Evolution Is Not Science Nor Scientific Theory Evolution

[kasm 0]

1. It is very important to be quite clear about the sense in which one is using the words as : Science , Theory and Evolutions.

 

2. In school text books there is confusion in the use of the term 'evolution' . There are many different ways the word 'evolution' is used. It is very important to be quite clear about the sense in which one is using the word. One of these defination Evolution as minor variations and adaptations (which is in fact the micro evolution definition). So it is better to count the types of the evolution. There are 6 types of evolution known to me: [i will quote them to avoid accusing me of cutting and paste . It is from my accumulated knowledge base from many sources]:

(i) Cosmic Evolution (the origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing, there are 5 different theories competing . Each has its strength or weakness. The famous one the "big bang" theory does not address the major question, "where did everything come from?" . How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion causes only disorder and dist ructions? Also the Big Bang also violates two out of three Laws of Thermodynamics);

 

(ii) Chemical Evolution:(the development of the higher elements from hydrogen- assumtions);

 

iii) Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets amount to anything more than "fairy tales," and imagination has no part in real science);

 

iv) Organic Evolution (the origin of organic life. Spontaneous Generation as the Origin of Life, despite the apparent contradiction to empirical science). Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur have succeeded in disproving Spontaneous Generation long time ago.

 

(v) Macro Evolution (Large-scale, or major changes from one kind of life form to another (assumption) involving innovations in structure or body plan, or new organs. Nothing aproved that happen and is still lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record, and the harmful trend of genetic mutation. ,

 

(vi) Micro Evolution (small-scale, or minor changes and adaptations within a population of life forms i.e. the variation within the kinds). This observed and documented. It does not result in leaps between one kind of life form and another, but in a wide variation of types of this same form. Although we observe many varieties within the group, a finch remains a finch, a virus a virus, a moth a moth, etc. We are familiar with breeding process to produce various kinds of horses, cows, cheep, dogs, cats,...etc.. The "variation within a kind" is what Darwin observed in the mid-1800's, and what we still observe today... Also We all know and recognise the viruses and bacteria development as well as the development of the defence system But no scientist has ever seen a host animal develop a new defence mechanism causing it to evolve into a higher life-from; similarly, no one has ever witnessed a parasite develop a new, improved attack method that ultimately resulted in its transformation into a new species. (macro evolution if occurred) .

3. When we speak about science we mean pure science . Many use termonolgy science out of their origin when we say: Creation Science, Christian Science, Social Science, Historical Science, Origin Science [How matter and life began],.... The pure Science definition is in dictinories, philosphy of science' books. The minimum requirements was given in the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1981:

Judge Overton found that science has four essential features:

1. It is guided by natural laws, and is explanatory by references to natural laws.

2. Science is testable against the empirical world.

3. Its conclusions are tentative, not the final word.

4. It is falsifiable

Falsifiable= Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted[Definitions from The Online Plain Text English Dictionary]

4. The hypothesis or the theory in the common meaning will be considered scientific theory if it satisfied many requirements among them:

 

logically "OR" Empirically tested and based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments . A theory which cannot be tested empirically is useless for researchers.

 

lead to predictions or reproductions that are testable. A theory which has not made any actually verified predictions might prove useful in the future when its predictions are verified, but not currently. A theory which cannot provide reproductions (to utilize present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event or state of affairs) may also be useful in the future, but not currently. If a theory's results cannot be reproduced, it is impossible to determine if those results were ever actually valid (rather than the result of error or fraud).

 

falsifiable (i.e., cases must exist in which the theory can be imagined to be invalid). For example saying "Things fall down" will be invalid if we find an object fall up. When a theory is not falsifiable, it is impossible to tell if it is true or not, and thus it won't be possible to correct it via experimentation. & Falsifiable

So one important requirement to be a theory is to help us to predict future events. For example When we launch a satellite we know from our theories where it will be after 2 days for example or when it will arrive to its planned position.

 

5. Then my topic is "Evolution is not science nor scientific theory". By "Evolution", I mean cosmic, chemical, organic, macro evolution. You can call them Origin Science as there are social science, christian science .... The reasons that each is not science is that it is not testable or falsiable. Each is not not scientific theory because it doesn't lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable. For example it can not tell us what will be the human after 500 or million years from now? What will be the panda or the whale 300 years from now?. Moreover it couldn't lead us what was on the past by any confidence except fairy tales.

