Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

[rossum]

And I have shown you this:

Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution​

What does that have to do with allowing micro-evolution and disproving macro-evolution? Did you even read the blurb on the link you posted?

… could deliver deep insights into evolution, including how new species emerge?

That “how new species emerge” is, by definition, macro-evolution. Thank you for conceding the point. Macro-evolution exists and there is evidence for it. Even buffalo has posted supporting evidence.

rossum

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Really? How interesting. I don’t know of any scientist who has claimed to have proven any such thing. Generally speaking, scientists do not claim to prove anything. They do sometimes claim to have demonstrated something, but to be credible, they have to show us their evidence, and how they drew their conclusions from it. That’s how science works. If it is generally accepted by the scientific community, it becomes part of the great corpus of coherent, comprehensive explanation that makes up current scientific consensus. If not, it remains a fringe interest until such time as it is accepted, rejected or simply abandoned for lack of interest.

I’m sorry you don’t like the idea that scientists decide what science is, but I’m not sure you’re really thinking it through. I don’t mean that scientific truth is decided by this group of scientists or that group of scientists, but by the vast majority of the entire scientific community. The consensus may not be perfect, but its a great deal better than to have truth imposed by politicians, corporations, religious leaders or popular opinion.

Perhaps there is a scientist somewhere who claims to have demonstrated that gender doesn’t exist. If his demonstration is accepted around the entire scientific community, then that will indeed become ‘science’. If it isn’t, it won’t.

 

[anthonymarie]

You’ve never heard an academic say that gender is a social construct? Do you mind me asking if you have ever stepped foot on a university campus?

There is a very rich history of epistemology. The medieval world view of the best model is the one that best fits the appearance of things has given way to something much more empirical, and people like Bacon and Voltaire pushed for this, and we call it the scientific method.

The idea that a scientific truth is any truth believed by a sort of democratic majority of scientists is radically relativistic, and I doubt very much that many genuine scientists would accept it.

I suspect most scientists would say something to the effect that a scientific truth is a truth arrived at by the scientific method. It is not contingent on the intellectual assent of any one person or subclass of people.

 

[buffalo]

That “how new species emerge” is, by definition, macro-evolution. Thank you for conceding the point. Macro-evolution exists and there is evidence for it. Even buffalo has posted supporting evidence.

Once again - a loss of function once had. It is lesser than it was. Devolution and degradation.

 

[Fauken]

You’ve never heard an academic say that gender is a social construct? Do you mind me asking if you have ever stepped foot on a university campus?

He said a scientist, not an academic. If it helps, I never once heard any of my engineering professors say gender is a social construct.

 

[anthonymarie]

Fair point. But a) Social scientists are recognised by scientists by the academic community generally and say this rubbish all the time, and b) have you ever hear any, even natural, scientists condemn the notion as unscientific? There are a few isolated people speaking out (like Jordan Peterson) but not many. Get a young engineering professor talking and you might be quite shocked at some of their beliefs.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Get a young engineering professor talking and you might be quite shocked at some of their beliefs.

I think this sums up the error in your thinking regarding science. The views of young engineering professors about gender, or of academics saying gender is a social construct, are not ‘science.’ Science, as you so rightly say, is arrived at by the scientific method. This includes observation, experimentation, prediction, and, importantly, inference. Inference is not ‘proof’, nor is it undeniably “true”, nor is it irrefutable. (Some would say that the entire essence of a scientific truth is that it must be, at least in principle, refutable). And there’s the rub. Whether a scientific conclusion is '“science” or not is a question of general acceptance.

However, I think we are arguing at cross-purposes here. You used the word ‘proof’ earlier, and now the word ‘truth’. I fear you are equating “Science” with “Truth”, which is deeply, fundamentally, philosophically and scientifically incorrect. While in general terms we may think of many scientific ideas as ‘true’, we must not confuse the two terms. “Science” is a model, a human construct designed to explain the universe as accurately as we can. The heliocentric model of the solar system, and the idea that maggots sprang spontaneously from decomposing material, were both scientific, and constituted “scientific truths” in their time. They were arrived at by observation and experimentation and all the rest, and generally agreed upon. Improved observation, experimentation and so on, demonstrated that they were wrong, and improved explanations were arrived at. Real “Truth”, of course, is genuine, objective, and unchangeable. “Science” (or, confusingly “scientific truth”) is a human construct, and really does depend on “a sort of democratic majority of scientists”. I doubt very much if any genuine scientists would deny that.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

there are no shortage of academics from prestigious academic institutions making claims that they have scientifically proven, or know of scientific proofs, that there is no such thing as gender.

I don’t know of any scientist who has claimed to have proven any such thing.

You’ve never heard an academic say that gender is a social construct?

I repeat: I don’t know of any scientist who has claimed to have proven any such thing.

 

[anthonymarie]

Well I will find some journal articles later but you haven’t engaged really with either of my points. You are just talking around it, mentioning anecdotes we’ve all heard before.

Science is the conclusions drawn from the correct use of the scientific method. What is an appropriate scientific method is an epistemological question not a scientific one. I repeat that I don’t think any scientist would suggest that science is merely what scientists do - that’s a definition clearly made up by you. There are whole scientific journals which concentrate on the scientific method, I.e. research methodologies.

The idea that science is merely whatever scientists say it is is a fundamentalist interpretation that I am pretty sure the majority of scientists would reject.

 

[rossum]

Once again - a loss of function once had. It is lesser than it was. Devolution and degradation.

