The aim of science is to investigate matter and energy. To discover their properties and behaviour pattern. If a particular thing is neither matter nor energy, then it cannot be investigated in a laboratory. For example, love is a fact of life, but since it is neither matter nor energy it cannot be investigated by science. There is no gadget to measure the mass, length, breadth, or temperature of love.

The aim of science is not to investigate all reality, but rather to investigate those realities that are seen in the form of matter and energy. The investigation takes place with the help of repeated experiments. All negations and affirmations depend upon experimental observations, and nothing can be established without relevant experiments.

Physics investigates the physical properties of matter and energy. Chemistry, biology, astronomy, and the various scientific disciplines known to us investigate the physical behaviour of things pertaining to their respective fields.

LIMITS OF SCIENCE

Science is a tool, a methodology, developed to study matter and energy. It, therefore, is able to investigate truths only in this region. If there is any truth in the world besides matter,

science is not able to investigate it. One should not be surprised at this.

Science was developed to study and investigate only nature, and therefore it cannot be used for other things. For example, science cannot pronounce any opinion about the existence of king Ashoka. A historical person or incident cannot be brought into the laboratory for experimental investigation. The maximum that science can do is to provide tools to study the material objects discovered by archaeologists. But conclusions of history depend upon techniques of historical investigations, not on techniques of natural sciences.

In the same way, truths about people and their relationships cannot be investigated by science. No equipment can measure love, hatred, or fear. These are realities, but since they are neither matter nor energy they are beyond the scope of science. Love is not a property of matter, nor is anything else connected with human relationship.

Science can investigate matter and energy, but nothing more. Historical realities are studied with methods of historical investigations, while truths related to individuals can be investigated only by methods of relational verification. One has to enter into a personal relationship with a person to verify truths that are relational in nature.

HAVE SCIENCES DISPROVED GOD

It should be clear by now that the purpose of science is to study matter and energy, and nothing beyond that. Even if someone tries to broaden its boundaries, that is not possible. All affirmations and negations have to be established only on the basis of repetitive experimental observations.

God is neither matter nor energy. Therefore the methods of experimental sciences cannot be applied to disprove His existence. Nobody in the world has devised an experiment that can disprove God.

If anyone claims that sciences have disproved the existence of God, he must be asked to defend his position. He has to explain the experiment, the place where this was performed and the place where the results were published. Anyone can make any claims saying that science has demonstrated this or that fact, but then he should be able to support his claims by pointing to relevant experiments.

No one claiming that science has disproved God has ever come up with experimental evidence to support this claim. This is because they are using the name of science to intimidate the ignorant. There is no truth in their claims, but they will continue repeating this false claim as long as they can successfully disturb people.

If anyone claims that science has disproved God, he has to describe the experiment that finally disproved God. Discussing anything else is irrelevant to the argument.

HAS EVOLUTION DISPROVED GOD

On talking of science and experiments, some might think that the theory of evolution has disproved God. This is false.

First of all, The Theory Of Evolution is only a theory. It is a mere hypothesis or supposition. It is not a law of science, nor is it a fact of science. If it were a law, they would have called it the LAW of evolution. But the scientific community itself accepts that it is the THEORY of evolution.

The theory of evolution needs first to establish itself, and then only it can question the existence of God — if it has any bearing on the subject. Till then you need to remember only this much: a hypothesis or supposition is not a fact of science.

If anyone claims that sciences have disproved God, he has to demonstrate that experiment which has achieved this feat. Appeal to evolution, which is a mere theory, will not do the job.

First of all, The Theory Of Evolution is only a theory. It is a mere hypothesis or supposition. It is not a law of science, nor is it a fact of science. If it were a law, they would have called it the LAW of evolution. But the scientific community itself accepts that it is the THEORY of evolution.

The germ theory of diseases  is only a theory. It is a mere hypothesis or supposition. It is not a law of science. If it was a law they could have called it tha law of  germ theory of diseases. But the scientific community accepts that it is the THEORY of  germ theory of diseases.


Post script :By the way the germ theory of diseases is the scientific theory which proposes that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases. Although highly controversial when first proposed, it is now a cornerstone of modern medicine and clinical microbiology, leading to such important innovations as antibiotics and hygienic practices.

In science theory is not something you just dream up in your mind after a night drinking with your friends

@Pastorjose
Your definition of science is slightly off, science deals with the quest for all knowledge and is not restricted to matter and energy, however scientific methods are limited to what is physically observable. And by the way science points to the existence of God as more and more scientist based on evidence around us are now agreeing that the earth and all that is in it must have been by an intelligent creator as it is way to complex to have ever happened to this perfection by just "Natural selection" Even the term natural selection suggests an an entity is doing the "selection" that entity is God whom the arrogant ignorant amongst us have refused to acknowledge. As per evolution you are 100% correct it as never been proven and would never be. What some obscure scientist are strecthing to mean evolutuon are just minor adaptations which occurs in all living beings under specific conditions. The living organism is programmed to adapt to it's environment this again is to the credit of the intelligent creator who probably designed things that way to boost the chances of survival of the living being. Another issue where science as completely confirmed the evidence of an intelligent designer is the complex and advanced make up off the DNA. experts in this field have likened to dna to a highly developed computer progamme which works in the back gruoud of the living tissues.

The aim of science is to investigate matter and energy. To discover their properties and behaviour pattern. If a particular thing is neither matter nor energy, then it cannot be investigated in a laboratory. For example, love is a fact of life, but since it is neither matter nor energy it cannot be investigated by science. There is no gadget to measure the mass, length, breadth, or temperature of love.

So is psychology not a science then? The study of human or animal mental functions and behavior. Depth psychologists can even study the unconscious mind. Neuro scientists can detect the regions of your subconscious brain that cause fear, affection, emotions etc using the latest MRI scanners. Did you know that your subconscious brain reacts faster to danger than your conscious brain. This reseach could eventually lead to explaining the origins of superstitions.

Many of the areas that scientists study were once considered to be supernatural, such as electricity, magnetism, seismology, meteorology, microbiology etc etc.
There are also many social sciences such as sociology that are not restricted to just studying matter and energy.

The aim of science is to investigate matter and energy.

stopped reading after this.


come back with a better more expansive aim please

bawomolo:

stopped reading after this.


come back with a better more expansive please

In that case I did much better than you. I actually read down a couple of lines before finally throwing in the towel.

pastorjose:

The aim of science is to investigate matter and energy. To discover their properties and behaviour pattern. If a particular thing is neither matter nor energy, then it cannot be investigated in a laboratory. For example, love is a fact of life, but since it is neither matter nor energy it cannot be investigated by science. There is no gadget to measure the mass, length, breadth, or temperature of love.

