Is Evolution an Essential Theory in Science?

[youngborean]

I am curious on how important the Theory of Evolution is to the Whole of science. Since most other disciplines of Science cross their own boundaries, such as the use of Chemistry and Physics in Biology, the usefulness of Taxonomy in identifiying Gross chemical operations (especially in the plant world) of organisms. Unlike many disciplines of Science, evolutionary biology seems to be isolated, with no interdisciplinary innovations. That being said, why is it such a big deal? Are there contributions that Evolutionary Biology has made to the rest of Science that I am not aware of? If there are, I would enjoy discussion. I don't see how this theory has progressed the rest of Science. To me personally it is centered in the past and not interested in the progressive revelation of the active intelligence. That's why I personally believe it would be better served to be taught as an art along with Archeology or Anthropology.

[Lucifer]

You've already said that. I don't mean to offend you, and sorry if I did, but I didn't say you said that--just don't start it.

[ST88]

Please stick to the topic without disparaging personalities or getting into an argument about who disaparaged who about what.

[rjw]

Hello youngborean,

I have just "strayed" onto this thread and risk asking you to repeat yourself for the umpteen time.

On November 8 you wrote:-

I am a creationist. Yet I don't even think that undermines most of the evolutionary theory. I can observe genetic variance. The Science of genetics backs this up. However, I have never seen evolution from x to y and therefore, as a scientist, I would like more proof. Until I see it, I will be happy with Creation as an explanation. Just as Evolutionary biologist are happy with something they admittedly can not prove as you have just stated.

In this paragraph you appear to argue that, if a structure or process cannot be observed then theories about these things cannot be proved.

In science, about the only thing we do observe are data points and the theories we test using those data points or the theories we develop using them are most often about structures or processes which cannot be observed at some fundamental level. Even with something as solid as genetic variance, you can "see" a genome at one point in time and the same genome at a later point in time and count any differences in genes but did you actually observe the genome and did you actually observe the processes which caused it to change?

My point is this if your statement has any currency then what do you make of theories which deal with:-

a) stellar energy generation,
b) meteorological phenomena such as the origin of lightning, rain etc,
c) the origin of AIDS via a micro-evolutionary event a few hundred years ago,
d) the propagation of radio waves through the ionosphere,
e) the origin of coal,
f) the origin of mental illness?

Should these all be taught as arts subjects?

I also noted your opening statements on Nov 4 concerning the fact that ToE depends on other sciences but itself supposedly has no input into these sciences in the sense that physics (say) has input into chemistry. That was a main reason you gave for considering ToE as an art and not a science. You argued that it is not an "essential science".

However, theories associated with the above list have no input into other sciences. Thus, the origin of AIDS relies on genetics but those theories about the origin of AIDS do not, in themselves, add to our understanding of the laws of genetics, physics, chemistry etc. Ditto the origin of coal, stellar energy generation etc.

Therefore, should the theories associated with the above list sensibly taught in arts classes rather than science classes?




Regards, Roland

[Jose]

I am a creationist. Yet I don't even think that undermines most of the evolutionary theory. I can observe genetic variance. The Science of genetics backs this up. However, I have never seen evolution from x to y and therefore, as a scientist, I would like more proof. Until I see it, I will be happy with Creation as an explanation.

Perhaps, if we go into this in more detail, we can get away from the digression into personal disparagement. You've made a statement that is common among Creationists: that you require direct proof, in the form of seeing x evolve into y. My question is: what would this look like? What happens when x evolves into y? I know what evolutionary theory describes, but I'd like to know what your specific expectation is.

[youngborean]

I am a creationist. Yet I don't even think that undermines most of the evolutionary theory. I can observe genetic variance. The Science of genetics backs this up. However, I have never seen evolution from x to y and therefore, as a scientist, I would like more proof. Until I see it, I will be happy with Creation as an explanation.

Perhaps, if we go into this in more detail, we can get away from the digression into personal disparagement. You've made a statement that is common among Creationists: that you require direct proof, in the form of seeing x evolve into y. My question is: what would this look like? What happens when x evolves into y? I know what evolutionary theory describes, but I'd like to know what your specific expectation is.

Ok. Without getting into nitpicky details of where the theory begins and ends. Abiogenesis has been overdone and concerns me little, because it's simply too much extrapolation.

I would like a really good cell theory experiment, and maybe one exists? (This is where your expertise comes in) I know that we could probably that cell theory is not as concrete as evolution, but if the foundation is shaky then the building may collapse. I want phagocyte with archeaic genetic information to swallow other prokaryotes (some more nuclei-like some more and and form a eukaryote) that uses the prokaryotes as cell parts. And I don't just want the Mito or Chloroplasts, I want the evloution of all organelles into a single cell. I don't want to praise Lynn Margulis simply because she was married to Carl Sagan, I wan't proof of her theory that now is accepted as fact. As seen in wiklopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory. Maybe this is only a competing theory now, but it is the only theory I learned in university. Let's reproduce the cell first via evolution, then use selective pressures to reproduce other stuff. Will it take a long time? Yes. Probably millions of years before we figure it out. [/url]

[Jose]

I am a creationist. Yet I don't even think that undermines most of the evolutionary theory. I can observe genetic variance. The Science of genetics backs this up. However, I have never seen evolution from x to y and therefore, as a scientist, I would like more proof. Until I see it, I will be happy with Creation as an explanation.

