Creation vs. Evolution

[Lain]

The problem with evolution is it tries to explain everything including complete opposites which ends up explaining nothing. It's not even much of a theory it's just something man made up to slap the data in. Evolution theory in a nutshell is "stuff happens".

Wrong. Evolution doesn't try to explain everything. It tries to explain the process of evolution, i.e. the process of how species change (aka evolve) across many generations.

While everything certainly does "evolve" due to natural processes over time, the "Theory of Evolution" only tries to explain the evolution of living organisms. And it's not just "stuff happens". it proposes that over countless generations of reproduction, significant changes to a species can result from phenomenon that is known to occur, such as mutation and natural selection.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Wrong. Evolution doesn't try to explain everything. It tries to explain the process of evolution, i.e. the process of how species change (aka evolve) across many generations.

Evolution has a very serious sex problem which has been revealed through lab experiments in recent years. As one scientist noted "Whatever is brought together by sex is broken up in the next generation by the same process". (of course that statement wasn't well received by Neo-Darwinist priest) Life is far more complex than evolutionist's simple story telling.

 

[Lain]

Life is far more complex than evolutionist's simple story telling.

Well then it's faaaaaaar, far more complex than creationists' extremely simple story telling.

And "one scientist" is a very credible source, I'm sure.

 

[Joel]

Hah. Evolution is a Theory. How many times have I heard that one? And how many times have we explained it to you? Theory doesn't mean what you think it means...

I have to reiterate this. He's using "theory" as if it means something that some guy made up when he was looking at stars.

There's a reason why evolution is widely accepted as fact in the scientific community. Because it's without a doubt the best explanation we have.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Well then it's faaaaaaar, far more complex than creationists' extremely simple story telling.

And there we have it. Just like politicians tries to point out the other politicians flaws hoping it covers up their own. The people who tries to pick the lesser of the two evils eventually learns that both sides are the same.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Because it's without a doubt the best explanation we have.

Actually, that misses the point. Scientists will not accept something because it's the best alternative; they accept something when it becomes evident as truth.

The Theory of Evolution, like the Theory of Rising Yeast (which attempts to explain how cake rises), is accepted as true because it's verified virtually everywhere we look.

But it's just a theory. (Like the Theory of Rising Yeast.)

 

[niky]

The problem with evolution is it tries to explain everything

No it doesn't.

including complete opposites which ends up explaining nothing.

Humor me. What complete opposites?

It's not even much of a theory it's just something man made up to slap the data in.

No we didn't. Darwin observed the data, then came up with a theory to explain the data. The theory fits.

Evolution theory in a nutshell is "stuff happens".

No, it isn't. Not any more than the Theory of Gravity is "stuff falls".

And there we have it. Just like politicians tries to point out the other politicians flaws hoping it covers up their own. The people who tries to pick the lesser of the two evils eventually learns that both sides are the same.

This incorrectly assumes that Evolution as a Theory was conceptualized to sell something. It wasn't.

 

[Lain]

And there we have it. Just like politicians tries to point out the other politicians flaws hoping it covers up their own. The people who tries to pick the lesser of the two evils eventually learns that both sides are the same.

Not having a full understanding of something isn't a flaw.

And picking the lesser of two evils? Well, let's see...

Creationism is a nice fantasy story made up to explain the origin and diversity of life by people who had no scientific knowledge and who simply cannot comprehend the diversity resulting from many cumulative changes over vast amounts of time.

Evolution on the other hand is a scientific theory backed up by hard facts, and nobody's been able to come up with a scientifically accurate argument for disproving it.

Nobody's picking between two evils here. Some are picking the facts, some are picking the fairy tale. 👍

 

[Public'sTwin]

Nobody's picking between two evils here. Some are picking the facts, some are picking the fairy tale. 👍

My Theory of The Rising Yeast is true.

