64 replies to this topic

[usafjay1976]

So here is the scientific method. Let's put this to use for evolution. I'll use one example below.



Question: Did creature 'A' evolve in to creature 'B'?

Background research: Fossil 'A' is similar to fossil 'B' in body structure but 'B' has wings. By observing the fossils side by side, this is the only observable difference.

Test with experiment: Not sure how this is done, but let's move on.

Analyze results: 'A' is still similar to 'B' so evolution must be true.

Report results: 'A' evolved into 'B'.

I realize my example is basic but I would like to see some evolutionary facts plugged into the above chart that prove evolution is fact.

[gilbo12345]

For evolution there is no experiment... The "experiment" is merely to draw together other observations and claim it as an "experiment", such as DNA analysis is claimed as an experiment, when really all it is is observing the similarities in DNA, no experimentation required. (getting the DNA results may be an "experiment" however that doesn't confirm evolution, merely gets the DNA for analysis)

[usafjay1976]

So would I be correct by proceeding with...


Asking a question: Evolution fails to show the experimentation portion of the scientific method so can evolution be considered science?

Do background research: Some people (mainly evolutionists) claim evolution is a scientific fact. Some people (mainly creationists) claim evolution is not fact as evolutionist data is backed up by the scientific method.

Construct hypothesis: Evolution fails to follow the test with experiment portion of the scientific method and relies heavily on observation. My goal is to prove evolution is not science because experimentation is not conducted.

Test with experiment: Does not apply to evolution.

Report results: Evolution fails to test their observations with experiments, hence scientific results cannot be verified. Evolution fails in the scientific method.


Edit: Had to fix a few grammar mistakes.

[agnophilo123]

You repeat the same crap no matter how many times I respond to it.

Remember that huge long explanation I gave you of why archeopteryx was evidence for evolution not because a scientist found it and scratched his head and dreamt up the theory of evolution, but because darwin specifically predicted the existence of early birds with multiple digits two years prior to their discovery in On The Origin Of Species:

"The bastard wing of birds is a rudimentary digit; and I believe that if fossil birds are found very low down in the series, they will be seen to have a double or bifurcated wing. Here is a bold prophecy!"

Bastard in the sense of "no longer in it's original form" by the way.

This is an experimental test of the theory. Not all experimental predictions are tested in a laboratory. When einstein predicted the angle light would bend around the sun from a star behind the sun in an upcoming eclipse, nobody said that wasn't a valid test of his mathematical model because he didn't shrink half of the galaxy down into a laboratory to make the observation.

Know what else is an experimental test of the theory? This:



And this:



And lots and lots of other examples, many of which I've given you in the past.

[gilbo12345]

1. You repeat the same crap no matter how many times I respond to it.

2. Remember that huge long explanation I gave you of why archeopteryx was evidence for evolution not because a scientist found it and scratched his head and dreamt up the theory of evolution, but because darwin specifically predicted the existence of early birds with multiple digits two years prior to their discovery in On The Origin Of Species:

"The bastard wing of birds is a rudimentary digit; and I believe that if fossil birds are found very low down in the series, they will be seen to have a double or bifurcated wing. Here is a bold prophecy!"

Bastard in the sense of "no longer in it's original form" by the way.

3. This is an experimental test of the theory.

4. Not all experimental predictions are tested in a laboratory.

5. When einstein predicted the angle light would bend around the sun from a star behind the sun in an upcoming eclipse, nobody said that wasn't a valid test of his mathematical model because he didn't shrink half of the galaxy down into a laboratory to make the observation.

6. Know what else is an experimental test of the theory? This:



And this:






7. And lots and lots of other examples, many of which I've given you in the past.

1. You have yet to responde to MY posts refuting yours, instead you merely claim that I don't respond when in fact I do and have refuted you many times over.

Please show some links to where I have not replied to you, as I keep saying to you mere claims are not evidence of anything you need evidence to support said claims.