You've made a statement that is common among Creationists: that you require direct proof, in the form of seeing x evolve into y. My question is: what would this look like? What happens when x evolves into y? I know what evolutionary theory describes, but I'd like to know what your specific expectation is.

Ok. Without getting into nitpicky details of where the theory begins and ends. Abiogenesis has been overdone and concerns me little, because it's simply too much extrapolation.

Aha! We're getting into broader issues. This seems to happen a lot.

The theory of evolution describes the changes that organisms go through over time. Period. It does not address the origins of life. Abiogenesis is a separate issue. Current theories on how it happened are less robust than evolutionary theory, and more numerous. We don't have as much data. So, if we want to address the issue of Origin of Life, we need different discussions than, for example, x evolving into y.

I would like a really good cell theory experiment, and maybe one exists? (This is where your expertise comes in) I know that we could probably that cell theory is not as concrete as evolution, but if the foundation is shaky then the building may collapse.

The cell theory explicitly states that organisms are built of cells. It, too, does not address the origins of cells, or the origins of the organelles within them. That is, it's not appropriate to say "the cell theory is not as concrete as evolution," because it is extremely concrete, as evidenced by the fact that, well, we can look at cells in a microscope and see them. When the theory was first proposed, it was astonishing. Now it's just basic biology.

I want phagocyte with archeaic genetic information to swallow other prokaryotes (some more nuclei-like some more and and form a eukaryote) that uses the prokaryotes as cell parts. And I don't just want the Mito or Chloroplasts, I want the evloution of all organelles into a single cell.

Well, you can't have it. So there.

To achieve this, you'd need at least 100,000 separate evolutionary steps. Mitochondria and chloroplasts have genomes that are closely related to bacterial lineages, but are not complete genomes. A great many of the genes are in the nucleus, not in the organelle. From studying different plant lineages we (meaning Jeff Palmer's lab) can identify genes that have recently moved from the chloroplast to the nucleus, indicating that the movement is still going on, even if at a very low rate (like once every million years or so). I don't know if anyone has a good model for a mechanism.

In other words, to get where we are now requires a great many steps, none of which we know how to mimic. And, even if we could mimic them (say, by splicing bacterial genes to eukaryotic promoters and using the hybrid gene to engineer a new strain of a recipient cell), it wouldn't count, because we did it purposely instead of by natural processes.

Also in other words, you've asked about one of the Big Questions that remains unresolved. It's unrealistic, of course, to say that it's not plausible until it's been duplicated. Rather, it's necessary to use what we might call "forensic techniques" to find clues to what happened. This has been done, and continues to be done as people study the problem.

I don't want to praise Lynn Margulis simply because she was married to Carl Sagan, I wan't proof of her theory that now is accepted as fact. As seen in wiklopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory. Maybe this is only a competing theory now, but it is the only theory I learned in university.

It's interesting that Lynn Margulis gets the credit for the theory from a 1981 paper. I first heard about the theory in 1972, at which time it was well-established. We didn't have much data, however, so there was plenty of debate about it. Since we've been able to sequence DNA, however, we've acquired much more evidence. The evidence is the "footprints of evolution" rather than watching the event itself, but that's OK. (Indeed, our local law enforcement folks won't accept eyewitness accounts; they need forensic evidence--the "footprints of the crime" so to speak. It's the same kind of logic.)

What data are particularly telling? Well, there's the close relationship of mitochondrial DNA to eubacterial DNA (more like Agrobacterium than E. coli or Pseudomonas). There's the close relationship of chloroplast DNA to cyanobacterial DNA. There's the relationship of some nuclear DNA to archaebacterial DNA, and other nuclear DNA to the bacteria that are related to the organelles. There's the identity of some DNA sequences among all lineages, as well, which ties everything together. Now, we can interpret the data to mean that God is trying to trick us into thinking that there were cell fusions that gave rise to endosymbionts (the way mycobacteria infect us today), or we can interpret the data to mean that such cell fusions seem likely to have occurred.

In a university science class, I'd expect that the latter interpretation would be the one they'd offer.

But, back to my original question. I'd asked what you would expect to see if you watched x evolve into y. You've replied with a really difficult problem that precedes all of eukaryotic evolution, and therefore is somewhat outside the range of "watching x evolve into y." Your problem is an important one, surely, but there just is not enough data to propose a mechanism. There's plenty of data to propose the endosymbiont theory, and even to identify some of the lineages involved, but not enough to identify a mechanism, and certainly not enough to recreate it. So, can we make the problem more manageable, and deal explicitly with "watching x evolve into y"? What would you expect to see, if you could watch it happen?

[youngborean]

I was bringing up both abiogenesis (unless you believe that God created evolution) and the endosymbiotic theory as parts of the broader topic of evolution that are often accepted as fact without proof of the mechanism. But I do believe that x->y has to explain the origens of life for an evolutionist, because the theory hinges on a principle that you can't get something from nothing. At some point x->y and the ball started rolling. If I could watch x->y happen I would expect to see a major change in a species i.e. a phagocyte taking a bactierial symbiant and reproducing with that same relationship according to a proposed mechanism. At some time this had to happen (if the theory is to hold true) so reproduce it and I'll believe it. Now I agree according to the model of the evolution of the cell this would take thousands of micro-evolutionary steps, but at some point the archaic symbiants had to evolve to live together, so recreate that point, according to the proposed mechanism, rather than accpeting it as fact and moving on. Then I'd also like to see 1 step at a time from that one cell until we get to advanced creatures (but that will take a million more years). Whether or not we admit it, it does seem like this is the way science is progressing. Soon they'll be able to do more with genes. So in a million years if all of the scientific "advancements" haven't killed us off, science will finally prove that they're right.

