"Theory" vs. "Scientific Theory" (Huge Difference)

[SkepticThinker]

This is the definition:

"Scientific Theory" = a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method aand repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Another one is:

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing."

There is no repeated testing involved in evolution, neither are there any evolutionary observations and no experimentation which sustains the theory.

As someone who has studied science for the better part of 2 decades, I've come up with several hypotheses (as one does) and all of them must hold up to stringent criteria, which seems to go out the window of western science with relation to evolution and it's pillars of atheism.

I know what the definition is and evolution fits. It's one of, if not the most, well evidenced theories in science.

If you've been studying science for the last 20 years, as you say, I'm baffled as to why you would make such an assertion given the mountains of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. That evolution happens, is a fact. The theory of evolution explains how evolution works.

Atheism has nothing to do with it.

 

[Shad]

This is the definition:

There is no repeated testing involved in evolution, neither are there any evolutionary observations and no experimentation which sustains the theory.

Lenski's experiment dates back 8 years and is still on going show evolution in real time. Seems like you didn't study evolution for 20 years if you missed one of if not the primary on going experiment for evolution. You studied something but it wasn't evolution. I am guessing you probably read apologists and ID material for 20 years.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Lenski's experiment dates back 8 years and is still on going show evolution in real time. Seems like you didn't study evolution for 20 years if you missed one of if not the primary on going experiment for evolution. You studied something but it wasn't evolution. I am guessing you probably read apologists and ID material for 20 years.

I have studied science, not just evolution, ranging from biology to physics to chemistry, have a degree in biomedical science, work experience in the field, an experimental dissertation (so I fully understand have taken part in the scientific process) and am currently studying medicine. My understanding of the scientific procedure, without sounding full of myself but simply stating facts, goes beyond simply biology or evolution.

Lenski's experiment on E.Coli does not show evolution, or not in the terms that those who believe in evolution want it to be, although they will say anything and use big words to convince naive individuals. What Lenski's experiment has shown, is that in some 30 years (slightly less I think) is that E. Coli is still a bacteria, it has not changed to any other form of life or even gotten closer to it. The term evolution being used in regard to his experiment is not only duplicitous but a disgrace to science. All his experiment shows (you can go to detail on his official site) is that E. Coli has managed to adapt to to certain conditions, key being adaptation, not evolution into a new species (even the definition of species in modern science is worthy of a laugh).

Now, what does this actually prove? Does it prove the existence or observation of science? For example, the new E. Coli strain can adapt to an environment heavy in citric acid, previously it was not able to but I repeat, it is still E. Coli and has simply adapted to a new environment on a very limited basis. That would be like me pointing the finger at a human who has become immune to chickenpox, because of previous exposure (adapting to a certain environment) and claiming that person had evolved into a new species. That's just not true and neither is it scientific. Also, simple adaptation does not equate evolution, another example: primates in captivity are taught to use sign language to receive food and thus, these captive animals learn that certain hand signals will give them a plate of bananas. However, they have not learned sign language, they have simply adjusted and adapted, physically and mentally, to their new environment. Not even the most ardent believers that these primates have picked up capabilities to sign, would argue that these primates are a new special or evolved into something different.

Until Lenski's experiment observes and proves that E. Coli has changed into an entirely different form of life, i.e. into a virus, then it has not yet proven or observed anything in relation to pushing evolution as a legitimate scientific theory.

 

[Shad]

Lenski's experiment on E.Coli does not show evolution, or not in the terms that those who believe in evolution want it to be, although they will say anything and use big words to convince naive individuals.

No it demonstrates evolution well. You want it to turn into something new which is not the purpose of the experiment

What Lenski's experiment has shown, is that in some 30 years (slightly less I think) is that E. Coli is still a bacteria, it has not changed to any other form of life or even gotten closer to it.

Said demand.

The term evolution being used in regard to his experiment is not only duplicitous but a disgrace to science. All his experiment shows (you can go to detail on his official site) is that E. Coli has managed to adapt to to certain conditions, key being adaptation, not evolution into a new species (even the definition of species in modern science is worthy of a laugh).

Nope, you want a specific example of evolution that fits your criteria. You demand what every creationist demands; a dog turning into a cat or cats giving birth to fish or whatever other nonsense you produce

Now, what does this actually prove? Does it prove the existence or observation of science? For example, the new E. Coli strain can adapt to an environment heavy in citric acid, previously it was not able to but I repeat, it is still E. Coli and has simply adapted to a new environment on a very limited basis.

Adaption which is part of ToE.

That would be like me pointing the finger at a human who has become immune to chickenpox, because of previous exposure (adapting to a certain environment) and claiming that person had evolved into a new species.