2. Link.. I haven't seen this "Huge" explanation..

However in any case you are using out-dated information (again) since modern (actual) scientists admit that archopteryx is an offshoot species.. This was what happened in evolution class at uni two years ago, we were told repeatedly that archopteryx was "evidence of evolution" however in the last lecture we had a scientist who actually studies birds for a living claim that modern data has debunked this claim. (papers about how birds breath relative to their flying I believe), and that archopteryx is now claimed to be an offshoot.

Additionally there is NO experiment to verify that evolution was the cause of similarities in any fossils, this is what we are discussing here.

If you disagree post up some experiments that directly confirm evolution as the cause, if not stop spouting junk. Again, observations are not experiments (as you agreed in my thread)...

So why continue to claim that observations are any kind of evidence when you already agreed that via the scientific method they are not?

3. Clearly you do not know what an experiment is!

4. True, however Biology IS.

5. Mathematics cannot be tested like science, hence why it is called mathematics........

6. Firstly you (again) haven't given any context with the videos, meaning that when I debunk them, (and I already did in another thread by the way, which either you have ignored or skipped over).

Additionally you have demonstrated your failure to comprehend what an experiment is... What you have posted as per the videos are observations that are made AFTER the fact. Again I ask how can you VERIFY that evolution was the cause of what we see proclaimed as chromosome fusion? Additionally I'd like to see you explain HOW such an observation can be deemed as an experiment, as you claim.




Here is my reply


"Had Agnophilo grounded himself in his own statement, rather than hide behind a video. I would have said similar...

In fact I'll respond to the videos, despite Agnophilo not making his own claim about them...

1- Chromosomes... Its an observation... Even if it looks like it evolved you cannot tell for sure until evolution has been experimentally verified as the cause.. However this is impossible to do since its an alledged historical event, ergo the video (and Agno for posting it) is merely assuming "evolution did it" without sufficient verification to support this hypothesis.

2- As Usafijay succintly put it, he claims that there are transitional forms but never states any... The fact of the matter is that every single one claimed to be a "transitional form" is an independant species... There have been no fossil links linking these species together over time... Essentially all the transitions are imagined.

The belief of evolution via fossils fails on two accounts.. There needs to be a progression of fossils displaying minute changes over time which can be utilised to verify that one became another... ie- for bats... mammal, mammal with longer fingers, mammal with even longer fingers, mammal with still longer fingers..etc etc etc. Merely assuming the jumps isn't evidence, rather its displaying ones own bias.

Secondly even IF this progression was found (which it hasn't) then there needs to be experimentation to verify the hypothesis that evolution was the cause. Merely assuming "evolution did it" doesn't support the claim scientifically, in fact its yet another claim from bias.



Now I predict one of two things.. Either Agno will ardently argue or will back away from the videos stating that his / her claim about them was never made.. Lets see what happens shall we "

http://evolutionfair...indpost&p=87015



7. All of which I have debunked, if I missed any please provide a link and I will debunk it now.

[usafjay1976]

Watched Ken Miller on human evolution again and focusing on that for now. Help me understand what was tested and experimented in this video.

By watching this video, the scientific method breaks down to something like

Question: Did we evolve from apes? Do we have common ancestry?

Research: We have two less chromosomes than apes. They have 48, humans have 46.

Hypothesis: Proposing we evolved from apes because we can observe 46 chromsomes in chimps and 48 in humans. The fusion shows striking similarity between human and chimp chromosomes

Test with experiment: Miller says It is testable. What tests were conducted? Where is the experiment that shows these chromsomes fused and we share this ancestry?

Analyze results: From observation we see the fusion of these chromosomes and the similary between apes and humans.

Results: We evolved from apes

Again, I need help understanding this. I understand the observation but I fail to see the testing of this to prove it occurred.

I found an article that counter's Miller's claims. Excerpts are below.

I am more than willing to acknowledge and affirm that Miller provided good direct empirical evidence for a chromosomal fusion event which created human chromosome #2. He claims this evidence strongly supports his view that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, because humans have two fewer chromosomes than chimp, and Darwinian evolution predicts this fusion evidence. But his argument raises two crucial questions:

(1) Is his chromosome fusion story good evidence for Neo-Darwinian common ancestry between humans and apes?
(2) Does Dr. Miller's hypothesis perhaps pose problems for a Neo-Darwinian account of human genetic history?