You've said that my point is outside of eukaryotic evolution and therefore not x->y, but that is not true at all. My point is the beginning of x->y, it is the foundation. You seem to write off my point that there are "footprints" but no Sasquatch. I have a funny story about footprints (excuse my digression). My grandfather was a hunter and taught me a good deal about tracking. So in elementary school we went to a winter camp to teach us about nature. The guide took us through the snow and pointed out the behavior of animals based on their tracks in the snow. So I started drawing tracks in the snow. And I asked him what these tracks were. And to my suprise, he answered that it was a squirrel. He was close, but he tracked the evidence incorrectly. Fogive my skepticism, but as a Scientist I am looking for a more solid foundation for my belief. If prokaryote x->y naturally precedes eukaroyte x->y then we could start with a mechanism to make a believer out of me. It's interesting how similar this discussion is to the "What Proof would be sufficient to Believe in God?" thread. I think I am probably asking the improbable, just like many of the Atheists in that thread state the improbable "I will believe in God when he physically shows himself to me." The point is the same. Any philosophy will have it's limits. I will always say that beyond those limits is religion. This helps me explain why Margulis gets the credit for the endosymbiotic theory. Becasue she was part of a movement that didn't deny that they were beyond those limits, and was part of starting the trendiest of new religions, Lovelockism or Gaia. I'd like your opinion of Gaia, Jose? Do you think it's a religion?

[Jose]

Well, let's see, here. I wasn't trying to avoid your question, just trying to make it answerable. We can't talk about "evolution of the eukaryotes" until we have eukaryotes that can evolve. Prior to that, we're talking about the origin of eukaryotes, which is entirely different mechanistically--and is, therefore, not covered in the "theory of evolution." It's covered in the "hypotheses for the origins of life." You are absolutely right that it isn't appropriate to accept any of these hypotheses as fact unless we have adequate support for them. However, being unable to provide a mechanism for the origin of life doesn't have any effect on what life did (and does) after it appeared. Evolution is the "after life appeared" part, and cannot be either proved or disproved by any information on life's origin--unless it is possible to prove that God created all the living things exactly as they are now (or as they were 4000 years ago, according to YEC dogma).

I also agree with your view of footprints. It is always possible to mis-read the tracks in the snow. That's why we refer to the "endosymbiont theory" and the "theory of evolution" -- to indicate that additional data may change it. We never claim that any of these theories are Truth. Claiming absolute Truth is reserved for religious faith. Of course, this always leaves scientific interpretations open to being dis-proved, if someone comes along with good enough data. We're waiting for someone to do so with these theories. So far, all we have seen is (1) more data that support them, and (2) people who don't accept the explanations because they don't find them convincing. That's fine. But we can't change the explanations without replacing them with better explanations. Until there are additional data that force us to change the explanations, well, we're stuck with the same ones.

We can always ask, "why not include 'God did it' as one of the explanations?" The answer is that this is a religious explanation, not a scientific one. Maybe it's right. We don't have any data for or against it. We do have data against his having done it on Oct 26, 4004 BC, unless he tricked us by making all of the fossils exactly as they are, and setting all of the isotope ratios just so, etc. But, we can't tell. So, we use a scientific explanation in science classes.

It has nothing to do with belief in God, or acceptance of any form of religion. It has to do solely with collecting data from the real world, and evaluating that data, and looking for the "current best explanation" for that data. The only "rules" are that we use evidence from the world itself, not from religious texts. After all, if we used religious texts, we'd have too many contradictions, since there are so many, and they're so different.

It also has nothing to do with belief in the current best explanation. It's just the current best explanation. We expect the explanation to be changed eventually, as more information becomes available. When this happens, we'll regroup and consider the newer best explanation as more plausible. So, with the endosymbiont theory (quite aside from evolution), you don't need to believe it. All you need to do is evaluate the data that we have, and assess for yourself whether the current theory seems to be the best one currently available that offers a non-religious explanation. If you'd like to propose a different explanation, or if you'd like to find addtional data that force us to change our explanation, go ahead.

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "If prokaryote X->Y naturally precedes eukaryote X->Y." The evidence for greater age of prokaryotes is the ages of rocks that have prokaryote fossils, but not eukaryote fossils. It's hard to put "ages" on the DNA relationships, since we don't have an "outgroup" that we can compare all of life to, and because we suspect that the rates of mutation have varied over the years. The old pictures that used to be (and often still are) in textbooks, of the 5 kingdoms of life, with prokaryotes on the bottom, are the best-available-explanation from a long time ago. They include some of the philosophy that still exists as a holdover from the ancient Greeks' Great Chain of Being, which envisioned pond scum as "low level life" and humans as the "pinnacle of life" and other things in between. Popular thinking has simply rephrased this as the "evolutionary ladder" (which doesn't actually exist). Therefore, it was popular to put bacteria at the bottom of the diagram. But, we had no data to provide the ages of the oldest life forms; were bacteria really in the right place? Fossil data and DNA data together tell us that bacteria were sort of in the right place, but the protists weren't right at all, and plants and animals are much more similar than we thought.

