commike37 writes:
Allright, so it's established that comparing evolution to other theories does not justify its scientific worth. It must be compared to objective reality.
Yes, that's about right. One doesn't directly compare theories. What one compares is their ability to explain and interpret what we find in the nature world.
1. Well, I don't want to get too much into evidence, and turn this topic into one big evidence wars (that's what this forum does a lot, so it'd be like concentrating all that effort into one topic). But at least I'll post the five problems that are the "most troublesome to evolutionary theory."
http://www.trueorigins.org/isakrbtl.asp#theory
quote:
Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
You're being sold a line. If your list were true, no one would accept evolution. Merely violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would be sufficient reason for most scientists and most people here to reject a proposed theory.
This is a science discussion board, so, yes, it does discuss evidence a lot, because theories are based upon evidence. But you're correct that to diverge into these topics would be off-topic, and a distraction, too. My suggestion is that you begin participating in threads that discuss these topics, or propose new topics of your own. Now that I know more about your level of knowledge about evolution, I think this topic may be premature for you, but let's procede anyway and see where we get.
Right now, our world is goverened by two sets of laws: Newtonian mechanics and quantum physics. It can't be possible to live by two different sets, so this is another example of how science is incomplete.
I don't think anyone here would argue with you. But incomplete knowledge is not the same thing as no knowledge at all. Newton's three laws of motion still work just fine as long as you don't go too fast. And quantum theory still works just fine as long as you don't try to combine it with gravity. The incomplete nature of knowledge is captured in the property of tentativity that I'm sure I must have mentioned at least several times by now. Science is already fully aware that we don't know everything and never will.
2. Evolution is more like a continuum, so it would totally change our perception of animals. The current method of classification (kindom-phylum-order-class-family-genus-species) is commonly used today in textbooks. Evolution would imply that this is false. There are no distinct classes of animals. Just a continuum of different organisms.
You are correct that evolutionary change occurs in exceedingly small steps, but organisms evolve as a group, formally known as a population. A population is a group of organisms capable of interbreeding. Organisms capable of breeding with one another are called a species, and species is the lowest level of classification of our classification system.
Once someone has made this realization, the next question they ask is how you know when one species has evolved into another species, and the answer is that you don't, not with any degree of certainty. The world doesn't break down into as simple classifications as we would like. The simplest definition of species is organisms that can interbreed, but there are many closely related species that can interbreed that we still consider separate species, such as the horse and the zebra or the lion and the tiger. Perhaps at some point we can discuss ring species, which is an excellent educational example of evolution across geography rather than time.
We were once convinced that the Earth was flat. We were wrong.
We were once convinced of a geocentric view. We were wrong.
We were once convinced that everything was described by Newtonian mechanics. We were wrong.
Evolution may seem so prominent right now, but we must not forget that is only for this day, and not the next.
Maybe it's unnecessary to say this again, but I think most here would agree with you. Evolution is a scientific theory, and like all scientific theories it is tentative. It has the advantage at this point in time of being supported by mountains of data and experimental results, so our confidence in its validity is very high, but doesn't mean it won't one day be falsified.
So is evolution really the end-all be-all theory, or is just another theory?
Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse, but evolution is not the "end-all be-all theory." It is, just as you say, just another theory. But that is high praise.
How much faith (faith which transcends the current limits and problems of evolution) should we put in evolution as the right road to take in describing our life? For when you have faith in evolution, you inevitably will focus your efforts on proving that which you have faith in.
I can describe why accepting evolution based on evidence is not faith as many times as you can say we have faith in evolution, but it seems a pointless exercise to keep going round and round. Better would be for you to understand that we do not accept evolution on faith. If you don't believe it, just try arguing that list of "troublesome problems for evolution" that you listed earlier (not in this thread, of course).
--Percy
™ Version 4.2