RE: The Theory of Evolution - it's simple. Let's get rid of misunderstandings [Small discussion]
Thanks for your work on this. It's an interesting topic. From the other side of the discussion:
Hypothesis
-A hypothesis is a possible (tentative) scientific explanation or prediction of an observation or set of observations.
-In general, a hypothesis is based on a rather limited set of data.
-A hypothesis must be testable through a scientific investigation.
-Observations gathered during investigations provide evidence that either support or do not support hypotheses. If evidence supports the hypothesis, the hypothesis is said to be valid.
-Usually one or more scientists working together make hypotheses.
Theory
-A theory is a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. A theory is used to explain many different hypotheses about the same phenomenon or a closely related class of phenomena.
-Scientific theories are well-established and highly-reliable explanations that have been verified multiple times by repeated testing and have a great deal of empirical evidence that confirm them as valid.
-Scientific theories are capable of being tested by many different scientists working independently of each other.
-A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Theories can be disproven.
Without being observed, it cannot advance to a true scientific theory, regardless of the claims of various scientific groups. Adaptations and changes within a species are clearly evident. Changes from one species to another have not been observed.
There are additional challenges, such as the principles of irreducible complexity and specified complexity, that stand in opposition. Most evolutions reject these principles as pseudoscience, but the intelligent design scientists claim the same about evolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/ offers some scientific insights.
Interestingly, ID scientists claim that theirs is a theory as well. Yet creation obviously cannot be tested or observed, so it seems that it might be relegated to being a hypothesis as well.
I know we won't convince each other, but did want to share another scientific perspective.
Wow, thank you for your effort to read and to reply in so detail. I'm also leaning towards intelligent design paradigm. It's newer than old Darwin's work so it's more appealing. Also, the consciousness was not a scientific thing in his time.
Even more, as ID is not creationism nor darwinism, I think I can learn a lot from your perspective.
External actions (from another planetary system, another species, another universe in the Multiverse we are living in) are also a way of exploring this. I'm not against this way also.
My main strong point is: I don't think old Creationism is strongly enough in the modern era to sustain a valid approach. But ID could be.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Thanks!! It's a fascinating topic, and fun to explore.
Personally, I'm a creationist, for a lot of reasons. But I also have to be honest and admit that, while it's not scientifically disprovable, neither is it scientifically provable.
IMO, it's inconsistent for scientists to claim to study the order around us, observing laws that make their observations consistent, and yet claim in the next breath that it all fell into place by some cosmic accident of chance. It's statistically untenable, again IMO (and I'm in good company). And there's something super exciting about seeing the order of everything from the universe to the tiniest organism from the perspective that its design was with intent. It's these types of observations, plus the lack of evidence of evolution, that have led many scientists to embrace ID over evolution.
Another area of study in this sphere involves probability. Using algebraic formulae, the ID side points out that probability is so mathematically unlikely as to be impossible. The evolutionists counter with more about probability than I am able to interact with intelligently. :)
Regardless, IMO, the principles of irreducible complexity and specified complexity, along with the challenges of probability, are pretty persuasive. The next aspect to make it particularly challenging is the very spark of life itself. It's an unprovable, unless man can one day replicate the move from basic cells to sentient existence.
Fascinating stuff. Enjoy your search. :)
To put it in simple terms.
Richard Feinman said...
It doesn't matter how smart you are,
If it doesn't agree with the experiment.
It's wrong.
SO....if you have data, to disprove Evolution.. the scientific community is EAGER to hear from you.
You're right. It's tough to say whether it can be scientifically disproven or not. I am NOT part of the scientific community and don't plan on going down that path. My only point was that it's really not even a theory, technically, and there are alternative scientific claims.
You are mistaken. It is a definite theory. No one said that there can't be more than one theory.
Theories are falsifiable...in other words they can be proven WRONG by empirical data ( from an experiment ,so far it hasn't been) but theories can never be proven Right.
Thanks for the constructive discussion, @everittdmickey,
Yeah, there are often several working theories on a given topic. Until testing is conclusive, it's not. :)I get it, but would disagree that it's scientifically advanced to a theory. Like history, it seems to be one area of science where the criteria for what makes a theory are set aside. Perhaps because the study is necessarily historical in nature? Theoretical appears to be synonymous with hypthetical, in such cases. Unfortunately, both are prone to present the unproven (unprovable?) as fact.
If it was a theory, what is the testing and observation? Nobody has ever witnessed a species turn into a different species. Can it fulfill both of these? I consider these to be rhetorical questions, but perhaps you have information I'm unaware of.
nesting limit reached...I'm replying uphere..
a theory is a SWAG (scientific wild assed guess...some times called a hypothesis) that has NOT been shot out of the saddle yet..Theory is exactly the same as hypothetical. All , so called, theories are OLD SWAGS.
NO theory can be proved. that's not how it works. Theories can ONLY be disproved. ALL theories are on probation until they are DIS proved.
Evolution says...descent with modification. It says nothing about speciation.
That has been observed...dogs for example...or corn.