I swear.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

'Theory' is not applied. A theory is the set of laws which explain observed behaviours, functions, or actions, in nature; the theory is the cumulus of those laws as expressed in a whole, cogent idea—not an abstract, incomplete, 'what if', crack-brained posit which may or may not solve various natural paraphernalia. As such,

To the contrary the theory in question is in the abstract, since it assumes adaptation is unbordered and limitless in its capacity, eventually morphing from species to species and beyond.
Of course thats where the millions, billions or whatever grand number of years you wish to plug in, comes into the abstract side of the theory.

A comment like that remains totally devoid of meaning, unless the purpose of his communication was to illustrate that a theory is a theory, in which case he was wildly successful, if not wholely insightful. (I applaud the contribution.) He continues:

The meaning is pretty plain to see. Its simply to point out that theory and factual are not interchangeable.
Hence they are distinctly different words, defining two different things.

Here SCJ expands his repertoire with what is not merely a tautology, but also a caveat: adaptation is not evolution. (And so adaptation is also not a theory? Or does that mean adaptation is also a theory? Help, SCJ!)

Adaptation can and does evolve, but has not observably done so to the extent of evolutionary claims.
Again in the abstract side of the theory, adaptation is boundless, and unchecked in its limitless capability.
This is not factual, since it is neither demonstratable nor observable.

I would like to call upon SCJ to further expand upon my ideas in case I have missed anything (although I believe my insights were thorough, I cannot be sure because they were not scrutineered by the either the author of the material I worked with, or his peers, and so my suggestions remain a theory and must be tested, which SCJ will do to establish their factuality).

Yours,

-Greg

Thus.

 

[Joel]

Actually, that misses the point. Scientists will not accept something because it's the best alternative; they accept something when it becomes evident as truth.

The Theory of Evolution, like the Theory of Rising Yeast (which attempts to explain how cake rises), is accepted as true because it's verified virtually everywhere we look.

But it's just a theory. (Like the Theory of Rising Yeast.)

Thanks for clearing that up 👍

(not sarcasm)

 

[James2097]

Everyone was born from The Great Rising Yeast. This is verifiable because babies to this day can smell a bit yeasty.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Same could be said about the theory of gravity.

You bring up an interesting point, albeit somewhat skewed.

Gravity is a ever present, demonstrable, and observable force since time unknown.
Its a bonafide fact.
That being the case, since the theories explaning it's operability vary, how much more could they vary in an unfactual explanation.

 

[Lain]

You bring up an interesting point, albeit somewhat skewed.

Gravity is a ever present, demonstrable, and observable force since time unknown.
Its a bonafide fact.
That being the case, since the theories explaning it's operability vary, how much more could they vary in an unfactual explanation.

In the same way that mutation and natural selection, the constituents of evolution and thus evolution itself, are bonafide observed facts.

Only when applying the idea of evolution to explain how we got from single-celled organisms to humans or trying to figure out exactly how certain features arose do uncertainties come into play, just like how there are uncertainties about how gravity behaves in certain exotic environments such as black holes.

 

[Public'sTwin]

To the contrary the theory in question is in the abstract,

Dear SuperCobraJet,

Indeed—theories are in the abstract!—the reification of anything which is immaterial would render it no longer conceptual, and thus a theory would not remain a theory. (Since a theory is a theory!)

since it assumes adaptation is unbordered and limitless in its capacity, eventually morphing from species to species and beyond.

I've never been a huge fan of personifying abstractions, but you use it here to great effect: by claiming that evolutionary theory assumes something, you imbue it with the human capacity to err. Clever girl!

However, Mr. Evolutionary Theory's assumption that adaptation is unbordered and limitless in its capacity is not an intrinsic flaw: for no border, limit, or capacity has been observed, it would clearly be folly (though not dearly jolly) to impose any of the above. Hurrah!

There is one thing which I must address, however, and it is this: adaptation does not itself morph. Species in themselves do not morph, either. Morph is an active verb, whereas the evolution occurs in offspring which themselves go about their day-to-day lives, just a little differently than their parents. (Although I've read about some humans having mid-life crises, fruit flies do not appear to suffer the same psychoses; their offspring, however, tend to differ.)

Of course thats where the millions, billions or whatever grand number of years you wish to plug in, comes into the abstract side of the theory.