Evidence for Fusion in a Human Chromosome Tells you LITTLE TO NOTHING about whether Humans Share a Common Ancestor with Living Apes

All Miller has done is documented direct empirical evidence of a chromosomal fusion event in the human line. But evidence for a chromosomal fusion event is not evidence for when that event took place, nor is it evidence for the ancestry prior to that event

There is more to the article, I just put a few portions of it here. To read the rest, go to: http://www.ideacente...ls.php/id/1392.

[usafjay1976]

I poked around a bit on youtube and found a video refuting Ken Miller's on chromosome #2: Here are some key points from it:

-There is only one reverse telomeric sequence (CCCTAA) within 1200 base pairs of that location
-There should be a total of 402 telomeric sequences
-Only forward telomeric sequences (TTAGGG) on one side
-And only reverse telomeric sequences on the other side
-A true telomere has anywhere from 5000 to 15000 unbroken telomeric repeats
-The selection range should only show 1-4% of the total telomere

-This is not the predicted location of fusion.
-Purported location is BP 114,455,823-114,455,838
-Predicated location is BP 114,360,509-114,360,510
-A difference of 95,313 BP
-Analyzed BP 114,454,623-114,457,040 (~1200 BP on either side of the purported fusion site)

-ICR (Institute for Creation Research) analyzed BP 114,360,258-114,361,055 (798 BP around predicted fusion site)
-There are 10 forward telomeric sequences and 43 reverse (53 total)
-There should be 133 telomeric sequences total
-Analyzed BP 114,359,309-114,361,710 (~1200 BP other side of the predicted fusion site)
-There are 10 forward-telomeric sequences and 44 reverse (54 total)
-There should be 400 telomeric sequences total

-Why is the purported location so far from the predicted location?
-The predicted location looks more like a fusion took place there than the purported location
-The purported location looks nothing like a fusion

-The only possible conclusion is that the paper lied about what was in that location

-This is only a small portion of the evidence

He sums up with this conclusion:

- All of the evidence for the fusion was cherry picked. (There is a reference in the video for further evidence)
-There is no actual evidence for a fusion
-Evolution is flat out wrong
-Humans and apes do not share a common ancestry

You can review the references in the video description

Video is here: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=x-RWG6lawaM

[gilbo12345]

I poked around a bit on youtube and found a video refuting Ken Miller's on chromosome #2: Here are some key points from it:

-There is only one reverse telomeric sequence (CCCTAA) within 1200 base pairs of that location
-There should be a total of 402 telomeric sequences
-Only forward telomeric sequences (TTAGGG) on one side
-And only reverse telomeric sequences on the other side
-A true telomere has anywhere from 5000 to 15000 unbroken telomeric repeats
-The selection range should only show 1-4% of the total telomere

-This is not the predicted location of fusion.
-Purported location is BP 114,455,823-114,455,838
-Predicated location is BP 114,360,509-114,360,510
-A difference of 95,313 BP
-Analyzed BP 114,454,623-114,457,040 (~1200 BP on either side of the purported fusion site)

-ICR (Institute for Creation Research) analyzed BP 114,360,258-114,361,055 (798 BP around predicted fusion site)
-There are 10 forward telomeric sequences and 43 reverse (53 total)
-There should be 133 telomeric sequences total
-Analyzed BP 114,359,309-114,361,710 (~1200 BP other side of the predicted fusion site)
-There are 10 forward-telomeric sequences and 44 reverse (54 total)
-There should be 400 telomeric sequences total

-Why is the purported location so far from the predicted location?
-The predicted location looks more like a fusion took place there than the purported location
-The purported location looks nothing like a fusion

-The only possible conclusion is that the paper lied about what was in that location

-This is only a small portion of the evidence

He sums up with this conclusion:

- All of the evidence for the fusion was cherry picked. (There is a reference in the video for further evidence)
-There is no actual evidence for a fusion
-Evolution is flat out wrong
-Humans and apes do not share a common ancestry

You can review the references in the video description

Video is here:

Great find!

