I'm condensing some of your questions because they recieve the same answer.
<< So what you claim as fact is not perpetual truth, but just scientific truth for today only? 2+2=4. This is a fact.
So macroevolution is scientific fact today, but what about tomorrow? Fact today, folly tommorrow?
2+2 will still = 4. What about evolution?
In other words, I should agree giving the provision that all your suppositions are correct, but later if your facts and suppositions are proven wrong, then what you are now calling facts would be perverse? >>
To answer these questions you must understand what science is. Science is a method, a method for determing the truth as best we know it using logic, theory and observation. Revolutions in thought about how processes operate are rare these days, most of the major discoveries have been done already. For example, what we refer to Newton's Laws are in fact wrong. Einstein realized there is a correction factor in the equations (General Relativity). But why are Newton's Laws still taught today? Because Einsteins correction factor is so small in non highspeed situations (near lightspeed) that it is essentially negligible in the world we live in.
Can the Theory of Evolution change? Absolutely, it is being constantly refined. But, any revolutionary change in the theory MUST explain every observed peice of data that has been collected that the current theory does. Because of the amount of data that exists it is highly unlikely that any changes to the theory will be revolutionary, but I do not deny the possibility.
Science operates in a way that encourages dissent of the majority interpretation and altered perceptions that can overthrow the established view, in fact the Nobel prize is often awarded to people that can do that very thing. All good scientists can accept new data that will invalidate existing theories. Some of the most amazing discoveries in science were scientists that were trying to prove a theory (because they supported the theory) and in fact disproved the theory (the invalidation of the idea of aether is often quoted in nearly every first level science book).
So in answer to your questions, yes it could change but I'm skeptical that it will. Nevertheless I would accept any proven invalidation of the current theory of evolution.
<< It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms.
So where did the first living things come from? This fact says living things can't come from non-living things. Chicken and egg theories here.
Did life come from an asteroid? Then the question where did it come from on the asteroid? I agree with this though, life comes from life, not from nothing, but where? >>
Abiogenisis is an interesting field, it's really still in it's infancy. You start getting into these discussions about what is life, where do we draw the line, can we draw a line or like the sun is there no real boundary. You know when it isn't and you can definately know when it is but there is that fuzzy area inbetween where it might be. Life is really at it's core just the replication of a chemical chain. There are existing structures that can replicate themselves (some clays and other stuff), in particular organic compounds tend to have a tendency for certain arangements. It's almost as if our universe was created in a manner that ensured life would be created spontaneously. (yes created, see I think Abiogenisis will be proven some day but the existence of our universe and it's apparent violent beginnings do lend themselves to thoughts of creation but I recognize our tendencies as toolmaking beings to see things and believe there was intelligence involved even if there wasn't).
You must understand that Abiogenisis and Evolutionary theory are two completely different things, the first requires the second but the second does not require the first.
<< the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists.
So, not all modern biologists agree and it still is an issue with some? Why? >>
Because quite frankly scientists are people. There are scientists that don't accept evolution because they are creationists or have other pet theories. Keep in mind that Darwin's theory was ridiculed in the scientific community when it emerged but his data was sound and GOOD scientists can examine the data and see the reasonable conclusion even if they don't want to accept it. Darwin's theory evolved into what we know as evolutionary theory because the evidence supports it. Evidence is what matters, the smoking gun if you will.
<< Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.
So within this same page, scientists disagree? One says it's fact, the other says it's not and "there are reasonable aleternatives" though "there is no opposig evidence." What are those reasonable atlernatives and why don't you suppost them? Why are there even reasonable alternatives at all if there is no opposing evidence? >>
Don't jump to far ahead. Deal only with the statement you quoted (you appear to be inter-relating things that aren't necessarly related). Origin from a single ancester is supported by the data, but there are some who propose alternative theories that could be true also and fit the data. I'm not entirely sure exactly which theories the author is refering to but I would guess there are altering viewpoints that life may have generated from more than one single ancestor. Until each of these alternatives can be disproven then the first can not be called a "fact".