Unlike the abstract universe of The Matrix, there is no 'plugging in'. Timelines are useful, though, for recording and watching events transpire, like David Lynch films or the birth of your grandchildren inexplicably baring claws. (Not that I would wish such a thing.)

The meaning is pretty plain to see. Its simply to point out that theory and factual are not interchangeable.
Hence they are distinctly different words, defining two different things.

Indeed, a theory is not a fact. (A theory is a theory, remember!)

Just as a Turduken cannot actually be found wondering the great plains of Eurafrimerica, and the turkeys and ducks and chickens must be seen, shot, and stuffed into one another (and cooked into a brilliant, moist, meaty dinner), a theory must first be composed of facts which have been observed, tested, and finally composed into a cogent whole.

Adaptation can and does evolve, but has not observably done so to the extent of evolutionary claims.

I found the duality of Nicholas Cage's performance to be particularly novel, however the character development was, as is typical of Kaufman films, mostly symbolic and lacking in personal injection.

It should be noted, though, that the Theory of Evolution is less concerned with gimmicky plot devices than it is with genetics.

Again in the abstract side of the theory, adaptation is boundless, and unchecked in its limitless capability.
This is not factual, since it is neither demonstratable nor observable.

Luckily it's also totally irrelevant! Since "adaptation" is not in itself a process, but a word used to describe other processes.

As you can plainly see, there are certain limits to 'Adaptation'. Precisely, I would estimate those limitations involve things like budget, script-length, creative personnel, etc.

 

[James2097]

I disagree with PublicsTwin because he offends my religious sensibilities by making reference to eating ducks. Ducks are the embodiment of all that is lovely on this Earth. Also, mentioning Nicolas Cage raises my ire, as he chooses terrible roles generally, and has a face which has a texture like that of a plastic prop head.

But in terms of the debate in an intellectual sense, Supa Cobra Jet couldn't be more out of his depth. Even I don't quite understand Pubby T's verbage, and I have a brain rolling around somewhere.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

However, Mr. Evolutionary Theory's assumption that adaptation is unbordered and limitless in its capacity is not an intrinsic flaw: for no border, limit, or capacity has been observed, it would clearly be folly (though not dearly jolly) to impose any of the above. Hurrah!.

Not so fast, my evolutionary leaning friend.

But it has been observed.
By that I mean, the observations to this point to not go outside of certain boundaries.
So the factual is limited.
Then why assume that they are unlimited?

 

[Lain]

Not so fast, my evolutionary leaning friend.

But it has been observed.
By that I mean, the observations to this point to not go outside of certain boundaries.
So the factual is limited.
Then why assume that they are unlimited?

It's not unlimited, it's limited by time. So it only makes sense that our observations and experiments over an extremely brief period of time don't exhibit quite as radical of evolutionary changes that life has enjoyed during it's much longer run.

The only other limit besides time would be what's physically possible. While it might be advantageous for an animal to be able to defy the laws of gravity, it's physically impossible for them to do so, so such a trait will never evolve into being.

 

[Public'sTwin]

I disagree with PublicsTwin because he offends my religious sensibilities by making reference to eating ducks. Ducks are the embodiment of all that is lovely on this Earth.

It's not unlimited, it's limited by time. So it only makes sense that our observations and experiments over an extremely brief period of time don't exhibit quite as radical of evolutionary changes that life has enjoyed during it's much longer run.

The only other limit besides time would be what's physically possible. While it might be advantageous for an animal to be able to defy the laws of gravity, it's physically impossible for them to do so, so such a trait will never evolve into being.

Quiet, you.

Not so fast, my evolutionary leaning friend.

O...


...K!

But it has been observed.

Wait wait wait: it's been observed? And described? So it's . . .

. . . TRUE?

By that I mean, the observations to this point to not go outside of certain boundaries.

You're going too fast here.

Remember: All observations are limited.

But not all predictions are.

Theories comprise themselves of predictions which are based on observations, but which are not exclusive to them.

