Posted on 06/27/2014 5:36:33 PM PDT by blueplum
No, theory is not confirmed hypothesis. Theory is strictly abstract thought, even in science; claims to the contrary abound among “scientists”, however.
And facts in science are confirmed by repeated observation and testing. Both are missing here. If they were present, then one can derive scientific law from them.
Never mind the “testing” methods that still masquerade as real science. DNA analysis is still in its infancy, furthermore—and DNA itself is a computer program, which indicates intellect involved in its design (if not, then computer programs of all kinds would spontaneously appear in nature). Remember the recent debunking of the widely-accepted theory of “junk DNA” which was found to have a purpose after all?
“It’s alive!”
Ultimately, man cannot live by science alone.
It has made some questionable assumptions, but even that difficulty can be weathered by placing science itself in the context it deserves.
It is the hired hand. It can’t ever be the master.
The maximum "natural" rate of genetic change can be seen in human domesticated animals like dogs, cats, cows, horses, etc.
Dogs, for example, in just a few thousand years have "evolved" into many sizes, shapes & temperaments.
But they are all still indisputably dogs, closely related to wolves, from which they came, and so readily interbreed.
A few thousand years of selective breeding cannot change that.
But millions of years of evolution certainly can change it -- turning separate breeds into science-classified species, orders and families, increasingly incapable of interbreeding.
HiTech RedNeck: "Even if environment played a factor, why the particular kind of environment needed in order to do it happened to be present, would again be a matter of luck."
Agreed, but the fact is that natural evolution proceeds at a relatively slow pace.
Long term results can be seen in the much larger DNA differences of the 105-million years separating elephants vs. elephant-shrews, compared to more similar DNA from just a few million years separating humans vs. great apes.
And that was the question addressed above.
There is some question begging embedded in your explanation, I believe I see.
The modern atheistic science has fixed upon a theory that a naturalistic evolution explains the progress, if not also the appearance, of all life. It gets cleverer and cleverer when challenged, but it has the advantage of the great fog that still exists about most of the picture. In spite of herculean extractions of comprehensive, if approximate, genomes, most of that data is still in the dark and only depends on existing creatures. The dinosaur that died a few million years ago usually can’t yield up enough DNA. Finding fossils is itself fortuitous.
The hubris of this kind of approach to science has, IMHO, spilled over into the global warming panic. There are some things that mankind has too little data to draw any kind of purely scientific conclusion about, and this is another one of them.
I've seen nothing suggesting that "dark matter" might somehow change evolution theory.
But I would certainly agree with the proposition that what science thinks it knows about reality is orders-of-magnitude less than reality itself.
And that means new discoveries -- or new perspectives on old discoveries -- could change everything in science.
A shift to enforced atheism certainly has changed “evolution theory.”
I think psychology is staring into the face of God and doesn’t even realize it yet. IMHO of course.
Agreed.
It's a problem in education, wherein teachers don't make clear to students that science begins with the assumption of "methodological naturalism", an assumption which can be neither proved nor dis-proved, but is totally necessary for science to "work".
Any experiences or conclusions relating to divinity, divine interventions and our spiritual natures are all far outside the realm of science, which can neither confirm nor refute them.
Sorry FRiend, but you are forbidden by US law from attempting to redefine what is, or is not, "science".
"Science" is defined solely by scientists -- not anti-scientists like yourself.
Scientists say that a "theory" is defined as a "confirmed hypothesis", confirmed by successful tests and/or observations.
Yes, strictly speaking, no theory is ever fully confirmed, because no test can ever "prove" a theory.
The best it can do is fail to falsify the hypothesis, and such failures accumulating over repeatable tests convince scientists to accept the hypothesis as a "confirmed theory".
Yes, occasionally a "theory" is converted to fact by confirmed observations -- the great example here being the ancient hypothesis/theory that "the earth is round", first established by mathematical calculations, then confirmed by sailing around it, and now made a certain fact by observations from outer space.
But most "theories" (i.e., long-term evolution) will remain just that -- confirmed hypotheses, since no observations of past evolution are possible.
But evolution itself is based on and supported by innumerable confirmed observations, firmly falsified by none.
Olog-hai: "Remember the recent debunking of the widely-accepted theory of “junk DNA” which was found to have a purpose after all?"
It's true that some functionality has been discovered for a small portion of what was called "junk DNA".
But for most of that 98% of DNA, it's functions, if any, are still unknown.
It remains an area of our genome where mutations can accumulate generation by generation, without causing noticeable harm to individuals.
Indeed, I'd suggest that in God's great scheme of things, that is precisely one great Purpose He intended for "junk DNA".
No "begging" here, FRiend, you are fantasizing.
HiTech RedNeck: "The dinosaur that died a few million years ago usually can’t yield up enough DNA. Finding fossils is itself fortuitous."
There is no confirmed dino-DNA ever discovered -- none.
Claims of "soft tissue" amount to collagen, which does provide some data, but no DNA.
And the data we have about dinosaurs suggests they were most closely related to today's birds -- giant chickens. ;-)
Bottom line is, the key points to remember about evolution theory are:
HiTech RedNeck: "The hubris of this kind of approach to science has, IMHO, spilled over into the global warming panic.
There are some things that mankind has too little data to draw any kind of purely scientific conclusion about, and this is another one of them."
The confirmed fact is that "global climate change" has been continuous since the Earth was first formed -- no "hubris" in that, just simple observations.
Likewise, "global species change" is also confirmed by the fossil record, DNA analyses, cladistics, radiometric dating, etc. -- again no "hubris" in that, just observations & confirmed hypotheses.
The difference is that "global climate change" attempts to use it's super-computers to calculate future warming, with formulas infused by political motivations & assumptions -- hence, as you say: obvious "hubris".
By contrast, evolution theory makes no efforts to calculate future evolution, only to explain the processes and results we now see.
That's not "hubris", it's just science, FRiend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.