But to your last question: do I think Gaia is a religion? As it turns out, the only place I've run into Gaia-istic thinking is in science fiction books. But that's not really relevant. I'd say it's a religion if the people who accept it consider it to be their religion. If they don't consider it to be a religion, then I wouldn't see any reason to tell them that it is one.

[rjw]

Gidday youngborean,


ToE and abiogenesis are like any other scientific theory. They are naturalistic explanations and testable descriptions designed to explain observed patterns in extant and extinct life. By naturalistic explanations I mean that they rely on known laws, principles and ideas and can be comprehended and understood. ToE is generally a set of well understood and tested theories. Abiogenesis is a set of disparate theories, some of which have been somewhat tested. Overall however, the field lacks a coherent framework.

I argue that they are like any other scientific theory or theoretical framework. Theories of meteorological phenomena, medical theories, the theory that chemical imbalances cause mental illness, theories concerning the shape of the earth, theories concerning the propagation of radio waves through the ionosphere, theories concerning the origin of AIDS - all share the same properties as those of ToE and abiogenesis.


Just as with abiogenesis and ToE, these acceptable (by YEC) theories can be countered with supernatural ones - which may or may not base their appeal on the Bible. Historically and currently this has been and is the case.

From your dialogue with Jose, I find your implicit definition as to what constitutes sound science internally inconsistent, notwithstanding the fact that you are a scientist yourself.

Let me explain why this is so.

I am going to extract pieces from your posts of the last two weeks which I hope, define the problems you see with evolutionary theory and by implication define good science. Hopefully in the process I shall not be taking you out of context and misrepresenting what you think. I shall demonstrate that your objections apply to other fields of science (some of which are already mentioned), which I presume you find acceptable as naturlalistic theories and feel no need to invoke the supernatural in the sense that you do with respect to ToE and abiogenesis.

Of course, this raises the question why not?


OBSERVATION and PROOF

On Nov 8, you wrote to Jose:-

I have never seen evolution from x to y and therefore, as a scientist, I would like more proof. Until I see it, I will be happy with Creation as an explanation. Just as Evolutionary biologist are happy with something they admittedly can not prove as you have just stated.

Here you argue that, as an explanatory system Creation (ToC) is as viable as evolution (ToE) on the grounds that macro evolution has not been observed. You equate proof with observation. That is, because macro is not observed then it cannot be proved.

Yet in that list of phenomena I presented stellar energy generation, origin of AIDS, origin of weather phenomena the same situation applies. The outcome of the supposed processes can be observed but not the processes themselves. What is collected is data which is interpreted to be evidence for the underlying processes.

However I suspect that you accept all of the natural explanations for the evidence e.g. fusion reactions at a stars core; micro mutation event for the origin of AIDS; electrical discharges down conducting channels for lightning; germs causing disease upsetting an organisms normal physiological functioning. (And I suspect you accept the mainstream explanations despite the fact that some explanations stand in contrast to explanations offered in the Bible.)

This stands in contrast to your rejecting ToE and abiogenesis on observational grounds.


BASIS FOR A SCIENCE, SCIENCE FOR A BASIS.

On Nov 5, in response to ST88 you wrote:-

1) believing in the evidence for evolution has little bearing on how science seems to function in assessing the present state of things.
2) I look at it more as a philosophical tool to explain the active intelligence. The philosophy itself is based in science and uses science, like archeology or anthropology, but is it a science?
3) The issue I have is that Evolutionary Biology doesn't seem to be an easily definable discipline that carries or translates it's techniques as well as Chemistry, Biology, and Physics which have procedures that show up everywhere in these disciplines.
4) I find this interesting because Evolution is dependent on genetics. But the discipline of genetics is not necessarily dependent on Evolution (unless you argue that they are the same). The discipline of Genetics, like biology and Chemistry, seems to be more finite than the word Evolution. Archeology, Anthropology don't seem to be the basis for any other new sciences.

With these four sets of statements you appear to argue the ToE is not really a science because accepting ToE has no bearing on how science functions as a tool for understanding the present state of things. Furthermore it has no defined techniques in the sense that physics or chemistry do. Lastly, it is dependent on other sciences but other sciences are not dependent on it.

Let me examine these complaints.

Why should accepting ToE have a bearing on how science functions? Does accepting the fusion theory for a stars energy generation have a bearing on how science functions? What about accepting the theory that rain forms when water molecules, evaporated from the surface of a pond, condense around nuclei suspended in the sky?

All of these theories are by-products of the functioning of science. The functioning of science does not depend on any one of these theories. Take away the germ theory of disease and science will not cease. Ditto ToE. However, each of these theories requires a process which we call science for their creation and ongoing viability.

What about "defined techniques". Tell a paleontologist or a molecular biologists that he or she has no defined techniques! Of course evolutionists have defined techniques. But a theory is not a defined technique. No theory is. A theory is an explanatory system and ToE is a theory. Likewise, that stars shine by fusion reactions at their cores is a theory; ditto that chemicals bond when they share electrons this is a theory. None of these are defined techniques. However, these theories, these explanations for observed data were developed by scientists using defined techniques in their field of expertise.