The aim of science is not to investigate all reality, but rather to investigate those realities that are seen in the form of matter and energy. The investigation takes place with the help of repeated experiments. All negations and affirmations depend upon experimental observations, and nothing can be established without relevant experiments.

Physics investigates the physical properties of matter and energy. Chemistry, biology, astronomy, and the various scientific disciplines known to us investigate the physical behaviour of things pertaining to their respective fields.

LIMITS OF SCIENCE

Science is a tool, a methodology, developed to study matter and energy. It, therefore, is able to investigate truths only in this region. If there is any truth in the world besides matter,

science is not able to investigate it. One should not be surprised at this.

Science was developed to study and investigate only nature, and therefore it cannot be used for other things. For example, science cannot pronounce any opinion about the existence of king Ashoka. A historical person or incident cannot be brought into the laboratory for experimental investigation. The maximum that science can do is to provide tools to study the material objects discovered by archaeologists. But conclusions of history depend upon techniques of historical investigations, not on techniques of natural sciences.

In the same way, truths about people and their relationships cannot be investigated by science. No equipment can measure love, hatred, or fear. These are realities, but since they are neither matter nor energy they are beyond the scope of science. Love is not a property of matter, nor is anything else connected with human relationship.

Science can investigate matter and energy, but nothing more. Historical realities are studied with methods of historical investigations, while truths related to individuals can be investigated only by methods of relational verification. One has to enter into a personal relationship with a person to verify truths that are relational in nature.

HAVE SCIENCES DISPROVED GOD

It should be clear by now that the purpose of science is to study matter and energy, and nothing beyond that. Even if someone tries to broaden its boundaries, that is not possible. All affirmations and negations have to be established only on the basis of repetitive experimental observations.

God is neither matter nor energy. Therefore the methods of experimental sciences cannot be applied to disprove His existence. Nobody in the world has devised an experiment that can disprove God.

If anyone claims that sciences have disproved the existence of God, he must be asked to defend his position. He has to explain the experiment, the place where this was performed and the place where the results were published. Anyone can make any claims saying that science has demonstrated this or that fact, but then he should be able to support his claims by pointing to relevant experiments.

No one claiming that science has disproved God has ever come up with experimental evidence to support this claim. This is because they are using the name of science to intimidate the ignorant. There is no truth in their claims, but they will continue repeating this false claim as long as they can successfully disturb people.

If anyone claims that science has disproved God, he has to describe the experiment that finally disproved God. Discussing anything else is irrelevant to the argument.

HAS EVOLUTION DISPROVED GOD

On talking of science and experiments, some might think that the theory of evolution has disproved God. This is false.

First of all, The Theory Of Evolution is only a theory. It is a mere hypothesis or supposition. It is not a law of science, nor is it a fact of science. If it were a law, they would have called it the LAW of evolution. But the scientific community itself accepts that it is the THEORY of evolution.

The theory of evolution needs first to establish itself, and then only it can question the existence of God — if it has any bearing on the subject. Till then you need to remember only this much: a hypothesis or supposition is not a fact of science.

[size=18pt]If anyone claims that sciences have disproved God, he has to demonstrate that experiment which has achieved this feat. Appeal to evolution, which is a mere theory, will not do the job. [/size]

Another Christian ignorant of what a theory is in science - Have you ever heard of the following theories:

1) The Germ Theory of Disease

2) The Theory of Plate Tectonics

3) The theory of gravity

4) Quantum Theory

5) Cell Theory


Does this suggest that these are mere conjectures?

Well, huxley, you don't know what a theory is if that is how you are aiming to contribute to the discussion. I don't see how your comments have answered the highlighted part in your quote. Evolution has not disproved God, even though as a theory it is only concerned with a naturalistic worldview and not aimed at "proving" or "disproving" deities.

___________________________

Anyways, let me take a look at the other comments expressed:

The aim of science is not to investigate all reality, but rather to investigate those realities that are seen in the form of matter and energy.

compare with:

@Pastorjose
Your definition of science is slightly off, science deals with the quest for all knowledge and is not restricted to matter and energy,

First, I don't think the OP had even defined science, so it's actually a sad reply to note that the OP's definition was slightly off. It's clear that pastorjose only offered one possible view of the AIM of science among many other possible views.

Second, I have not come across any seasoned scientist who would claim that "science deals with the quest for ALL knowledge" - that simply gives science a bad name and is just a mere fantasy. This is why I would hoot for the previous quote, viz: "the aim of science is not to investigate all reality", for indeed science (as practiced today) may not have the tools to investigate all possible 'realities'.

However, here again is a huge problem. Before one could have a rounded statement on what science and what its aim(s) are, we need to hold a premise. In other words, context and perspectives are very, very important when holding discourses of this sort. Let me give you a few examples:

1. opinion A says:
"the aim of science is to formulate a theory which tells us how everything is governed"
  key words:
  (a) to formulate a theory
  (b) to tell us HOW
  (c)  how EVERYTHING is governed (or how they work)

2. opinion B says:
"the aim of science is to add to the body of available human knowledge so that, in the universe we live in, we may understand ourselves and phenomena"
  key words:
  (a) to add knowledge to existing knowledge
  (b) to understand ourselves - and phenomena

3. opnion C says:
science is "any fantasy" that one may dream about
   key word: fantasy
Actually, this one is my own 'theory' for statements that people make out of vacancy of thought (no disrespect intended).

There are a few good resources that spell out these issues, and one 'elementary' (though not so elementary) example is the University of Sussex' Sharon Sloman's "THE COMPUTER REVOLUTION IN PHILOSOPHY: Philosophy, science and models of mind." In chapter 2, she captures essentially these premises by noting that the aims of science could be neatly divided into:

   (a) factual aims
   (b) technological or practical aims
   (c) normative aims

You can see immediately that there's more than one aim of science, and for all that, it does not tell us that science has the grand aim of seeking ALL knowledge about ALL realities.

Another problem is about the definition and aims of science that, in Philosophy you cannot just brashly state an 'aim' or 'objective' of science (unless, of course, you have a solid stomach for a good fight, lol). Philosophy (especially in the epistemological aspect) has some thinkers holding a realist aim of science. Briefly, this context posits that scientific realism views the aims of science as including the following:

>>> the aim of science is to give us empirically adequate theories; however, the emprical adequacy is NOT literal, rather it is only valid for the empirical component of a theory (this is commonly seen as the VFCE - the Van Fraassen's Constructive Empiricism).

>>> the instrumentalistic aim of science, which is that science aims to gie us "useful" theories in various forms

>>> the Naive Bayesianistic aim of science is to give us theories which are "most probable", given our total evidence;

>>> the verisimilitude aim of science is to give us theories that are as close to the truth as possible.

