Evolution is not science

quote:

---

That's why it's such a waste of time for creationists to try to prove natural selection wrong. Even IF they proved it wrong, evolution would still be standing.

---

Well, this is true historically for sure, but it seems to me that with the same logic one could approach this rationally, alternatively, in which case it matters what would be left IF it was proven "wrong". The reason it seems to me that creationism is worthwhille to science is becuase it provides an external standpoint from which to ask what would be left if "natural selection evolution" (what my grandfather believed in etc) did not exist. Sure there could still be evolution of free path length taxongeny if the modern synthesis were to be the phologistn of a new twist on the gist of nanotechnology of tommarrow, but such an imagined future may not be against creation science itself, and it seems not even to be against the sayings of YECS which site the very best of science men of the past who believed in God etc. If the reason a creationist is trying to "proove" Evolution false/wrong(regardless of the version) is because of social effects of people (like my Grandfather etc)and they end up getting rid of Darwinian evolution but still have something other than anytime miracles but have something THEN (now) recognized, this like converting in part when not in whole, is always good. Conviction is different than adequation. Creationism is inadequate in this so far but that is not what you pro/supposed.

quote:

---

Darwin's theory is one explanation of how evolution PROCEEDS (Through natural selection), and even if it was proven wrong, the theory of evolution would still remain exactly as it was.

---

Natural Selection is really only a part of how Darwin influenced Biology and all of his influences actually would need to be considered while one contemplates if he actually proposed a totally different kind of causality than had been extant in science before his particular involution of events. I think proceeding to t discuss evolutionary theory like this is counter productive but hey, that is just me. Read what niche constructors have to say about the difference between "standard evolutionary theory" and that under regimes of deposed ecosystem engineering.

quote:

---

I don't think I have it mixed up. As far as I've understood, it's important to distinguish between the theory of evolution, and the theory of natural selection.

---

Yes, it is important but no one really does it because any reciprocal cause and effect will contain empirical statements that have not yet been tested while they will point outside themselves to regions some will just say are "off limits" and the math is not here to turn the cone of diversity into the next ladder of being, with or without God.

quote:

---

The theory of evolution has been around long before Darwin and can in fact be considered on its own.

---

I simply find the comparisons of forms to really make it appear like changes between forms were possible and on an extended examination it appeared logically to me that where Kant wrote of four figure subtility (and bounds to form-making) actually pertains to what appear to be lineages of creatures or kinds of them disjuncted but as this was not recorded between an aspect and a horizon by Bertrand Russell and the maths were not developed by anyone else so capable, no one has seen how to use math beyond the limits morphogeny imposes on taxogeny (Croizat's terms). Thus, I proceed rationally rather than historically when making this contigencey appear to have been adumbrated.

quote:

---

It doesn't say HOW it occurs, but THAT it occurs.

---

OKEdited by Brad McFall, : BB

Ok, my turn....I see now what you are saying!You seem to "overvaluate" what has come out of biology in my generation, namely those realities that depend on the development or ontogeny of creatures rather than the rachet up beyond the populations. Sure, this is very important for my own particular reading but one must be careful not to let the cases where behavior or development might determine changes in populations to discount the evidence already acumulated in the anagenic mode of discovery.Take the little creature I showed in the "figure 'em out thread"
http://EvC Forum: Unidentified Critters - Help Figure 'Em Out -->EvC Forum: Unidentified Critters - Help Figure 'Em Out
, I never looked at this thing until more than a year and many generations later of survival in an artifical environment of applied electromotive force. Perhaps the reason I can not ID the thing, is because it a direct (or mutational (I doubt it)) change caused by electromagnetic forces moving the head room inside, but I think it is just that some Cladocerans are less common then others. I do not let this possibility cloud my perspective on how taxogeny in the clade may have worked over some time.So when you doubted what I said was true,

quote:

---

quote:

---

(BRAD)Yes, it is important but no one really does it because any reciprocal cause and effect will contain empirical statements that have not yet been tested while they will point outside themselves to regions some will just say are "off limits" and the math is not here to turn the cone of diversity into the next ladder of being, with or without God.

---

(M)No, I think this is wrong. I don't think it has any negative influence on the theory of evolution to argue by a simplified definition of it. In fact you save yourself a lot of trouble because you don't have to go into ANOTHER proof, for example a proof of natural selection.

---

You failed to appreciate the intricacy of our current generations evaluation of what evolution is individually and how I tried to show where creationism CAN enter this picture. There really is no "default" to evolution rather the default is the very very very very very small probability that GOD DID (it). That is the default but the probability is so small many scientists dont deal with it. It is not true that we can just do away with NS evolution and have something that is the negation of this and that does depend on the realation IN BIOLOGY of what is fact and theory. My own position is only somewhat unique becuase I have a biological perspective larger than my sociological one but this is not actual but rather subjective because there is always someone next to me who may disagree with me but be a part of the same culture as me.Futhermore, This gets really, really tricky, if what you want, is to know how to actually and demonstrably apprehend the relation of "fact" to whether biologists should or should not use the the term "evolutionary theory" as they did in the 70s and 80s.For me the crucial information comes from the machinations at Harvard which brought Richard Lewontin there. His approach to doing biology is that it should only be about facts but E.O. Wilson had a different kinda perspective of just to push ahead with relatively good work and yet it was Wilson that made the call to Chicago to assure the Bostonians that it was OK to bring Dick on...(see one of Wilson's recent books, cant recall wich one it was). Now Phillip Johnson(think creationist) plays up on Monod's notion of "chance and necessity" and thinks he is applying what is clearly Lewontin's understanding, of trial and error change(assimilated by Gould), but this would be "fact" while sociobiology and some versions of gene reductionism would be theory and yet it is these theories that seem more intuitive than the pattern of population genetics that changes really instead. To say how the scientific "method" is to proportioned among these views is hard to state accurately as we are talking about the views of particular evolutionists at this point. I need only point out that a creature that evolves deception of other creatures in Darwin's view will ipso facto out evolve any other. Thus it is possible to think of form-making and translation in space without Darwin but it is even harder to figure the correcet ratio thus, even though that IS possible. I do it sometimes. Not often.