No, in fact it isn't. And you're talking about microevolution here right? Let me get this straight, I'm always talking about macroevolution, because that's where most creationists have a problem. You might say microevolution proves macroevolution, but creationists won't accept that.
The separation of "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is a complete fabrication from Creationists. Science makes no such distinction. The model describing the change in genetic traits over generations has no mechanism for some "barrier" that somehow stops these small "micro" changes from adding up to larger "macro" changes. Creationists don't accept a lot of things that are factual.
I NEVER SAID IT WAS A COMPETING THEORY WITH EVOLUTION! I said it was an explanation of how evolution OCCURRED. Which is absolutely 100% true especially from a scientific viewpoint! And to say that it is not a theory is simply absurd! Of course it is a theory, just like magnetism, atomic structures, gravity and electricity.
But you're still not quite understanding the actual relationship between natural selection and evolution, and this is why you're getting so much flak at the moment. As another poster, Jar, is fond of saying, you're confusing the map for the territory. The territory (actual evolution, the real and observed change in traits over generations) exists. It's irrefutable, you can actually go and see it. The Theory of Evolution is the map - it describes the mechanism by which the observed phenomenon of evolution occurs, which includes natural selection (not a theory in its own right, but a mechanism), genetic drift (likewise), etc. The territory (evolution)is simply fact. The map (the Theory of Evolution) changes as new data is discovered about the observations it models.
Similarly, gravity is an observation. We know, through direct observation, that this force exists. The Theory of Gravity describes the mechanism by which gravity works.
A Theory
must involve a mechanism, becuase a Theory must be able to make testable predictions and thus be falsifiable. A scientific Theory is 100% different from, say, a detective saying "I have a theory."
One such as you should know that science doesn't proceed by showing that theories are irrefutably true (Fact). It proceeds by showing, through repeated testing, that they're NOT FALSE.
This is true. A Theory is held to be less tentative through additional scrutiny and attempted falsification. But observations (ie, allele frequency changes over generations)
are fact. This is why the distinction is important.
Evolution just happens to be a theory which is so well founded that most scientists see it as fact. Even though it is, essentially, a theory just like gravity. I mean, gravity is also, essentially, a theory. It's just so well founded by repeated testing and observation all over the globe that it is seen as fact.
N, evolution
is a fact. It's observable, just like gravity. The Theory of Evolution is the model describing the mechanism by which evolution happens, and that model is what has been tested. Through repeated testing, it has shown to be highly accurate in modeling the observed phenomenon. It may seem like a small semantics nitpick to you, but I assure you the difference is significant.
And you don't even have to believe me, believe this post of the month from the Talk.Origins archive:
Please, no bare links. Post a quote if you would like to cite someone else's work, or sum it up in your own words. But beyond that: a post of the month on a web forum is not the same as a peer reviewed journal, and neither does such a post necessarily reflect proper usage of terms or understanding of ideas. In other words: a post on another forum is irrelevant. Your understanding is still flawed.
But you know what I don't really think you're reading this. You don't care what I say, you're just skipping over it and pushing the reply button so you can have the last word. Because if you were really reading this with an open mind, you would have realised that I never said, in the last post, or any other post, that natural selection was a competing theory with the theory of evolution.
What are you, 12? Let's be a little more grown up here, please.
In fact I explained that it was an explanation of how evolution proceeds.
You just misunderstood me because you wanted me to be wrong.
No, several people "misunderstood" you becasue your use of terms is incorrect, and you seem to have a few misunderstandings of your own regarding Theories andevolution in particular.
No, Percy, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Natural selection is one explanation of how evolution occurred and even if it was proven wrong evolution (As in my latter definition) would still be standing. I'm not saying this just so I can have an opposite opinion of yours, I'm saying it because it's the truth. Think about it.
Close but still not on the mark. See above.
Actually there is. All you have to assert is that a living organism always comes from at least one living (parent) organism. That's all. Of course, a further explanation would be natural selection, but even if that was proven wrong, you would still have evolution standing. (Notice, I'm not saying natural selection is wrong, I'm just saying you could still argue for evolution even though natural selection WAS wrong)
Simple descent from a parent without a selection mechanism does not accurately model allele frequency changes over generations. This is where your semantic mistake is spilling over into your understanding of what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
Yes, it's a fact as far as you can say something is a fact in science. You and I both know that a theory is always a theory, just like gravity is a theory. It's just so well substantiated that it is perceived as fact. At the end of the day though, it's still a theory.
This is true, except that observations
are facts. That evolution has and is occurring is an observed fact, for instance, just as gravity's effect on our space probes, on the moon and planets, etc is an observed fact. The Theories are the models detailing the mechanisms that explain the observations.
But wouldn't the repeated observation of the fossil simply be a repetition of the same experiment again and again? I mean wouldn't it be better to have three experiments under three different conditions than three experiments under the same condition?
The "fossil record" covers a lot of individual fossils, and each one is an experiment in itself. Each fossil could potentially disprove the Theory of Evolution. Each one supports it, instead.
Yes please, a source from a scientist or a scientific article saying that observations of nature are just as good experiments as repeated experiments in a lab. (Not trying to annoy you or anything)
That's part of the basic scientific method. Basic stuff. Observations are
fact.
Yes of course when the scientific community today talks about evolution they talk about all the theories that have something to do with evolution. But you can, in fact, still simplify that definition and reach something which doesn't include natural selection. All you'd need is the theory that a living organism will always come from another living organism and you're all set.
And yet that doesn't accurately model observed reality any longer. "Simplified" definitions are nice for TV documentaries and jr high biology classes, but not for science or meaningful debate.
The best part about all of this is that you don't even have to believe me. Ian Johnston at the Malaspina University-College has written an excellent proof of evolution where he does in fact simplify the case of evolution to its utter core, thereby neatly sidestepping 80% of all the bullshit creationist argument.
Read it here:
Error
While it is certainly possible to argue individual aspects of the Theory of Evolution in order to win a debate by ignoring what the opponent will not accept, it has no bearing on what the actual scientific Theory includes. Also, again: no bare links, please.
Thus, all the crap about natural selection being implausible or whatever doesn't matter because evolution would still be standing. It's a giant red herring.
Natural selection is one of the largest components of the Theory of Evolution. You don't need to address it in an individual debate, but saying that its falsification would let the Theory stand is false.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
™ Version 4.2