Just realised something 4:00 to 6:00 is Miller spouting an ad hoc claim.. Its in no way a prediction in that its made after the fact. Such claims of it being a prediction is simply intellectual dishonesty.

[Calypsis4]

I poked around a bit on youtube and found a video refuting Ken Miller's on chromosome #2: Here are some key points from it:

-There is only one reverse telomeric sequence (CCCTAA) within 1200 base pairs of that location
-There should be a total of 402 telomeric sequences
-Only forward telomeric sequences (TTAGGG) on one side
-And only reverse telomeric sequences on the other side
-A true telomere has anywhere from 5000 to 15000 unbroken telomeric repeats
-The selection range should only show 1-4% of the total telomere

-This is not the predicted location of fusion.
-Purported location is BP 114,455,823-114,455,838
-Predicated location is BP 114,360,509-114,360,510
-A difference of 95,313 BP
-Analyzed BP 114,454,623-114,457,040 (~1200 BP on either side of the purported fusion site)

-ICR (Institute for Creation Research) analyzed BP 114,360,258-114,361,055 (798 BP around predicted fusion site)
-There are 10 forward telomeric sequences and 43 reverse (53 total)
-There should be 133 telomeric sequences total
-Analyzed BP 114,359,309-114,361,710 (~1200 BP other side of the predicted fusion site)
-There are 10 forward-telomeric sequences and 44 reverse (54 total)
-There should be 400 telomeric sequences total

-Why is the purported location so far from the predicted location?
-The predicted location looks more like a fusion took place there than the purported location
-The purported location looks nothing like a fusion

-The only possible conclusion is that the paper lied about what was in that location

-This is only a small portion of the evidence

He sums up with this conclusion:

- All of the evidence for the fusion was cherry picked. (There is a reference in the video for further evidence)
-There is no actual evidence for a fusion
-Evolution is flat out wrong
-Humans and apes do not share a common ancestry

You can review the references in the video description

Video is here:

Thanks, USAFjay1976. Excellent information.

[usafjay1976]

Thanks Gilbo and Calypsis. I think that's some really powerful evidence AGAINST evolution. Now i just patiently wait for the rebuttal. Happy Thanksgiving early guys.

[dan4reason]

So here is the
Background re scientific method. Let's put this to use for evolution. I'll use one example below.



Question: Did creature 'A' evolve in to creature 'B'?
search: Fossil 'A' is similar to fossil 'B' in body structure but 'B' has wings. By observing the fossils side by side, this is the only observable difference.

Test with experiment: Not sure how this is done, but let's move on.

Analyze results: 'A' is still similar to 'B' so evolution must be true.

Report results: 'A' evolved into 'B'.

I realize my example is basic but I would like to see some evolutionary facts plugged into the above chart that prove evolution is fact.

At the top you were testing whether one create evolved from the other. In Analyse results you state that evolution is true. That was not the goal of the experiment In order to do this kind of experiment, you have to know that evolution is true in the first place. Also fossil comparisons cannot conclude that one species directly evolved from the other. Only that they shared a very recent common ancestor and one is closely related to a close ancestor of the other.

search: Fossil 'A' is similar to fossil 'B' in body structure but 'B' has wings. By observing the fossils side by side, this is the only observable difference.

Test with experiment: This is not a laboratory experiment.

Analyze results: 'A' is dated to be slightly older than 'B'. 'A' is also found to live in the same region as 'B'. 'A' is still similar to 'B' and the differences are smaller than any differences from 'B' to any other similar older fossil in the same area.

Report results: 'A' and 'B' share a close common ancestor and 'B' is closely related to the ancestor of 'A'.

That is the right way of going about it.

[gilbo12345]

1. you have to know that evolution is true in the first place.

2. Also fossil comparisons cannot conclude that one species directly evolved from the other. Only that they shared a very recent common ancestor and one is closely related to a close ancestor of the other.

search: Fossil 'A' is similar to fossil 'B' in body structure but 'B' has wings. By observing the fossils side by side, this is the only observable difference. Test with experiment: This is not a laboratory experiment. Analyze results: 'A' is dated to be slightly older than 'B'. 'A' is also found to live in the same region as 'B'. 'A' is still similar to 'B' and the differences are smaller than any differences from 'B' to any other similar older fossil in the same area. Report results: 'A' and 'B' share a close common ancestor and 'B' is closely related to the ancestor of 'A'. That is the right way of going about it.

