Evolution is not science

Let me start off by saying you are basically correct, but that essentially your conclusion is not.Science is about making observations today. And the science of evolution does this.However, Natural History is not a science, it is history. A different subject. However, as you hint at - it is history different than many other types of history. Many other types of history are human-centric - they rely on documents and the like to understand the past and what happened.But they almost universally do use science to help construct their history. Natural history is simply based purely on science. It relies on conclusions reached by science (that all existing life seems to share a common ancestor, that all fossils can be included in this family tree and the dates that these organisms were alive etc etc), to construct (as best it can) a chronology of life on earth.As has been stated earlier in the thread - natural history is not unique in this regard. Forensic scientists work to gather and interpret observations to determine the chronology of past events.Recently I saw an archaeology program where they sifted through some silt and extracted pollen from it, from this evidence they were able to construct an approximation of what the plant life was like in the area. They used animal bones with this to develop an idea of what the ecosystem was basically like - and from that, and other bits of science like phosphorous levels etc, they concluded how a human settlement came and went (they deforested the area, the acid levels in the soil rose and the are became unable to support anything but hardy plants like grass. To this day the area is a barren moor.). Not by any definition of fact that makes sense. We cannot make observations on the past (with things that happened locally anyway), but we can determine facts about the past - otherwise the mandate of the court would be different. As it is, courts are used to determine facts - often about events in the past. Otherwise we could not declare it a fact that Ronald Reagan was president. We certainly cannot observe that he was president, but we can conclude it from the evidence of it that remains today.

Agreed. We will not see something that is impossible to happen. How can anyone disagree with that? Creationists do disagree though -to an extent. They think that there is a potential for ANYTHING, because God can will for mutations to happen that lead to new traits so there is always potential. This does not follow. How do we know that there is no godless potential for a legless creature to produce a lineage that terminates with a legful creature? What evidence do you have for this? I can show that a potential exists for a legless creature to spurn such a lineage, if you'd like.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Agreed, just as gravity and the theory of gravity (relativity) are quite different. One is a phenomenon, the other is an explanation as to how that phenomenon works. Diseases are a phenomenon, the germ theory of disease is a theory to explain that phenomenon.Evolution is a phenomenon. It happens. How on earth does it happen? The theory of evolution is an explanation. The theory of evolution states that chance variations in heritable traits can improve the chances of reproduction, increasing the frequency of those traits causing the traits of a population to change through time. They can also decrease the chances of reproduction, reducing the frequency of those traits, causing the traits of a population to change through time.That's it, in a nutshell.It does not discuss the magnitude of that change. You have a change, however big, that occurs to a population - a scientific theory that is capable of explaining that change can be found in the theory of evolution. This is specifically the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution. There are some hypothesis such as punctuated equilibrium that might help explain certain changes (specifically when the changes are large), but that hypothesis has not yet been synthesised completely with the theory, since the consensus is not there.What you actually believe is that the theory of evolution is incapable of explaining the totality in changes in life on earth at this time. Maybe you are right, but that does not mean that it is not a scientific theory, all it means is that it is an incomplete scientific theory. Most scientists would be happy to accept that any given theory is rarely a complete explanation, they'd rather we thought of theories as explanatory frameworks.What you hint at also is that the theory of evolution is incapable of explaining the origin of life - which it is. It is entirely incapable of it, just as relativity is incapable of explaining phenomena at the very small.One day, maybe we'll have a unifying theory of life, just as we might have a unified theory of physics - but that is not the state of play as it stands. That does not mean relativity is not a scientific theory. The germ theory of disease is not capable of explaining Muscular Dystrophy, but that does not mean it is not a scientific theory. The theory can be used easily to explain the origins of current species. It might even be strong enough to explain the origins of plants and animals as well. However, it cannot explain the origins of life. Actually you can - relativity goes into detail on this. I can test what the conditions on the sun were like a few minutes ago, by pointing some instruments at it, for example.However, natural history does not require we test the past, nor repeat it, nor observe it. All we need to do is examine the evidence that exists in the present, and draw conclusions based on this. Tests on the theory of evolution are always carried out in the present, the observations are always made in the present.We can try applying the theory to explain things that have happened in the past - we can make predictions on what we might see in the present based on this. Predictions naturally come from the theory of evolution that are then found to be true. This can only be due to coincidence or because the theory is a good explanatory tool. Once the tests, predictions and the like have confirmed the theory to the degree we have today - we can discount coincidence since it is so massively improbable.

