There is plenty of strong evidence for evolution, though yes, it is a theory. The best one. I agree that dogmatic acceptance is not scientific, but I disagree that this is what scientists are doing when they reject far weaker alternative explanations in favor of evolution. Intelligent design type ideas are purely unfalsifiable and though their proponents try to claim scientific legitimacy, they are not convincing.
The kinds of experiments that can be performed to test it are somewhat different from those used to test physical theories, but they exist. You can make predictions about what kinds of patterns should be found in the fossil record. Many structures and functions of body and brain are best understood from an evolutionary viewpoint (though this is post hoc, it is still useful). Computational simulations have shown that complex structures (like eyes) can evolve quickly from very little. Experiments in living creatures have shown that the existence of complex structures (like wings) makes sense in a evolutionary framework even though they must have evolved piecemeal.
Fossil predictions are about the closest to what I'd accept as experimental proof, but the uncontrollability of them moves them out.
As for unfalsifiable given evolutionists take all the new fossils and fit them into exsisting evolutionary trees evolution as it is now taught (I accept that at the specialist level this may not be true) is just as unfalsifiable. There is no fossil find which can disprove evolution (and this issue largely stems from the uncontrollability of the fossil record). An analogy in physics is the issues facing some of the work on symetry and supersymetry. Experiments in things like proton decay involve time and/or mass scales so large that very expensive and long experiments (two plus years watching millions of gallons of pure water isolated in mine shafts) are inconclusive (in the time span we should have seen 1 proton decay...that we didn't doesn't disprove due to the whole statistical nature of quantum thoery although seeing it would have proven it).
Computational simulations are just showing it CAN happen. Showing it does is another thing. To continue the physics analogy, computer simulations get you time at CERN or Fermi, but it is time at CERN or Fermi that gets you the Nobel Prize or something named after you. As you said, this is all post hoc and is useful in building the theory but still doesn't provide experimental proof. It is that this is so useful that I don't discount evolutionary theory as mere faith, but as an untestable but well thought out theory.
What bothers me is questioning evolution at all, be it from faith or from my basis, often results in being called stupid, ignorant, or other pejoritives which, in the secular religion of the modern, is the same as being called a heretic.
Evolution is as much religion as science right now, at least as presented to the lay person. I bitch about how dogmatic physicists are about C and I think the evolutionary community makes physics look like they think warp drive is just around the corner.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: I would just make one point...
Date: 2004-11-27 06:35 pm (UTC)The kinds of experiments that can be performed to test it are somewhat different from those used to test physical theories, but they exist. You can make predictions about what kinds of patterns should be found in the fossil record. Many structures and functions of body and brain are best understood from an evolutionary viewpoint (though this is post hoc, it is still useful). Computational simulations have shown that complex structures (like eyes) can evolve quickly from very little. Experiments in living creatures have shown that the existence of complex structures (like wings) makes sense in a evolutionary framework even though they must have evolved piecemeal.
Re: I would just make one point...
Date: 2004-11-27 06:58 pm (UTC)As for unfalsifiable given evolutionists take all the new fossils and fit them into exsisting evolutionary trees evolution as it is now taught (I accept that at the specialist level this may not be true) is just as unfalsifiable. There is no fossil find which can disprove evolution (and this issue largely stems from the uncontrollability of the fossil record). An analogy in physics is the issues facing some of the work on symetry and supersymetry. Experiments in things like proton decay involve time and/or mass scales so large that very expensive and long experiments (two plus years watching millions of gallons of pure water isolated in mine shafts) are inconclusive (in the time span we should have seen 1 proton decay...that we didn't doesn't disprove due to the whole statistical nature of quantum thoery although seeing it would have proven it).
Computational simulations are just showing it CAN happen. Showing it does is another thing. To continue the physics analogy, computer simulations get you time at CERN or Fermi, but it is time at CERN or Fermi that gets you the Nobel Prize or something named after you. As you said, this is all post hoc and is useful in building the theory but still doesn't provide experimental proof. It is that this is so useful that I don't discount evolutionary theory as mere faith, but as an untestable but well thought out theory.
What bothers me is questioning evolution at all, be it from faith or from my basis, often results in being called stupid, ignorant, or other pejoritives which, in the secular religion of the modern, is the same as being called a heretic.
Evolution is as much religion as science right now, at least as presented to the lay person. I bitch about how dogmatic physicists are about C and I think the evolutionary community makes physics look like they think warp drive is just around the corner.