Evolution is not science

"Science is based on repeated Observation"this simple statement is ignored by many scientists who accept evolution. Science limits its focus on the present. "Facts" declared about what allegedly happened billions of years ago are not really facts, but strongly-advocated faith points.There may be evidence to back up these "facts" but that evidence can easily be re-interpreted.Edited by City_on_a_Hill, : I meant to say SCIENCE, not evolution, is based on repeated observation. I was in a hurry and made a mistake =/

And theory(ies), based on observation, and testing of the theory(ies), and refining the theory(ies) as evidence invalidates some concepts and validates others. This is the way science is done. When evolution does this it IS science -- by definition.

But, observation is the foundation for science and scientific theories. Whether evolution is based on empirical observation or mere interpretation has yet to be debated.

For instance the observation that there are variations within every population of every species, and that there are more offspring produced than needed. The theory of natural selection says only those best able to survive and reproduce will do better than those least able to survive and reproduce at the critical job of survival and reproduction. This is tested and validated.

Yes, the theory of natural selection is a scientific one. However, natural selection is not evidence for the Theory of Evolution.

Likewise we can state a theory of evolution that the hereditary characteristics within populations of breeding organisms change over time. This fits observations and tests and has been validated.

Biological evolution and the theory of Evolution are quite different things. Biological evolution is the change over time in the heritable traits of a population over a period of time.The "Theory" of Evolution is an explanation of the origin of species of plants and animals.

We can also use the fossil evidence as a test of this theory: does the fossil evidence show change within species over time?
Geology Dept article 3

Transitional fossils are lacking (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

​

All this really shows is that Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa are varieties of the same kind of organism. The origin of spherical test is not a problem, even if it is truly a new feature. The spherical test is a less complex structure than the Globigerinoides shell and probably could have come from a degenerative duplicate copy of that gene. The other possibility is that the genetic information for the spherical test was present in earlier Globigerinoides but not switched on due to environment. In that case, the genes got past to Orbulina but may not have been passed to modern Globigerinoides. The intermediates would have resulted from a gradual environmental change.

In other words, we have evidence from the fossils that change in heritable characteristics within populations over time has in fact occurred.

That would support Biological evolution and not the general theory of evolution.

This simple element of the science of evolution is ignored by many creationists who deny evolution. Science does NOT limit its focus on the present.

Science is based on observable, repeatable, and testable phenomenon. You can't observe, repeat or test the past. You can only speculate.

Denial of evidence is not a re-interpretation. Ignoring parts of the evidence is not a re-interpretation. It is easy to make "interpretations" of things you want to believe - you can "interpret" evidence to show the sun orbits a flat earth if you want to - but the TEST of the "interpretations" is whether they explain all the evidence and whether there is evidence that contradicts the "interpretations" that is not dealt with.

All facts are interpreted. Evidence does not speak for itself. We make basic assumptions to explain the evidence. The question is which model best explains the evidence available.

For instance: the many layers of forams in their different sedimentary layers can be "interpreted" as being deposited by some mythic flood or other, but this does NOT explain the separation of the different species of foraminifera into specific layers within those sediments and the clear progression from species to species from layer to layer. This separation cannot be accomplished by sorting, as there are different density forams within each layer that span the densities of forams between layers, and the density of forams is different from the density of the sediments, some of which are very slow to settle in water. Thus the "flood interpretation" does not explain all the evidence nor does it explain the contradictory evidence of differential settling rates.

Forams generally live in deep sea levels. I can't imagine them being deposited by the flood. Where were the fossils found? Which layers? Do you have an article that elaborates on this?Regardless, this thread is not about the Flood.

This sites is called Creation versus evolution. If there is no debate, I hardly think the forum would exist. Do you see any forums that debate on whether or not Mars exists. Natural selection can only select from existing traits, not create new ones. Natural selection does not lead to the kind of evolution which would allow an uni-cellular organism to evolve into man over billions of years.Furthermore, despite the fact that almost all mutations are harmful, mutations cannot produce new traits if the potential for variation did not exist. Slight modifications can only go so far. For example, no mutations or any series of mutations will ever produce legs in a legless creature or produce legs from fins. The alleged EVIDENCE is observable. But do you have a time machine? Did you actually SEE the evolution of an unicellular cell to the modern man? "almost" is the operative word.when dealing with the past, assumptions must be made for the evidence to support a specific model. If there IS no question, there wouldn't be a controversy today. Saying that there is no question that evolution is the best explanation when there is a controversy, even with evolution being taught in classrooms, is pretty arrogant.