1. That is my point.. The "evidence" presupposes evolution therefore its not evidence, and if its claimed as evidence then its merely circular reasoning.
Therefore its merely assuming the conclusion..


2. I hope you see that you're essentially claiming one thing but then debunking it in the next sentence... Basically you're debating semantics.

Does coming from a common ancestor imply evolution, thus something claiming to demonstrate such be supporting evolution?


I'll ask you how in the world does similarities in fossils show that they MUST have originated from a common ancestor, yet again the conclusion is being assumed and evolution is being presupposed.

[dan4reason]

1. That is my point.. The "evidence" presupposes evolution therefore its not evidence, and if its claimed as evidence then its merely circular reasoning. Therefore its merely assuming the conclusion.. 2. I hope you see that you're essentially claiming one thing but then debunking it in the next sentence... Basically you're debating semantics. Does coming from a common ancestor imply evolution, thus something claiming to demonstrate such be supporting evolution? I'll ask you how in the world does similarities in fossils show that they MUST have originated from a common ancestor, yet again the conclusion is being assumed and evolution is being presupposed.

The question of how you determine whether two fossils are related, and whether evolution is true are very different. For the first, you have to assume evolution is true, for the second, you can't. So if we cannot determine whether two fossils are related without the theory of evolution, how are we supposed to use the fossil record to support the theory of evolution?

The answer is simple, we can use the fossil record to show evolution is true without assuming the fossils are related. Once we have confirmed the theory of evolution, then we can confirm they are related.

The theory of evolution as a scientific theory has to make predictions from what the scientific theory says, and what we know about the natural world. These predictions should later be confirmed. If they are, this is evidence for the theory. If the theory of evolution is true, and if there are many fossils, then we should see a progression in the fossil record from ancestral forms to advanced forms. Also for each groups with a good fossil record, we should find a progression of fossils from ancestral forms that looked somewhat like them to forms that looked more and more like them.

Evolutionists argue that is what we see in the fossil record. Creationists disagree. If this is what we see in the fossil record, then the fossil record can be strong evidence for evolution without assuming any two fossils are related.

[MarkForbes]

... Also for each groups with a good fossil record, we should find a progression of fossils from ancestral forms that looked somewhat like them to forms that looked more and more like them. Evolutionists argue that is what we see in the fossil record. Creationists disagree. If this is what we see in the fossil record, then the fossil record can be strong evidence for evolution without assuming any two fossils are related.

The fossil record shows remains of dead animals. Some are extinct, some aren't; some are similar, some aren't, their seems to be some sorting, but this is also a question about what the reasons for this are. What the fossil record is evidence for is perhaps the catastrophic death of a multitude of animals. And this opens up to some conclusion about this event or events that lead to this.

[dan4reason]

The fossil record shows remains of dead animals. Some are extinct, some aren't; some are similar, some aren't, their seems to be some sorting, but this is also a question about what the reasons for this are. What the fossil record is evidence for is perhaps the catastrophic death of a multitude of animals. And this opens up to some conclusion about this event or events that lead to this.

It certainly does. If the fossil record formed slowly, and we see an progression of forms as we go up through the strata, then this is evidence for evolution. If all the fossils were laid down by a quick event then this is evidence against evolution.

[usafjay1976]

Why would I assume evolution to be true? You mean scientifically true? Please provide one, just one thing in evolution that is experimental, observable, repeatable, and testable. If evolution is true, this must be easy to do.

Are you saying just because you 'observe' fossils that are similar to one another that evolution must be true?

How do you prove evolution and the fossil record by plugging in the 'experimental, observable, repeatable, and testable method'?

This doesn't have to be solely about fossils either. Use anything example from evolution to prove it as scientific fact.