However, philosophers of science sweep all these high-sounding grammar aside and cut to the chase. An ready example is Karl Popper who noted that science aims at true explanatory theories, yet it can NEVER PROVE, or justify, any theory to be true, not even if it is a true theory. Science must continue to question and criticize all its theories, even those that happen to be true (see his "Realism and the Aim of Science".

Dear good people, those are my musings. After reading the comments of various contributors, I just felt that opinions do not come close to where science is today.

No one who is well educated in the matters of science, religions and philosophy would ever claim that Science disproves God or that Evolution disproves God.

These are particularly sloppy statements and anyone who makes pronouncements like this deserves to be taken to task. A better way of conveying the message would be something like this;

The results of some of our best sciences and rational enterprise makes the belief of the traditional gods (eg Abrahamic gods) unjustified or unwarranted.

Science, by itself, is not in the business of disproving things. It is in the business of revealing the truth about the nature of reality. It is up to the individual to formulate their worldview either based on the fruits of science or in contravention of these results.

If anyone claims that sciences have disproved God, he has to demonstrate that experiment which has achieved this feat. Appeal to evolution, which is a mere theory, will not do the job.

It is grossly unscientific to preceed the word THEORY with the adjective MERE. We see this particularly from opponents of The Theory of Evolution. I listed the other scientific theories because if it is justified in describing TToE with the adjective MERE or MERELY, it must also be reasonably in describing the others as such. If you disagree, can you say why it would be wrong in saying;

1) Merely Cell Theory

2) Merely The theory of Gravity

3) Merely Atomic Theory?

huxley:

1) Merely Cell Theory

2) Merely The theory of Gravity
3) Merely Atomic Theory?

I am sure what you mean is the "Law of Gravity" gravitational force is a well established and proven law unlike evolution which is merely a theory and remains unproven to date. i am sure you know the difference btw laws and theories in science.

huxley:

No one who is well educated in the matters of science, religions and philosophy would ever claim that Science disproves God or that Evolution disproves God.

I'm happy to note that is coming from you. That is why you should have reserved your rreactionary passion by opening up with the statement that the OP was another 'ignorant Christian' while at the same time your consequent statement hardly addressed the part you highlighted in her (or his) post.

These are particularly sloppy statements and anyone who makes pronouncements like this deserves to be taken to task.

Perhaps so - and I had to resist taking you to task. What's the use, really? A better way would have been to share things in context, not sling mud. Just like in the statement you posted in hindsight ("a better way of conveying the message would be something like. . .", and then it would have been more plausible to begin by addressing the issue directly rather than starting the way you did.

A better way of conveying the message would be something like this;

The results of some of our best sciences and rational enterprise makes the belief of the traditional gods (eg Abrahamic gods)  unjustified or unwarranted.

That statement still is unclassified, unwarranted, unscientific and unthoughtful. No, I'm not attacking your person nor taking you to task, but let me share why your statement does not hold substance here:

1. Results: no scientific result of any well-conducted scientific research makes any religious belief unjustified or unwarranted. WHY? For one reason: the scientist himself would first have had to make a HYPOTHESIS pointing out clearly that such a research was aimed at making religious belief unwarranted. It is like starting out to research a biological phenomenon and then publishing "results" about religious phenomena! This is what I call fantasy - they don't correlate, and that is why such a "result" does not warrant or justify anything that it did not set out to do in the first place!

2. The idea of "best sciences" is a misnomer - scientifically speaking, that idea only exist in the clouds, it is not sustanined on the ground where facts are dealt with. Science is science - it is simply that.

3. Science is NOT a worldview and thus cannot be used to make belief UNjustified or UNwarranted. This is where THEORIES are necessary - and that was why I sadly noted that you didn't convince me in your initial post that you understood what theories are actually about (I take it back if that sounds like a bit offkey). But the reason why I noted issues about the AIMS of science is that one cannot arrive at any "results" without first postulating some hypotheses that birth testable theories. What "testable theories" make your "best sciences" conclude that belief in deities are UNwarranted and UNjustified? It is not enough to just make such vacuous statement where we know that no scientits has done any research delving into the realities that science itself says nothing about.

Science, by itself, is not in the business of disproving things.

There you go. So, what then gives your the idea that the "best sciences" makes other phenomena UNjustified or UNwarranted? Until you can "prove" by scientifically testable theories, you cannot claim your neighbour on this page is ignorant (nor can I be so brash as to claim so).

It is in the business of revealing the truth about the nature of reality.  It is up to the individual to formulate their worldview either based on the fruits of science or in contravention of these results.

Nope, and thrice no. First, it is true that science is in the business of revealing the 'truth' about naturalistically detectable phenomena; but also true is that it is not simply the nature of reality. Your idea of "reality" is not reality in all its ramifications. There are realities of which the sciences say nothing about. But there again, science does not stand as a bragado - doing things and asking others to formulate their worldview based on the fruits of the researches of any scientist! Let me ask you this pointedly, huxley: on what scientific law do you base your worldview of abstract entities and qualities - such as hate, love, fear, jingoism. What sciences establish a basis for formulating any of those realities? If you don't know, try not pushing science for what it is not and for what it does not do. That is one reason Karp Popper noted that:

  "science aims at true explanatory theories,
    yet it can NEVER PROVE, or justify, any theory to be true, not even if it is a true theory"

We need to humbly know where to begin and the boundaries of our assumptions. This is why it just does not come across as intelligent for anyone to make statements that are clearly in flight.

It is grossly unscientific to preceed the word THEORY with the adjective MERE.

I see your point, and partly agree. This is why the misnomer of "best sciences" is as grossly misleading as well. Science is science - and nothing more. An adjective or qualifier is a personal preference; and if personal preferences are now allowed in certain quarters, then there should be no quarrels with people positing that evoloution is a mere theory.

We see this particularly from opponents of The Theory of Evolution.

Those "opponents" include scientists themselves.

I listed the other scientific theories because if it is justified in describing TToE with the adjective MERE or MERELY, it must also be reasonably in describing the others as such.

My observation about your initial response is that it misses the highlighted part in your quote by a million miles. Let me repeat them in two slices:

  (a) "If anyone claims that sciences have disproved God,
  he has to demonstrate that experiment which has achieved this feat.

  (b) Appeal to evolution, which is a mere theory, will not do the job."

Your concern is with (b) above, not with (a). I have not seen any reseacher setting out a scientific hypothesis that points out a THEORY of anything that DISPROVES belief in any deity. By extension, nor have I seen any researcher that sets forth any THEORY of anything that "PROVES" atheism one way or the other. Where are the sciences in those worldviews or persuasions?