And your idea that ToE depends on genetics but no science depends on ToE? Well the theory that stars shine because of fusion reactions at their cores depends on physics but physics does not depend on the theory that stars shine because of fusion reactions at their cores. The idea that thunder occurs because compression waves emanate from air, superheated by lightning, depends on physics but physics does not depend on that theory.

So again while ToE shares certain attributes with other sciences, these attributes are in some way fatal for ToE but not for the other scientific theories. Other attributes, for example "defined techniques", just do not make sense in the context of a theory, simply because defined techniques are part of a discipline used to construct a theory. In that case, this attribute does apply to ToE.



PHILOSOPHY, INTERPRETATION, SCIENCE (or SOME DATA IS NOT INTERPRETED?)

ST88 wrote:-

But my point here is to argue that "science" need not be exclusively the realm of hard-core labwork -- it does leave room for interpretive response and the projections of hypotheses based on those interpretations.

On Nov 7 you wrote that this:-

. is simply using science and history to support a philosophy.

and you continued:-

But shouldn't evolutionary biologists be consumed with proving evolution because there is still an active dialogue? I am going to seperate Mendel and Darwin, because the model that I am seeing is this:

Mendel+Mendel+Mendel+Mendel+Mendel+Mendel+Mendel = Darwin

Therefore, Mendel cannot be dependent on Darwin, but the opposite is true.

and:-

In my opinion, if a scientist was setting out to prove the theory of evolution, he would (in a lab or some other controlled enviroment) start with bacteria and finish with some highly specialized Eukaryote (to prove this model). Instead, all of the experiments you mention [quote snipped out] Use some sort of Science (cell biolology methodology) and contextualize it with the theory of evolution. The theory Evolution didn't develop cell biology (although it has probably motivated many scientists to study it). The microscope, chemistry, the physics that develop the equipment, and Mendel (loosely) have developed the techniques we use today. It is only the glue if someone chooses it to be and has no bearing on the science itself, as it happens in a controlled enviroment. That is because, in my opinion, it is a philosophy and not a science.
But exactly what was wrong with what ST88 said? Mind you, how ST88 said it was wrong?

Not only need science not be in the realm of hard core lab work, even when it is in that realm interpretation is always the order of the day. Even in the hardcore lab, all that is done, observationally, is the collection of data. The observations still have to be interpreted. No "can leave room for" about it. Interpretation is always done.

And we are back to that notion that ToE depends on science but science does not depend on ToE. Thus you wrote "Mendel + Mendel + Mendel = Darwin" (where as "Darwin + Darwin + Darwin does not equal Mendel").

If this is how you define science however then you must surely agree that:-

Fusion physics + fusion physics + fusion physics = Stellar energy generation

Whereas

Stellar energy generation + stellar energy generation does not equal Fusion Physics + Fusion physics.

Therefore the theory that stars shine via fusion reactions at their cores is not a scientific theory.

Are you willing to accept that conclusion?

What is even worse for you is the following. All of our descriptions of chemical reactions ultimately boil down to physics. Therefore:-

Physics + physics + physics = chemistry

Where as

Chemistry + chemistry + chemistry does not equal physics.

Therefore chemistry is not scientific. Yet you say that it is. What is more many of the processes in chemistry are unobserved and unobservable. Yet you accept the interpretations we place on our observed chemical data. What are these interpretations? They are explanations for unobservable processes!!


You argue that scientists should be "consumed in proving evolution". They are. Libraries are full of research journals on molecular biology, geology, paleontology, zoology, genetics which are full of articles either demonstrating evolution or attempting to understand various aspects of evolution. This has been so ever since Darwin proposed his theory.

This is no different to theories on how stars shine. Go to any library and you will find journals on astronomy, astrophysics, physics, solar astronomy all dedicated to demonstrating or attempting to understand how stars shine via fusion reactions at their centers.

Why are there so many journals devoted to the subject of how stars shine? Because there are so many outstanding problems, some of which are quite fundamental.


You write that evolutionists should be performing tightly controlled experiments.

How much research literature do you read? (I do not mean this disparagingly either. My point is serious.) Tightly controlled experiments are done to understand the mechanism of speciation. This is an outstanding and fundamental problem in biology and well as evolution. Some recent ones done with fruit flies demonstrate that as little as a single gene can play an important role in this. Other tightly controlled experiments have been able to re-trace, in real time, and thereby demonstrate, a proposed speciation event which occurred some 60,000 to 120,000 years ago, for a type of sunflower growing in the US. Yet more tightly controlled lab work has been able to demonstrate a possible pathway for part of the transition from crustacean to insect some 400 million years ago, as evidenced in the fossil record. Other tightly controlled field experiments careful dating and study of bones, has been able to demonstrate sound evidence for the transition from either mesonychids or artiodoctyls to whales over a period of some 15 million years, beginning about 55 million years ago. This list goes on and on.

Where tightly controlled experiments cannot be performed, then there are restrictions placed on just what can be said and with what confidence - that is all. Thus, with respect to whale evolution, it cannot be said that whales evolved from mesonychids. Nor can it really be said that they evolved from artiodoctyls. Because both ancestor groups are so closely related (genetically and in the fossil record), it is not at all clear that either group can claim to be the ancestor. However, the molecular data and the fossil data certainly favors the artiodoctyls.

