottom and more complex organisms at the top. HOW did the organisms become more complex? One theory is natural selection, but that’s another argument. Yes, but you’re taking it out of context. He was referring to taking a fossil into a lab and running repeated experiments on it. You can always add more detail to theories, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the simplified versions are wrong. And if you’re dealing with an audience of lesser knowledge a simplified definition which proves exactly the same thing can be very useful. Especially when debating. Yes but this is not just individual aspects of evolution, this is the core of macroevolution. If you’d taken the time (No more than 15 min for one as intelligent as you, I’m sure) to read the bloody essay: Error you’d have realised this. Does it have a bearing on what the modern theory of evolution includes? You’re damn straight it does. Does it explain all the things that modern evolution theory includes? No, and it doesn’t have to to provide a rational “proof” of macroevolution. No, you’re wrong, and instead of answering I’ll respond by quoting Ian Johnston responding to one objection to his proof that I provided a link to above: I rest my case. (Until further notice) lol, this is laughable. You’re so prejudiced that, although I never said, in any post, that I was against evolution, you still think that’s what I’m trying to get at. Your reply is a joke, I’m sure.

So you're saying he's proving a fact?

Lol Modulous I'm sorry but it just sounds totally weird. I mean it sounds absurd, the title of the essay is "A Short Proof of Evolution". Why would you write a proof of a fact? Why would you even need to prove an observation?I don't think it's a fact. I think it's a theory. Of course, I could be wrong. Please correct me.BTW thanks for being the only guy with a somewhat resonable attitude, I appreciate it.

Fair enough, call it the theory that evolution occurred. I'm just arguing from the viewpoint of Ian Johnston's proof, which is "A Short Proof of Evolution".EDIT: And this is a very important point right here, you called it the THEORY that evolution occurred. Still a theory, correct?Edited by Malangyar, : No reason given.

I just have a few comments here about the earlier posts you made, Modulous: This is, I think, wrong. He does in fact provide scientific proof using the scientific method. I'm looking at Wikipedia atm and he basically goes through the whole scientific method:
1. Observations: Fossils, living creatures from living creatures, creatures are different from each other.
2. Hypotheses: We developed from the organisms existing millions of years ago because living organisms always come from living organisms.
3. Predictions: Every time we do an excavation the fossils will lie in the same pattern, invertebrates before vertebrates, humans at the top etc. etc.
4. Experiments: Excavations show this to be true. I don't think I understand this the same way you do. As far as I understand it, a theory that has a large amount of evidence is CONSIDERED a fact but is still, essentially, a theory. Is this correct? I don't think evolution would stand any less firm. I mean you'd still have the fossils and the fact that living creatures always come from living creatures. This is great news. Really it is, because it just goes to show that I was in fact not wrong in calling the occurrence of macroevolution a theory.Now the thing is that while it is true that most people use fact to refer to things that are obvious, it is also true that most people don't find the occurrence of macroevolution obvious!99% of the scientific community does. You do. I do to some extent. But most people actually don't. Every time they talk about macroevolution, they talk about it as a theory. And this isn't wrong. It is a theory just like gravity and magnetism is a theory!But the thing is, it’s just as substantiated by observations as gravity. Thus you could consider it fact. At the end of the day though, it is just a theory, and can be backed up by the scientific method just like any other theory.But I'm happy you admit that the occurrence of macroevolution is a theory, just like any other theory, and that it can be backed up by observations and experiments.So I can rest assured that the next time somebody walks up to me and says: "I don't believe in macroevolution because natural selection doesn't work", I can respond with: "well natural selection isn't needed to prove evolution".

Well if you go back to the first couple of posts you'd find that I had an original question about evolution and experiments. This was quickly answered. The discussion then moved in the direction of whether or not evolution was a theory.This I THINK has also been answered and I've understood that the occurrence of evolution is considered a fact by the scientific community because it has been substantiated by so much evidence. So it's basically a theory with a lot of evidence to support it, thus turning it into a fact.So a fact can be proved using the scientific method...which is what Ian Johnston does.Regarding the purported sophistry that you say I used...I don't believe I have. In fact, if anything, some of you should be accused of setting up straw men because you started attributing all sorts of stuff to me that I'd never said.Anyway if I have used sophistry I apologise and hope that you'll point me in the right direction so that I may correct it. I doubt any of you will offer the same.

I'm not deliberately trying to turn this into a word game. By all means if I have said something wrong then respond. Again, as far as I've understood:The occurence of macroevolution is a theory that is backed up by so much evidence that it is considered a fact by the scientific community. Just like gravity. Essentially though, it is still a theory, and can be proved just like any other theory.This seems to be correct according to Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Yeah I think I get it. (1) is basically considered a fact in the scientific community and (2) is on the verge between fact and theory. But is it not true that (1) can be substantiated in the same way as a theory? (That is, using the scientific method)My point is, a lot of YEC seem to be complaining about (2) while they don't even agree with (1). Ian Johnston's proof seem to be handling (1) and can thus be used to explain the occurrence of macroevolution without going into (2). My definition was trying to define (1) located in Chiropteras post above. (1) can exist, and be proven on its own even without (2). I'm trying to understand if this is correct. Especially as Ian Johnston's proof of the occurrence of macroevolution seems to be substantiating (1). Fair enough, they CAN change into something else. Sloppy and careless, I'm sure. When I said proof I meant it had been substantiated using the scientific method.That said I concede that I was wrong in formulating it in that way. Yes, I concede I made another mistake. What I meant to say was, you need to set up a theory for the observations to provide evidence of the occurrence of macroevolution. That one species can evolve into another. Well I think I understand what you're saying. But let me go all the way back to "the occurence of evolution is a fact". I'm talking about macroevolution here, as defined above.Is it not true, that the occurrence of macroevolution is essentially a theory, BUT it has been substantiated by such an amount of observations and experiments (Say, fossils from excavations) that it is now considered a fact by the scientific community?Is it true to say that theories can turn into facts? First of all it would be sophistry if I was deliberately trying to deceive somebody. I'm not. I'm simply trying to understand the definition of fact and theory. What I did above was lay out my understanding of it, and you can then say it is wrong if you want. But don't call it sophistry.Now you say this: "That evolution above the species level has occurred is a rather obvious conclusion from the evidence, not a theory.". Okay I'm really trying to get to the bottom of this. How would you CONFIRM a fact? Wouldn't you confirm a fact using the scientific method?One of the reasons I'm confused is because of this: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory"Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."Now it says here that Darwin "established" the fact of evolution. How did he establish it? Didn't he first set up a theory of the occurrence of macroevolution and then support it with masses of evidence and experimentation?Edited by Malangyar, : No reason given.