Difference between revisions of "Essay:Evolution is an unproved theory"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Replacing page with 'alwekufvheldssvldsdlklekrcughneratlcfhnelcguhndlskchslcgjfhnldskgjfhcnldskj')
Line 1: Line 1:
−
Skeptics of some aspects of evolutionary theory sometimes claim that '''evolution is an unproven theory'''.  It is true that the [[hypothesis]] that each species of life in existence now evolved naturally from a common annecestor, like any other scientific hypothesis, cannot be definitively proved.  However, that hypothesis and the hypothesis that all life on earth descends from one common ancestor is corroborated by molecular <ref>Brown, J. R. and W. F. Doolittle. 1995. Root of the universal tree of life based on ancient aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase gene duplications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 92:2441-2445.</ref><ref>Caetano-Anolles, G. 2002. Evolved RNA secondary structure and the rooting of the universal tree of life. Journal of Molecular Evolution 54: 333-345.</ref><ref>Gribaldo, S. and P. Cammarano. 1998. The root of the universal tree of life inferred from anciently duplicated genes encoding components of the protein-targeting machinery. Journal of Molecular Evolution 47:508-516.</ref> fossil <ref>Carroll, R. L. (1997) Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref><ref>Sereno, P. C. (1999) "The Evolution of Dinosaurs." Science 284: 2137-2147</ref> geographical <ref>MacFadden, B. J. (1992) Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae. New York, Cambridge University Press.</ref> and morphological <ref>Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, London: John Murray 1st edition.</ref> evidence.  Skeptics sometimes make the argument that evolution is ''just a theory'' or an ''unproved theory''.  For example, Pope Benedict XVI recently published ''Creation and Evolution'', in which he writes "<nowiki>[It]</nowiki> is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."<ref>Creation and Evolution, Pope Benedict XVI, 2007, Sankt Ulrich Publishing.</ref> However, since all scientific knowledge can be defined as theory, this argument does not grasp the way in which scientific knowledge is accumulated. One could say for example, "since the cell theory is just a theory, it has not been proven that organisms are composed of cells."
+
alwekufvheldssvldsdlklekrcughneratlcfhnelcguhndlskchslcgjfhnldskgjfhcnldskj
−
 
 
−
== Falsifiability Criteria  ==
 
−
Some [[creation scientists]] have argued that the evolution of all life on Earth from a common annecestor is not a [[falsification|falsifiable]] hypothesis and as such should be considered a [[pseudoscience]] according to criteria proposed by the renowned philosophy of science [[Karl Popper]].  The falsifiability principle essentially states that scientific theories are testable, and theories that are not testable are not scientific.  Observations that corroborate theories not sufficient to establish status as science under Popper's falsifiability criteria.  The concept of ''[[falsifiability]]'', coined in Popper's book, ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery'', led Popper to classify evolution as a "metaphysical research programme."<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=167-180}} as quoted by {{harvnb|Number|1992|p=247}}</ref> 
 
−
 
 
−
Evolutionary devotees counter, however, that evolution is falsifiable.  Most famously, the English biologist [[JBS Haldane]] argued that "fossil rabbits in the precambrian"<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref> would falsify evolution--while arguing that the [[theory of evolution]] is a scientific theory even under Popper's falsifiability criteria. 
 
−
 
 
−
In 1980, Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by creation-scientists by affirming that theories regarding the origins of life on earth were [[science|scientific]] because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested,"<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1980|p=611}} as cited in {{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=247}}</ref> but he stopped short of granting full scientific standing to evolution.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=247}}</ref>  With Popper's equivocal stance on evolution not resolving the matter, Douglas Theobald argues at TalkOrigins, a pro-evolution website, cataloged 30 major biological predictions of evolution, with "potential falsifications".<ref> Theobald, Douglas (2004) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html| 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method.] The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-05-12.</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
<!-- Save for later while I investiage relevance:  a tactic that even creationist group Answers in Genesis suggests not be used as it displays a lack of understanding of what the word theory means in scientific discourse.<ref> Answers in Genesis website [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp| Arguments we think creationists should NOT use] Retrieved on 2007-05-12</ref><ref>Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262</ref>.  <ref>Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262</ref>. In fact, well over 99% of trained biologists accept the evolution of life on earth as a fact and neo-darwinian evolutionary theory as the theory best able to exaplain that fact <ref>Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek(26): 23-24</ref> -->
 
−
 
 
−
== References ==
 
−
<small><references/></small>
 
−
 
 
−
== Sources ==
 
−
*{{Harvard reference
 
−
| Surname    = Popper
 
−
| Given      = Karl
 
−
| Authorlink  = Karl Popper
 
−
| Year        = 1980
 
−
| Title      = Letter to the Editor
 
−
| Journal    = New Scientist
 
−
| Volume      = 87
 
−
}}
 
−
*{{Harvard reference
 
−
| Surname    = Numbers
 
−
| Given      = Ronald L.
 
−
| year        = 1992
 
−
| title      = Creationists:  The Evolution of Scientific Creationism
 
−
| publisher  = Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
 
−
| pages      = 224
 
−
| isbn        = 0-679-40104-0
 
−
}}
 
−
 
 
−
[[category:evolution]]
 

Revision as of 19:05, August 9, 2007

alwekufvheldssvldsdlklekrcughneratlcfhnelcguhndlskchslcgjfhnldskgjfhcnldskj

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Evolution_is_an_unproved_theory&oldid=263516"