Not at all. This would only be true if the existance of evolutionary theory hinged purely on fossil evidence. In point of fact, it does not. The evidence for evolutionary theory is genetic, which rules out fossils as proof. So, what are the fossils good for? Fossils serve to verify the predictions made by evolutionary theory, thus fulfilling one of the pre-requisites for scientific methodology.

But if the fossils themselves cannot be fully relied upon, then cannot it be seen that one is simply using the (questionable) data obtained through them to back up an equally unverifiable hypothesis?

As I said though, I am not against evolution. It may very well be that it is true. But to set evolution up as inarguable fact is a fallacy, which I am against.

It isn't so qustionable as it is possible to extract fragmented DNA samples from some fossil. I fail to see why we cannot use fossil evidence to back up the theory of evolution? Science is not the search for the absolute, yes I agree that the TOE is incomplete, and any honest sceptic will agree, but it is generally agreed that the underlying mechanism is accurate and true.

The underlying mechanism is change through mutation and diversification through exchange of genetic information. Beneficial changes are retained by the species and through process of time accumulates, some species through major changes may split off from the original species, this process is called speciation.

Nope. The fossils are verifying that an event that was predicted by evolutionary theory most likely occurred. Let's take your encyclopedia example: The Encyclopedia Theory is making the claim that the books existed by showing how currently existing data evolved from a collection of such books in the past. That theory must stand on its own merit. Now, one of the pre-requisites of scientific methodology is that it must be able to predict certain phenomena related to itself. In this case, one of the logical predictions would be that there should be some remains of these globally traveled books somewhere. The discovery of the fragments that you spoke about, even as miniscule as they are, prove (once verified, of course), that the books existed, at least in that form. The fragments do not, in and of themselves, form a significant part of the Encyclopedia Theory, but rather serve as a verification that the theory is correct, by being predicted by it.

I hope that made sense. Please tell me if you would like to elaborate.




Without a doubt. After all, a theory that is inarguable would violate one of the pre-requisites of scientific methodology, thus rendering it non-scientific. It would violate the rule of falsifiability. That being said, confusing evolution with the individual theories that make it up is also incorrect, and that the a norm among creationists.

Well it has been my experience that you are in the minority by saying this. Most advocates of evolution (at least that I've noticed) cling to the infallibility of their belief. Oh they concede they may not have the exact details right (Big Bang or any number of different theories), but they cling to the belief that evolution has so much proof to back it up that it cannot be anything but absolutely true.

Well, for all intents and purposes, they are correct. The only way to show that evolution is incorrect is to falsify everything that makes up evolutionary theory, and that would mean significant potion of the entire field of science.

The only reason I speak as I do is because I have made a habit of it. Even in the regular scientific community, the phenomena of evolution is taken as a fact; there is simply no reason to think of it as anything else. The preponderance of evidence completly supports the mutation of the genome through generations.

Ultimately, I would say that it isn't so much evolutionists clinging to the infallibility of their beliefs, but rather, evolutionists knowing what "falsifiability" is, and what it's role in showing a theory incorrect is. When a creationist, who hasn't the foggiest notion of what falsifiability is, attempts to discredit evolution in some simpler, ineffective way, evolutionists can't help but become defensive, as it seems that it isn't an actual attempt at falsification (which is respectable in and of itself), but simply an attempt to cast doubt without support (which seems more sneaky than honest).

I don't know how far this discussion has gone, but I really don't think anyone can prove anything, nor the existence of god nor the evolution. We live too short of a lifespan to comprehend the overwhelming time aspect of e.g. evolution...

The evolution is basically bound to one small detail, and that's mutation. For mutations to fully "evolve" takes thousands of generations, millions of years... it's nothing that we can possibly put in perspective with our narrow kind of thinking and with out mental limitations.

Who can really say that it HAPPENS...or that it ISN'T possible?

It is pretty unlikely that a man from the skies created earth 6000 years ago in six days... that's children or campfire stories somehow grown into a mass religion called christianity and collected into the book they call Bible.
But then again, who can tell?
As an "non-believer", I believe I have an open mind. I could say "really, why not" for the most of things....even god's existence.

One thing is for sure, we don't know one god damn thing about anything.

Okay, enough with the "evolution has never been observed" already!

Evolution is the mutation of the genome through generations, not necessarily through millions of years. There are plenty of creatures on this planet who go through generations that allow us to observe speciation within months. The fruit fly is the preffered guinea pig because its generations are measured in days, making it ideal for semester length experiments.

Yes, speciation has been observed. It continous to be observed every school year by hundreds of students, ranging from college to honor high schools.

yes yes, you're making a point. I just wanted to describe that our puny less-than-a-century-lifespan isn't enough to visualize changes like evolution in the broad view.

It has???? Can you post an example please.

SOURCE

I hope this helps.

I would also recommend reading the Evolution vs. Creation debate in the Debates section, where I included several different examples of different stages of evolution. The Drosophila example is the most relevant.

Where at in the debate section?

Forgot the link, my apologies:

Evo vs Cre

I did not go back far enough. 35 to 30 your win.


BTW: Thank you.