Evolution doesn't fit, as a term or as a theory

[Gerry]

I might be getting this all wrong.
Are you saying that Evolution doesn't fit into the COMMONLY accepted definition of the word theory?

By this you mean:

the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage a theory is not necessarily based on facts...

.

If you are saying that Evolution does not fit into that definition then I think we have made a break through! Clearly the "theory" in the theory of Evolution does not fit into the above defined term.
It is more like this:

Scientists use a scientific method to investigate phenomena and acquire knowledge. They base the method on verifiable observation — i.e., on empirical evidence rather than on pure logic or supposition — and on the the principles of reasoning.[1][2] Scientists propose explanations — called 'hypotheses' — for their observed phenomena, and perform experiments to determine whether the results accord with (support) the hypotheses or falsify them. They also formulate 'theories' that encompass whole domains of inquiry, and which bind supported hypotheses together into logically coherent wholes.

(Source: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Scientific_method(

This is what I got for Scientific Theory from Wikipedia:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession.

(Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science)

Have I got it right this time jack?

[jackwellman]

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

Of several competing theories, one theory may be superior to another in terms of its approximation of reality. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that predict further testable facts.

"[i]In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession[/i This is there way of basically saying, we could be wrong.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science

[Gerry]

Let's freeze this post. I haven't examined it in detail, but at present I can't see too much to argue with. Give me a bit of time and I could be happy to use the contents of this post as a starting point for further dissection of certain Scientific Theories!

[jackwellman]

I agree, if we can have further "dissections' of your theory on origins.

[Evolved yet?]

Thanks TruthSeeker, for putting it so well. The "mountain" that evolutions use as "proff" is the proverbial mole hill, in fact, I would call it more like gohper hole, since there is no real scientic evidence for it. It stand's on theory, it trumpets transition, it credits biological changes over time (not caring that there is no fossil records to support such theory) and so it is like a paper tiger. Not even three dimensional.

And Darwin only spoke of the "origin's of the species", not the origin of life or the origin of matter. Evolution can not explain how everything came from nothing. Evolution's theory (still a theory after 125 years, wow!) doesn't address how everything came into existence. By sheer logic, their had to be a cause for the effect. Effects do not cause themselves, therefore there must have been some Causer. It takes an incredibly larger amount of (blind) faith to believe in evolution and all matter and life coming into existence out of nothingness, that it does to believe in an Intelligent Creator, which would explain everthing.

The missing link is not important when the entire chain is missing! Show me the money! They have not, because they can not.

On transitional Fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Abiogenesis is totally different then evolution it is a different topic and a different field of study.

[Evolved yet?]

You stated that " 'A fact means something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples.' National Academy of Sciences U.S. "

Where has evolution ever been sucessfully tested or observed "so many times" that we can say it passed the acid test of science: it's definition being what is "Observable, repeatable, and measurable"?

If it has been tested so many times and there is compelling reason to accept it, then why, after 150 years, still referred to a the theory of evolution. Because after that long looking thru half a million by now fossils, all catagorized and documented, they can not provide one chain of at transitional fossils, from one specie into another. Evolutionists will have to do better than provide one alledged link, since the entire chain is missing.

The same could be said of theories: If theories are facts, then they wouldn't be called theories, they'd be called facts!

It is observable, observed, repeatable and repeated.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

[Evolved yet?]

I have checked Bubble Theory and it was the another one (of many) theories, which when explaining it, mentioned again and again, it was another hypothesis. One after the other.

I still have not heard one, rationale explanation (only theories) as to why don't we find fossils of the ancestors of Cambrian animals? Evolutionists often say it is because the creatures they evolved from were too soft to fossilize. But this excuse will not do. Jellyfish are some of the softest creatures of all, and yet they have been found as fossils! The most sensible reason why we don't find transitional fossils of the ancestors of the Cambrian creatures is that they never existed!

The entire set of unique body plans ever created is represented in all rocks bearing substantial numbers of animal fossils. The ‘Cambrian’ creatures, many of which are now extinct, are not ‘primitive ancestors’ to today’s, but are complex creatures in their own right. There remains no trace of evolutionary ancestors in the transitory fossil records, even after130 years of looking. There is not one single set of transition fossils of any kind of species that has ever been found. Spending time looking for a “missing link” is pointless when the entire chain is missing! You will not find this answer on wikopedia as to "why don't we find fossils of the ancestors of the Cambrian animals?" , and I suppose if wikopedia doesn't help you this time, you can always Googe.

Here's Wikipedia's evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_biota

[Evolved yet?]

I am only saying that I have less faith in evolution to explain the apprearance of life than Creation. This is far more credible, since evolution has not just a few problems (ie, lack of fossil evidence), it's major problems [and why it's harder to accept this theory than what you might call Creation Theory]. One of the biggest problems with evolution is that it can not swim up stream against the torrent of downstream scientific laws and facts.

Here's one major problem. Charles J. Smith, a biologist, stated, “The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the second law classically refers to isolated [closed] systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy [an increase in useable energy]), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology” (“Problems with Entropy in Biology,” Biosystems, Volume 1, 1975).

In "Life: An Introduction to Biology", Mr. Smith states, “But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. “Particular work” is more than just raw energy; it is focused. Of course, there must be energy, but that energy must be directed. It cannot simply be a “bull in a china shop.” Such uncontrolled, undirected energy will never build—it always and only destroys! Plants or animals left in sunlight demonstrates that, over time, undirected, raw energy deteriorates and destroys. DNA[ mutations by ultraviolet light [energy] destroy the DNA's genetic code and can injure or kill the organism, not improve it's ability to survive. There must also be a mechanism to convert energy into the form required for a specific application. Without a conversion, there is nothing more than raw, unbridled energy that destroys [ie, the bull].

When ever an animal runs out of energy it does decrease in complexity but there is a little thing that continues to input more energy into the Earth it's called The Sun!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

[Evolved yet?]

Can we have a real debate with real evidence with less usage of old useless arguments such as thermodynamics( I answered that too many times).
There is too much usage of the "no transitional fossils" question which appears is only used to waste time that could be spent refuting and debating stupidity at it's highest.

[jackwellman]

I see that you can not answer the transitional fossils questions because this is the achilles heel of archeological evidence. I guess it is too much because you can not answer it.