Whether experiments are tightly controlled or loosely controlled the data still has to be interpreted. If an experiment is tightly controlled then you still may not get data which decides a dispute between opposing theories. Consider gravity. We can measure it to the 16th decimal point but such precision still does not allow us to say what gravity is. Hence competing theories are the order of the day. Measurements in gravitational research are just not good enough even though the experiments are tightly controlled!!

Hence, if the reasons you provide here cause you to deem ToE an art or a philosophy, you should also consider gravitational theory, stellar physics, meteorology, medicine etc. to be such.

Probably you should throw chemistry into the mix as well. On further reflection, because biology is genetics and genetics is chemistry, they should go in as well.



EVOLUTION AS PHILOSOPHY

Non Nov 7 you wrote:-

Use some sort of Science (cell biolology methodology) and contextualize it with the theory of evolution. The theory Evolution didn't develop cell biology (although it has probably motivated many scientists to study it). The microscope, chemistry, the physics that develop the equipment, and Mendel (loosely) have developed the techniques we use today. It is only the glue if someone chooses it to be and has no bearing on the science itself, as it happens in a controlled enviroment. That is because, in my opinion, it is a philosophy and not a science.

Here you argue that evolution is no more than a philosophy. Your reasoning appears to be that observations are interpreted (contextualized) within ToE. Furthermore you argue that ToE did not develop a science (cell biology).

Let me look at your first point that observations are interpreted within ToE.

This is a very one-sided view of ToE. Theories in science serve two purposes. They both explain data/observations and suggest new observations to be undertaken whereby they (the theories) can be tested and hence verified, modified or rejected.

So of course observations are "contextualized" within ToE, just as observations are contextualized within any other theory in any other scientific discipline. Thus, observations of neutrinos from the sun are "contextualized" within the theory that fusion reactions occur at the centre of the sun. Those observations also support that theory. Likewise, observations of a set of mesonychid/artiodacty/whale mosaics are interpreted in the context of ToE and they support the notion that whales did evolve from land dwelling animals.

Like any other theory, ToE is always being tested by the collection of new data. This data, so far, both confirms the theory in general and modifies it in particular. No consistent set of observations have been conducted which require ToE to be thrown out despite creationist claims to the otherwise. It is certainly easy to think of observations which would call the theory into question and even require its abandonment such as the collection of fossils of all kinds which consistently date to 4 billion years (or 6,000 years) or unequivocal evidence from some deity where by it does proclaim that life was created supernaturalistically etc.

The second point has been dealt with earlier except to say that cell biology relies on physics and chemistry. They gave rise to cell biology. Cell biology did not give rise to either of them. Cell biology just could not exist without physics and chemistry. Physics and Chemistry can certainly do without cell biology.

There is one area where you have a point kind of. Certainly some have used and still use ToE as an argument against supernaturalism. ToE can have strong philosophical undertones in this respect. However, this is no different to the rest of science. Interpreting any phenomenon naturalistically as opposed to supernaturalistically brings in the same undertones. Many people once understood that meteorological phenomena and medical phenomena were caused directly by the supernatural. The mere fact that these began to be explained naturalistically undermined the whole supernatural worldview.

That choice is still there in these fields and some still exercise it to interpret things supernaturalistically in opposition to the mainstream.

What is new then with respect to ToE?


INTERPRETATION

On Nov 8 you wrote:-

But isn't this paradigm what seperates evolutionary biologists from the rest of scientists? This very way of explantation makes evolutionary biology sound more like a philosophy than a science. Most people agree on the data, there's a fossil here, machine x gives us result y. Evolutionary biology is unique in science in that it seems to be only concerned with interpretation. Very few scientists I know and have worked with would be happy with something that is not a "fact" in their results.

You write as if ToE is the only science that is concerned with interpretation. And you make it sound as if ToE deals only with interpretation.

Interpretation cannot be done on non-existent data or observations. Hence to interpret, ToE must have data to deal with in the first place. Thus ToE, like all other sciences, deals with data and observation.

All of science deals with interpretation.

If this were not so then how come flat earthers exist; many Pentacostalists view mental illness as demonic possession rather than chemical imbalance in the brain; some Muslims view radio propagation through the ionosphere as directly caused by God and not due to the physical interaction of e.m. waves with electrical charges etc.
Same data different interpretation.

There is nothing stopping you from abandoning the naturalistic descriptions of meteorological phenomena and accepting Jobs interpretation of direct action by God just as you abandon naturalistic descriptions for the development of life on earth in favor of some authors supernaturalistic descriptions in Genesis.

There is nothing stopping you viewing the same data that I do and accepting that I am kidding myself the earth is flat.

If you accept naturalistic theories over supernatural theories as explanations for some unseen and unobservable processes then it really is a choice you make.

Same data different choices of interpretation.


UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS.

This one is very much a matter of personal opinion as to what one sees as acceptable evidence. Nevertheless, while I sympathize with some of your requirements, I do think you are being a very unrealistic.

