Holes in the theory of evolution

[IndependantAce]

Not really; most of the actual physical evidence is simply fossil record, some transitional species, vestigal parts, etc - but these are only bits and pieces.

And they are evident.

Scientific theory is just observations subject to change. No one's obligated to believe something simply because it is in consensus with the scientific establishment.i

Treating it as absolute truth is Scientism, not science; so who's the retard?

It is the accumulation of observations that prove and disprove hypothesis.
It is part of the scientific method.

The scientific method isn't gospel.

Geocentrism used to be considered a scientific fact, it can change.

 

[rightwinger]

Not really; most of the actual physical evidence is simply fossil record, some transitional species, vestigal parts, etc - but these are only bits and pieces.

And they are evident.

Scientific theory is just observations subject to change. No one's obligated to believe something simply because it is in consensus with the scientific establishment.i

Treating it as absolute truth is Scientism, not science; so who's the retard?

It is the accumulation of observations that prove and disprove hypothesis.
It is part of the scientific method.

The scientific method isn't gospel.

Geocentrism used to be considered a scientific fact, it can change.

Thank GOD it isn't built on gospel
Gospel relies on faith and ignorance

Scientific theory is an open invitation to prove it is wrong. It is an iterative process where knowledge is tested and refined

 

[rdean]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

You might as well be saying "Hi, I'm an ignorant tard who believes in magic fairy dust".

 

[rightwinger]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

You might as well be saying "Hi, I'm an ignorant tard who believes in magic fairy dust".

But he thinks he is such an intellectual
First day and he has started two threads to prove it

 

[cnm]

God is, at best, a theory
A theory supported by no credible scientific evidence

Which means he she or it does not rise to the level of a 'scientific theory'.

 

[cnm]

The scientific method isn't gospel.

Geocentrism used to be considered a scientific fact, it can change.

I don't think the scientific method was then widely practised.

 

[cnm]

so who's the retard?

You.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

First of all, you are not well informed about the theories of evolution.

Secondly, inference is a perfectly valid method in scientific study. Without it we would not have the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, atomic theory, or germ theory, just to name a few.

Lastly, the theories of evolution are explanations, descriptions, and predictive tools of hard data of the fact of evolution. Organisms evolve. No biologist thinks differently.

Inferring small genetic changes between descendants of a species to mean that the entire diversity of life originated solely from natural selection is a huge inference.

Biologists do not infer commom ancestry only from small genetic changes between descendants of a species. There is, among other lines of evidence, morphology and especially genetics. See retrovirus DNA signatures.

To infer that there is some arbitrary boundary where evolution stops so that one species, an arbitrary category used only by people, doesn't evolve into a new one is without logical basis. Also, natural selection is not the only theory of evolution; see sexual selection, genetic drift, etc.

Why is it only this one scientific theory with which religious fundamentalists have an issue? Relativity is currently incompatible with quantum mechanics. Why don't religious fundamentalists take issue with that, being such scientifically critical thinkers?

 

[IndependantAce]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

First of all, you are not well informed about the theories of evolution.

Secondly, inference is a perfectly valid method in scientific study. Without it we would not have the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, atomic theory, or germ theory, just to name a few.

Lastly, the theories of evolution are explanations, descriptions, and predictive tools of hard data of the fact of evolution. Organisms evolve. No biologist thinks differently.

Inferring small genetic changes between descendants of a species to mean that the entire diversity of life originated solely from natural selection is a huge inference.

Biologists do not infer commom ancestry only from small genetic changes between descendants of a species. There is, among other lines of evidence, morphology and especially genetics. See retrovirus DNA signatures.

To infer that there is some arbitrary boundary where evolution stops so that one species, an arbitrary category used only by people, doesn't evolve into a new one is without logical basis. Also, natural selection is not the only theory of evolution; see sexual selection, genetic drift, etc.

Why is it only this one scientific theory with which religious fundamentalists have an issue? Relativity is currently incompatible with quantum mechanics. Why don't religious fundamentalists take issue with that, being such scientifically critical thinkers?

