History shows that all scientific theories change over time, as new evidence, observational capabilities, and understandings come into play. The obvious example is the transition from the geocentric theory to the heliocentric theory, and beyond via Newtonian mechanics and Relativity theory. In that sense no scientific theory is ever "complete."
The remarkable thing about Darwin's theory is it does not change; after 150+ years, it is still just as Darwin proposed it. It seems remarkably resistant to modification based on new evidence, observational capabilities, and understandings. IOW, it appears to be strikingly "complete." And yet on the other hand....
You quoted my dearest sister in Christ, Alamo-Girl:
The theory of evolution is incomplete. Darwin never asked or answered "what is life v. non-life/death in nature."I agree with her assessment. If Darwinism is a biological theory — biology being the study of life per se — Darwin's theory should address its subject matter, life. It should answer the question: What is it about living systems that makes them different from non-living systems in nature?
Both rocks and rabbits have the same material basis. What is it that causes them to be different orders of being altogether?
But Darwin's theory does not ask this question. It takes life "for granted," and goes about telling how life "speciates."
It doesn't tell us what life is; essentially, it only tells us what life "looks like," and how life forms change over time — blindly, randomly, as it were "accidentally."
Under the scenario "random mutation + natural selection," what you have is one material system in nature (an organism) undergoing mutational change, with another material system — nature, which is itself changing all the time ("evolving") — "locking" in changes in the organism that are beneficial to its survival and future reproductive capability. It is not at all clear to me by what principle the second material system (nature, itself subject to "random change") "knows" anything about the survival prospects of the first material system.
This is not a situation of "turtles all the way down". This is a situation of "accidents all the way down."
But if everything in nature is accidental — and therefore pointless, just a case of "stuff" happening — then what can we really say about it? Science doesn't deal with "accidents." It deals with discovering the bases of uniform, universal laws to which the natural world is subject.
So if all you can say about species change is that it is "accidental" — What kind of a scientific statement is that? "Accidental" to WHAT?
Which is why the more I look into it, the more I suspect that Darwin's theory is not really "scientific" — not in the way of, say, physics, which "allows" its theories to change as new insights and information warrant.
Yet it seems biologists are quite content with it; but not so much the physicists and mathematicians (including complex systems theorists and information theorists). Some of the latter see what's "missing" from Darwin's theory.
But most biologists nowadays (it seems) are highly resistant to the idea of physicists and mathematicians invading their "turf." In response to such interlopers, the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr proposed that biology should be regarded as a "sovereign science" in its own right, on an equal par with physics, just not subject to the same rules as physics.
From which I gather that biologists will go to extraordinary lengths to maintain the "credibility" of Darwinian evolutionary theory — in the face of mounting criticisms from other sectors of the science community.
Perhaps you think I'm straining on a gnat here, dear tacticalogic. But what I understand myself to be doing is searching for the logical basis of Darwin's theory; and so far, I haven't found it.
Sorry to run on so long in answering your simple question. Thank you for asking it.
The remarkable thing about Darwin's theory is it does not change; after 150+ years, it is still just as Darwin proposed it. It seems remarkably resistant to modification based on new evidence, observational capabilities, and understandings. IOW, it appears to be strikingly "complete." And yet on the other hand....
How long were were geocentric theory and Newtownian mechanics considered accepted theory before they were supplanted? You make it sound as if a theory being unchallenged for 150 years is an historic anamoly.
It does sound like you are straining to find fault.
[ Perhaps you think I’m straining on a gnat here, dear tacticalogic. But what I understand myself to be doing is searching for the logical basis of Darwin’s theory; and so far, I haven’t found it. ]
Dear Boopy;
I think I found the logical basis for Darwin’s theory..
It is his opinion...
It reminds me of the well known academic bromide, “I have my truth you have yours”..
Which obviously makes any truth an opinion..
Even at a young age when hearing this punch line I laughed..
I laughed at the poor challenged soul that drooled it..
2 + 2 is 4... any other answer is not the truth..
Charlie Darwin must not been good with his cyphers..
And dear hosepipe, your remark about "2+2=4" directly responds to tacticalogic's objections about Newtonian mechanics being stable for so long.
More specifically, 2+2=4 in base 10 - but 2+2=8 in base 3 etc. Likewise, even today Newtonian physics will get you around the planet and solar system quite well (classical level.) But if you want to look or go further, you'll need Einstein. Or if you want to delve deeper, you'll need quantum mechanics.
But physicists like other "hard science" investigators - and mathematicians - are careful to lay out their axioms or presuppositions. Einstein's Relativity takes a four dimensional space/time continuum as an axiom. Likewise, high energy particle physicists presuppose the quantum mechanical level rather than the classical or astronomical level.
But Darwin, as betty boop describes, did not define his subject, what life "is." To this day, biologists rarely speak of anything more than what life "looks like" even though that is their field of study, whatever it "is."
By comparison, physicists and mathematicians who are involved in biological systems investigations do seem to care a great deal, e.g. Rosen, Pattee. Indeed, I suspect the greatest strides in biology will come about when biologists understand and accept the mathematical implications, i.e. the Newtonian paradigm does not support the circular model of living organisms. Function (final cause) cannot be ignored.
This is exactly the dilemma I confronted (many years ago) with my double-degree-plan when I found myself in my last undergrad semester with "space" for only one four hour course in my final eighteen hours of advanced sciences. My available choices:
...or...
The answer was obvious: the solidity and mathematical rigor of thermodynamics and the physical sciences (plus solid counsel by the Holy Spirit) turned me toward a career in physical chemistry.
A full "BS-worth" of biology had failed to produce in me confidence that the Darwinian basis of modern biology had any foundation in truth that I could build on for a lifetime.
~~~~~~~~~~
Physical science won; Darwinian biology lost.
My career in physical chemistry and microtechnology was a fantastic journey of continually discovering and rejoicing in the wonder, precision, masterful design -- and plain evidence of the guiding Hand -- of our Creator!
I frankly do not believe I would have survived (with mental integrity) a career in Darwinian biology! "There's just no 'there' there..."
~~~~~~~~~~
What?!? A physical scientist who believes that God our Creator guided -- and is still actively guiding -- the development of His Creation?
Absolutely! No (as in zero) question!!
As my Jewish friends sing at Pasover, "Daiyenu!"
If my only evidence were His guiding Hand in making that single course choice -- "Daiyenu!" ("it would have been enough!")