sense makes sense.

Apologies if I'm mis-understanding your motive in this.

Aren't my motives beside the point anyway? What motivates someone doesn't make them right or wrong.

The incorrect reference to the UK schools issue provides support for this conclusion.

If I was wrong about that then why haven't you given a link or quote that contradicts what I said? Surely that would be better than arguing about it with nothing to go on other than the article I linked to.

However, for the moment I'll assume that you are simply asserting that evolution is not science and nothing more - full stop.

Thank you.

It is not necessary to actually verify a theory before it becomes a part of science.

Actually it is necessary to verify it before it becomes a theory, otherwise it is an hypothesis.

String theory has not been verified but maybe some day and is thus a part of science.

Maybe. I don't know enough of the details to tell whether it is purely 'metaphysical.' However, the same cannot be said of Evolution. It will always be a question of history.

Evolution on the other hand has actually been verified in laboratory conditions and has accurately predicted fossil findings.

This is where you have to be careful to separate natural selection from evolution. When I say that evolution is not a scientific theory, I am referring to the parts that go beyond natural selection as it can be tested in a lab or a broader 'experiment'. That is, things like universal common ancestry and the origin of the species.

I've seen it argued on the web that the lab experiments on evolution are invalid because they were done in the lab.

I agree that is a silly argument.

The composition of distant stars is certainly an issue for science but we obviously cannot go there and take samples. 

Perhaps not, but the theories on which such conjectures are built are scientific. Just like natural selection is scientific but extrapolating that beyond what is falsifiable is not scientific.

Beneficial mutation is another one.

Are you worried I might convert you to Christianity without you realising it? If you really believed what you are saying you would be able to show I am wrong, and my alleged motives would give you an even stronger incentive to do so. After all, you claimed that this argument is a back door for dangerous ideas. Anyone reading this might conclude that you know I am right and are leaving now before it becomes too obvious that this 'dangerous idea' has merit.

Just a link to the other interesting thread on this topic.

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1173843175

(Put it here because this thread is linked directly to freediver's essay, so is a more likely point of entry)

A simple example will clarify both the scientific method and the principle of falsifiability:-

If I make an assertion (hypothesis) that pushing a button will cause a light to turn on, I can test this by pushing the button and observing the result. So long as the light goes on when I push the button my hypothesis is good and scientific. However there is no guarantee that the light will always go on when I push the button. My hypothesis can be falsified by somebody who can demonstrate a situation where pushing the button does not cause the light to go on. They can falsify my hypothesis. They may do this by gaining insight into why the light goes on when the button is pushed and then doing something to break the circuit. They have produced a more complex model (hypothesis) and found it to be a better description of the observed nature. My original theory may still be quite adequate in most everyday situations, but the more complex theory, developed by adding new knowledge to my original theory, is more accurate.

The scientific method is simply a process of creating a hypothesis, testing it, and then REVISING the hypothesis in light of the data acquired, then testing again, etc. It is a continuous process of testing and revising. Adaptability is CRITICAL if any theory is to maintain relevance as new data is accumulated. The fact that we still give credit to Darwin for laying the foundation for current thinking is testimony to the degree to which his ideas are still respected as good scientific contributions.

Falsifiability is a principle which has been claimed discriminates between a useful scientific contribution and one which is a useless pseudo-scientific "catch-all". It is all about how a hypothesis is presented. It is about making a claim which divides the world into true and false statements which contain useful information. From my example above, so long as the light always goes on when the button is pushed, then this theory allows a technician to build a useful device. However, once the theory has been falsified (perhaps his device malfunctions), then the technician can no longer built his device with confidence until he has a new theory which remains true under the necessary conditions. All that is necessary for a hypothesis to be falsifi-ABLE- is for it to be presented in a manner which can (in theory) be disproven.

The gull example provides empirical evidence that it is possible for a single gene-pool (ie. single species) to contain sufficient variation to allow it (in theory) to divide into two distinct species. If you wanted to (possibly) falsify this claim, all you would have to do is kill all the intervening birds yourself and observe the result. The existing observed knowledge gives a very good prediction of what the end result would probably be - two distinct species created from one.