Fallacious comparsion since no one is claiming a new species. As I said your demands are irrational given your comparison alone

That's just not true and neither is it scientific.

It is also fallacious but it is your example so your problem.

Also, simple adaptation does not equate evolution, another example: primates in captivity are taught to use sign language to receive food and thus, these captive animals learn that certain hand signals will give them a plate of bananas.

Faulty comparison again since you are comparing a learned skill versus adaption to an environment. It is also contamination since the observe is directly interaction with the subjects repeatedly.

However, they have not learned sign language, they have simply adjusted and adapted, physically and mentally, to their new environment.

Some have learned sign language and use it. Your example is based on ignorance of the topic you are talking about. Your strawman is hilarious.

Not even the most ardent believers that these primates have picked up capabilities to sign, would argue that these primates are a new special or evolved into something different.

No one made the claim for Lenski's experiment either. Strawman argument

Until Lenski's experiment observes and proves that E. Coli has changed into an entirely different form of life, i.e. into a virus, then it has not yet proven or observed anything in relation to pushing evolution as a legitimate scientific theory.

Your demands are irrelevant.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is the definition:

"Scientific Theory" = a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method aand repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Another one is:

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing."

There is no repeated testing involved in evolution, neither are there any evolutionary observations and no experimentation which sustains the theory.

As someone who has studied science for the better part of 2 decades, I've come up with several hypotheses (as one does) and all of them must hold up to stringent criteria, which seems to go out the window of western science with relation to evolution and it's pillars of atheism.

As you note- regarding theories like evolution, global warming, multiverse theory etc- it certainly does not refer to science the method; direct observation, measurement, repeatable experiment etc

In practice the word 'science' is often used in lieu of the method, intended to be translated as 'not to be questioned'. And so as often as not, it's use is a red flag that the theory is anything but.

 

[Shad]

As you note- regarding theories like evolution, global warming, multiverse theory etc- it certainly does not refer to science the method; direct observation, measurement, repeatable experiment etc

In practice the word 'science' is often used in lieu of the method, intended to be translated as 'not to be questioned'. And so as often as not, it's use is a red flag that the theory is anything but.

Direct observation is a strawman since observation does not need to be direct at all. Besides there are "direct" observations

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

However as all creationist do you want an example of a horse giving birth to a lion or whatever nonsense you think is acceptable. Good job there Hoyle

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

No it demonstrates evolution well. You want it to turn into something new which is not the purpose of the experiment



Said demand.



Nope, you want a specific example of evolution that fits your criteria. You demand what every creationist demands; a dog turning into a cat or cats giving birth to fish or whatever other nonsense you produce



Adaption which is part of ToE.



Fallacious comparsion since no one is claiming a new species. As I said your demands are irrational given your comparison alone



It is also fallacious but it is your example so your problem.



Faulty comparison again since you are comparing a learned skill versus adaption to an environment. It is also contamination since the observe is directly interaction with the subjects repeatedly.





Some have learned sign language and use it. Your example is based on ignorance of the topic you are talking about. Your strawman is hilarious.



No one made the claim for Lenski's experiment either. Strawman argument



Your demands are irrelevant.

You have done nothing but repeat what people, clinging onto the belief of evolution always do and that is inject nonsense into science.

You keep saying I am making demands but your theory of evolution states that it is natural selection, genetics and adaptation to environments which lead to the formation of new species and new living organisms, I don't state this, THIS is what evolutionists state led to the formation of man. If I'm wrong then surely evolution did not lead to the formation of man.

All Lenski has shown is that E. Coli has adapted to new environments, how has that, in any way, observed evolution? What is your personal opinion of what evolution is? Because it clearly isn't the scientific definition of evolution.

I'm arguing with the facts of Lenski's own experiments and the idea of evolution, you are using your passion for your belief to find truth where there is none. If you think E. Coli adapting to a citric environment is evolution, then why do you not believe that a person who is immune to chickenpox or in some very rare cases, HIV infections, not a new species of human or the next step of human evolution?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have done nothing but repeat what people, clinging onto the belief of evolution always do and that is inject nonsense into science.

You keep saying I am making demands but your theory of evolution states that it is natural selection, genetics and adaptation to environments which lead to the formation of new species and new living organisms, I don't state this, THIS is what evolutionists state led to the formation of man. If I'm wrong then surely evolution did not lead to the formation of man.

All Lenski has shown is that E. Coli has adapted to new environments, how has that, in any way, observed evolution? What is your personal opinion of what evolution is? Because it clearly isn't the scientific definition of evolution.