[dan4reason]

Why would I assume evolution to be true? You mean scientifically true? Please provide one, just one thing in evolution that is experimental, observable, repeatable, and testable. If evolution is true, this must be easy to do. Are you saying just because you 'observe' fossils that are similar to one another that evolution must be true? How do you prove evolution and the fossil record by plugging in the 'experimental, observable, repeatable, and testable method'? This doesn't have to be solely about fossils either. Use anything example from evolution to prove it as scientific fact.

No, just because fossils are similar does not means that evolution is true. I am talking about where we find a string of fossils that are similar and are on adjascent layers of the fossil record, and form a general smooth continuum from one kind of form to another. However even here, we cannot assume they are related, or that evolution is true. However we can note that evolution predicts that it should happen, so this string of fossils confirms the predictions of evolution. Does, this prove evolution? No. But it is evidence for evolution.

Think of it this way. Lets say I talked to someone who claimed that he was from a year in the future. So I asked him to predict natural disasters in the future since he was a climatologist and followed such thing. Over the period of the year, his predictions came true. For example he predicted a flood in Cairo Egypt that will kill around 5,000 people.

The fact alone that this flood happens does not prove that this guy can predict the future. It is the fact that he predicted the event and it happened.

[gilbo12345]

No, just because fossils are similar does not means that evolution is true. I am talking about where we find a string of fossils that are similar and are on adjascent layers of the fossil record, and form a general smooth continuum from one kind of form to another. However even here, we cannot assume they are related, or that evolution is true. However we can note that evolution predicts that it should happen, so this string of fossils confirms the predictions of evolution. Does, this prove evolution? No. But it is evidence for evolution. Think of it this way. Lets say I talked to someone who claimed that he was from a year in the future. So I asked him to predict natural disasters in the future since he was a climatologist and followed such thing. Over the period of the year, his predictions came true. For example he predicted a flood in Cairo Egypt that will kill around 5,000 people. The fact alone that this flood happens does not prove that this guy can predict the future. It is the fact that he predicted the event and it happened.

I have yet to see such a smooth transition of fossils, and I assume that if one existed then it would be touted by every evolutionist I encounter.

If you are talking about Tiktaalik / Archeopteryx, they have both been debunked.


Something which would make me consider evolution would be a string of fossils which demonstrate almost each and every change that occurs... For example, in the "evolution" of bat wings.. a rodent like animal, then the same animal with slightly longer fingers, then more longer fingers, then even more longer fingers, then more longer fingers, then with some formation of membrane between the fingers, then..... etc etc etc. Yet all we do see is independant organisms which may share one or two characteristics, however is missing the "smooth transition of fossils" which would validate such a claim of evolution.

[herebedragons]

Hi usafjay ...

Evolution fails to follow the test with experiment portion of the scientific method and relies heavily on observation. My goal is to prove evolution is not science because experimentation is not conducted.

Experimental science is indeed an important part of scientific inquiry, but to claim that it is the only way to make actual scientific discoveries is erroneous. Observational science is also a very important part of scientific inquiry. Without observational science many important sciences simply would not function. For example, ecology is largely observational. Even field experiments don’t truly qualify as strictly following the scientific method. Scientific method requires that only one variable be manipulated; in ecological experiments it is hardly possible to keep all variables constant but the target variable. Other examples would be astronomy, social sciences, epidemiology, geology and economics. Controlled experiments are just not possible within these areas of study and yet they still are still considered sciences. Why?

I want to give you an example of what I think is a really fascinating scientific discovery that illustrates how observational science works.

When an electric current is run through a glass tube containing hydrogen, a blue light is emitted. When this light is passed through a prism, four distinct bands appear: 410.1nm, 434.0nm, 486.1nm and 656.2nm (there are also wavelengths in the ultra-violet and infra-red specra too). Every element has its own unique spectra and can be considered its “fingerprint.” This experiment is repeatable and quantifiable. This is the experimental portion.

Next comes the theoretical portion. The explanation for this phenomenon is that when an atom is excited (by heating with the electric current for instance), the additional energy pushes an electron into a higher energy orbital. When the electron falls back to the lower energy level, it releases that additional energy as a photon. The frequency of the photon depends on the difference in energy between the two states. This photon is what we observe as visible light.

http://en.wikipedia....ission_spectrum

Of course, this scenario is purely theoretical. No one has ever observed this actually happening on an atomic level. But the important thing about theoretical explanations is that they need to explain all the known data in the best way possible. It can’t just explain this particular phenomenon, but needs to agree with other phenomenon like chemical bonding, reactivity, etc. When new data is discovered or someone comes up with a theory that better explains the phenomenon, it eventually gets adopted. But for now, this is the best explanation we have for the phenomenon of emission spectrum.