That is the only way a theory can remain open to new observations, which then re-jig the whole theory into a new one (although sometimes under the same name).

Fun fact: a void or a space can be contained at one end with an infinite number of sides while simultaneously being infinite in volume.

So the factual is limited.
Then why assume that they are unlimited?

I've just addressed that little foregone conclusion of yours above.
Because all scientific theories remain open to anomaly.

 

[niky]

To the contrary the theory in question is in the abstract, since it assumes adaptation is unbordered and limitless in its capacity, eventually morphing from species to species and beyond.
Of course thats where the millions, billions or whatever grand number of years you wish to plug in, comes into the abstract side of the theory.

The theory assumes nothing. It merely states that organisms change over time, and that changes that improve chances of survival or at least don't hinder survival get carried over.

That's why humans have scurvy. It's a mutation to the negative, but we can live fine with not being able to produce our own Vitamin C.

The meaning is pretty plain to see. Its simply to point out that theory and factual are not interchangeable.
Hence they are distinctly different words, defining two different things.

Again, with the same old argument, refuted many, many pages ago. Facts are datum. Explanations of datum are never "facts". To say: "All apples fall down towards the ground because of gravity" is not a fact, but a theory describing the observation that the apples you've observed to fall actually fall towards the ground.

You could video the process of evolution, and this would still be a datum showing the theory in action, but it will not now or ever change the category of ideas around.

Adaptation can and does evolve, but has not observably done so to the extent of evolutionary claims.
Again in the abstract side of the theory, adaptation is boundless, and unchecked in its limitless capability.
This is not factual, since it is neither demonstratable nor observable.

Adaptation isn't a fact. It's a theoretical framework describing the process whereby an organism seemingly responds to its environment. See what I did there?

And yet, as we've stated many times before, there are cases wherein evolution, adaptation and mutation have occurred in timeframes short enough to be observed by humans. Demonstrable, observable.

The mutation of flies. The mutation of bacteria and viruses. The speciation of horses and various felines. Ethnicity specific mutations of the human genome. Demonstrable, observable, provable via genetic tracer studies and historical record, neither of which are "abstract" proofs.

Mind you... Evolution does not require that a change makes the new organism stronger, bigger, faster or smarter. It requires merely that the change not hinder the organism's ability to survive long enough to reproduce.

If you admit that there is observable evidence for adaptation, you've just admitted that Evolution exists. Congratulations.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The theory assumes nothing.

To the contrary, it most certainly does assume.

Again, with the same old argument, refuted many, many pages ago. Facts are datum. Explanations of datum are never "facts". To say: "All apples fall down towards the ground because of gravity" is not a fact, but a theory describing the observation that the apples you've observed to fall actually fall towards the ground..

Check your reality meter, the physical law of gravity is a bonafide fact.
As is readily apparent, theories of explanation may vary as to any factuality.
The claims of the Theory of Evolution, as compared to the factual observable isn't even close.

You could video the process of evolution, and this would still be a datum showing the theory in action, but it will not now or ever change the category of ideas around.

This ones a real hoot.
You will never view the process that evolution claims, because it doesn't exsist.
Even so you still can't change the beliief in ideas that it does.

The mutation of flies. The mutation of bacteria and viruses. The speciation of horses and various felines. Ethnicity specific mutations of the human genome. Demonstrable, observable, provable via genetic tracer studies and historical record, neither of which are "abstract" proofs.

And guess what.
You will still have like species, a hundred, a thousand, or million years from now.
Thats the observable factual as far back, and as forward as reasonably determinable.

[Mind you... Evolution does not require that a change makes the new organism stronger, bigger, faster or smarter. It requires merely that the change not hinder the organism's ability to survive long enough to reproduce.
If you admit that there is observable evidence for adaptation, you've just admitted that Evolution exists. Congratulations.

Mind you, there is no evidence that demonstrates the bonds of the reproductive dynamic will break ranks and cross boundaries of like species.
Which is what is claimed.
Flys reproduce flys, horses reproduce horses, etc.,etc.
Always have, always will.
Again, thats the observable factual.

