Angryoldfatman: “...after all of the junk science I’ve seen (’climate change’ being the most recent and prominent of it), and seeing the similar arguments used to support neo-Darwinian evolution (percentage of scientists’ consensus, settled science, evidence provided by vested interests, etc.), it leads me to my conclusion.”
In the world of scientific terminology, AGW — anthropogenic global warming — qualifies as an unconfirmed, or at best, weakly confirmed **hypothesis**, since it has not yet accurately predicted future climate.
By sharp contrast, Darwin’s basic evolution **theory** is confirmed daily by many scientists working in related fields.
So, the fact that you can concoct questions which have not been answered does not negate the theory, just points to areas for future research.
The scientific term for disproving a theory is “falsification” and generally refers to new evidence which is contrary to the theory ‘ s predictions.
Basic evolution theory has never been falsified scientifically.
Angryoldfatman: “How much study do you need to answer some of the most basic questions that underpin the theory?”
OK... let me ask you a favor.
Please take a few minutes to write down what you imagine are these “basic questions”, and then rank them in your mind from most important on down.
I’ll answer them, and let’s see where that leads.
Angryoldfatman : “Should we be calling academics “scientists†when they simply pull “sexual selection†out of their hats when they can’t explain a trait that (logically) should have been eradicated by natural selection?”
Can you be more specific?
Angryoldfatman : “the methods by which those hoaxes permeated and endured in scientific academia is the most instructive part of those incidents.”
In fact, you mentioned three examples, all from 100+ years ago, two of which were frauds, one a controversy since resolved.
Of the two frauds, one was very quickly exposed, the other, Piltdown Man, took some years to fully understand, but 8n the end had no effect on our overall picture of prehistoric times.
So I don’t “get” why you still think it’s such a big deal.
Now I’m out of time, more later....
In the world of scientific terminology, AGW — anthropogenic global warming — qualifies as an unconfirmed, or at best, weakly confirmed **hypothesis**, since it has not yet accurately predicted future climate.
By sharp contrast, Darwin’s basic evolution **theory** is confirmed daily by many scientists working in related fields.
So, the fact that you can concoct questions which have not been answered does not negate the theory, just points to areas for future research.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I know the difference between “theory” and “hypothesis”, thanks. You’re not talking to some bucktoothed hick off of the street in Bugtussle, South Alabamissipina. So no need to bring up old saws you’ve pulled from the Website Talking Point Handbook of Arguing with Bible-Thumping Chucklechumps.
Your claim of climate change predicting nothing can also be applied to Neo-Darwinism. Darwinian theory has predicted nothing that has been observed in realtime.
Selection pressures on microorganisms, yes. Speciation? There’s not even an agreed upon definition of species, much less an observation of one emerging in realtime.
Hell, there’s not even evidence of one in the fossil record, strictly speaking. If there was, Gould and Eldredge would not be (or have been) considered scientists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The scientific term for disproving a theory is “falsification†and generally refers to new evidence which is contrary to the theory ‘ s predictions.
Basic evolution theory has never been falsified scientifically.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s never been falsified, like climate change, because as soon as you kick the football through the goalposts, the referees move the goalposts and declare your touchdown null and void.
The Pre-Cambrian rabbit is the old saw you’re looking for here. If we found rabbit bones underneath trilobites, there goes Darwinism, right?
Wrong.
There’d be an ad hoc explanation of why those bones were there which would consist of some wacky improbable narrative, at which point the data point could be safely discarded and confirmation bias could once again reign supreme.
Just like climate change.
And then anybody who points out how wacky or improbable the narrative is then gets called stupid, ignorant, and/or insane, declared persona non grata in anything to do with science, unlike “97% of scientists who agree this is true and properly scientific because... science!”.
Just like climate change.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK... let me ask you a favor.
Please take a few minutes to write down what you imagine are these “basic questionsâ€, and then rank them in your mind from most important on down.
I’ll answer them, and let’s see where that leads.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, you’re the one who claimed that I asked questions that were unanswerable (or didn’t have an answer). So list and handle those.
In addition to that, I’ve implied a couple above. Like, what is a species? What has neo-Darwinism predicted for a particular species (pick one, if you can find a hard definition)?
But this is fairly boring, how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin type of stuff. My next post will change the focus a bit onto the true crux of the issue, in my opinion.