Now, the part of "appeal to evolution"  as a "mere theory" raises concerns. For me, that does not even warrant or justify anything, because in context of the OP's concern, it still holds that Evolution does not "disprove" God. For many (especially atheists), the qualifier of "mere" raises hell and dust - but even if someone were to substitute that with "brilliant" and make it "brilliant theory", it still does not change the point that Evolution cannot be used as an appeal to make belief in any deity to be either UNjustified or UNwarranted. The point is not so much on what TOE is, but that an appeal to the TOE does not DISPROVE the reality of deitistic beliefs or phenomena. TOE is not a theory about religion; and no one in their right minds would even begin to "formulate their worldview" based on "the fruits of science evolution".

I hope you can keep the context and see where I'm coming from?

If you disagree, can you say why it would be wrong in saying;

1) Merely Cell Theory

2) Merely The theory of Gravity

3) Merely Atomic Theory?

You can see my response above is not that gullible. Repeat:

It is grossly unscientific to preceed the word THEORY with the adjective MERE.

I see your point, and partly agree.This is why the misnomer of "best sciences" is as grossly misleading as well

KunleOshob:

Iam sure what you mean is the "Law of Gravity" gravitational force is a well established and proven law unlike evolution which is merely a theory and remains unproven to date. i am sure you know the difference btw laws and theories in science.

I'm not playing PRO for huxley or anyone else; but I would risk assuming that he knows for himself the difference between scietific laws and theories.

That said, it is actually worrisome for people to keep throwing this banter about evolution being "merely" this or that. Lol, let us remember that in science, theories that are classed as "scientific theories" are NOT disproven simply because people find some fault or difficulties in them. No. So many other theories (including the ones huxley listed as examples) still have their own difficulties to this very day - yet, no one would dare argue scientifically that they are "unproven".

I would recommend that many thinkers take a leaf from Popper:
"science aims at true explanatory theories, yet it can NEVER PROVE, or justify, any theory to be true, not even if it is a true theory". A lot of us who argue about the "proof" or "disproof" of evolution simply are not arguing scientifically (IMO).

Simply put: the TOE is not a "mere" theory - it has not be "disproven" after so many arguments until now. Why do I think so? It is not that I accept Darwinian evolutionary theory as 'true'; but rather that, as a theory, it has not been FALSIFIED in its explanatory indices. It does not mean that it will not be falsified; but rather that scientists have not postulated any other theory to "disprove" the TOE.

Theories don't work because someone finds fault in some aspects; rather, falsification that disproves any theory is established on SCIENTIFIC analysis. One does not "prove" gravity because we can see that objects fall to the ground - that is not science. Rather, gravity is proven for its merit because it has verifiable and testable formulations that are constantly being challenged scientifically. Until scientists can work hard to postulate hypothesis that birth testable theories for the falsification of evolution, it is not scientific to say that it has been "disproven" or it is "merely" a theory.

If we are going to talk science, we ought to be using its own vocabulary.

@viaro
Are you new on this forum or you just assumed a new identity? you seem rather prolific for a newbie.

I'm familiar with discussions in other fora.

KunleOshob:

I am sure what you mean is the "Law of Gravity" gravitational force is a well established and proven law unlike evolution which is merely a theory and remains unproven to date. i am sure you know the difference btw laws and theories in science.

No, I do NOT know the difference between a LAW and a THEORY as used in the scientific community. Can you explain the two concepts to me, please, providing any relevant references?

I await your response with bated breath.

KunleOshob:

I am sure what you mean is the "Law of Gravity" gravitational force is a well established and proven law unlike evolution which is merely a theory and remains unproven to date. i am sure you know the difference btw laws and theories in science.

Kunle, what is the theory of gravity and what is the law of gravity. Please explain the two to me. You chose the most difficult theory of physics to prove your point. A common theory of evolution is much more accepted in science than a common law of gravity. Till today we do not know what gravity is and what causes it. Even the exact measurements and how to measure it is controversial.

science is a progressive field. What was believed to be 'fact' toaday may be debunked 2moro.
For instance a couple of decdes ago geologist  'knew' basalt crysalized from ocean water
scientists also 'knew' the universe is timeless.
We all knw today these are not true.
Evoultion however does not even qualify as a theory cos to take a line of fossils and claim that it represents a lineage is not a scienific hypothesis that is testable.
There has been several futile attempts to create empirical evidence for evolution.
an example is the case of drosophillia (fruit flies) that hve been bombarded with so many kinds of radiation to induce evolution for the past sixty years. Considering a species that produces a new genation evry 7 days, this is a lot of time. However this experiment has remained unfruitful. Not even a single new enzyme has appeared!

the_seeker:

science is a progressive field. What was believed to be 'fact' toaday may be debunked 2moro.
For instance a couple of decdes ago geologist  'knew' basalt crysalized from ocean water
scientists also 'knew' the universe is timeless.
We all knw today these are not true.
Evoultion however does not even qualify as a theory cos to take a line of fossils and claim that it represents a lineage is not a scienific hypothesis that is testable.
[b]There has been several futile attempts to create empirical evidence for evolution.
an example is the case of drosophillia (fruit flies) that hve been bombarded with so many kinds of radiation to induce evolution for the past sixty years. Considering a species that produces a [/b]new genation evry 7 days, this is a lot of time. However this experiment has remained unfruitful. Not even a single new enzyme has appeared!

Can you show us examples of these so-called failed experiments? Or are you just making that up? Show us references of such experiments and explain why you consider them a failure.

Do you know about the new Nylon eating bacteria? Where did this new ability to eat nylon come from?

the_seeker:

Evoultion however does not even qualify as a theory cos to take a line of fossils and claim that it represents a lineage is not a scienific hypothesis that is testable.

Much as I'm not a fan of the '-isms' of Darwinism , I don't think it is apt to argue that 'Evolution' does not "qualify" as a theory. What we have to understand is that Darwinism is not 'tested' alone on fossils (even Darwin himself had huge problems with fossils). He theorized, yes; whether his theory is 'testable' is another matter entirely (actually, it is the hypothesis that should be 'testable', while the theory should be 'falsifiable').

huxley:

Do you know about the new Nylon eating bacteria? Where did this new ability to eat nylon come from?

Em, huxley sir, "ability" is something abstract, so I don't know if you might want to rephrase that question (though I get where you're coming from).

Nylon bacteria, that is seriously needed.

viaro:

Much as I'm not a fan of the '-isms' of Darwinism , I don't think it is apt to argue that 'Evolution' does not "qualify" as a theory. What we have to understand is that Darwinism is not 'tested' alone on fossils (even Darwin himself had huge problems with fossils). He theorized, yes; whether his theory is 'testable' is another matter entirely (actually, it is the hypothesis that should be 'testable', while the theory should be 'falsifiable').

A theory is a hypothesis that has passed ALL currently verificational tests applied to it thus far. And futher, has been accepted by the community of scientists who are specifically interested in this area of inquiry.