If someone produces a video recording of a fruit fly turning into a chimpanzee then that would be a lot more credible evidence than what currently exist, most of which I believe is just logical assumption versus direct observation.

Theories like gravity can be observed on a daily basis, while evolution is something postulated to have primary happened in the very distant past; so there's a big difference in terms of tangible evidence.

 

[cnm]

A scientific theory is the best knowledge we have at that point in time to explain a natural occurrence. That the theory may change as better knowledge is obtained is not disputed, in fact it is the whole point. The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have at the moment of how organisms change over time.

 

[cnm]

most of which I believe is just logical assumption

Better phrased as logical deduction from the available evidence, of which there is a plenitude.

 

[cnm]

so there's a big difference in terms of tangible evidence.

Absolutely. One can actually touch the evidence for evolution.

 

[Moonglow]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

"Fact" just means it's considered fact by the scientific establishment, not absolute truth, and is therefore subject to change.

The Big Bang was at one point considered a "fringe theory" as well.

Where is the empirical evidence for creationism?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Not really; most of the actual physical evidence is simply fossil record, some transitional species, vestigal parts, etc - but these are only bits and pieces.

And they are evident.

Scientific theory is just observations subject to change. No one's obligated to believe something simply because it is in consensus with the scientific establishment.

Treating it as absolute truth is Scientism, not science; so who's the retard?

Scientism is a made up word to stifle debate.

Scientists, like everyone, do not believe all knowledge is only valid through science. Science is simply a tool to obtain unbiased information and understanding of reality but does not apply to all aspects of reality such as personal or subjective meaning.

Believing in a scientific theory is doing science wrong. I do not believe in scientific theories. I tentatively hold theories as useful models for understanding until they are no longer useful.

Finally, scientific theories are primarily predictive tools. If the predictions prove inaccurate the tool is no longer useful and discarded. The theories of evolution have been, more so than any other theory, tested for over 150 years. These theories are still the most predominant predictive tool used by biologists. The tool has yet to prove inaccurate.

 

[IndependantAce]

so there's a big difference in terms of tangible evidence.

Absolutely. One can actually touch the evidence for evolution.

You can watch a boulder falling off a cliff.

You can't watch dinosaurs turning into birds, or apes into humans. Don't see why it's so complicated to explain the difference.

 

[IndependantAce]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

"Fact" just means it's considered fact by the scientific establishment, not absolute truth, and is therefore subject to change.

The Big Bang was at one point considered a "fringe theory" as well.

Where is the empirical evidence for creationism?

Logical arguments can be used; empirical evidence can't "prove" any religious of philosophical point anyway; it can only prove what exists, not why it's here.

 

[cnm]

You can watch a boulder falling off a cliff.

One can touch a series of fossils. Tangible. When have you touched gravity?

 

[Moonglow]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

"Fact" just means it's considered fact by the scientific establishment, not absolute truth, and is therefore subject to change.

The Big Bang was at one point considered a "fringe theory" as well.

Where is the empirical evidence for creationism?

Logical arguments can be used; empirical evidence can't "prove" any religious of philosophical point anyway; it can only prove what exists, not why it's here.

It does how ever reveal the evolution of human societies, struggling to explain the unknown through a best guess scenario...

 

[Vandalshandle]

Most of the evidence is inference

No, most of the evidence is evident.

Not really; most of the actual physical evidence is simply fossil record, some transitional species, vestigal parts, etc - but these are only bits and pieces.

There's far more physical evidence lacking as far than there is acquired; no one has physically observed a microscopic organism evolving into an ape or human over millions of years.

Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that an old man with a beard and a Jewish accent, said, "Let there be light, already!", and lightening bugs instantly populated the earth.....

 

[cnm]

Logical arguments can be used; empirical evidence can't "prove" any religious of philosophical point anyway; it can only prove what exists, not why it's here.

Proof does not exist in science, only more or less evidence. A lot more evidence exists for the theory of evolution than exists for the idea of god.