Evolution: a red herring?

quote:

---

And, I would agree that the TOEvo is given much more attention than it deserves. There is much more science to teach in biology class than evolution. And, contrary to popular scientific opinion, even much of molecular biology and genetics, which is normally posed to rely heavily on evolution, doesn't need to be presented within the context of that process anyway. Much of it stands alone, as it is.

---

Nothing in science "stands alone".All new science is based upon past science, and all sub-fields in a dicipline are related to each other, since they make up the whole of the field.Unless there is a scientific theory to unite and explain why genes appear as they do in species, then those subfields of molecular biology and genetics consist of nothing more than just so many isolated, meaningless data points.The ToE is that explanation.

quote:

---

But, I can tell you that's just what a theory is, a guess, an elaborated hypothesis. There may be various levels of supporting data. Yet, fundamentally, there's no distinction.

---

So...would you say that the Germ theory of Disease, the atomic Theory of Matter, and the theory of a Heliocentric Solar system are simply "guesses"?

quote:

---

What is science? Science is a collection of publications that has been steered by a select few publishers, and directed toward specific conclusions.

---

Actually, science is extremely competative and careers are made by overturning dominant paradigms.You become famous in science for showing how lots of your predecessors and peers are wrong.Since it's your peers who are reviewing your work in the professional journals, how is it possible that the above could happen if the results are always "steered" in some fashion, as you say?You do realize that peer review and jounal editing is done by many different scientists in a given specialty, often for free or for nominal renumeration, don't you??And what do you base your idea that there are a "select few publishers" in science on?There are thousands and thousands of independently run professional science journals. The editors of these journals are scientists with relevant expertise, and many of them edit the jounals for free.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

Limbosis, I know you have a lot of responses in this thread, but I'd be very interested in your response to my messages #11, #20, and #25.

quote:

---

You don't really believe that, do you?

---

Yes, of course.It is no different in any other scientific field.For example, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are great, but they do not "stand alone" from Gravitational Theory.Genetics is the study of genes, heredity, and the relatedness of organisms. Are you telling me that geneticists can discover the relatedness between various organisms over and over again without regard for the ToE?Population genetics is a subspecialty of molecular genetics, and it is, according to the wiki, "...the study of the allele frequency distribution and change under the influence of the four evolutionary forces: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow."So, how can you say that molecular genetics "stands alone" from the ToE when one of it's subfields studies the evolutionary mechanisms?

quote:

---

It is ONE way to explain it. It is not the ONLY way to explain it, obviously.

---

Nobody ever said it was the only way.So far, however, all of the other ways have been shown to have far less predictive power than the ToE, so they have been rejected.I mean, we've rejected all of the explanations for why people get infections in favor of the Germ Theory of Disease, haven't we?We have done the same thing with all the other explanations for the origin of species.Why is there a problem in your mind with the latter but ont the former?

quote:

---

Look, I don't like the idea of creation, for my own reasons, any more than you do.

---

I don't really have any feelings on it at all, actually.

quote:

---

And, even if though there is no evidence of it that is readily available to us, it remains a possibility.

---

Sure, but it is an untestable question, so there's no point wondering about it, since there is no way anyone can ever know the answer.I will also add that while anything is possible, all probabilities are not the equal.

quote:

---

Scientifically speaking, evolution can only go so far as being one possible explanation. That's all you know. You may as well get comfortable with it.

---

I certainly am. It's you who seems uncomfortable with not knowing for sure.

---

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders