Replies

You are showing a complete ignorance of how science works. Theories can very seldom be proven to an absolute certainty. Theories that are considered proven absolutely are called Laws. Theories are tested by collecting evidence using one or more of the following means - observation, measurement and experimentation. Most often, predictions are made based on theories, and evidence is sought to determine the accuracy of the prediction.

Theories can easily be proven false when evidence is found which contradicts the theory. The IPCC sponsored climate change theory has been proven false, as predictions made based on that theory have not achieved anything resembling accuracy over the past 20 years.

Use of radioisotopes to date ancient rocks and fossils is an example. Rate of decay for any given isotope are assumed to be constant, because they have never been observed to fluctuate or change. You would have to find observations millions of years in the past to know absolutely that decay rates never change. However, measurements have been made for a sufficient length of time that scientists almost universally agree that they will remain constant. The key point is NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND TO CONTRADICT THIS THEORY.

Similarly for testing evolution, you would not be able to directly test the theory unless you spent millions of years making observations. Experiments on processes that take millions of years can only be examined experimentally over timespans of years or decades.

Evolution involves three facts widely considered proven.

1. Genetic mutations occur naturally in all organisms which sometimes result in offspring with characteristics not inherited from their predecessors. These genetic mutations can often be passed on to succeeding generations. My Father’s sister died from complications of a genetic mutation in her mitochondria in parts of her body. The distribution of the mutated mitochondria indicate that it happened while she was an embryo. Thankfully her children did not inherit this mutation as it did not occur in a cell that developed into her ova. Genetic mutations will either increase, decrease or not effect the chances of survival. Even very dull witted people generally agree with that last part. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND WHICH CONTRADICTS THIS.

2. Over time, organisms inheriting beneficial characteristics tend to displace the members of that species which lack this characteristic. This is generally referred to as survival of the fittest, but many times it becomes survival of the prettiest due to sexual preferences. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND WHICH CONTRADICTS THIS.

3. The environment of the Earth consists of thousands of distinct habitats, which are constantly subject to either gradual or sudden change. The changed habitats will favor either the mutated characteristic or the non-mutated, or will be neutrally adaptable. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND THAT CONTRADICTS THIS.

The theory predicts that over billions of years, trillions of genetic mutations will accumulate throughout all segments of living organisms on Earth, and that the changes in habitats which favor one characteristic over another will result in organisms that range from single cells to Blue Whales.

There have been many observations made which confirm to most scientists satisfaction that billions of years ago the were only single celled organisms, and that more complex life forms appear millions of years later. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND THAT CONTRADICTS THIS

There have been several experiments performed to test whether selection drives genetic changes in organisms.

The longest duration experiment began before recorded history, when Gray Wolves were domesticated and through selection over 300 genetically distinct breeds have been produced.

Shorter term experiments have demonstrated that mutations in micro organisms subjected to selective pressure using antibiotics can result in immunity to the antibiotics.

If I had time I could give more evidence to support the prediction, but the most important fact is that NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND WHICH CONTRADICTS THE PREDICTION.

Every time you respond you provide ZERO FACTS to support your opinion. Your pharaoh fable does not have any applicability to this issue. If there is evidence available and you or anybody else would like to form a hypothesis, that’s fine, but it is only applicable to itself, not to any other theory or law.

Theories present the most likely explanation for a given condition or phenomenon given ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. They are generally relied upon until someone comes up with a theory which better fits all available evidence.

If you have actual evidence you are welcome to provide it. Or you can just keep spouting opinion, your choice.

Well said. One quibble: I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that “theories that are considered proven absolutely are called Laws.” Laws express observations, like the Law of Gravity that two things attract in proportion to their mass and in inverse proportion to the square of their distance. Various Theories of Gravity attempt to explain why that should be so, but even without any of them being proven, the Law of Gravity stands.

In your examples, I’d say #1 is close to a law. It’s up to some theory of genetics to explain why the mutations occur.

Another law-like observation might be that organisms can be categorized into hierarchical groups based on morphological similarities et al. The Theory of Evolution explains why that should be so.

Finally, in addition to your list of non-contradicting observations, I’d add the confirmatory ones. For example, with some exceptions, the hierarchical categories have tended to be confirmed by later observations of a sort that didn’t exist when the categories were first created, e.g. genome sequencing confirming the closeness of our relationship to the other apes.

“There have been several experiments performed to test whether selection drives genetic changes in organisms.

The longest duration experiment began before recorded history, when Gray Wolves were domesticated and through selection over 300 genetically distinct breeds have been produced.”

Breeds, yes.

Earlier you thought this was speciation. You are learning.

Your enthusiasm is clear, but understanding-wise I don’t think you’re in any position to be giving lectures.

eg, is hard to know what you mean by this:

“The theory predicts that over billions of years, trillions of genetic mutations will accumulate throughout all segments of living organisms on Earth...”

To the extent that it can be interpreted as accurate, it’s rather empty hyperbole.

Theories can very seldom be proven to an absolute certainty.

That is true, but we are addressing hypotheses for which there is ZERO proof. Suspicion, perhaps, but not proof.

First, what you are saying means that true scientists remain open to the possibility that even a theory considered proven is open to reconsideration if new evidence emerges.

A true scientist would never dream of uttering such nonsense as "the debate is settled." When scientists actually believed in science, anyone saying that would be shamed out of the profession.