Welcome to EvC! I recommend a less quick look at wikipedia, and a more careful look. You'll find the answers you seek right there.

quote:

---

In the late 19th century, Charles Sanders Peirce proposed a schema that would turn out to have considerable influence in the development of current scientific method generally. Peirce accelerated the progress on several fronts. Firstly, speaking in broader context in "How to Make Our Ideas Clear" (1878) [3], Peirce outlined an objectively verifiable method to test the truth of putative knowledge on a way that goes beyond mere foundational alternatives, focusing upon both deduction and induction. He thus placed induction and deduction in a complementary rather than competitive context...Peirce examined and articulated the three fundamental modes of reasoning that, as discussed above in this article, play a role in inquiry today, the processes that are currently known as abductive, deductive, and inductive inference...

​

Karl Popper (1902-1994), beginning in the 1930s and with increased vigor after World War II, argued...that science would best progress using deductive reasoning as its primary emphasis, known as critical rationalism. His astute formulations of logical procedure helped to rein in excessive use of inductive speculation upon inductive speculation, and also strengthened the conceptual foundation for today's peer review procedures.

---

There is more there if you care to peruse it in any more depth. I guess I see where you are coming from, you are basically saying that biology should test boundary conditions? In that they do - but like the physicists and chemists they cannot test extreme time conditions, which is what you are probably getting at.When a biologist reduces the population of a bacteria to 1, which is vulnerable to anti-biotics, and allows the population to increase in size before applying anti-biotics they are testing an extreme condition (population size=1 is the smallest population size possible. Biologists frequently test extremes, where it is possible to do so.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

And I almost agree with you and the paraphrased professor. However, gravity is a fact, not a theory. The Theory of Relativity explains this fact (curvature of space time). Evolution itself (and indeed, many statements about natural history) are facts. That Henery VIII was King of England is a fact, that animals share a common ancestry is also a fact. Neither are theories in a scientific sense. Historians sometimes call things theories when they are not sure about them, and they later get promoted to historical fact; different terminology for different disciplines. And you don't have to believe me, check out this post at Talk origins from a professor of biochemistry at Toronto University.

You can demonstrate that macroevolution has occurred without reference to natural selection, where macroevolution means 'change in life on earth over geologically significant time periods'. Darwin did it, he needed to do it, to show there was something that needed explaining. He explained it primarily through chance variation and natural selection (though he added other ideas in there too) You can also prove gravity exists without reference to curvature of space-time, Newton did it, for example.I wasn't aware that this was under dispute? However, if you took away natural selection - a great swathe of the theory would be removed and the theory would be very very weak. Whatever new theory emerged, would be quite different from the current one. Except for the fact that your source, Ian Johnston, just said you didn't need to do that - and he didn't do that. He just pointed at the evidence and said 'see, it must have happened...how is a different question altogether'Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Well, he's demonstrating that something is in fact, a fact. Proof is not a word I'd use, but if you want to use it loosely, then yes - he's proving a fact.

The title of the essay is silly, since he does not provide any proof. He just points out evidence and the conclusions that the evidence leads to. Those conclusions are so supported we consider it a fact. Proof is the luxury realm of brewers and logicians. An observation isn't a fact. A fact is something which we are very sure is true. We don't observe Henry VIII being King, but we consider it a fact. We don't observe electrons, but we consider them a fact. An observation is an observation. We can use observations/evidence to derive facts. Doesn't matter. By the definition of fact as used by scientists, evolution is a fact. To quote Gould (on the talk origins page).

quote:

---

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. .. In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

---

I think that is a word that has pragmatic value. It distinguishes itself from 'observation' and 'data' quite nicely. If you decide to stick around here: I can only hope you learn to adjust to the, shall we say, diversity of style at EvC. It's good to know my efforts to be polite whilst disagreeing with people is appreciated.