I'm arguing with the facts of Lenski's own experiments and the idea of evolution, you are using your passion for your belief to find truth where there is none. If you think E. Coli adapting to a citric environment is evolution, then why do you not believe that a person who is immune to chickenpox or in some very rare cases, HIV infections, not a new species of human or the next step of human evolution?

I think you've demonstrated that you aren't all that familiar with the details of evolutionary theory when you compared a learned skill to adaptation to an environment.

 

[Shad]

You have done nothing but repeat what people, clinging onto the belief of evolution always do and that is inject nonsense into science.

Nope considering my comment was specific to your own.

You keep saying I am making demands but your theory of evolution states that it is natural selection, genetics and adaptation to environments which lead to the formation of new species and new living organisms, I don't state this, THIS is what evolutionists state led to the formation of man. If I'm wrong then surely evolution did not lead to the formation of man.

You are making demands. You are demand direct evidence of one species turning into a completely different one.

All Lenski has shown is that E. Coli has adapted to new environments, how has that, in any way, observed evolution?

Which is part of ToE. Hence he is demonstrating part of ToE. I linked other examples as well

What is your personal opinion of what evolution is?

Opinion regarding what exactly? Is it true? Do I like it? Do I reject it? etc

Because it clearly isn't the scientific definition of evolution.

Yes it is. The problem is your standards and understanding are flawed

I'm arguing with the facts of Lenski's own experiments and the idea of evolution, you are using your passion for your belief to find truth where there is none.

No passion involved. Evolution is a scientific fact

If you think E. Coli adapting to a citric environment is evolution, then why do you not believe that a person who is immune to chickenpox or in some very rare cases, HIV infections, not a new species of human or the next step of human evolution?

I never said it wasn't. You created a strawman in which those immune to chicken pox should be called a new species. I rejected your strawman. As I said before you want the standard creationist demands of one species directly giving birth to a new one. That is not how evolution works at all.

"That would be like me pointing the finger at a human who has become immune to chickenpox, because of previous exposure (adapting to a certain environment) and claiming that person had evolved into a new species."

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Nope considering my comment was specific to your own.



You are making demands. You are demand direct evidence of one species turning into a completely different one.



Which is part of ToE. Hence he is demonstrating part of ToE. I linked other examples as well



Opinion regarding what exactly? Is it true? Do I like it? Do I reject it? etc



Yes it is. The problem is your standards and understanding are flawed



No passion involved. Evolution is a scientific fact



I never said it wasn't. You created a strawman in which those immune to chicken pox should be called a new species. I rejected your strawman. As I said before you want the standard creationist demands of one species directly giving birth to a new one. That is not how evolution works at all.

"That would be like me pointing the finger at a human who has become immune to chickenpox, because of previous exposure (adapting to a certain environment) and claiming that person had evolved into a new species."

LOOOOL No it isn't, come on now. Wow, just wow. Yet you still refuse to answer my question or even understand the argument put forward.

I have made no demands of evolution, this theory of yours, so called scientific fact (still laughing, sorry) states that it explains the formation of various species from other species, from lower forms of life/intelligence to higher. This is common knowledge. If I'm wrong, tell me what the theory of evolution tells us. Now, I am simply stating the fact (yes, it's another fact) that Lenski's experiment isn't even close to demonstrating or observing the evolutionary end game.

You state that it shows adaptation and that somehow is equivalent to observing evolution, which is a lie, either that or you just don't know the difference. Simply repeating that adaptation is a part of the theory and thus the theory is proven is not enough. Every aspect of a scientific theory, or rather, hypothesis must be repeatedly experimented and observed for it to be regarded as a genuine theory. Again, this is not my opinion or demands but the very definition of science. If you don't accept it, you are not willing to accept the basis of modern science.

So, again, I repeat, if by simply observing adaptation, it equals evolution, than why I have not evolved by being immune to chicken pox? This isn't a strawman, in fact I doubt you or others who use the term even know what it means.

But, if that question is difficult for you, I'll give you something easier. In medicine, we know of several forms of bacteria which have become "antibiotic resistant", meaning that an antibiotic which was normally used to treat an infection is no longer effective because that bacteria has now become resistant to it, i.e. it has adapted to said hostile environment. Some people, trying to spread lies, loosely use the term "evolved", the "bacteria has evolved to be resistant" and yet it hasn't. It is still the same genus and family, it has simply adapted to the change, it h as not evolved in the true definition of the word put forward by science.

Now, as science or rather, scientists have faltered with this so called theory and have tried to push the atheist agenda, they have actively added to the definition, now adding "the gradual development of something". This is not necessarily Darwin's idea of evolution or the true scientific expression, which is "The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth".