Loss, or gain, of function is irrelevant; it is still macro-evolution. You attempts to avoid the point by redefining words and introducing irrelevancies only go to show that you have nothing to show in the way of evidence.

When seals evolved they lost the function of moving well on land and gained the function of swimming well in water. Your point is irrelevant.

rossum

 

[Uriel1]

The heliocentric model of the solar system, and the idea that maggots sprang spontaneously from decomposing material, were both scientific, and constituted “scientific truths” in their time. They were arrived at by observation and experimentation and all the rest, and generally agreed upon. Improved observation, experimentation and so on, demonstrated that they were wrong,

The heliocentric model is wrong, you say ?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I repeat that I don’t think any scientist would suggest that science is merely what scientists do - that’s a definition clearly made up by you.

I never said any such thing.

There are whole scientific journals which concentrate on the scientific method, I.e. research methodologies.

Absolutely correct. Scientists telling other scientists, and anybody else who cares to learn, what science is.

The idea that science is merely whatever scientists say it is is a fundamentalist interpretation that I am pretty sure the majority of scientists would reject.

Absolutely correct. But that isn’t my idea.

 

[Uriel1]

When seals evolved they lost the function of moving well on land and gained the function of swimming well in water. Your point is irrelevant.

So where might we inspect the fossils proving the intermediate stages between the alleged common ancestor ( an otter-like creature) of the pinnipeds ( walruses, seals and sea lions) thought to be a land dweller.

Without the fossils you have a theory, but not a scientific proof

 

[LateCatholic]

The theory of evolution is called “a theory” and not a scientific law.

The theory of evolution was not subjected to the scientific method so is not “scientific” per se. It It has never made any prediction which might be verified,

Evolution is not only a theory. It is a fact AND a theory. There is the “theory of evolution” and also the “phenomenon of evolution”. These are two distinct things.

Compare to gravity. Gravity is also both a fact and theory. There is the “theory of gravity” as well. Are you going to jump off a cliff? Gravity is also a fact.

As for predictions, evolution is one of the most validated theories, if not the most (perhaps only challenged by Quantum Mechanics) in history. A simple example, evolution predicted DNA a century before it was discovered. Evolution, for example, predicted that there must be a biological mechanism for transferring hereditary traits. Note that this was predicted decades before DNA was discovered. It was truly revolutionary and it is astonishing that DNA was in fact discovered. There are literally hundreds of predictions that evolution makes that have been validated. Hundreds.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Aha! Well spotted. I meant, of course, GEO-centric!! Insofar as a model does not describe the observations upon which it is based, then yes, the model is wrong. However, I believe there have been attempts to refine the rather simple geocentric model with which we are familiar such that it does fit astronomical observations, and of course there is a relativistic sense in which anybody can quite logically think of themselves as the centre of the universe, and derive mathematical models of the movement of the heavenly bodies to accommodate that idea. In that sense, then you are correct to pull me up on my choice of the word “wrong”. And, of course, completely right to pull me up on “heliocentric”!

Occasionally, different models can be drawn up to describe and explain a set of observations. Sub-atomic physics is crawling with them. In that case, they tend to be compared with each other in an attempt to decide which one is “the best”, and to call that some kind of “standard model”. It may be the one which fits the most observations, the one which has been proposed by the most eminent scientist, the most “elegant”, the one which conforms most closely to the principle of “Occam’s Razor”, or some combination of these and other reasons. “Science” can cope with a variety of different possible explanations for phenomena, as long as it doesn’t claim that any of them must be “true”.

 

[Uriel1]

I was only having fun Hugh; I had realised your slip was just that

It is interesting that there is a mathematical model to prove that we are geo-centric, which of course is over-ruled by “Occam’s Razor”.

I think you and I accept that God is still creating, and that there is some evolutionary modification within His plan, but bacteria remain bacteria, and cats remain cats. The non-Catholic members of this site are grasping at evolution as the mechanistic cause, while we see it to be a process, a part of God’s creative plan

Their grasping is a vain and futile attempt to prove there is no God

 

[Uriel1]

Evolution is not only a theory. It is a fact AND a theory. There is the “theory of evolution” and also the “phenomenon of evolution”. These are two distinct things.

Is that right? Lets look at your claim more closely
The April 28, 2005 issue of Nature reports that DNA sequence data has failed even to establish whether insects are more closely related to us than they are to roundworms

There is no ladder, there is just an unscientific theory

 

[Metis1]

Scientists are human beings and some have ideologies which they can use as a proof, to them.

Categorically false as if someone does that there will be many other scientists standing in line to point out their fallacy. Science relies exclusively on evidence, not what any particular scientist or any team of scientists may say. Take a look at pretty much any copy of “Scientific American” to see that which can be found near the beginning of each copy whereas different scientists will chime in their opinions on a previous piece.

 

[Metis1]

Micro-evolution is real. No one argues it.

And there’s not one shred of evidence that supposedly stops what some call “micro-evolution” from evolving into “macro-evolution”, and if someone thinks there is, then I’d suggest they quote real scientific research, not pseudo-science propaganda, here. IOW, have them put forth objectively-derived evidence that some magical wall separates the two.

If such a magic wall existed, it would have been broadcast the world over by now-- except it simply doesn’t exist.

 

[Metis1]

Once again - a loss of function once had. It is lesser than it was. Devolution and degradation.

Since you were born, did you grow or did you shrivel and die? If you plant a seed, does it grow or does it “devolve”?