So how can evolution be examined by the scientific method? Each time I try to ask scientific questions to evolutionists here all I get is rhetoric. What is the proof of evolution - scientifically wise?
Well, I don't exactly like labels, and I don't know if I fit your category of "evolutionist," but I'll try to answer. Mind you, I'm no expert on evolution or biology. But I do know something about the scientific process.
The scientific process requires that there be a testable, predictive, reproducible theory. If I had a billion years, I could rigorously test the Theory of Evolution. I could impose pressure on an ecosystem, and predict its response. For instance, I could heat the ecosystem by 10 degrees C, and expect to see an increase in hairless critters. I could do that same experiment a few times, and the theory could be supported if the results fit my prediction.
I don't have a billion years. I may not have more than a couple hundred before I shuffle off. So I can't do that experiment. On its surface, therefore, the Theory of Evolution cannot be tested.
However, that may not be true. Those involved in looking at various aspects of the large, complex Theory of Evolution, have been able to make predictions about some archeological finds which would turn up. For instance, there was a search for a "Missing Link." Many such Missing Links have been found, in fact. (With each find, the search for a Missing Link looked for one with a smaller difference between two similar species.)
Secondly, many biologists would argue, I believe, that we have seen evolution at work within our lifetimes. In response to the pressure of antibiotics, many species of bacteria have changed, to develop a resistance. That observation is entirely in line with the predictions of the Theory of Evolution. As I said, I'm no expert, but I can make a scientific prediction, based on the concepts in the Theory of Evolution: If humans continue to misuse antibiotics, bacteria will continue to change -to evolve- to the point where very few of the currently known crop of antibiotics will have any value at all.
In contrast, there is no prediction, no experimentation, no reproducibility in the "Intelligent Design" concept. Intelligent Design is a fully valid viewpoint in the field of Philosophy (which is where it was originally proposed, and which is the field in which it has been subjected to the Peer Review Process). But without the standard tests of science, it cannot be viewed as a scientific theory.
You will check back in 20 years, I hope, to view the results of my experiment? Thank you.
Sounds like a very interesting experiment! However, don't think I will hang around that long to see if it works! :)
Problem also is that if it took that long to get hairlessness, I do not think the few billion years of life on earth would be sufficient to turn a bacteria into a man. However, there is one other problem with saying that "evolution did it" in such an experiment. We know very well that humans (and all species) are highly adaptable. This is already in our genes. There is a tremendous amount of redundancy in human biology as well as in the species as a whole. This adaptability could be the cause of such a change.
"I believe, that we have seen evolution at work within our lifetimes. In response to the pressure of antibiotics, many species of bacteria have changed, to develop a resistance. That observation is entirely in line with the predictions of the Theory of Evolution. As I said, I'm no expert, but I can make a scientific prediction, based on the concepts in the Theory of Evolution: If humans continue to misuse antibiotics, bacteria will continue to change -to evolve- to the point where very few of the currently known crop of antibiotics will have any value at all."
The above is a very common misconception of what evolution is. It is due to Darwin's willfull misrepresentations. As proof for his theory he gave common examples of small adaptations. However, for man to have descended from bacteria, there would have been a need for very large changes in the organism, in fact, what would have been needed should not even be called changes, it should be called transformations. The above are examples of small changes, not transformations.