@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.

@fredsbend I can't claim to be able to rebut every possible issue you might have with evolution--I'm a computer programmer, not a biologist--but I'm interested in hearing what your issues are.

@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).

Now you walk into the kitchen and find an egg smashed on 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,

As I said before, in the perfect science lab we have all the information.

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.

Since Evolution (big E) is history we must depend on other sciences to either uphold or put down the theory. The two major points that must be upheld is time (the Earth must be old) and fossils (there should be convincing fossil evidence). I will address the latter first as time permits.

Is there understanding now? Or do you fundamentally disagree? If so, on what points?

the assumption that it even rolled off a counter and didn't end up smashed in some other way, and a whole host of other things that are likely and obvious but you cannot depend on science to prove.

@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.

Science doesn't require certainty, just high probability.

@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.

Science is quite capable of explaining events that happen outside the laboratory.

@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.

We could look at the pattern the egg makes as it cracks open, and compare the patterns of our tests to the one that we found in the kitchen, and determine the best fit. That's a scientific investigation of the historical egg on the kitchen floor.

Likewise, we could enumerate the different mechanisms that can cause change in a species from one generation to the next: natural selection, artificial selection (breeding), mutation, etc. But all these mechanisms collectively are known as evolution--because evolution simply means gradual change.

If you're arguing that science is only what happens in the lab, that real-world application is not science, then you and I are using different definitions of science.

If we can't agree on what science is, we're not likely to agree on whether historical evolution is science.