Darwin's hypothesis could in theory be disproven by demonstrating that the mechanisms he describes do not work, either by finding fault with his explanations, or by demonstrating that other mechanisms are actually responsible for the things he has observed. Some people believe in spontaneous creation as an alternative to Darwin's claims. If they could demonstrate this to be true they would have falsified Darwin. The fact is that improved variations on Darwin's claims are regarded as the best explanation of the origin of species, using the available evidence. That is exactly what science is about.

At this point, freediver, I need to ask - what exactly is this "Theory of Evolution" you are referring to. I began this discussion by making some falsifiably specific assertions about my understanding of your position. You haven’t contested (falsified) them, as yet:-

(i) (Micro) Evolution *is* a valid scientific model.
(ii) Natural Selection *is* a valid scientific model.
(iii) Darwin's explanation of the mechanisms which give rise to species differentiation *is not* a valid scientific model. These mechanisms are (i) and (ii).
(iv) Beneficial Mutation is not scientific. I've not mentioned this one before, but include it here for completeness – I think it’s covered by (i) and (ii).

Are the above correct? If not, I'd appreciate a (falsifiable) statement outlining your conception of a "Theory of Evolution" and what exactly is not falsifiable.

Popper's principle of FALSIFIABILITY was intended to identify pseudo-scientific statements, and yes, ADAPTABILITY is a relevant concept, however the kinds of adaptations he was concerned about were those which were the result of ambiguous terminology or statements which could be endlessly RE-INTERPRETED in response to new information. The key thing to note is that this principle does not refer to the replacement of an old theory with a new one (which is good science, as we have both said), but refers to shifting the goal posts (of definitions and interpretations) in order to keep an old theory intact. The classic examples of pseudo-science are Astrology, where ambiguity and subjectivity allow simple "predictions" to be "validated" at will, and Freudian dream analysis, which produces subjective conclusions which can never be evaluated objectively. Darwin's theory on the origin of species, on the other hand, makes clear objective statements which can in theory be falsified.

If Darwinian theory is generally regarded as scientifically sound (as it is), then ANY speculation about falsification must by definition be hypothetical. Unless you have a REAL alternative hypothesis, you cannot do an experiment to disprove a theory, this is true. This is why I provided examples of REAL alternative hypotheses which you could investigate experimentally, if inclined. Here are some again; expose errors in Darwin's reasoning, demonstrate evidence of spontaneous creation, demonstrate evidence of divine creation, demonstrate evidence of non-genetic evolution, etc. You could do empirical tests to try to reveal any of these phenomena, but my guess is that people have already tried and failed. This is why Darwin's theory remains unfalsified - but still sufficiently specified to enable technically FALSIFYING hypotheses to be formulated. Just invent your own alternative hypothesis and do some experimentation. Simply observing nature is an experiment.

Just to be clear, it is good science to replace an old theory with a new one - the important thing is that a scientific theory must be the one that agrees best with observed nature. If, however, an old theory is sufficiently useful that it can be retained as a subset of a new theory (subject to certain conditions or modifications) then that old theory might retain some value or recognition. Retaining vestiges of the old theory is not scientific, but nostalgic, or practical. If the new theory is sufficiently close to the old theory such that the changes are minimal or evolutionary in nature, then the new theory could (perhaps unscientifically, but very practically) be regarded as an adaptation or revision of the old. This is the form of adaptability I was referring to in my example (as is clear from the carefully worded context). This point is more relevant to Kuhn’s notion of scientific paradigms than Popper’s notion of falsifiability, although it is worth noting that Popper was inspired by Darwinism, and saw the progress of science as an evolutionary process akin to “survival of the fittest”.

(BTW - The gull example relates directly to assertion (iii) above. The gulls are an example of a ring species and not two (or more) distinct species. New species of fruit flies have also been created experimentally by evolutionary processes under laboratory conditions.)