With evolution taught universally in America, and with bias towards creationists in higher education and in the field, what do you expect? And there are many creationist scientists and many more who question evolution If you've read on just a little further.... I did not say mutations cannot create new variation. I said mutations cannot lead to new traits when the potential for variance did not exist before. You will never see mutations producing a leg in a legless creature.

Of course we do, such as black holes, gravity, etc.Nevertheless, the general theory of evolution is not observable, testable OR repeatable. The composition of the Earth, however, can be concluded by the observation of the transmission of waves.

You're not reading my posts clearly. I specifically said that mutations DO create variation. Because the genetic information needed for legs to exist in a legless creature are far far FAR too complicated to appear in a random mutation. That's a moot point as long as they have scientific evidence.Infamous Charles Darwin quote which I'm sure all of you have heard:”Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.’”Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and , ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. Also the major extinctions such as those of the dinosaurs and trilobites are still very puzzling.’Dr David M. Rauphttp://www.cft.org.za/articles/evquote.htm”The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University)'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not yet been written.'Hubert P. Yockey (Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA)there are dozens and dozens more on that page

Many atheists question evolution, despite it being taught in American classrooms, despite it being alluded to as fact over and over. If it IS based on scientific evidence, the debate would have ended. Mutation are copy errors. They cannot produce new traits because the genetic sequence is too complicated. Random mutations cannot produce new traits, meaning which they are not modifications of existing cell functions. such as... That's simply not true, even atheists question evolution.

There are many scientists who question the theory of evolution. Of course, with any anti-evolutionary ideas censored from classrooms and from well-known "scientific" journals such as Nature and Science, and the "fact" that evolution has "mountains of evidence", it's amazing that there are any creationists out there. Even the most simplest organism have hundreds of thousands of "letters" and hundreds of genes. The amount of information stored in DNA is millions times larger than the most advanced computer can hold.
Furthermore, cells must have an incredibly sophisticated editing process to ensure that each gene is reproduced error-free. The fossils simply does not support the theory of evolution. Neither does genetics or the experiments. They are just interpreted so they fit into the evolutionary model. That's simply not true. Many atheists question evolution because it just doesn't add up.

True, but the amount of NET information of DNA is still the same. However, mutations simply does not produce new traits if the potential for variation incorporated in existing traits was not there. For example, mutations cannot produce new structures (livers, hearts, legs, arms, fingers, etc.) if they did not already exist.

ABC.net.au: Page Not Found
http://www.reviewevolution.com/...sRelease_100Scientists.php Not necessarily.However, the misspelling of just one letter out of three billion in the entire human genome can lead to a disease.In this case, the massive amount of information combined with the fact that even a single error out of 3 billion can be devastating, there obviously IS complexity. Nevertheless, that mechanism still has to be there in the first place for DNA to be copied. Of course there are not infinite ways to interpret evidence. All i'm saying is the theory of evolution is not even kind of close to the best explanation. What about transitional fossils? There should be many transitional, yet out of the hundreds of millions found, there's only a few DEBATABLE ones. Article?Edited by City_on_a_Hill, : No reason given.

Of course genetic information is relevant to the theory of evolution. How else can you explain the difference in genetic information between bacteria and people? A trait is a characteristic of a population. Mutations cannot produce new traits if the genetic information needed for those traits did not already exist. Evolution cannot be observed, tested or repeated. Claims that we can observe evidence for the theory of evolution are completely unfounded.

You have a different idea of what a transitional fossil should be. Just because an animal has characteristics of two or more different organisms does not make it transitional. A transitional fossil should have transtional forms (partly formed legs, teeth, eyes, etc.) really mature......and such...

You asked for proof that scientists question evolution. If you wanted scientific evidence against evolution, you should've said so. How is being skeptical about evolution not questioning it? The claim that the debate among scientists doesn't exist is unfounded. When I'm talking about letters, I mean, ACTG, the letters that make up the human genome.Page not found | Transfer and Reentry Center That's a fallacious argument and you know it.Genetic sequences have to be precise. Each of the three billion "letters" has to be right. You can't take one part of the genetic sequences and put it somewhere else.Natural arches themselves contain small amounts of information. CB101.2: Mutations and new features.Mutations don't produce new features (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceEdited by City_on_a_Hill, : No reason given.

I'm sure you've heard of homology. Many animals share common characteristics.They're only transitional if you've already assumed the theory of evolution to be correct. Article? You're just making an assertion without using any support.