Replies

Some of the data is the data of fact that there is no possible way that the number of life forms we have on this planet and the number of positive "mutations" that would have had to take place are even remotely possible.

Okay, but a negative such as that does not answer questions with data. As I said, evolution is a theory, imo, not a proven.

Some argue that there is no basis to be making speculations on supposed data at a macro level if the fundamental issues on the micro are unresolved. I listened to the author of the book, 'Darwin's Black Box' on MPR a couple years ago. He is an evolutionist that holds most current arguments in favor of the theory are, at best, specious wool gathering and doomed to collapse due to the profound lack of supporting evidence at the molecular and cellular levels.

The leftist listenership at our affiliate public radio station jammed their lines and went ape-sh*t on the poor guy even though he is an evolutionist.

Since I usually hold that lefties navigate 180 degrees from the truth on most issues, it got me to thinking.

Here's his book, if you're interested:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/qid=1067695125/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-1268934-7829614

As I said, evolution is a theory, imo, not a proven.

This is one of the anti-Evolutionists' favorite straw men to bash: "Evolution hasn't been proven." But it is based on a misnomer.

What is not well-known outside of science is that scientific theories are NEVER proven. The reason is that since all it takes to refute one is a single counter example, and since there are virtually an unlimited number of potential "test cases" for most theories, it is impossible to exhaustively exclude every one of them.

Therefore, all scientific theories are held tentatively, based upon their ability to withstand attempted falsification: the more attempted falsifications, the more strongly the theory is held to likely be correct.

This is why it is a requirement for a theory to make "useful predictions" in order to be considered "scientific" -- because the theory that makes NO predictions cannot be tested or falsified, even in principle. Similarly, theories that are consistent with ALL possible outcomes are similarly "unfalsifiable" and are thus not "scientific" theories. Examples would be Creationism ("That's just the way God did it!") and it's kissing cousin so-called Intelligent Design Theory (The designer designed it that way!") Neither one can be falsified, even in principle, because they are compatible with virtually ANY possible data.

Science embraces the Theory of Evolution tentatively, just as it embraces the Theory of Gravitation tentatively. And as for that other anti-Evo canard: "Evolution isn't falsifiable!" I respectfully suggest that discovering widespread mammalian fossils in the pre-Cambrian strata is just ONE example of data that would turn the Theory of Evolution on it's head.