Wait wait wait: it's been observed? And described? So it's . . .

. . . TRUE?

You're going too fast here.

You better slow down yourself. You clearly overan that one.
Observed and described within the factual, not the Evolutionary claim.

Remember: All observations are limited.

But not all predictions are.

You said a mouthful there.
Predictions are like opinions, everybody has one.
Granted some may be deemed "Professional" and therefore considered weightier than others, depending on the subject and the basis in fact.
Nevertheless, they can vary greatly with respect to actually happening.

Theories comprise themselves of predictions which are based on observations, but which are not exclusive to them.

Ain't that the truth.

That is the only way a theory can remain open to new observations, which then re-jig the whole theory into a new one (although sometimes under the same name).

Yeah, sounds like Global Warming.

I've just addressed that little foregone conclusion of yours above.
Because all scientific theories remain open to anomaly.

Thats exactly why they should remain in the "theoritical" and not the
"factual". Until at such time it can be conclusively determined.

 

[DK]

Scientists have only had 152 years since Darwin published On The Origin Of Species to observe evolution.

On the Wikipedia article for "Level of support for evolution," a 1997 study showed that less than 20% of Americans possessed basic scientific literacy, which is defined as:

• understand experiment and reasoning as well as basic scientific facts and their meaning
• ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences
• describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena
• read with understanding articles about science in the popular press and to engage in social conversation about the validity of the conclusions
• identify scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that are scientifically and technologically informed
• evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it
• pose and evaluate arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately

Also, here's something interesting: within 20 years of the publication of the theory of evolution, the majority of naturalists accepted it - and they had relevant qualifications in the field of biology.

Next time a creationist group tells you that a "significant minority" of scientists accept creationism, ask them how many hold relevant qualifications in the field of biology.

 

[Griffith500]

Scientists have only had 152 years since Darwin published On The Origin Of Species to observe evolution.

On the Wikipedia article for "Level of support for evolution," a 1997 study showed that less than 20% of Americans possessed basic scientific literacy, which is defined as:

• understand experiment and reasoning as well as basic scientific facts and their meaning
• ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences
• describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena
• read with understanding articles about science in the popular press and to engage in social conversation about the validity of the conclusions
• identify scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that are scientifically and technologically informed
• evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it
• pose and evaluate arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately

Also, here's something interesting: within 20 years of the publication of the theory of evolution, the majority of naturalists accepted it - and they had relevant qualifications in the field of biology.

Next time a creationist group tells you that a "significant minority" of scientists accept creationism, ask them how many hold relevant qualifications in the field of biology.

It's also interesting to see the proportion of Ph.D. students (in scientifically-based subjects) who may (have been observed to ) lack those same faculties. Granted, not all Ph.D. students end up as researchers...

Nobody's perfect, and nobody ought to expect that our (as in, human-kind's) theories around what we call "evolution" will ever tell the whole story. That's not to say they won't.
But you need only look at our legacy of observation, and how the limited scope of our observable world at any given time has caused us to be prematurely convinced of a fact, only to have it later corrected, or rather justified for a limited set of circumstances, in light of new observations - gravity included.

This, actually, is my favourite thing about science. It is self-evolving; one piece of the puzzle at a time.

 

[Exorcet]

Flys reproduce flys, horses reproduce horses, etc.,etc.

And they sometimes end up with unique sets of DNA, which may benefit, which probably lets them survive, which makes it likely that they pass on the new genes, which is evolution. All observable, fact, always has been and always will be.

It's been said before, but the idea that a goat will come from a frog is not evolution and never was. You're right that flies only produce flies, but each generation of flies is going to be different.

 

[wfooshee]

Flys reproduce flys, horses reproduce horses, etc.,etc.
Always have, always will.
Again, thats the observable factual.

Show me the fossil bed with human remains mixed with Brontosaurus bones.

There are no Brontosaurs now, and there were no humans then. How can anybody, knowing that, keep saying that species are forever and unchanging, and have always been so, and have always been observed to be so???

Makes no sense at all!!!