I don't see why you are so insistent in separating natural selection and evolution freediver? Natural selection is a part of evolutionary theory.

The way I see it, evolution in all its ambiguity is surely a true scientific statement, that is: things change with time.

What are some specific ambiguities of evolution that are not natural selection ad taught in schools?

As far as I'm aware, what you call natural selection is simply what 99% of people see as evolution, this seems to be no more that a rather elaborate argument about how we define two terms?

The way I see it, evolution in all its ambiguity is surely a true scientific statement, that is: things change with time.

People knew that things change before the theory of evolution showed up. There is more to it than that.

What are some specific ambiguities of evolution that are not natural selection ad taught in schools?

Universal common ancestry. Beneficial mutations. The origin of the spceies. They aren't ambiguities, but you get the picture....

As far as I'm aware, what you call natural selection is simply what 99% of people see as evolution, this seems to be no more that a rather elaborate argument about how we define two terms?

I wouldn't say it's 99%. It is not a way to define the terms. The terms were already defined this way. Obviously if you leave the terms undefined the argument becomes circular. I think that I have hit on the general understanding of natural selection and evolution in choosing the definitions.

not all scientific theories are falsifiable, this is why we use the term 'theory'

Yes they are, by definition. Falsifiable does not mean wrong. It means testable. Not sure if that's the reason you had in mind.

you carry on about the inherant flaws of evolution, then propose an equally ambiguous and flawed model and claim it to be superior to evolution for no logical reason other than what seems to be a desire to reconcile christian beliefs into natural selection

No, the object was to undermine the common argument that evolution is scientific because it is the best explanation, and to point out the philosophical limitations of non-scientific theories.

I'll side with the vast majority of researchers and scientists across the globe on this issue thanks.

The vast majority of scientists relegate it to natural history.

Evolution has produced falsifiable experiment: natural selection, you even agree that natural selection is scientific

Basing a theory in part on a scientific theory does not make it scientific. There are plenty of crackpot theories around that are based in part on accepted scientific theories and laws.

Common ancestry has been found to be quite an acceptable model that has evidence to support it. Example, my natural science major friend has told me about some species of tree that were scientifically demonstrated to be separate species

Perhaps, but it is not a scientific theory. Also, you left out the universal bit.

Beneficial mutation is a spurious interpretation of evolutionary theory there freediver.

No it isn't. It is the currently accepted version of the theory of evolution - punctuated equilibria.

It is and always was thought that mutation occurred as a result of survivability

No it wasn't.

natural selection is the model used to describe the processes of evolution

Part of the theory. They are not the same thing remember.

if you agree with one you agree with both because they are different aspects of the same thing

That doesn't make sense. You don't have to accpet one just because you accept the other. They are different. Furthermore this is not a question of whether you agree with them. It is a question of whether they are scientific.

This is not true, many evolutionary theorists believe that evolution tends towards rapid and isolated bursts of change, which you acknowledge is supported by the fossil evidence.

They believed that after the evidence failed to back up the original predictions.

except that this is what you do with scientific theories, you take the evidence and modify your theory if you have to to support the evidence.

No it isn't.

Einstein did not come up with his theories through deduction and prediction, he created maths that fitted the known evidence.

Actually there was no evidence at the time, and there is still very little evidence. Not that this is relevant to the topic.

His contribution was unusual in that it's necessity arose through contradictions inherent to Newtonian mechanics, even though the technology did not yet exist to demonstrate those contradictions.

Your ark theory is no better than evolution

Except that it fits the available evidence better.

in fact not only is it just as lacking in all the things you slam evolution for

I actually pointed this out in the article. I think you missed the point of the ark theory.

it defies scientific reason by suggesting that all organisms just always have been here

there is nothing scientific in either reasoning.

So what about before? Faith? God put us here?

Those are not scientific questions.

How does this have more scientific merit than a a theory that proposes a scenario that could have occurred without divine intervention?

Lack of necessity for devine intervention is not a scientific merit. Science is based on evidence, not preferred world view.