I would say that the conclusion becomes part of the theory, the theory of (biological) evolution being the entire collected knowledge of how life came to be as it is. The conclusion is theory, and many smaller theories come together to become a larger theory.
The full theory of (biological) evolution is (dare I say) huge.
Dredge's fragile, egg-shell mind is beginning to over-heat.
It's my understanding that if there is enough evidence to support a hypothesis, it gets promoted to a theory. ...
Not quite.
The hypothesis is developed to explain evidence that is known, and then make a prediction for something that is not known that would be then be investigated to test the hypothesis.
An hypothesis an untested theory, it is only through testing the hypothesis that it becomes theory ... when it passes the test and is not invalidated.
... So since the hypothesis of common descent is supposedly supported by "mountains of evidence" provided by the fossil record, embryology, genetics, comparative anatomy, nested hierarchies ... blah, blah, blah, why it is not promoted to the status of "theory". ...
Curiously, when I search for hypothesis of common descent I get the theory of common descent:
Wikipedia: "Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor. ... "
Common descent -- different species having descended from a common ancestor population -- is a direct outcome of the theory of evolution, so this evidence tested both the theory of evolution and the theory of common descent ... and did not invalidate them.
When there are "mountains of evidence" that has tested a theory, then it is considered a "strong theory" ... like the theory of gravity ... and the theory of evolution.
... All evolutionary biologists consider common descent to an irrefutable fact, so why it's lowly status as a hypothesis still? Dredge is confused.
Both University of Michigan and University of Berkley list Abiogenesis and Universal Common Ancestry as foundational assumptions of the Theory of Evolution.
None of those links and quotes say that abiogenesis or single ancestor are assumptions of the theory of evolution. The word "assumption" or any near synonym (premise, foundation, ...) does not appear except in your comment.
Fail.
This seems apropos to your feeble response:
I see you have no response to my critique of his other five "assumptions". Pathetic.
"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
Wow, that sounds like it is speaking to you. You won't put op with the sound doctrine of evolution and instead, to suit your own desires, you turn towards the myth of creationism. Tsk tsk.
quote:The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. - St. Thomas Aquinas
If you disagree and claim that religion does have means to detect and deal with errors, then please present them. IOW, answer the damned question! Stop being so dishonest!
I reiterate ... this is way off topic.
I disagree. It does have a bearing, because you accuse science of the same things. The simple fact is that science is far more capable of detecting and dealing with errors and scientists are strongly motivated to seek out and correct or eliminate errors. Yet you accuse science of the complete opposite, of the very incapabilities and motivations displayed by religion.
It also demonstrates your dishonesty, such that nobody can take at face value anything you say, including what you say about science. Of course you could offer some support for your bald assertions, but you refuse to do so. You have nothing to support your bald assertions and you know it.
Therefore you concede defeat and must agree that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
He was specifically offering those links as proof that the first two of Kerkut's seven "assumptions:
quote:(1) The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred. (2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.
are indeed assumptions of the ToE. They don't support that cliam.
While Kerkut says "spontaneous generation occurred only once" others such as Dobzhansky say that "It is also possible that there were several, or even many, origins of life; if so, the progeny of only one of them has survived and inherited the earth" Both result in Universal Common Ancestry.
So as far as I can see Kerkut's assumptions are bog standard evolutionist beliefs.
If there were one or multiple simple original life forms that were created by a deity, and those simple life forms produced the biodiversity we see over billions of years, what would we need to change in the theory of evolution?
[Kerkut] lists seven "assumptions", the first two of which are not premises of the ToE and the rest of which are conclusions from masses of evidence.
quote:(1) The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.
(2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.
My reply at Message 931 addressed ONLY (1) and (2) which you said were not premises of the ToE Assumption (1) is ABIOGENESIS and assumption (2) results in UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTRY.
From University of Michigan we get; "Darwin’s theory of evolution entails the following fundamental ideas. All organisms share common ancestors with other organisms. Over time, populations may divide into different species, which share a common ancestral population. Far enough back in time, any pair of organisms shares a common ancestor." UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTRY
Following the link on that page to lecture on speciation we find "Life has evolved from non-life, and complex organisms from simpler forms." ABIOGENESIS
From Berkley we get; Universal Common Ancestry, Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales. Abiogenesis, they include as an event in Important events in the history of life, Unicellular life evolves. So according to Berkley and Michigan all life evolved from a common microbial ancestor that arose naturally from non-living matter.
From Dobzhansky "They suggest that life arose from inanimate matter only once and that all organisms, no matter how diverse in other respects, conserve the basic features of the primordial life. (It is also possible that there were several, or even many, origins of life; if so, the progeny of only one of them has survived and inherited the earth.) " ABIOGENESIS and UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTRY
From Jerry Coyne in Why Evolution is True, 2009 "Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive speciesperhaps a self-replicating moleculethat lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection." [Jerry Coyne, 2009] ABIOGENESIS (perhaps a self replicating molecule) and UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTRY
This is what Universities teach. This is what evolutionists Kerkut, Dobzhansky, and Coyne say. The precise wording changes with the different sources but the intent is clear. So these are indeed assumptions of the ToE and as far as I can see Kerkut's assumptions are bog standard evolutionist beliefs.
Huh? I've learnt that I'd never in my life been called "dishonest ... a liar ... deceitful ...misleading ... disingenuous ... a hypocrite" until I started debating Darwinism cultists online.
Well then maybe you should stop debating Darwinism cultists online if you can't do it with integrity.
And nice try at projection, outlining your blatant intellectual dishonesty, as if you're unaware and enslaved by a creationist cult.
Even though we may respect Darwin's work, no one is worshiping him. Darwin would have been blown away with what we now know about modern evolutionary syntheses.
™ Version 4.2