And please, stop using the word "theory" like it means something a detective came up with to explain a murder. That's not what a theory is in science.

To a scientist, a theory is the collection of rules used to explain observed phenomena and repeatable experiments. "If I do this a certain way, that happens. If a do it a different way, that other thing happens. Every time." When that gets demonstrated widely enough, it becomes accepted as fact. The theory didn't become fact, the theory just became a set of rules to explain the facts that were observed.

Drop a rock from straight over your head and you'll get a headace. Every time. Observable repeatable fact.

Throw a rock and it falls over there somewhere. Throw it harder and it falls farther away. Observable repeatable fact.

If you could throw it hard enough (i.e. carry it on a rocket booster) it would be quick enough to keep up with its falling, and actually stay at the same height above the ground. We call that an orbit.

We have a set of rules that explains this behavior, based on the masses of object involved and the speed at which they move past each other, we can know with near-absolute certainty what their behavior will be given known masses, velocities, and forces. Those rules are a Theory of Gravitation.

The Theory is not, "Hey, I think I know how that works . . . " It is "Here is what has happened, here is how it happens, here is why it happens, and here is what will happen with these conditions:"

We call it a Theory, but it is the highest level of "knowing" that there is in science. Until you grasp that (talking to SCJ here) then all you accomplish every time you say "keep theoretical and factual separate" is to make us roll our eyes and ask, "How to make him understand?" The Theory is the explanation of the factual!

Same with the Theory of Natural Selection. It is a collection of rules based on observed data and repeatable experiments. We know how species are related to one another, how one can change enough to become another. It's in the fossils, and in short-lived enough organisms (many insects) it's obsevable within a human generation! This species disappeared after this event, and this species filled its niche. The rules fit the observation, and the rules as a collection become the Theory.

 

[Lain]

Scientists have only had 152 years since Darwin published On The Origin Of Species to observe evolution.

On the Wikipedia article for "Level of support for evolution," a 1997 study showed that less than 20% of Americans possessed basic scientific literacy, which is defined as:

• understand experiment and reasoning as well as basic scientific facts and their meaning
• ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences
• describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena
• read with understanding articles about science in the popular press and to engage in social conversation about the validity of the conclusions
• identify scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that are scientifically and technologically informed
• evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it
• pose and evaluate arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately

Also, here's something interesting: within 20 years of the publication of the theory of evolution, the majority of naturalists accepted it - and they had relevant qualifications in the field of biology.

Next time a creationist group tells you that a "significant minority" of scientists accept creationism, ask them how many hold relevant qualifications in the field of biology.

I'd wager that it's much less than 20%

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Show me the fossil bed with human remains mixed with Brontosaurus bones.

There are no Brontosaurs now, and there were no humans then. How can anybody, knowing that, keep saying that species are forever and unchanging, and have always been so, and have always been observed to be so???

Makes no sense at all!!!

It only makes sense from a Creationist standpoint.
God said unto them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth,"
The key word there is replenish, indicating something was here before us, or before life as we know it.

And please, stop using the word "theory" like it means something a detective came up with to explain a murder. That's not what a theory is in science.

To a scientist, a theory is the collection of rules used to explain observed phenomena and repeatable experiments. "If I do this a certain way, that happens. If a do it a different way, that other thing happens. Every time." When that gets demonstrated widely enough, it becomes accepted as fact. The theory didn't become fact, the theory just became a set of rules to explain the facts that were observed.

Drop a rock from straight over your head and you'll get a headace. Every time. Observable repeatable fact.

Throw a rock and it falls over there somewhere. Throw it harder and it falls farther away. Observable repeatable fact.

If you could throw it hard enough (i.e. carry it on a rocket booster) it would be quick enough to keep up with its falling, and actually stay at the same height above the ground. We call that an orbit.

We have a set of rules that explains this behavior, based on the masses of object involved and the speed at which they move past each other, we can know with near-absolute certainty what their behavior will be given known masses, velocities, and forces. Those rules are a Theory of Gravitation.

