Is Intelligent Design a scientific theory?

[Mister_T]

I agree with wolf. The accumulication of little, micro changes over time must needs result in macro changes, eventually. Changes don't know to stop at the micro-macro border.

Great. Thanks for the "clarification" once again. But that still doesn't answer my question about testing the long term changes. Seeing as how we have such a short life span it seems highly unlikely that we could test such a thing. Educated guess and/or theory seems more probable. Unless of course "test" in evolutionary terms has a different set of definitions.

 

[Runlikethewind]

Great. Thanks for the "clarification" once again. But that still doesn't answer my question about testing the long term changes. Seeing as how we have such a short life span it seems highly unlikely that we could test such a thing. Educated guess and/or theory seems more probable. Unless of course "test" in evolutionary terms has a different set of definitions.

We wont be able to test it in this way ourselves but our distant relatives many generations in the future can use the data we have accumulated today and compare it to their observations and they will see the changes, especially if humanity continues to observe nature down the line into the future. On a side note we might be able to observe it in animals that have short generations of a a few months or days for example.

 

[Mister_T]

We wont be able to test it in this way ourselves

That was the point I was getting at.

this way ourselves but our distant relatives many generations in the future can use the data we have accumulated today and compare it to their observations and they will see the changes, especially if humanity continues to observe nature down the line into the future

That's if we're around that long and there's anything left to observe.

 

[painted wolf]

fossil record confirms the genetic evidence and vice versa. We don't have to actually see gravity to know its there.

as for whales and so on, the gaps in our information get smaller all the time. It gets increasingly difficult to plug the gaps with supernatural causes.

The really difficult thing to do is explain how micro and macro are indipendant of one another. How can one exist without the other? The difference between a cat and a dog isn't one BIG change but lots of little ones.

wa:do

 

[Mister_T]

fossil record confirms the genetic evidence and vice versa. We don't have to actually see gravity to know its there.

No but we can interact with gravity. Is that your definition of testing evolution (the fossil record part)?

It gets increasingly difficult to plug the gaps with supernatural causes

When did I say anything about the supernatural?

 

[painted wolf]

I'm saying that there isn't a significant reason to devide micro and macro. We can see micro and interact with it. There is no reason to assume that macro is different.
Infact there is no difference at all between micro and macro... its all just evolution.
Its like trying to make a difference between what causes gravity on Earth and on the Moon. Yes, gravity on the Moon is less, but it is still caused by the same mecanism and is otherwise exactly the same as Earth gravity.

The only two options are natrual causes and supernatural causes... unless you have a different cause? Supranatural?

wa:do

 

[Quiddity]

I'm saying that there isn't a significant reason to devide micro and macro. We can see micro and interact with it. There is no reason to assume that macro is different.
Infact there is no difference at all between micro and macro... its all just evolution.
Its like trying to make a difference between what causes gravity on Earth and on the Moon. Yes, gravity on the Moon is less, but it is still caused by the same mecanism and is otherwise exactly the same as Earth gravity.

The only two options are natrual causes and supernatural causes... unless you have a different cause? Supranatural?

wa:do

Now that sounds like an interesting thread! Hope you don't mind me stealing your thunder?

 

[Mister_T]

I'm saying that there isn't a significant reason to devide micro and macro. We can see micro and interact with it. There is no reason to assume that macro is different.
Infact there is no difference at all between micro and macro... its all just evolution.
Its like trying to make a difference between what causes gravity on Earth and on the Moon. Yes, gravity on the Moon is less, but it is still caused by the same mecanism and is otherwise exactly the same as Earth gravity.

The only two options are natrual causes and supernatural causes... unless you have a different cause? Supranatural?

wa:do

I'm not saying that they're different. I was just inquiring about how you would test evolution. That's it. I never said or hinted about the supernatural in any way shape or form. Just simply a question strictly about testing evolution. Perhaps if I took out my religious title, that would help.

 

[painted wolf]

ok then let me try agian.
We can test evolution though observation of living species, genetic comparisons and fossil reccords. I'm not sure how to restate this in a way that satisfies you.

"macro" evolution is simply the longterm effects of lots of 'micro' changes... as demonstrated in DNA between species. DNA also tells us what groups of animals are closest in relation to each other and this is confermed by the Fossil reccord.
What more testing needs to be done short of a time machine?

wa:do

 

[Mister_T]

I'm not sure how to restate this in a way that satisfies you.

You answered. I'm satisfied.

What more testing needs to be done short of a time machine?

A time machine would help, yes.

 

[Valjean]

What, exactly, do you mean by "test?"

It's clear how evolution can be demonstrated, how it can be directly observed and how it's historical changes can be tracked through time.
What would constitute a "test?"

 

[logician]

"We can test evolution though observation of living species, genetic comparisons and fossil reccords. "

This is somewhat misstated. Saying you can test evolution is like saying you can test physics, it's too general. You can test various theories of evolution like puntucated equlibria or gradualism.

 

[Mister_T]

What, exactly, do you mean by "test?"

It's clear how evolution can be demonstrated, how it can be directly observed and how it's historical changes can be tracked through time.
What would constitute a "test?"

Who are you addressing?

 

[Mister_T]

"We can test evolution though observation of living species, genetic comparisons and fossil reccords. "

This is somewhat misstated. Saying you can test evolution is like saying you can test physics, it's too general. You can test various theories of evolution like puntucated equlibria or gradualism.

That's what I was trying to say.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"We can test evolution though observation of living species, genetic comparisons and fossil reccords. "

This is somewhat misstated. Saying you can test evolution is like saying you can test physics, ...

No, it is not. Evolution is a fully testable change in allele frequency over time.

 

[painted wolf]

since when can't you test Evolution and Physics?
Are all the articles I've read wrong?
testing Physics: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6561391.stm

wa:do

 

[logician]

since when can't you test Evolution and Physics?
Are all the articles I've read wrong?
testing Physics: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6561391.stm

wa:do

Sorry, but science tests theories, not generalities. "Evolution" is not just one theory, and neither is physics. They are composed of many theories, each of which must be individually tested.

 

[painted wolf]

Evolution is the theory.
Natural selection and the rest are just the meccanisms behind it.

wa:do

 

[UnTheist]

I thought Evolution was a fact.
And the mechanisms that drive it are the theories

 

[painted wolf]

the Theory of Evolution is a fact in the same way that the Theory of Gravitation is a fact and the Germ Theory is a fact.
The meccanisms are by which Evolution opperates are also theories. Its a semantic big T vs. little t, argument.

Evolution is the founding theory, to say you can't test it because its too big is silly.
By testing the meccanisms by which Evolution opperates you are directly testing Evolution.
Evolution is not a generality, it is a specific natrual law, Theory with a big T.

wa:do