[angryoldfatman]

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 questions”, 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.

[angryoldfatman]

But let’s say for the sake of argument that Darwinian theory is solid and true. Where does that leave us?

We are mere animals, doomed to extinction at some point in the course of our universe’s continued churning.

This is inevitable. If our lives were ultimately formed by the bumping together of atoms and molecules (and the products thereof) for eons upon eons, then it will end the same way.

Thus, science is futile and ultimately useless.

Therefore, your arguing about whether this little sticking point or that little mote of science is absolutely and positively precise and accurate is a futile, useless gesture that is a waste of time and space.

And if science is the crowning achievement of mankind, then that makes mankind essentially a waste of time and space, as is anything and everything that exists. Existence falls to non-existence, thus waste.

Too bad, so sad. Must be a real bummer to believe all that. And if you don’t agree with even a small part of that, you are either inconsistent or delusional.

Hmmm, that last part sounds familiar, doesn’t it? ;-)

[BroJoeK]

angryoldfatman: "You'[re not talking to some bucktoothed hick off of the street in Bugtussle, South Alabamissipina."

So you say.

angryoldfatman: "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."

No, Evolution Theory makes many confirmed predictions, none ever scientifically falsified.

Here is a listing of some confirmed evolution predictions.

angryoldfatman: "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."

But biological classifications (i.e., Kingdom, Phylum, Order, Class, etc.) have been around for centuries, with steadily improving definitions and sorting.
To cite one example, just in recent years it was discovered there are not two but three basic domains of life: Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya.
At the detailed end of the scale, DNA analysis has shuffled many populations from separate species to sub-species or even genera, based on the percentages of similar DNA and their ability (or lack of) to interbreed.

Point is, as the data becomes more finite, classifications steadily improve.
So why is that a problem for you?

angryoldfatman: "Hell, there's not even evidence of one in the fossil record, strictly speaking."

Of course there is, the fossil record is chock-full of such evidence.
Of course, if you refuse to see it, that's your choice, see whatever you wish -- or don't wish -- to see.
Just don't call what you do see "science".

angryoldfatman: "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..."

Wacky, improbable?
How improbable is it that on a hillside, rabbit fossils wash down the hill and get reburied below those of trilobites?
Sounds to me entirely ordinary & common, and evidence for it should be looked for in any fossil dig.

So far from being a challenge to the fundamentals of science, its just one of those things you have to watch for.

Less common, but also frequently noted, when landmasses collide -- i.e., Italy with Europe (Alps), or India with Asia (Himalayas), younger strata are sometimes forced underneath older geological layers.
Again, this does not challenge science itself, it's just one of those things you have to watch and account for.

angryoldfatman: "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!'."

Well, well....
You know, don't you, that science is a discipline, a school of thought, and to some degree at least, a brotherhood.
Science accepts pretty much anybody who will accept the discipline, learn the schools and join the brotherhood.
People who do that can be called "scientists" almost regardless of how humble their scientific work may be.

But people who don't will be dismissed outright and ridiculed if they persist in the public error of calling their own ideas "scientific".
As you might imagine, scientists feel obligated to both define what they consider valid science, and defend it against non-scientific claims.

Which is far from saying that all of science is "doctrine" or that "settled science" can never be unsettled.
Of course it can be, and frequently is, but only by other scientists with better data or ideas.

angryoldfatman: "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."

I did that, so now all your questions are answered, right?
;-)

angryoldfatman: "Like, what is a species?"

That's easy: consider the three biological classifications together: sub-species, species and genus.

• Sub-species within a single species can and often do interbreed with other subspecies, producing viable offspring.
  It is now said, for example, that Neanderthals were a sub-species of homo-sapiens.

• Species are defined as similar populations which do not normally interbreed in the wild, but can sometimes be forced in captivity.
  The Zebra genus, for example, includes three different species with eight sub-species among them.
  Sub-species do interbreed, species do not, normally.

• Different genera of the same biological family will not only refuse to interbreed, they cannot be forced to in captivity, because their DNAs are just too different.
  A good example is African versus Indian Elephants.

angryoldfatman: "What has neo-Darwinism predicted for a particular species (pick one, if you can find a hard definition)?"

See my link posted above.

angryoldfatman: "My next post will change the focus a bit onto the true crux of the issue, in my opinion."

I'll wait.