On Nov 18, the following dialogue occurred:-

Jose quoting youngborean:-

I am a creationist. Yet I don't even think that undermines most of the evolutionary theory. I can observe genetic variance. The Science of genetics backs this up. However, I have never seen evolution from x to y and therefore, as a scientist, I would like more proof. Until I see it, I will be happy with Creation as an explanation.

Jose commenting:-

Perhaps, if we go into this in more detail, we can get away from the digression into personal disparagement. You've made a statement that is common among Creationists: that you require direct proof, in the form of seeing x evolve into y. My question is: what would this look like? What happens when x evolves into y? I know what evolutionary theory describes, but I'd like to know what your specific expectation is.

younborean replying:-

I would like a really good cell theory experiment, and maybe one exists? (This is where your expertise comes in) I know that we could probably that cell theory is not as concrete as evolution, but if the foundation is shaky then the building may collapse. I want phagocyte with archeaic genetic information to swallow other prokaryotes (some more nuclei-like some more and and form a eukaryote) that uses the prokaryotes as cell parts. And I don't just want the Mito or Chloroplasts, I want the evloution of all organelles into a single cell. I don't want to praise Lynn Margulis simply because she was married to Carl Sagan, I wan't proof of her theory that now is accepted as fact. As seen in wiklopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory. Maybe this is only a competing theory now, but it is the only theory I learned in university. Let's reproduce the cell first via evolution, then use selective pressures to reproduce other stuff. Will it take a long time? Yes. Probably millions of years before we figure it out.

I would love to see a good cell theory experiment too. I do not know whether one exists or not. I am a layman, not a scientist like Jose or yourself.

You are correct in that if the foundation is shaky then the edifice may collapse. However, the lack of a good cell experiment does not necessarily make the foundation shaky. It just means that the experiment has not been done yet for one reason or another.

You write that you "dont just want the Mito or Chloroplasts, [you] want the evolution of all organelles into a single cell".

But isnt this just denial of existing evidence (Mito and Chloroplasts) and requiring instead that everything be demonstrated?

If so then your demand becomes unreasonable, surely. I could deny every naturalistic theory in every field on precisely those grounds, namely:-

a) denial of existing evidence and
b) in its place demanding that everything be demonstrated and hence explained by that theory.

Thus, I reject the theory that the sun shines via nuclear reactions by:-

a) denying all the evidence and astronomer or physicist would offer in favor of the idea and
b) I go to a library and read up on all outstanding problems and say "Solve all those first then I shall believe that stars shine via fusion reactions at their cores".

You stated that Marguilis theory is considered to be fact. I doubt it. Most defer to it simply because it is a good idea and has a lot of evidence in support of it. The link you provided lists the evidence. From memory, there are many (from the mainstream) who do not accept her idea. The fact that most accept the idea or defer to it at least, hardly constitutes anything peculiar to ToE does it? All science consists of theories where most accept the theory or defer to it at least. Certainly I get no feeling from reading the literature and I got no sense from that link you supplied, that Margulis idea was considered to be "fact". It was an idea that had a lot of evidence for it. Hence most/many accept it.

Surely this is not unusual in science and it is not peculiar to ToE.

You wrote:-

Maybe this is only a competing theory now, but it is the only theory I learned in university. Let's reproduce the cell first via evolution, then use selective pressures to reproduce other stuff.

Again that is an excellent idea. However our inability to do this is not peculiar to ToE. Nor does it tell against ToE. Your demand is unrealistic. Maybe it is unrealistic because the ToE is false. But maybe it is unrealistic because the experiment is just to complex to do now and so we have to do other experiments to argue our cause?

We cannot get enough of a critical mass of hydrogen together to see if it can fuse naturally. We have to rely on artificial means to do this. We cannot get a huge mass of molten iron and silicon and surround it with silicon, oxygen, and other elements then rotate this mass to see if a magnetic field will result. We have to rely on experiments in the lab which can only simulate bits of what we actually think does happen. We cannot go back 200 years and watch the supposed micro mutation event that led to the formation of AIDS. Nobody has gotten the proposed cellular precursor to HIV and done the exact manipulations to demonstrate what might have happened etc.
Why does the fact that extraordinary hard experiments that cannot (yet) be done, count against ToE but not other sciences?


OBSERVATION and EXPECTATIONS

On Nov 19 you wrote:-

If I could watch x->y happen I would expect to see a major change in a species i.e. a phagocyte taking a bactierial symbiant and reproducing with that same relationship according to a proposed mechanism. At some time this had to happen (if the theory is to hold true) so reproduce it and I'll believe it. Now I agree according to the model of the evolution of the cell this would take thousands of micro-evolutionary steps, but at some point the archaic symbiants had to evolve to live together, so recreate that point, according to the proposed mechanism, rather than accpeting it as fact and moving on. Then I'd also like to see 1 step at a time from that one cell until we get to advanced creatures (but that will take a million more years). Whether or not we admit it, it does seem like this is the way science is progressing. Soon they'll be able to do more with genes. So in a million years if all of the scientific "advancements" haven't killed us off, science will finally prove that they're right.

Here you argue "reproduce the proposed process and you will believe it". You also argue "show me one step at a time the proposed process and you will believe it." And you argue that the symbiosis idea is accepted as "fact" and that researchers are moving on as if no further work need be done.

You appear to make demands of ToE, which you do not make for other sciences.

Why so?