The Theory is not, "Hey, I think I know how that works . . . " It is "Here is what has happened, here is how it happens, here is why it happens, and here is what will happen with these conditions:"

We call it a Theory, but it is the highest level of "knowing" that there is in science. Until you grasp that (talking to SCJ here) then all you accomplish every time you say "keep theoretical and factual separate" is to make us roll our eyes and ask, "How to make him understand?" The Theory is the explanation of the factual!

Obviously, we are not going to agree here.
Theories come and go whether scientific or otherwise and may be based, in or on, any number of opinions and interpretations.
They maybe factual, they may not be, or some combination there of.
The highest level of "knowing" whether in Science or some other discipline does not invoke infallability.
You also attempt to compare two entirely different circumstances with Gravity and Evolution.
Gravity is factual. Evolution is not, at least on the scale claimed.

Same with the Theory of Natural Selection. It is a collection of rules based on observed data and repeatable experiments. We know how species are related to one another, how one can change enough to become another. It's in the fossils, and in short-lived enough organisms (many insects) it's observable within a human generation! This species disappeared after this event, and this species filled its niche. The rules fit the observation, and the rules as a collection become the Theory.

We already covered this.
You got another bug from some bugs. Not exactly revelatory.
Again this is very limited and no where near the species jumping claims of Evolution.

It's been said before, but the idea that a goat will come from a frog is not evolution and never was. You're right that flies only produce flies, but each generation of flies is going to be different.

They may be, and if they are, the simple explanation is, some changes are within the potential of reproductive genetics.

That doesn't infer they will jump "like species", tommorrow or a million years from now.

 

[Exorcet]

They may be, and if they are, the simple explanation is, some changes are within the potential of reproductive genetics.

That doesn't infer they will jump "like species", tommorrow or a million years from now.

It infers exactly what evolution states and it's backed up by our ability to trace evolution back over very long periods of time.

If your computer screen were to go completely black, but only one pixel at a time at a rate of 1 pixel per week, you may never notice even if it does happen. You're doing the same thing with evolution, except that there is proof that it works over long periods (fossils) you just refuse to accept the proof.

Evolution moves roughly 1 pixel at a time in most cases. In your lifetime, if you only look for things that happen during your lifetime, you will see 3-4 pixels black out. For some reason you conclude that the whole screen will never fade. It's a very poor assumption that doesn't really have much reasoning behind it. From where did you get the idea that there is a limit on the number of pixels that can fade?

Surely flies will be flies tomorrow, but in a million years, they might very well be something else. The changing genes don't prove that will be different, but it proves that they don't have to be the same. There is no limit on how many genes can change over those 1,000,000 years, so there is no basis for the idea that only a very small number of changes are possible for a certain type of organism.

 

[Dapper]

Flys reproduce flys, horses reproduce horses, etc.,etc.
Always have, always will.
Again, thats the observable factual.

Glenn Beck!

http://www.gluckman.com/galapag.html
http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/evolk12/gps/tortoise.htm
http://www.galapagos-islands-tourguide.com/galapagos-islands-finches.html

Before giving an opinion in a public forum you may want to do some research.

 

[Public'sTwin]

That's exactly why they should remain in the "theoretical*" and not the
"factual". Until at such time it can be conclusively determined.

The ultimate problem with any further discourse of this nature is that, depending on whatever standard of measure you use—which is has not been elucidated or clarified—to qualify something as fact, nothing or anything may fall under its definition.

(That is why this is absurd.)

What you understand 'theoretical' to mean is fundamentally different than what a scientific theory is.

It does not mean conceptual.

I've already gone over this in various tones, and you've yet to acknowledge it; your assertion that what is not fact is therefore [your understanding of] theory does not mean anything [to this discourse on a scientific subject], since a scientific theory—not the layman meaning of the term which approximates that of a hypothesis—is composed of facts. You have yet to acknowledge this difference, despite your constant conflation of the two.

That is why your objection to the Theory of Evolution is epistemologically invalid. Those are the clearest and plainest, cinema-allusion-free terms I can express that in.