Something accepted as a theory does not mean that it is forever incapable of being rejected.  Every good scientific theory has to pass the test of falsifiability, which is a way of demonstrating the theory false.  In the case of The Theory of Evolution, if it could be shown that complex animals with complex bodyplans, such as mammals existed in the pre-cambrian, that would demonstrate that the theory was false.

SO far, NOT a single tests has proved evolution false.  So as a theory it is a valid one.

where is kunle to support it's claim that evolution is unproven?

where u at.

science is a progressive field. What was believed to be 'fact' toaday may be debunked 2moro.
For instance a couple of decdes ago geologist  'knew' basalt crysalized from ocean water
scientists also 'knew' the universe is timeless.
We all knw today these are not true.
Evoultion however does not even qualify as a theory cos to take a line of fossils and claim that it represents a lineage is not a scienific hypothesis that is testable.
There has been several futile attempts to create empirical evidence for evolution.
an example is the case of drosophillia (fruit flies) that hve been bombarded with so many kinds of radiation to induce evolution for the past sixty years. Considering a species that produces a new genation evry 7 days, this is a lot of time. However this experiment has remained unfruitful. Not even a single new enzyme has appeared!

huxley:

Can you show us examples of these so-called failed experiments?  Or are you just making that up?  Show us references of such experiments and explain why you consider them a failure.

Do you know about the new Nylon eating bacteria?  Where did this new ability to eat nylon come from?

just google up Drosophilla and you will learn the whole story.
Stop getting confused about nylon eating bacteria or human resitance to HIV. These are all examples of variation not speciation. No matter how much nylon or glass bacteria eats, bacteria will always remian bacteria. That is why they have remained unchanged for over 1 billion years despite being the most mutant of organisms

the_seeker:

just google up Drosophilla and you will learn the whole story.
Stop getting confused about nylon eating bacteria or human resitance to HIV. These are all examples of variation not speciation. No matter how much nylon or glass bacteria eats, bacteria will always remian bacteria. That is why they have remained unchanged for over 1 billion years despite being the most mutant of organisms

As a man of science, why don't you get the examples you refer to and post then here so that all can see them.


OK, you say bacteria have remain bacteria for over 1 billion years. That is absolutely true. But why were there no other more complex organism, like bats, sheep and sycamore trees 1 billion years ago?

Why are about 5% of whales born with fully developed hindlimbs, like those of a cow. Take a look at this link for a typical whale hindlimb.

Why is it that more complex animals are built on the bodyplan of less complex ones?

huxley:

A theory is a hypothesis that has passed ALL currently verificational tests applied to it thus far. And futher, has been accepted by the community of scientists who are specifically interested in this area of inquiry.

First, that is an assumption. I don't know who has dribbled that idea that a theory is a hypothesis that has passed ALL current verificational tests. What do you mean by ALL - that the theory does not have any difficulties that still puzzle its adherents? No, Darwinism still has its problems and can't be said to have passed "ALL" verificational tests - otherwise that is not longer a theory but something else.

Something accepted as a theory does not mean that it is forever incapable of being rejected.  Every good scientific theory has to pass the test of falsifiability, which is a way of demonstrating the theory false.

Huh? While I may partly grant your view, it feels inadequate. Falsifiability is not primarily about demonstrating that a theory is "false"; rather, it is about the validity of any theory as to whether it could be shown to be either of two premises: scientifically true or false (not just "prove" that it is 'false'). Therefore, passing a 'test' of falsifiability does not rest on its being false; but rather its validity as an explanatory index for any phenomena. This is why falsifiability rarely holds theories to be 'false', but instead provides the grounds for some scientists to add 'ad hoc hypotheses to existing theories' (as argued by Thomas Kuhn).

In the case of The Theory of Evolution, if it could be shown that complex animals with complex bodyplans, such as mammals existed in the pre-cambrian, that would demonstrate that the theory was false.

No, scientific paradigms are not that ad hoc, huxley. That is why philosophers of science have continued to note that 'scientists' who reason that way are not doing science. To say that "if" it could be shown that mammals existed in the pre-cambrian, then the TOE is "false" - that does not validate Darwinism at all. You're delving into the field of Paleontology - and paleotolotogists have a huge problem for Darwinists to this very moment. One could also make the same postulation of an "iff"  ('if and only if' - a biconditional logical connective) and therefore find no answers in paleontology for Darwinian claims.

I would give this simple quip: let us assume that it could ONE DAY be "proven" that mammals infact lived in the pre-cambrian, then you would find darwinists making other ad hoc hypothesis to refine Darwinism, not acknowledge it to be "false".

SO far, NOT a single tests has proved evolution false.  So as a theory it is a valid one.

Evolution (ala Darwinism) still has failed to reconcile with the scientific difficulties posed by paleontology. That one challenge alone does not necessarily invalidate evolution as a 'theory' - and that is why it is not actually seasoned to say that this or that 'theory' is to pass any 'test'. It is hypotheses that are 'tested', while theories are falsifiable.

viaro:

First, that is an assumption. I don't know who has dribbled that idea that a theory is a hypothesis that has passed ALL current verificational tests. What do you mean by ALL - that the theory does not have any difficulties that still puzzle its adherents? No, Darwinism still has its problems and can't be said to have passed "ALL" verificational tests - otherwise that is not longer a theory but something else.

I made a statement. What assumption did I make. What assumption is there in this statement?

A theory is a hypothesis that has passed ALL currently verificational tests applied to it thus far. And futher, has been accepted by the community of scientists who are specifically interested in this area of inquiry.

Of course, many theories do not yet answer ALL questions conceivable that one might throw at it. It is classed as a "valid" or acceptable theory if it keeps answering more and more and more of such questions.

Take for instance the Theory of Cosmic Expansion, commonly called the Big Bang. This explains the observed expansion of the universe, cosmic microwave background radiation, etc, etc. But does it explain everything about the universe? NO.

Is it likely that BB will be overturned by an even better theory soon. Hell, YES - and this will happen within our lifetimes. And for any new theory to be valid, it will have to have more explanatory capability than the BB - it will have to better explain the expansion, CMB, the uniformity of the cosmos, etc, etc, in addition to provide other explanation not covered by the BB.

No, scientific paradigms are not that ad hoc, huxley. That is why philosophers of science have continued to note that 'scientists' who reason that way are not doing science. To say that "if" it could be shown that mammals existed in the pre-cambrian, then the TOE is "false" - that does not validate Darwinism at all. You're delving into the field of Paleontology - and paleotolotogists have a huge problem for Darwinists to this very moment. One could also make the same postulation of an "iff"  ('if and only if' - a biconditional logical connective) and therefore find no answers in paleontology for Darwinian claims.