Now we come to possibly the most important part of the scientific process: prediction. In 1868, a French astronomer observed a spectrum line at 587.49nm while observing the spectrum of the chromosphere during a solar eclipse. Initially this was assumed to be sodium which has a spectrum line at 589.3nm. Later that year, another astronomer observed the same spectra line and concluded it was not sodium, but that it must be a yet unknown element and even named this unknown element helium. This was the prediction. Helium was completely unknown and was predicted to exist solely on observed spectral evidence. In 1895, helium was isolated on Earth for the first time and guess what … it had a spectral emission at 587.49nm! The prediction was confirmed.

Experimental science is important in establishing causation. Let’s use cigarette smoking as an example. To do a true experimental study on the effects of cigarette smoke on humans to determine if it causes cancer would be unethical. We can do these types of experiments on laboratory rats and can conclude that “cigarette smoke causes cancer in laboratory rats.” But the best we can do with human studies is epidemiological studies that compare cancer rates of a group of smokers to the rates of a group of non-smokers. The best conclusions we can draw from these studies are “There is a strong correlation between smoking and cancer rates in humans” or “Cigarette smoking increases the risk of cancer.” We cannot truly establish cause without an actual controlled experiment. However, after years and years of studies and research there exists such a strong correlation between smoking and cancer that it is quite safe for us to conclude that smoking does cause cancer.

Experimental science has its disadvantages too. Just because you have an experimental study does not mean its conclusions are appropriate. For example, if you want to test a new drug that is targeted for the elderly population (to treat a disease commonly associated with the elderly, such as arthritis) and the test group you use is all in their 20’s that would be an inappropriate experimental study. Experimental studies with inappropriately manipulated parameters happen frequently. That is part of what peer-review is supposed to prevent - other experts in the field should be able to spot when experiments are inappropriately designed.

I realize that I have not provided the evidence for evolution that you wanted. I am not pretending that the evidence for evolution is conclusive, but what I wanted to do is show that there is more to science than experimental science. Observational and theoretical sciences have their place and are very important to scientific discovery. I would agree that some scientists are overzealous and jump to conclusions based on too little evidence or evidence that is very circumstantial. But this does not in any way make observational science not scientific. Science is about finding the best explanation for physical phenomenon using the tools we have available.

HBD

[dan4reason]

I have yet to see such a smooth transition of fossils, and I assume that if one existed then it would be touted by every evolutionist I encounter. If you are talking about Tiktaalik / Archeopteryx, they have both been debunked. Something which would make me consider evolution would be a string of fossils which demonstrate almost each and every change that occurs... For example, in the "evolution" of bat wings.. a rodent like animal, then the same animal with slightly longer fingers, then more longer fingers, then even more longer fingers, then more longer fingers, then with some formation of membrane between the fingers, then..... etc etc etc. Yet all we do see is independant organisms which may share one or two characteristics, however is missing the "smooth transition of fossils" which would validate such a claim of evolution.

Archeopterix has not been debunked. It is certainly not just a bird. Also I don't know why you think Tiktaalik has been debunked. Tiktaalik isn't even the only organism in the land-animal evolution sequence.

No sequences are completely smooth because fossilization is not near perfect, which is why I said generally smooth, however that might be unrealistic for most transitional records if they only include a few fossils. Also evolution is not a line of fossils, but really a bush, so while there is a general trend to one kind of form to another, if we discover side branches instead of the trunk, the transitions will look less smooth. So what we should find is a strong correlation between the strata a fossil is found and how similar it is to the recent form that exists today.

The best examples are horse evolution and human evolution. Below we see the smooth correlation between brain size and time in human evolution.

http://ncse.com/book/export/html/2201


http://www.geo.arizo...4/00lect13.html