This is something I feel I can approach from both sides of the fence. A lot of people are sayign that evolution is scientific theory or fact, but the real problem isnapos;t what is or isnapos;t scientific, but the fact that the word evolution can mean a damned lot of things.
As far as I can tell, the best way to define a useful scientific theory (as opposed to, say, string theory which is so far just a playground), it should follow this pattern. For a theory to be scientific and useful, it needs to do the following:
1. Fit the existing facts.
2. Explain said facts rationally.
3. Provide a testable prediction.
Take, for instance, newtons 3 laws of motion. Simple ideas that were easily testable. Take the theory behind the Higgs Boson. One day, weapos;ll find it, or not, or blow ourselves up trying. There are a number of laws where this is easily done.
Theories of origins are far harder to deal with. Take the Big Bang. Weapos;ve found a limit to the observable universe, and we think that we can deduce what preceeded it. However, we canapos;t see beyond that limit, and we canapos;t reproduce it in any way that leaves us around afterwards. So we have come up with cosmological theories which, while rooted in science, are not testable. In short, unless these theories can give us something to work with now (and there have been one or two predictions which we might be able to test in the next century or so), theyapos;re just string theory all over again.
Now we get to biology. Once you get beyond classification, this is a hugely convoluted science that we still barely understand the mechanics of at the base level. Unlike QCD, where practically every subatomic particle has been found, weapos;re still figuring out just what makes organisms tick at the cellular level and below. At first we thought only a small fraction of DNA was used, now weapos;ve found almost all DNA is used at some point, and now we find some genetics arenapos;t even found in DNA Every year we find some new protein, or finally figure out what this protein we found 3 years ago actually does, now we just need to figure out why.
Now, comes evolution. The basic word simply means change or progress. But in the mind of people today, it has far further reach, itapos;s how people descended from monkeys, itapos;s a lie by Satan, itapos;s apos;only a theoryapos;, etc.
As far as the origin of species and fossils go... Yeah. No real predictions can be made from that idea other than apos;it will keep on happeningapos;. How doesnapos;t really enter into it, itapos;s simply another creation story with the trappings of science instead of religion. Evolution as scientific fact is not the origin of the species. All the facts we have are fossils and genetic similarities between various forms of life which suggest a common origin. Evolution as a fact falls on this: traits that support survival to breed, and much breeding, tend to be reinforced. Exactly which traits those are change, because life doesnapos;t exist in a static system, life exists in a background of life. We can expand this logically to explain a number of methods that this could produce the world we see now.
This is not the same as proof that this happened, or even that this is a scientifically useful theory. In a highly chaotic system, we could hardly start out with the exact same starting pattern, in fact, the only realistic way we could see this to have been true in the past is to observe the past far better than we can now. We can show this to be highly likely if similar events occur, but at that point, we still have not apos;provedapos; that this is the origin of the biological diversity in the world today. We have simply seen that it caused the future diversity to come from this one.
A theory about origins cannot be scientific and useful, but it can have useful components. But all you need to show any theory wrong is one strong piece of evidence that breaks the theory. The Aether was even a useful scientific theory, it was shown to be wrong fairly easily. The seeds of its death could be found in the Maxwell equations anyways. As for evolution, all that we need is one earthly species that cannot be found related to any other to at the very least bring it into question. With hundreds of new species being found every year, and next to no information on said species, we would have to do a fairly comprehensive study of them all to get even a chance at studying this properly, such that if we came close to a genetic catalogue of 1 of all known earthly species in the next century, I would be impressed.
In short? Evolution as origin is not a useful scientific theory, let alone a fact. What it is, is a useful framework for classification. From what I learn each time I read on the subject, Iapos;m inclined to think that life is far more interesting and complex than our classifications would make it seem.
evinrude plug snowmobile, firewood kiln, firewood jersey new, firewood island long, firewood iron rack wroght.