Yes, indeed. You do not seem to understand what TOE contends. Simply put, it is COMMON descent with modification. This implies simpler and less complex organisms (or bodyplans) precede more complex ones. TOE will absolutely NOT survive any discovery of more complex bodyforms preceding less complex ones if there has not been some degenerative process in the lineage.

Can you show me any reputed paleontologist who does not accept TOE? Can you explain the paleontological difficulties that exist in TOE?


Evolution, defines as change of lifeforms, is a FACT. TOE by Natural Selection is but one (of possibly many) mechanisms by which this change of lifeforms can be explained. Genetic drift is another process that drive and explains evolution. However many driving forces and theories scientist can invent, the FACT remains that lifeforms change. If you think lifeforms don't change, you will have to explain why it is that no fossils of mammals are ever found in the pre-cambrian,

I would give this simple quip: let us assume that it could ONE DAY be "proven" that mammals infact lived in the pre-cambrian, then you would find darwinists making other ad hoc hypothesis to refine Darwinism, not acknowledge it to be "false".

Evolution (ala Darwinism) still has failed to reconcile with the scientific difficulties posed by paleontology. That one challenge alone does not necessarily invalidate evolution as a 'theory' - and that is why it is not actually seasoned to say that this or that 'theory' is to pass any 'test'. It is hypotheses that are 'tested', while theories are falsifiable.

Some theories can survive counter-evidence by modification of the theories. That happens in science ALL the time. Think of what is generally called Einstein's big mistake, when he modified his equations, re-inserting the gravitational expansive constant.

However, the theory of common descent with modification CANNOT survive the discovery of more complex organism preceding less complex one.

You are wont to make ad hoc statements without providing and supporting references or evidence, such as this:

Evolution (ala Darwinism) still has failed to reconcile with the scientific difficulties posed by paleontology

What is the difficulty posed by paleontology? Can you show some scientific reference for such difficulties? While you are at it, can you also show me a scientific theory that ANSWERS all the questions in its field?

@huxley,

To make things a bit tidy, it would simply have done a good turn if you disagreed with something and point it out. Essentially, your long riposte agrees with some of my points while seemingly arguing against your premises. Let me lay them out for you:

huxley:

I made a statement.  What assumption  did I make.  What assumption is there in this statement?

Your statement was an assumption - and I clearly showe HOW that is so. Now, if you did not agree your were assuming things far too much, you should have saved your comments and use it for other answers, rather than come back and agree with "Of course, many theories do not yet answer ALL questions. . " The assumption in your initial statement is that you assumed "A theory is a hypothesis that has passed ALL currently verificational tests applied to it thus far". That is where the assumption was - and how then do you come back agreeing when you tried to argue it was not an assumption?

True, you made a statement. But that statement WAS and IS an assumption - because even you could acknowledge that MANY theories do not yet answer ALL questions, blah blah. "A theory" is what you quipped about - which in your view HAS PASSED ALL currently verificational tests (whatever that means to you). But then you can see that you are the same person who came back noting the serious problem in your own assumption. Ha.

Of course, many theories do not yet answer ALL questions conceivable that one might throw at it.  It is classed as a "valid" or acceptable theory if it keeps answering more and more and more of such questions.

There. I thought you quipped earlier that a theory is one that HAS PASSED ALL tests?

Anyways,

Take for instance the Theory of Cosmic Expansion, commonly called the Big Bang.  This explains the observed expansion of the universe, cosmic microwave background radiation, etc, etc.  But does it explain everything about the universe?  NO.

Thanks for the example - that again is why I saw huge problems with your initial assumption about what a theory is.

Is it likely that BB will be overturned by an even better theory soon.  Hell, YES - and this will happen within our lifetimes.  And for any new theory to be valid, it will have to have more explanatory capability than the BB - it will have to better explain the expansion, CMB, the uniformity of the cosmos, etc, etc, in addition to provide other explanation not covered by the BB.

Again, that was essentially why I took time to draw from Thomas Kuhn about ad hoc additions to scientific theories. Take the claims of the BB, not that your foreseeable 'YES' would completely discredit the BB as "false" - because as you rightly observed, any such theory would have to possess such explanatory powers as to sweep everything associated with the BB into oblivion. That would indeed be remarkable - and to happen in our lifetime. I shy away from making far too assuming postulations as such; but m-e-n, you had better know what you're talking about.

Yes, indeed.  You do not seem to understand what TOE contends.  Simply put, it is COMMON descent with modification.

I quite understand what TOE is, thank you. Your explanation simply makes me wonder whether or not you know what you are trying to convey. If you did, you would have seen that the "iff" as a 'biconditional logical connective' is precisely the reason why Darwinism remains limp in the face of paleontology, regardless what Darwinists have tried to argue to the contrary.

But thanks all the same, while I take time yet again to explain the "iff" in this regard. Taking from various sources, the "iff" is a biconditional logical connective that acts in this way:

An expression used to imply that a statement holds in both directions and only in the described situations. This means that if you have the situation described on either side of the 'if and only if ' then you will have the situation on the other side as well and if you do not have one then you will not have the other. An if and only if statement is also called a biconditional statement.

source.

In logic and related fields such as mathematics and philosophy, if and only if (shortened iff) is a biconditional logical connective between statements. In that it is biconditional, the connective can be likened to the standard material conditional ("if" combined with its reverse ("only if"; hence the name. The result is that the truth of either one of the connected statements requires the truth of the other, i.e., either both statements are true, or both are false. The connective is thus an "if" that works both ways.

source

In most logical systems, one proves a statement of the form "P iff Q" by proving "if P, then Q" and "if Q, then P" (or the inverse of "if P, then Q", i.e. "if not P, then not Q"). Proving this pair of statements sometimes leads to a more natural proof, since there are not obvious conditions in which one would infer a biconditional directly. An alternative is to prove the disjunction "(P and Q) or (not-P and not-Q)", which itself can be inferred directly from either of its disjuncts — that is, because "iff" is truth-functional, "P iff Q" follows if P and Q have both been shown true, or both false.

Application of the "iff" to your own "if" about mammals in the pre-cambrian: Give or take, it is not a static case of "if" mammals are found in that epoch, then evolution falls on its face - that would simply mean that it was not a 'theory' to begin with, because it ignores both sides of that postulation. For it to be valid as a theory, one has to look at BOTH sides of any "if"-statements, not just a dogmatic one-sided "if"="then" this and that. That is why even though Darwinism cannot answer the difficulties posed by Paleontology (or let me say, it has not been able as yet to answer them), it does not therefore discredit evolution as a "theory". Why? Because as a 'scientific theory', you have to look at boths sides of a postulation ('if A then B' on the one hand; but on the other hand, what happens where you have 'if not A then not B'?).

I hope you can grasp the biconditional logical connective here?

