It's not really a theory

quote:

---

Originally posted by horsegal243:
The theory of evolution is not really a theory at all. In order to have a theory you must devlop a hypothesis.

---

There WAS a hypothesis, when predictions are born out, & no falsifications made, it becomes a theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by horsegal243:

In order for that hypothesis to become a theory you must test it over and over to get results.

---

Evolutionary theory has been tested & tested. How many out of order fossils are there, out of how many thousands of fossils? How many molecular phylogenies are there that closely match each other AND morphological phylogenies, compared to those that don’t? Put simply, molecular/genetic phylogeny is a test that continues to bear out the predictions of evolution. Sequences, whether they be nucleotide/amino acid/gene, all differ more the greater the predicted distance in time between species & taxa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by horsegal243:

Scienctists have never tested the hypothesis of evolution and gotten the results that they are claiming. So really and truly it is the HYPOTHISES of evolution not the THEORY of evoluion because they have no proof of their idea.

​

read it and weep evoluionists

---

Science doesn’t deal in proof. The VERY best scientific theories are tentative to a greater or lesser degree. You may be misunderstanding the scientific method. A scientific theory must have (here we go again) potential falsifications, predictions, & supporting evidence. The predictions of evolution have been born out time & again (see above for just two), & no falsifications have (none that require the theory to be discarded, anyway). Hence it is now a theory, not just a hypothesis.What results are scientists claiming after they have tested the hypothesis?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
Horsegal, I could list chapter and verse the reasons that you are wrong but I think that I will settle for one, as it forms the lynchpin for your statements. Predictions as to what must have happened for NS basis of ToE to occur abound in the literature. My favorite as of the moment is the find in Pakistan that cleared up the line of descent for whales so that there was a better correlation between the molecular record (phylogeny) and the fossil record. It was in Science last summer/fall. If you want I can get you the volume and page numbers of the citation (I would post them here now but they are at work).

​

---

Dr T,You've probably seen it already, but- http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10261Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales .Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.