<< The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea.
So, evolution cannot be proven, only it's high probability. I agree with this and see where many would claim this as fact (just as with DNA in a crime.) You just have to take on faith that the probability is true. Faith still the same because there is always the possibility you could be wrong. >>
Probability doesn't equal faith. Would you call it faith if I gave you 80billion:1 odds against and you went for? When dealing with probabilities if the odds get very low then essentially you only have one outcome. Sure there could be the 1 in 80billion chance but should we give it due consideration? For example, the physical laws of our universe could change tommorow (we have no evidence that they couldn't), does that mean we should speculate that they will? You have to put your bets on the winning horses, not the really really long shot. I don't consider this faith and I doubt it fits the definition of faith, it's logic. With low probabiliity there is no other outcome.
<< In the other articles on speciation, the fireweed was still a fireweed, the mouse a mouse, the fish a fish and the goatweed a goatweed, etc. If you cross two breeds of dogs you still get a dog. These articles don't state any evidence that one type of living thing evolved from another, just into a different type of the same living animal. There is no proof offered in your sources to back you up. >>
Did you read the part about what makes a species? If you want to see a fish evolve into something that walks on land you are going to be waiting a long time. Changes of that level take timespans that far exceed our own lives (probably on the order of 10-100's of thousands of years of selective preasure). I find it amazing that we have witnessed speciation events in our little time in looking. The non human involved one (the 2 flowers from europe that interbred sterile that generated a spontaneous new species that was fertile, and infertile with the parent species is frankly unbelievably cool). As time moves on we will learn more, but the evidence we have is amazing. I'm sorry if you don't understand the beauty of that evidence.
<< I ask these questions in all sincerity. I have friends who have their doctorates from UCLA, The University of Washington and Harvard in Quantum Physics, Genetics, Microbiology and others who can't answer these questions either. I work at a Medical School, (though on computers) so I don't understand all the terms but I try. These questions bother me, especially when the scientific community quits even trying to answer them and starts preaching their faith as truth. They need to separate themselves from their own religion and teach honestly. Teach facts as facts-unchanging truths today, tomorrow and forever, probabilities as such with the possibility of being wrong, and theories, as stated above in your references, as unprovable ideas, not the truth. The rest we have to take on faith. If some one as uneducated in biology can read these arguments and easily see the holes in their logic, then I would say the person who wrote these pages have failed miserably in trying to make their point and are practicing bad science in the least or worse yet, promoting their own form of religion. >>
You know, you appear to be critisizing the most beautiful aspects of science. Science theory does admit it's own weaknesses. Some of the things you interpret as holes in theory could be interpreted as such and the authors admission of those possibilities is what makes science strong. Science is a method afterall. In response you assertian that only facts should be taught as facts. Well what is the definition of facts? The admission from the article you quoted that we simply can't say something is 100% ever is the truth. Early on in science things were declared laws, most of these "laws" have proven to be not laws, but good approxmiations. Newton did not write laws of gravitation and motion, Energy can be converted from matter (according to the classical definition this would violate Thermo Laws, but the definition was essentially changed to say matter is energy) and numerous other examples. What the author asserted is that in honesty we can't prove anything 100%, not even that we exist (classical philosophy question). But betting on the winning horse with amazing odds in your favor is not faith.
Could you answer a question for me? Did you attend college and obtain a 4 year degree with full general education requirements at the university/college you attended? I don't ask this out of animosity but I sense that you don't even have the basic scientific background I would expect of a college educated student. General education courses were frankly some of the most fun I ever had, I learned so much outside my choosen profession and coupled with my love of learning it gave me a taste of the world (so to speak). I was of course educated in a scientific field (although some scientists would say engineers don't count), I did take enough raw science to fully appreciate the scientific method for the ingenious creation it is. Because of that learning I trust the method to sort the needles of truth from the haystacks of non-truth. (Again I don't consider this faith, it comes from experience)
>>
Facebook
Twitter