 

6. Please stick to the point. No need to compare with any other un-true science. No needs to involve religions or beliefs. I recognize that micro evolution is science and scientific theory.

 

7. If you think it is falsiable give us example. Please don't give examples for micro evolution as it is example for macro evolution as many text books do.

 

8. If you think it is testable then give us how? without refer us to confusing sites?.

 

9. If you have ideas what it will predict then tell us. Please don't offer mutations and antibiotic resistance in bacteria (micro evolution - real science) as being some sort of prediction of macro evolution (origins science).

[dodgerblue 0]

Nice post.Interesting read. :(On an off-topic but slightly related note: would also be interesting to find out what Wikipedia has to say about both the theory of evolution and the theory that God created the world.If they say evolution is a science, does this discredit their professionalism and accuracy?

[brainless 0]

I think I can agree with you in some points, kasm, and one note before I start discussing: The first three types of evolution you mention, Cosmic/Chemical/Stellar; Planetary Evolution (i-iii), are not taught to be kinds of evolution in german schools (though I can see why it might be tempting to call these processes "evolution"), so I will not discuss them right now. As I'm only starting this post now, I can't tell what I will discuss but I will certainly not discuss this I will also leave out Organic Evolution (iv) as I am not familiar with Redi's and Pasteur's work(s?) on this.by the way: Thanks for structuring your post clearly. I've gotta think about adapting a similar style of creating large posts...I dropped biology after 10th Grade (= 3 years before graduation) 'cause it didn't fit into my timetable in 11th grade and after that I wasn't allowed to continue. It might happen that I mix up some terms, if you think I did so - don't hesitate to tell me that you think I'm mistaken...to (v) Macro Evolution (lack of transitional fossils): Actually, there are transitional types of species in the fossil records. Several types of man-like species have been found which are neither human nor ape. Most famous of those might be the "Neandertaler" who are supposed to have co-existed along with early *person* sapiens (at least co-existed in the dimension of time, archeologists do not agree whether they had rather peaceful relationships when they met or whether they rather fought each other).The development of birds also has some transitional fossils, some kinds of two-legged creatures with feathers which were definitely not capable of flying and the Archaeopteryx (-ix?; the first one was found three years before Darwin published his work on the "Origin of Species"). The Archaeopteryx shows signs of reptiles (claws, teeth) and birds (feathers, wings, large brain). As usual, "scientists" do not agree on how much of a bird and how much of a reptile this creature was but most agree that it was neither pure bird nor pure reptile. Probably the first found "missing link".To predict how something will evolve (as in adapt to new circumstances) is hard since it is hard to determine what the world will look like in 100 years (this should not be long enough for macro-evolution), how should someone be able to predict what the world looks like in 1,000,000 years and how it gets to look like that? This would be necessary to make predictions on evolution. Maybe the species which follows mankind grows another set of arms?

[iwuvcookies 0]

So what the so-called scientist that are created upon the basis of science make up these theories of evolution through scientific observations and research are totally false? so they're not really scientist. lol. jk.i know what your saying. I agree with it. I never knew evolution can have so many distinguished meanings. And with your perspective it really makes sense.

[True2Earn 0]

Actually, not one single transitional fossil has ever been discovered after over 150 years of searching. What every fossil does show is that various creatures suddenly emerge out of nowhere and they do not change. Here are a few examples:

A 400-million-year-old fossil shark (New Scientist, 20.1.1984), a 400-million-year-old fossil starfish (Giovanni Pinna, L'Histoire de la Vie), a 320-million-year-old fossil cockroach (National Geographic, January 1981), a 230-million-year-old fossil scorpion (Nature, March 1985), and a 1.1 billion-year-old fossil worm (October 1998), show that these creatures have not changed at all over millions of years and that they emerged in their present states.

As for the Archaeopteryx, you can read in depth about the latest findings on this bird here.

The Archaeopteryx shows signs of reptiles (claws, teeth) and birds (feathers, wings, large brain). As usual, "scientists" do not agree on how much of a bird and how much of a reptile this creature was but most agree that it was neither pure bird nor pure reptile. Probably the first found "missing link".

