1:45 AM
@fredsbend Evolution by natural selection is just as measurable and testable as gravity. Perhaps more so, because the force of gravity exerted by all the matter in the universe isn't strong enough to hold the universe together. Many cosmologists have suggested that most of the universe comprised of an unknown substance--labeled "dark matter" for convenience--that cannot be detected even by the best-placed, most powerful telescopes. Gravity is a scientific theory, but it is a theory in crisis.
2:05 AM
18 hours later…
8:01 PM
@BruceAlderman First, the Dark Matter Theory hardly threatens the theory of Gravity. It merely tries to make sense of the fact that calculations show that gravity alone, caused by masses that we can see and calculate, cannot solely hold bodies together; something else is needed.
Both still have nothing to do with history; nothing to do with determining what has happened in the past.
Since Evolution (big E) concerns what has happened in the past it is a study of history with the benefit of being based on science. That science, I have labeled evolution (little e) to distinguish it from the appearently different theory on origins, which is history.
Consider the proverbial physics class egg. If you know everything about it (mass, density, shape, velocity, acceleration, et al) you can calculate exactly what will happen to it, and all its peices, when it smashes on the floor (assuming you also know everything about the floor).
In a perfect world, where you can know the exact everything about the egg and the floor, you can calculate exactly where the egg came from and everything about its motion too. In reality we have no such benefit. All you really have is a best guess; and that is heavily based on the egg's proximity to a counter, that all eggs are very similar,
Apr 5 at 18:43, by fredsbend
I suppose if we could gain all the bodies of all the dead species ever, we could scientifically prove Evolution as fact with genetic testing of the dead tissues; we could determine the children and parents of every creature and demonstrate whether they changed significantly or not. Alas, that will not happen. So we are best to think about Evolution as an historical theory with a slight edge.
Unfortunately, no such luxary exists, therefore, the line between science and history must be marked, at least concerning the science of evolution and the history of the Theory of Evolution.
To summarize: the science of evolution, which can be measured and tested with breeding mice or culturin bacteria, for example, is does not prove nor is it equal with the Evolutionary Theory on origins.
@fredsbend The dark matter hypothesis has everything to do with determining what happened in the past. It's an attempt to explain how the sparse matter in the universe managed to coalesce into clumps that could form stars, planets, and galaxies. Science deals with explaining past events all the time.
@fredsbend In your egg example, we don't have to know everything about the egg in order to form a hypothesis. If we've established a pattern of eggs breaking apart when they fall on the floor, there is a high probability that this egg broke when it hit the floor.
@fredsbend I'm still not certain how you are differentiating "Evolution" and "evolution". If you're saying "evolution" is what happens in lab experiments, and "Evolution" is an explanation for past events, then I fundamentally disagree.
@fredsbend Here's what I don't like about your egg analogy: We could, in fact, enumerate the different ways in which an egg could end up smashed on the floor. We could smash a few eggs by rolling them off a counter, by dropping them from various heights, by throwing them, etc.
8:45 PM
We can do lab experiments to see how natural selection, mutations, and genetic drift affect populations over time. Then we can apply that knowledge to what we see in the natural world.
« first day (584 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1271 days later) »