Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is a scientific theory in that it explains and predicts data. Science is useful in that it provides replicable information about the natural world through attributing natural causes to natural phenomena. All scientific progress in terms of knowledge and technology has been dependent upon exactly that, using natural causes to explain natural phenomena.
Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is absolutely useless, and provides nothing in the way of replicable information about the natural world. Attributing supernatural causes to natural phenomena is an intellectual dead end that leads to no further information.
Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is....
Observable: DNA cannot be replicated with 100% fidelity, thus change in the DNA of a population is inevitable. Those variations that provide a survival advantage will mathematically predominate in subsequent generations. We see this in thousands of experiments.
Testable: If I plate a single bacterial colony derived from one individual on ten plates, and subject them to ten different stresses, changes in DNA in each population will result in greater survivability to the subjected stress.
Repeatable: Try the above again and you see the same results - heat stress leads to evolution of heat resistance - cold stress leads to evolution of cold resistance - antibiotic stress leads to evolution of antibiotic resistance. Every time a novel antibiotic is put out in the environment resistance to that antibiotic develops among subjected bacterial populations. Repeatably.
Falsifiable: If we discovered an organism that could stay exactly 100% the same in DNA, or you could show that variations in DNA had no impact on survivability and fecundity, or you could show that DNA that decreased survivability and fecundity was just as likely to predominate in subsequent generations as a DNA variation that increased survivability and fecundity - then the theory would be falsified.
Thanks for your reply allmendream. I’m not one for lengthy posts but I’m afraid this will have to be one.
First of all, I notice that you didn’t respond to my question about evolutionists (ok, I’ll refrain from the term secular science) having a priori assumptions. I’m a voracious reader on this subject and I can tell you that scientists readily admit that they have them…. The big bang, common ancestry, a mudpuddle that came out of nowhere, a gene that made itself and then came to life. These are elements of circular reasoning…. “Evolution is true and there is no Creator, so here’s how it must have happened.”
To your first point… (observable). You went to great lengths to explain to me about natural selection. Natural selection can only select from traits that already exist….. when short-haired dogs die off in the Yukon, leaving predominantly long-haired dogs (because they have a survival advantage) there is no new information added that would have a dog evolve into something else.
What you’re doing here is throwing the word “change” around. Change within a species does not prove that an amoeba became a human being. What it proves is that existing genetic information can be switched on or off based on environment. No argument there….you do see that in thousands of experiments.
The theory of evolution says that all species of bacteria, plant, animal and human go back to a common ancestor….. That allmendream is not even remotely observable, nor is it testable, nor is it repeatable and it would be impossible for anyone to falsify it.
Your second point, (testable) is built on your first point so I’ll just ask you to describe to me how you would test the hypothesis that a gene in a mudpuddle became a human being. You’d have to set up a test that shows that massive gains in genetic information took place. The current story being told by evolutionists is that natural selection acting upon mutations is the mechanism for evolution from goo to you. The problem is that mutations (observably…. in science labs all over America) have never been shown to add information to the genome, they either cause information loss or they are information neutral.
Since gains in genetic information have never been observed, the information for all living things would have had to have been in that first gene….. now there’s a leap of faith. (Did I say faith?)
In your third point, (repeatable) you talk about antibiotic resistance. On the surface, that appears to be a good argument…. It is one that is used constantly by those on your side of the aisle. The truth is (when observed in the science lab) resistance has always been shown to be the result of a loss of genetic information, not a gain.
Here’s how it works ( I learned this from a friend who has a PhD in microbiology… really smart guy). The antibiotic is absorbed through the wall of the cell, it reacts with an already existing enzyme to create a poison that kills the bacteria. If there is existing bacteria that has lost that enzyme (mutation…. Loss of genetic info) then the antibiotic doesn’t create the poison to kill the bacteria. Therefore the remaining bacteria are all mutants on whom the antibiotic will not work. The answer then is that the antibiotic resistance occurs in a population of bacteria, not in individuals. It is not that the individual develops something to fight off the bacteria (which would be evolution in action if it were true), it is that some bacteria already lack the enzyme that serves as the agent to create the poison.
Your final point (falsifiable) relates to falsifying change. I can’t. All of science agrees that there is change. What is impossible for me to falsify is that evolutionary tale about a gene creating itself in a mudpuddle and then transforming itself over billions of years until I showed up. If you can come up with a way to test that, please let me know.
Let me just sit on the point about genetic information before I close. One of the laws of Information Theory is that information always comes from an intelligent source. It has never been observed to have created itself in matter.
In fact, by dictionary definition, information is conveyed from one person to another, so is code. Evolutionists should have to come up with another term…. Information is an improper word to define what they say happened…. Code came from nowhere.
Bill Gates made the comment a while back that DNA is like a computer program only far more complex than any software ever created. Atheists/Evolutionists would never believe that a computer could program itself (actually first it would have to create itself and then program itself) but they somehow believe that something infinitely more complex did just that.
The truth is that evolution - the kind they are teaching in the classroom, from nuttin’ to us humans is a philosophy because it can’t be tested or falsified…. If you are going to teach philosophy in science class then you should allow the problems with the theory to be brought up as well. You don’t have to teach creation in order to show the warts that are all over the hag called evolution.
That’s what education used to be about, right? Critical thinking?
What it is today is “swallow this and then regurgitate it back to me”. That’s really sad.
Blessings to you allmendream.