Such creatures as you describe exist today. Are they missing links too? Cats have claws and teeth so you can say they have reptilian characteristics. Also, not all reptiles have teeth. The crocodilians are the reptiles with the most developed teeth. And yes, there are also creatures on two legs not capable of flying and has feathers even today, such as the ostrich, emu and kiwi.
And then there is the platypus. What are it's ancestors? The fossil record shows that as far back as you can go, the platypus has always been a platypus. And there is the coelacanth which was thought to have become extinct about 70 million years ago... until 1938 when the first of many were found alive and well swimming in the oceans.

Instead of going into a long discussion concerning Neanderthal man, I will leave a quote.

Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

Another one of your statements was

Several types of man-like species have been found which are neither human nor ape

which i will have to admit. Read the following quotes...

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of manuntil it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down.
Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.

Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like.

Pigs and donkeys are definitely not humans nor apes! And as an added treat I'm going to throw in this...

Brontosaurus: One of the best known dinosaurs in books and museums for the past hundred years, brontosaurus never really existed. The dinosaurs skeleton was found with the head missing. To complete it, a skull found three or four miles away was added. No one knew this for years. The body actually belonged to a species of Diplodocus and the head was from an Apatosaurus.

There are many, many more examples of fraud that has been propagated for the sole purpose of trying to get Darwinism accepted because no evidence exists to support it. Even I believed in evolution until I learned the facts and the truth. With a litle research, not only on the internet but in libraries, museums and science centers, you can find it out for yourself. But, of course, there are still many people in the world will deny the truth even if it smacks them in the face...

[homeloansnow 0]

Silly question, but stimulating nonetheless:If evolution is caused by changes in environment, as some theorize, then why aren't caged apes evolving into men so they can make tools to get out?Tongue firmly in cheek here, folks!

[Blacklaser 0]

I recognize that micro evolution is science and scientific theory.

If you accept microevolution as science and scientific theory you can not but also accept macroevolution as the same, because if you line up enough enough microevolutionary changes you have macroevolution. That is the way macroevolution works: It is an enormous amount of microevolutionary changes which combine in such a way that they form a macroevolutionary result. This works on the premise that nature is selective (survival of the fittest) and that only the microevolutionary changes which give the most advantage keep surving and evolving thus making it possible, through a excrutiatingly long process of microevolutionary changes, to yield macroevolutionary results.

@True2Earn: You're citing a few exemples of fraud, so what? There are any many more exemple where fraud did not and does not interfere with scientific results and you forget something else: the fraudulent exemples were unmasked by the same poeple who are apparently fool us. And please...

Such creatures as you describe exist today. Are they missing links too? Cats have claws and teeth so you can say they have reptilian characteristics.

Duh, of course! All mamals evolved from them... Your post has nothing to to with objective evidence, it is all very selective subjective data and can be molded to fit whetever one wants... that ain't science in any way.
Just a general note: The more biologists understand DNA and microevolution, the more evidence emerges to support Darwin's theories. In fact any reserach done into microevolution on a DNA level has perfectly supported Darwin's theories, if Darwin's theroies were as wrong as some poeple claim you'd expect DNA to prove him wrong but instead it is perfectly supporting his ideas.

[amir691 0]

ok look if the word pops up in a biology book then people know thats talking about animal and organic type evolution. not cosmic evolution. Evolution is a simple topic but people like to make it religious if though everything that supports it is scientific.

[Joshua 0]

Nice post.
Interesting read.

On an off-topic but slightly related note: would also be interesting to find out what Wikipedia has to say about both the theory of evolution and the theory that God created the world.

If they say evolution is a science, does this discredit their professionalism and accuracy?

While we're on the subject, since scholars like Newton, Pasteur, Galileo, Sir William Ramsay, and others proclaimed their belief in the God of the Bible, does that discredit their professionalism and accuracy?

Also, if Big Bang theory is correct and stuff can "poof" into existence from nothing, why don't we see little poofs all over the place making stuff all the time?

And if we came from monkeys... why didn't the other monkeys evolve? Why are there still monkeys? Furthermore, if you say it was dependent on exact circumstances needed to make it happen... wouldn't you still need 2 monkeys to evolve at once to continue the new breed? What are the chances of that? And happening repeatedly?
Edited July 11, 2006 by Joshua (see edit history)