This implies simpler and less complex organisms (or bodyplans) precede more complex ones.  TOE will absolutely NOT survive any discovery of more complex bodyforms preceding less complex ones if there has not been some degenerative process in the lineage.

That's the catch-22: "if there has not been some degenerating process". This remind me of my previous reply, that falsifiability helps a paradigm by providing the grounds for some scientists to add 'ad hoc hypotheses to existing theories' (not my argument, but Thomas Kuhn's). How do you determine what is "more complex" from "less complex"?

In every stage of development of living organisms there are complexities at a very advanced stage in their epoch to function as what they are. I'm only making this summizing on the way that some darwinists try to argue evolution - from one form to another (such as 'dinosaurs into birds'). I know that example is controversial; but if at surface value we are to examine their "complexities", which would be said to have more complex bodyplans than the other? Should we apply the "iff" yet again?

Can you show me any reputed paleontologist who does not accept TOE?  Can you explain the paleontological difficulties that exist in TOE?

Please don't twist my arguments. I have maintained that "you're delving into the field of Paleontology - and paleotolotogists have a huge problem for Darwinists to this very moment." That is not saying that Paleontologists as a whole reject Evolution - rather, that they have difficulties which Darwinists find perplexing. Even at that, I also stated this:

   "Evolution (ala Darwinism) still has failed to reconcile with the scientific difficulties posed
    by paleontology. That one challenge alone does not necessarily invalidate evolution as
    a 'theory'"

That Paleontology poses difficulties for Darwinism does not mean therefore that I argued that paleontologists "do not accept" the TOE.

As an example of one of those difficulties, we have often read claims of fossils being an 'evidence' for evolution in terms of its 'transitional' record (aka 'missing link'). To be honest with you, after having tried to objectively examine such claims, a paleontologist remarked that -

Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils." (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p.89).

Not that there are no fossils anywhere; but rather that evolution cannot continue to make a claim of 'transitional fossils' as evidence for validating TOE. Palentology does not help Evolution in this regard.

Evolution, defines as change of lifeforms, is a FACT.  TOE by Natural Selection is but one (of possibly many) mechanisms by which this change of lifeforms can be explained.  Genetic drift is another process that drive and explains evolution.  However many driving forces and theories scientist can invent, the FACT remains that lifeforms change.  If you think lifeforms don't change, you will have to explain why it is that no fossils of mammals are ever found in the pre-cambrian,

My explanation is simple, really. I'm not a fan of Darwinism, no matter how the arguments of his "-isms" may go. What I have pointed out in consonance with the topic of this thread (the Aim of Science) is simply that your assumptions of what a theory is just does not hold any substance. That is the point here, huxley. If you hold a contrary view, you should not have come back to accede my point. However, as regards the FACT that a 'theory' is not one necessarily so because it has passed ALL tests (whatever you may mean), I gave the example that Paleontology simply dismisses the 'fossil' claim as evidence for Darwinism. The logically objective examination of the fact was why such evolutionists agree that Paleontology poses some serious problems to Darwnism, which paleontologists as Patterson quips that Gould and the American Museum are hard to contradict on that note. This is simply showing you one thing: that your assumption of what a theory is is an assumption, not carefully thought out.

Now, the absence of mammals in pre-cambrian does not "prove" anything about life-forms 'changing'. If anything, evolutionists know that paleontology shows there is no fossil that can help Darwinism to a fine point. So, if one does not find a fossil (any fossils) specifically of mammals in any gelogical epoch, does the absence "prove" anything? You would be working out of an empty basket to claim your 'change' in sands.

Some theories can survive counter-evidence by modification of the theories.  That happens in science ALL the time. Think of what is generally called Einstein's big mistake, when he modified his equations, re-inserting the gravitational expansive constant.

I know the modifying paradigms of theories in scientific enquiries, huxley. I have noted that already from Thomas Kuhn's observations - so let's sweep this your lectures aside, please. If I did not know that already, you would be making a point. But what point would you be making if I already showed that such things happen with ad hoc hypothesis? The issue is that your assumptions are not sound on the question of what theories actually are.

However, the theory of common descent with modification CANNOT survive the discovery of more complex organism preceding less complex one.

I acknowledge your example: mammals in pre-cambrian.  Now, this talk about "complex" orgnanisms was why I asked about the complexities between dinosaurs and birds - which is more complex and which is less? Note: the "dino-birds" are not my arguments; but I only just drew from that as an example to illustrate the point of complexity. We know that dinosaurs are very complex in bodyplans - so are birds. Some have argued that birds "evolved from" dinos; so does the argument hold that dinos are less complex than birds?

You are wont to make ad hoc statements without providing and supporting references or evidence, such as this:

Evolution (ala Darwinism) still has failed to reconcile with the scientific difficulties posed by paleontology

I am not wont to do that - which is why I have discussed an example at length above. It was such difficulties in Paleontology that was catalyst for Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" to close the gap in that regard.

What is the difficulty posed by paleontology?  Can you show some scientific reference for such difficulties?   While you are at it, can you also show me a scientific theory that ANSWERS all the questions in its field?

As for the paleontology difficulty, see above. As to the second, I don't remember having claimed that any singular theory has answered ALL the questions in its field. You may need some friendly reminders that such an assumption was your own postulation, quoted below:

A theory is a hypothesis that has passed ALL currently verificational tests applied to it thus far.

Are you quickly forgetting that was YOUR own assumption? Ha! I cannot answer your roll-call for you, you know - in as much as I did not urge it upon you by any craft.

viaro:

@huxley,

To make things a bit tidy, it would simply have done a good turn if you disagreed with something and point it out. Essentially, your long riposte agrees with some of my points while seemingly arguing against your premises. Let me lay them out for you:

Your statement was an assumption - and I clearly showe HOW that is so. Now, if you did not agree your were assuming things far too much, you should have saved your comments and use it for other answers, rather than come back and agree with "Of course, many theories do not yet answer ALL questions. . " The assumption in your initial statement is that you assumed "A theory is a hypothesis that has passed ALL currently verificational tests applied to it thus far". That is where the assumption was - and how then do you come back agreeing when you tried to argue it was not an assumption?

True, you made a statement. But that statement WAS and IS an assumption - because even you could acknowledge that MANY theories do not yet answer ALL questions, blah blah. "A theory" is what you quipped about - which in your view HAS PASSED ALL currently verificational tests (whatever that means to you). But then you can see that you are the same person who came back noting the serious problem in your own assumption. Ha.

There. I thought you quipped earlier that a theory is one that HAS PASSED ALL tests?

Anyways,

Thanks for the example - that again is why I saw huge problems with your initial assumption about what a theory is.