As I said, I don't like the term because it introduces confusion. The wiki page you reference barely talks about proof and mostly in the context of mathematics. He certainly demonstrates that the evidence leads to the conclusion that evolution happened. A strongly supported theory is still considered a theory. See: Quantum Theory, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Evolution. One might proceed as though the theories did indeed correctly explain a phenomena, and indeed, scientists often do - that's how predictions are formed (Assuming the theory is true, we should see...). Now - some theories are now referred to as facts: Such as germ theory. Most people would be happy to say that germs can cause disease is a fact.Such things are generally strongly supported hypothesis, whereas the more modern concept of a theory is of a suite of hypothesis used to build up an explanatory framework. I agree. Evolution, the fact, would still be evolution the fact. Evolution, the theory would be pretty much swept away. Evolution the theory is the explanation of evolution the fact. The explanation includes random mutations in the genome, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, as well as natural selection. Natural selection is the chief architect of adaptation, without it, the theory of evolution is flaccid. That's all. Call it what you will, but 'macroevolution' isn't a theory in the 'explanatory framework' context. It's a theory in the historical hypothesis sense of the word. Using it in the context of scientific theories would put you in danger of equivocation, and it's best to avoid that. Public opinion doesn't decide facts. If there was a guy found dead, he was 80 years old and he seemed to have had a heart attack, most people might find it obvious that the old guy's heart just clapped out (natural causes). Most people don't have the time to investigate all the evidence, nor the training to understand it. Further evidence shows arsenic in the old fella's veins.Now I'd say it was a fact that this guy was poisoned which led to organ failure.Is it a fact that he died of natural causes because most people think it was? No.Once you know all the evidence for common ancestry, and have the skills to analyse the evidence, it would be perverse to deny macroevolution has occurred: Thus it is a fact.

But only in a limited sense. It doesn't matter how much evidence is ever accrued, the theory of evolution will always be a theory. However, the hypothesis of common descent had the potential to become a fact. Macroevolution is an historical event. It either happened or it didn't. Thus it is either a fact or it is not. Sure, a historical fact can explain things. That Henry VIII was king (and Elizabeth I was Queen), along with facts about their life, goes someway towards explaining the conflict between Catholics and Protestants. However, it would be absurd to refer to it as a theory in a scientific sense. It's a very well supported historical hypothesis.

So in your opinion, evolutionists don't take into consideration the facts of reproduction? That, in essence, they don't know how babies are made? That they ignore embryology?

Nor was it relevant. When discussing embryology or specific counts of hereditary, not talking about this 'seed' you mention would be disregarding it. Simply assuming that everybody knows about this basic obvious stuff when talking about something else entirely is different.

Actually - the Jewish year accounts for the solar discrepancy in the same way as the Sumerians did - by including extra 'leap' months. Of course, there was at least one other calendar that was much closer to the scientifically vindicated one. The Haab' had 365 days in the year - which is pretty good.

The currently used Hebrew Calendar is accurate, but as far as I am aware that was adopted after Christ was said to have been around. Their earlier calendar (the OT one) seems to have been inspired by other sources, such as the Babylonian one.

quote:

---

Until the fifth century BC the calendar was fully observational, but beginning about 499 BC the months began to be regulated by a lunisolar cycle of 19 years equaling 235 months. Although usually called the Metonic cycle, Meton (432 BC) probably learned of the cycle from the Babylonians. After no more than three isolated exceptions, by 380 BC the months of the calendar were regulated by the cycle without exception. Within the cycle of 19 years, the month Adaru 2 was intercalated, except in the year that was number 17 in the cycle, when the month Ululu 2 was inserted. During this period, the first day of each month (beginning at sunset) continued to be the day when a new crescent moon was first sighted”the calendar never used a specified number of days in any month.

---

(wiki), which puts to rest your idea of no other lunisolar calendars. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Hebrews or the Mayans were incapable of doing maths and observation. That doesn't vindicate Genesis, or their assorted religious texts either.Here's some science, I'll let you judge it as you may.365 + (349/1440) mean solar days in a year as calculated by science.
365 + (24311/98496) mean solar days in a year as calculated in the Hebrew Calendar circa Hillel II.The difference between the two is slightly less than 1/224 of a day.Every two and a fifth centuries, it is wrong by a day. After 100,000 years it will be out by almost 450 days!I'm not a massive expert - but if you want to make a cogent argument about the accuracy of the Hebrew Calendar, propose a new topic on it since a quick error correction of mine is now spinning into an offtopic subthread.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : I've got no idea how the title got like that.

Maybe you didn't hear me. I'll say it again:If you want to make a cogent argument about the accuracy of the Hebrew Calendar, propose a new topic - this one is coming to its end.