@jgweed,
jgweed;85309 wrote:Either one accepts the science or one does not . . .
[SIZE="3"]Where I stand is . . . I accept all actual science; I might add, I reject supernaturalism totally.[/SIZE]
jgweed;85309 wrote:The only "falsification" appears to come from outside the scientific community.
[SIZE="3"]As you likely know,
falsification, Popper's intent at least, is an aid in formulating a testable hypothesis. It isn't about detractors trying to prove a theory wrong. However, using how you seem to mean it, I would say in response to your following comments . . .[/SIZE]
jgweed;85309 wrote:This can take the form of denying science itself, placing it under the dark cloud of "mere opinion" or "bias" or "just another belief like any other." From other quarters, and usually begat from a religious motive, isolated, dubious, and skewed "evidence" is presented in refutation of the theory of evolution; at times, this involves picking and choosing other scientific procedures and calling them into question (e.g. carbon dating).
[SIZE="3"]. . . that you've overlooked an entire category of doubter, and that is the science lover who thinks those acting as though evolution theory is a "fact" (as one poster here said, and lots of public figures, like Dawkins and Dennett, have said), are premature in their proclamations, and also fail to properly acknowledge
legitimate gaps in the theory.
I emphasized "legitimate" gaps to reassure you that my objections at least have nothing to do with the fossil record, religious conviction (I am not religious), dubious or skewed evidence, etc. I wholly am convinced, in fact, that evolution has happened, gradually over a large expanse of time, naturally, and likely from some original single cell or so. I would say that is a "fact" as much as anything observed by humans is a fact.
That said, I also don't think the "theory" of evolution is even close to being a "fact." [/SIZE]
jgweed;85309 wrote:. . . "evolution" as a general theory has the requisite explanatory power, seems consonant with recent advances in microbiology and genetic research, and is supported by collateral areas of science, for example paleontology. Naturally, as a theory, it is always subject to revision or rejection based on new evidence, and its "veracity" is that of any scientific theory.
[SIZE="3"]Why would I say I believe evolution is a fact, but evolution theory is not? Because half the debates that go on in forums like these are not about the heart of the theory, that:
mutation and natural selection (and associated E-mechanisms such as bottleneck and founder effects, genetic drift, coevolution, etc.) are responsible for the development of whole organisms.
What the facts state is that mutation and NS can cause minor adaptions to extant organ systems. There is absolutely
no proof that the original organ systems were developed that way in the first place. It is merely assumed. Why is that assumed when every other facet of evolution (that
can be supported with evidence) is painstakingly documented?
You'll notice above, where you listed "bias" as a common argument, that when I responded to other specious claims commonly made by doubters, I didn't exclude myself from the bias accusation. Well, that's because I think there is bias in the science community when it comes to how evolution is presented to the public.
Virtually all evidence presented by the scientific community is in support of gradual development over time, common descent, and simple adaption. Avoided like the plague is the huge gap no one wants to admit to where evidence is required to establish simple adaption as an organism-evolving force.
Richard Dawkins, evolution's angry champion, is typical of the biased scientist using this tactic. He says, for example, "There are clues from the distribution of DNA codes throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, of protein sequences, of morphological characters that have been analyzed in great detail. Everything fits with the idea that we have here a simple branching tree. The distribution of species on islands and continents throughout the world is exactly what you'd expect if evolution was a fact. The distribution of fossils in space and in time are exactly what you would expect if evolution were a fact. There are millions of facts all pointing in the same direction and no facts pointing in the wrong direction."
Yet despite the complex phylogenic circumstances so competently detailed by evolutionists through genetic sequencing, fossil records, dating techniques, comparative morphology, taxonomy, patterns of biogeography and so on, only life's development over time, common descent, and that minor adjustments of existing organ systems to local environmental conditions does regularly occur are confirmed as effectively certain-what caused life's progression from cell to complex organisms can only be linked to adaptive mechanisms theoretically (i.e., not factually).
So, this particular objection to E-theory of mine is about sound reasoning. I am able to reason from fossil evidence that life evolved over time, from genetic evidence that life seems to have come from some first cell, from observation and statistical calculations that mutation/NS can cause adaption . . . but what evidence am I to reason from that says simple adaption is anything more than what we observe it to be: a built-in means for a created, extant system to make minor adjustments to environmental changes? For me, a relatively unbiased thinker with no cause to push, I have no reason to leap to the conclusion that simple adaption evolves organisms.
But if I were a science-only or religion-hating thinker, I might have reason to avoid the simple adaption issue. Being committed to science-only can bias me toward mechanistic explanations (since science is 100% mechanistic exploration); or if I wanted to make sure hated religious theorists were kept out of the discussion, I'd make sure to only argue what the evidence supports, as though that's all there is to E-theory. That is why I say the typical evolution theory believer (keeping in mind I am distinguishing between the fact of evolution, and the factors theorists claim
cause evolution) is either biased by his predilection for mechanics/physics or is a religion hater, or both . . . and that prevents him from either evaluating evidence outside of what's mechanistic, or causes him to present evidence in such a way that it makes evolution more "fact" than it is to keep religion at bay.
Summing up, evolution is a fact, evolution
theory is wholly speculative in one vital spot. Whatever it was that caused the genetic changes which led to the evolution of organ systems/organisms is still a huge mystery.[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
