quote:
The Really Big Lie is this--that evolution itself is equal to and synonymous with the darwinian "ToE". Meaning that to 'believe' in 'evolution' is to believe in "the" ToE. As if evolution would not, could not exist, if "the" 'ToE' were not to be fully accepted as an article of faith.
I'm not sure what you mean here because, like I said in a previous post, the term "theory of evolution" really has no meaning. I understand what this thread is for because so many people use this statement, "the theory of evolution," as if it had some valuable meaning.
For example
cell theory was developed in the 19th century after the use of the microscope. A lot of biologists doubted that the fundamental unit of life is a cell, but with mounting evidence with the advancement of microscopy technology, all the naysayers eventual relented and accepted the cell theory.
I use this as an analogy to the theory of evolution. Evolution was also formed in the 19th century, but took more years to hash out the details. First it was thought that natural selection could only produce change, but we didn't understand the hereditary mechanism that produced this change. Even before the structure of DNA was discovered, scientists understood that gene frequencies could change without selection acting on it. Eventually after we started to get a better idea of the genome, scientists theorized that most change in the genome may be due to neutral change and thus having no selection pressure acting on that change. Today when scientists study evolution they do not study the theory of evolution. If they find genetic diversity between two species, for example, they will study whether that change is due to selection or drift. Conducting an experiment showing "theory of evolution" exists would be pointless, and the researcher would be laughed out of the grant.
What we have now is many different factors affecting evolution. Just as a cell biologist may study the details of a cellular process, an evolutionary biologist may study the details of an evolutionary process. The underlining theories, cell and evolution, are not debated because they are considered principles, facts, and laws.
I've read many times on this forum that the theory of evolution predicts a singe-common ancestor that formed from a non-living thing. This is incorrect. Based on observations from the how evolution works and the current data from cell biology, genetics, and biochemistry do scientists make hypothesis about the origins of life. Discovering that an intelligent life created the first living thing or that there were multiple creation of life forms from non-living things will not falsify evolution, nor will it falsify the other disciplines of biology. What a discovery that that will do is falsify the origin of life hypothesis, which the data would be added to the other observations and a new hypothesis would be born.
quote:
Another form in which this "Really Big Lie", [that evolution _is_ "the" one and only, "ToE"], is promoted by darwinists and creationists is through their mutual insistence that the "Intelligent Design" theory of evolution is not a hypothesis wrt evolution's causal mechanism, , and so adapt [re-design] themselves to those purposes. That is, lifeforms that were intelligently designed by themselves and by their own forebears. Many, a vast number of, intelligent designers.
I have no idea what you are trying to say in the above quote.
Edited by mobioevo, : minor
™ Version 4.2