If you want to simply believe evolution is the former, then that's fine but it does not and will not explain the appearance of new species on earth, as you yourself have said, observing evolution does not require the formation of one species to another. Fine, but then you are changing what evolution originally meant and then it can no longer be used as an exponent of life development on earth.

 

[Shad]

LOOOOL No it isn't, come on now. Wow, just wow. Yet you still refuse to answer my question or even understand the argument put forward.

No you literally want an experiment in which a new species emerges from a previous one. You do not accept adaptation as evidence of ToE which is the typical creationist divide of macro/micro evolution which largely is an irrelevant divide except to creationists.

I have made no demands of evolution, this theory of yours, so called scientific fact (still laughing, sorry) states that it explains the formation of various species from other species, from lower forms of life/intelligence to higher. This is common knowledge. If I'm wrong, tell me what the theory of evolution tells us. Now, I am simply stating the fact (yes, it's another fact) that Lenski's experiment isn't even close to demonstrating or observing the evolutionary end game.

Again you want to see only evidence of evolution's "end" game which is merely emergence of a new species as the only evidence of evolution you want to see. You changed your view from evidence for evolution to evidence for evolution's end game. Moving the goal posts.

You state that it shows adaptation and that somehow is equivalent to observing evolution, which is a lie, either that or you just don't know the difference. Simply repeating that adaptation is a part of the theory and thus the theory is proven is not enough. Every aspect of a scientific theory, or rather, hypothesis must be repeatedly experimented and observed for it to be regarded as a genuine theory. Again, this is not my opinion or demands but the very definition of science. If you don't accept it, you are not willing to accept the basis of modern science.

Adaptation is part of ToE thus part of evolution. I linked you experiments. Also you forget the time scale involved with evolution. You will deny fossil and dna evidence, the experiments showing the relation between various species evident by DNA. Again you want a new species from a previous one in real time. You demands are unrealistic.

So, again, I repeat, if by simply observing adaptation, it equals evolution, than why I have not evolved by being immune to chicken pox?

Immunity is not the same as adaption which I was talking about. Your comparison is flawed. Lenski's experiment was over generation in which a large percentage of the original population died out completely. The few specimens that adapted are not a single individual as per your example.

This isn't a strawman, in fact I doubt you or others who use the term even know what it means.

Yes it is since evolution is about the group not the individual

But, if that question is difficult for you, I'll give you something easier. In medicine, we know of several forms of bacteria which have become "antibiotic resistant", meaning that an antibiotic which was normally used to treat an infection is no longer effective because that bacteria has now become resistant to it, i.e. it has adapted to said hostile environment. Some people, trying to spread lies, loosely use the term "evolved", the "bacteria has evolved to be resistant" and yet it hasn't. It is still the same genus and family, it has simply adapted to the change, it h as not evolved in the true definition of the word put forward by science.

Wrong

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_03

Now, as science or rather, scientists have faltered with this so called theory and have tried to push the atheist agenda, they have actively added to the definition, now adding "the gradual development of something". This is not necessarily Darwin's idea of evolution or the true scientific expression, which is "The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth".

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/earth#earth__13

You inject atheism as if no theist accepts evolution at all. Too bad there are theists that accept it fine thus evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Rather it counters your literal creationist view point so you use atheism as a scapegoat and failed.

If you want to simply believe evolution is the former, then that's fine but it does not and will not explain the appearance of new species on earth, as you yourself have said, observing evolution does not require the formation of one species to another. Fine, but then you are changing what evolution originally meant and then it can no longer be used as an exponent of life development on earth.

I change nothing rather I counter your micro/macro fallacious divide that your pov is based upon, besides your religion.

 

[metis]

Now, as science or rather, scientists have faltered with this so called theory and have tried to push the atheist agenda, they have actively added to the definition, now adding "the gradual development of something".

Sorry, but that statement doesn't even get close to passing the smell test. About half the biologists are theists, and even they recognize the basic axioms of the ToE.

There's only one reason why some educated people oppose the basic ToE and it's because of their religious position in terms of reading the creation accounts in a literalistic fashion, which makes for lousy theology, btw.

 

[leibowde84]

You are right and by that very definition, something like evolution is not even a scientific theory.

No, it most certainly is. You obviously have yet to research the experimentation, predictions, and the plethora of verifiable evidence confirming the theory. I urge you to look into it. If you need resources, I would be happy to provide them to you.

 

[leibowde84]

As you note- regarding theories like evolution, global warming, multiverse theory etc- it certainly does not refer to science the method; direct observation, measurement, repeatable experiment etc

In practice the word 'science' is often used in lieu of the method, intended to be translated as 'not to be questioned'. And so as often as not, it's use is a red flag that the theory is anything but.

That is all incorrect. There is a plethora of direct evidence for all of the above.