Second, however, the idea that a scientific theory will always remain less than 100% certain does not mean you can pawn off a complete lack of proof as science.

Theories are tested by collecting evidence using one or more of the following means - observation, measurement and experimentation.

Oh, dear God no! Science requires ALL OF THOSE, not "one or more."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Most often, predictions are made based on theories, and evidence is sought to determine the accuracy of the prediction.

The prediction you have in mind here is called an EXPERIMENT.

First you formulate a hypothesis.

All of modern "science" is stuck at the "formulate a hypothesis" stage. Frustrated novelists, science fiction writers, imagineers, and creative types want to fantasize about what MIGHT be true.

So, if the hypothesis were true, what would we predict to happen?

This becomes an experiment.

If the prediction comes true, it may confirm the hypothesis. If it does not come true, it may reject the hypothesis.

Of course, this assumes that the hypothesis is well-stated and clear and capable of being tested, and that the prediction is also well-designed and focused, so that the prediction actually tells us if we the hypothesis is true or false.

It is possible to have predictions which DO NOT really tell us if the hypothesis is true or false.

Use of radioisotopes to date ancient rocks and fossils is an example. Rate of decay for any given isotope are assumed to be constant, because they have never been observed to fluctuate or change. You would have to find observations millions of years in the past to know absolutely that decay rates never change. However, measurements have been made for a sufficient length of time that scientists almost universally agree that they will remain constant. The key point is NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND TO CONTRADICT THIS THEORY.

Yes, this is a perfect example of anti-science.

First, would we expect to find evidence to contradict this hypothesis? No. Humans have not been around long enough to detect any such variation.

So the fact that in the tiny sliver of time humans have been around we have seen nothing inconsistent with the hypothesis does not help us any.

It is entirely possible that radioactive dating is completely unreliable over a time span of millions of years or even tens of thousands of years. But the few hundred years that humans have even known about radioactivity would be incapable of detecting anything to confirm or deny the validity of radioactive dating.

But notice how totally unscientific this is.

Would you measure something without first CALLIBRATING your scale and setting it to a zero tare?

How can so-called scientists use radioactive dating when they are incapable of calibrating their instrument of measurement?

Unless you can go back in time millions of years and TEST the validity of radioactive dating, you are engaging in the worst kind of dishonest fraud by claiming that can measure the age of anything using radioactive decay.

Third, it is worse than just whether the rate of decay is constant. You have to make radically unreliable assumptions (guesses) about the ORIGINAL composition of what you are measuring in order to be able to compute the passage of time by the current level of radioactivity or ratios of isotopes.

So even if radioactive dating is valid for one sample, you cannot say that it is valid for another, because you cannot establish that the ORIGINAL composition of samples from different time periods and different locations was the same at the starting point.

No self-respecting scientists would mouth such nonsense.

Similarly for testing evolution, you would not be able to directly test the theory unless you spent millions of years making observations. Experiments on processes that take millions of years can only be examined experimentally over timespans of years or decades.

Correct. So if you want to believe in evolution, it can only be an article of faith. You can choose to believe it. But it is not science.

There have been many observations made which confirm to most scientists satisfaction that billions of years ago the were only single celled organisms, and that more complex life forms appear millions of years later. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND THAT CONTRADICTS THIS

But observations are not science. Observations are observations.

The whole point of science is to impose DISCIPLINE to separate guesswork from fact.

There can be any number of explanations for an observation.

You walk outside in the morning and the sidewalk is wet. So you ASSUME that it rained overnight. But in fact your neighbor's kid was playing around with the water hose when he woke up at dawn.

Observations are not explanation.

Now as to the existence of single-cell organisms at one point in time and multi-cell organisms at later times, YOU DON'T KNOW THOSE TIMES.

Without a calibrated measurement of time, you don't know when anything happened. You don't know that the single-cell organisms were earlier than the multi-cell organisms, because you have no tool for measuring time that is calibrated or reliable.

To have a reliable measurement of time, you would have to build a time machine, go back in time millions of years, and calibrate your measurement tool for accuracy.

The theory predicts that over billions of years, trillions of genetic mutations will accumulate throughout all segments of living organisms on Earth, and that the changes in habitats which favor one characteristic over another will result in organisms that range from single cells to Blue Whales.

But this is patent nonsense, as anyone with common sense can immediately recognize, if not bending over backwards to avoid the truth.

Those genetic mutations are much SMALLER in increment than Darwin ever understood.

So it is impossible to have a mutation that leaps from one VIABLE species or function to another VIABLE one.

The mutation will lead to a DEFECTIVE species which will DIE.

Consider: Birds have hollow bones to make them light enough to fly.

SO if a species evolves hollow bones first, then it would DIE OUT because its bones are too fragile to survive as a land animal, but it has not yet evolved wings.

If a species evolves wings first, without the hollow bones, it would be too heavy to fly, and it would again DIE OUT.

If a land animal begins to evolve wings, when it is partway between legs and wings, it would have a defective, useless set of non-functioning limbs, and it would DIE OUT.

When you look at the big picture from 40,000 feet, you can imagine that 1 species could gain an advantage by making GIGANTIC LEAPS from one design to the enxt.

But that's not how genetic mutations work.

Mutations are such small steps, that the mutated specimen will be DIASADVANTAGED and will DIE OUT.

Theories present the most likely explanation for a given condition or phenomenon given ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

That is the very definition of a hypothesis.

A likely explanation is only the beginning, not the end, of the scientific inquiry.