Isn't that just another way of saying that if something is proven it can be disproven? I think that one's a bit of a word-game. But I digress.
When a hypothesis is well supported by the evidence then it is accepted as a Theory.
But here's the problem: Sometimes a hypotheses will be accepted by some but not by others. And I realize that each side feels that they have the exclusive right to decide whether it's a hypothesis or a Theory and to denounce the other as not real scientists. But the problem still exists, and won't go away by simply pretending it doesn't exist: This is why "Science" needs a dogma -- that no non-natural first-cause happened.
Evolution happens every day.
By way of background, I grew up on a small family farm and participated in all aspects of normal animal husbandry. (Which is hardly uncommon or special, I know.) We had many livestock births but I never saw any baby that grew to be perfectly identical to either of its parents.
There are two kinds of evolution: That which I have seen and know, and that which I have not seen, and, at most, can only believe (until I see it, at which point I can then know it.)
If it didn't then last years flu shot should be just as good.
But this isn't speciation: My understanding is that an immunity is (for all practical purposes) a "blacklist" listing the serial number (DNA) of a certain virus. So the exact same "species" (if you can call a virus a species since it's not even a life form but a bad chain letter) anyway the blacklist is basically against the serial number, or DNA fingerprint. So if the same species -- which had undergone some random changes in DNA (even inactive DNA) so it had a different serial number but was basically the same kind -- were to come back again, then it'll no longer be covered under the old serial number and the old immunity will be of no use. But this is the kind of evolution that we see here and now; the same as when our cow gave birth to a calf who's DNA was not an exact perfect match. (We didn't do any cloning, needless to say.)
It is hardly history, it is a current and ongoing phenomenon.
This division of evolution is very similar to the division of "Science" vs "History": What we did not see would be history. (But history certainly may be a science.) But just because a kind of evolution is present does not mean that a different aspect of it is not history. Just like I wouldn't say that the study of ship building techniques is never history because shipbuilding exists and is practiced today.
What I never did see back on the farm was one kind changing and eventually begetting another kind. It is correct and honest for us to keep in mind the difference between what we know and what we can at best only believe.
-Jesse
At what point does this "microevolutionary" process stop, and what causes it to stop before it becomes "macroevolution."
What I never did see back on the farm was one kind changing and eventually begetting another kind.
What "kinds" are the mudskipper, the porpoise, and the penguin respectively?