Again, that was essentially why I took time to draw from Thomas Kuhn about ad hoc additions to scientific theories. Take the claims of the BB, not that your foreseeable 'YES' would completely discredit the BB as "false" - because as you rightly observed, any such theory would have to possess such explanatory powers as to sweep everything associated with the BB into oblivion. That would indeed be remarkable - and to happen in our lifetime. I shy away from making far too assuming postulations as such; but m-e-n, you had better know what you're talking about.

I quite understand what TOE is, thank you. Your explanation simply makes me wonder whether or not you know what you are trying to convey. If you did, you would have seen that the "iff" as a 'biconditional logical connective' is precisely the reason why Darwinism remains limp in the face of paleontology, regardless what Darwinists have tried to argue to the contrary.

But thanks all the same, while I take time yet again to explain the "iff" in this regard. Taking from various sources, the "iff" is a biconditional logical connective that acts in this way:
source.
source
Application of the "iff" to your own "if" about mammals in the pre-cambrian: Give or take, it is not a static case of "if" mammals are found in that epoch, then evolution falls on its face - that would simply mean that it was not a 'theory' to begin with, because it ignores both sides of that postulation. For it to be valid as a theory, one has to look at BOTH sides of any "if"-statements, not just a dogmatic one-sided "if"="then" this and that. That is why even though Darwinism cannot answer the difficulties posed by Paleontology (or let me say, it has not been able as yet to answer them), it does not therefore discredit evolution as a "theory". Why? Because as a 'scientific theory', you have to look at boths sides of a postulation ('if A then B' on the one hand; but on the other hand, what happens where you have 'if not A then not B'?).

I hope you can grasp the biconditional logical connective here?

That's the catch-22: "if there has not been some degenerating process". This remind me of my previous reply, that falsifiability helps a paradigm by providing the grounds for some scientists to add 'ad hoc hypotheses to existing theories' (not my argument, but Thomas Kuhn's). How do you determine what is "more complex" from "less complex"?

In every stage of development of living organisms there are complexities at a very advanced stage in their epoch to function as what they are. I'm only making this summizing on the way that some darwinists try to argue evolution - from one form to another (such as 'dinosaurs into birds'). I know that example is controversial; but if at surface value we are to examine their "complexities", which would be said to have more complex bodyplans than the other? Should we apply the "iff" yet again?

Please don't twist my arguments. I have maintained that "you're delving into the field of Paleontology - and paleotolotogists have a huge problem for Darwinists to this very moment." That is not saying that Paleontologists as a whole reject Evolution - rather, that they have difficulties which Darwinists find perplexing. Even at that, I also stated this:

   "Evolution (ala Darwinism) still has failed to reconcile with the scientific difficulties posed
    by paleontology. That one challenge alone does not necessarily invalidate evolution as
    a 'theory'"

That Paleontology poses difficulties for Darwinism does not mean therefore that I argued that paleontologists "do not accept" the TOE.

As an example of one of those difficulties, we have often read claims of fossils being an 'evidence' for evolution in terms of its 'transitional' record (aka 'missing link'). To be honest with you, after having tried to objectively examine such claims, a paleontologist remarked that -
Not that there are no fossils anywhere; but rather that evolution cannot continue to make a claim of 'transitional fossils' as evidence for validating TOE. Palentology does not help Evolution in this regard.

My explanation is simple, really. I'm not a fan of Darwinism, no matter how the arguments of his "-isms" may go. What I have pointed out in consonance with the topic of this thread (the Aim of Science) is simply that your assumptions of what a theory is just does not hold any substance. That is the point here, huxley. If you hold a contrary view, you should not have come back to accede my point. However, as regards the FACT that a 'theory' is not one necessarily so because it has passed ALL tests (whatever you may mean), I gave the example that Paleontology simply dismisses the 'fossil' claim as evidence for Darwinism. The logically objective examination of the fact was why such evolutionists agree that Paleontology poses some serious problems to Darwnism, which paleontologists as Patterson quips that Gould and the American Museum are hard to contradict on that note. This is simply showing you one thing: that your assumption of what a theory is is an assumption, not carefully thought out.

Now, the absence of mammals in pre-cambrian does not "prove" anything about life-forms 'changing'. If anything, evolutionists know that paleontology shows there is no fossil that can help Darwinism to a fine point. So, if one does not find a fossil (any fossils) specifically of mammals in any gelogical epoch, does the absence "prove" anything? You would be working out of an empty basket to claim your 'change' in sands.

I know the modifying paradigms of theories in scientific enquiries, huxley. I have noted that already from Thomas Kuhn's observations - so let's sweep this your lectures aside, please. If I did not know that already, you would be making a point. But what point would you be making if I already showed that such things happen with ad hoc hypothesis? The issue is that your assumptions are not sound on the question of what theories actually are.

I acknowledge your example: mammals in pre-cambrian.  Now, this talk about "complex" orgnanisms was why I asked about the complexities between dinosaurs and birds - which is more complex and which is less? Note: the "dino-birds" are not my arguments; but I only just drew from that as an example to illustrate the point of complexity. We know that dinosaurs are very complex in bodyplans - so are birds. Some have argued that birds "evolved from" dinos; so does the argument hold that dinos are less complex than birds?


I am not wont to do that - which is why I have discussed an example at length above. It was such difficulties in Paleontology that was catalyst for Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" to close the gap in that regard.

As for the paleontology difficulty, see above. As to the second, I don't remember having claimed that any singular theory has answered ALL the questions in its field. You may need some friendly reminders that such an assumption was your own postulation, quoted below:Are you quickly forgetting that was YOUR own assumption? Ha! I cannot answer your roll-call for you, you know - in as much as I did not urge it upon you by any craft.

Let me cut to the chase by asking two questions. I shall address the rest of the post later:



1) Do you accept that lifeforms have changed and are charging over time?




2) How would you explain the fact that some whales (about 5%) are born with fully developed hindlimbs, much like a cow's hindlimbs?

bawomolo:

where is kunle to support it's claim that evolution is unproven?

where u at.

I am here oh, even science does not claim that evolution has been proven and that it why it is classified as a theory[postulation] and not a law. What is assumed to be evidence for evolution are just mere minor adaptions which the intelligent designer[AKA creator] programmed into each creation to enable creatures adapt to the changing occurences in their environment and thus ensure there survival. Evidence for adaption is in us humans for example i.e difference races of humans. Adaptation is valed is an accepted scientific fact. But evolutuionist not satified with that strecth adaption into evolution even though there is no proof or basis for it they come up with the twisted logic that if an organism can adapt over a few generations over a longer period of time it should evovle into a completely different species, this is just utterly stupid. Common sense dictates that there is a level an organism would adapt to and adaptation does not mean changing your specie . And there still remains no single iota of evidence that one species as evolved into another even at the genetic/DNA level.