As indicated above, what do you believe happens inside a star? Has anyone ever shown you the inside of a star such that you can measure its composition to ensue that it is 99% hydrogen? Then have you seen hydrogen atoms actually fusing together inside any star to ensure that they really are natural and controlled versions of our thermonuclear bombs?

Ditto the weather. Have you ever seen a photon give a water molecule enough energy to escape from the surface of a pond? Have you seen that molecule move up into the upper atmosphere and condense around a pre-existing dust nucleus. Or is this all interpretation you place on phenomena you observe (e.g. clouds, rain etc.) Those interpretations you place on observed phenomena rely on physics too. Physics does not rely on clouds and rain. Rather the explanation for clouds and rain rely on physics.

These processes have you ever modeled them completely, in all aspects to ensure that they work or have you only modeled bits and pieces in the hope that these pieces of modeling and theorizing explain the whole process?

Therefore are not our meteorological theories mere philosophies?

And if Margulis idea is accepted as fact and researchers are moving on, why do I get the impression that people like Marulis are still researching the idea by collecting additional evidence for it, attempting to understand the mechanism by which cellular fusions could occur? Clearly not everyone is moving on.

Certainly some do move on. That is they accept that this did happen and go to the next logical step. This is not unique to ToE though. In astrophysics, some researchers deal directly with the fundamental process of energy generation while others accept the prevalent model (hydrogen fusion) and move on to explore other issues relevant to stellar evolution.

While some researchers remain "stuck" at the fundamental process of a theory, others accept that process really does occur and move on to explore consequences. This is not something unique to Margulis idea.


JOB

In Job 37, the author clearly states that some meteorological phenomena are caused by the direct action of God. Therefore is it not safer to say that all meteorological phenomena are caused by God? IOW, is this not evidence that modern meteorology is not merely a philosophy which contextualizes the data we observe, data which often arises from unobservable processes, which we just cannot mimic in a step by step process within the lab?


CONCLUSION

IMHO, your reasons for not accepting macro call into question your reasons for accepting (presumably) most other scientific theories.

All science has the potential to explain away God and historically this was often an objection raised against the acceptance of many theories.

If the Bible becomes the basis for rejecting some theories, then why not others.

Regards, Roland

[youngborean]

1.OBSERVATION and PROOF

However I suspect that you accept all of the natural explanations for the evidence e.g. fusion reactions at a stars core; micro mutation event for the origin of AIDS; electrical discharges down conducting channels for lightning; germs causing disease upsetting an organisms normal physiological functioning. (And I suspect you accept the mainstream explanations despite the fact that some explanations stand in contrast to explanations offered in the Bible.)

I dont know the details for many of the examples you listed. I believe that fusion reactions are theoretically possible. Lighting has been close enough to recreated in a lab to exceed my expectations for a proposal. I also believe that Micro-mutations of Retroviruses can occur, making me agree that this is the most reasonable explanation for the arrival of HIV. I think the origin of AIDS is more difficult to explain. I believe that the proof of germs causing disease is easily reproduced. For instance, infect a mouse with influenza and it will get the flu.

This stands in contrast to your rejecting ToE and abiogenesis on observational grounds.

So your saying that because I believe there is not substantial evidence for the ToE to be elevated to Empirical Fact, that I should believe this about all unproven theories in science. I reject all theories of Science on observational grounds. Hence the word theory. In my mind, something becomes elevated to Empirical Data when the subsequent relevance is proven. So it is dependent on evidence.

BASIS FOR A SCIENCE, SCIENCE FOR A BASIS.

With these four sets of statements you appear to argue the ToE is not really a science because accepting ToE has no bearing on how science functions as a tool for understanding the present state of things. Furthermore it has no defined techniques in the sense that physics or chemistry do. Lastly, it is dependent on other sciences but other sciences are not dependent on it.
Let me examine these complaints.
Why should accepting ToE have a bearing on how science functions?

It is the foundation for a whole new branch of Science Evolutionary Biology.

Does accepting the fusion theory for a stars energy generation have a bearing on how science functions? What about accepting the theory that rain forms when water molecules, evaporated from the surface of a pond, condense around nuclei suspended in the sky?
All of these theories are by-products of the functioning of science. The functioning of science does not depend on any one of these theories.

Nor are they the foundation for new types of Science.

Take away the germ theory of disease and science will not cease. Ditto ToE. However, each of these theories requires a process which we call science for their creation and ongoing viability.

Right but my question was not if Science gives rise to theory. It was whether or not a theory of evolution is itself Science. And if it is not itself Science, than can it be regarded as empirical data for a new branch of Science?

What about "defined techniques". Tell a paleontologist or a molecular biologists that he or she has no defined techniques!

I never intended to do so, and I never would. I am only asking if evolutionary biology is a science or if it should be taught as a philosophy.

Of course evolutionists have defined techniques. But a theory is not a defined technique. No theory is. A theory is an explanatory system and ToE is a theory.

Exactly.

Likewise, that stars shine by fusion reactions at their cores is a theory; ditto that chemicals bond when they share electrons this is a theory. None of these are defined techniques. However, these theories, these explanations for observed data were developed by scientists using defined techniques in their field of expertise.

I believe the idea that Chemicals can bond can be considered empirical data and is observed. Most notably would be any creation of polymers.

And your idea that ToE depends on genetics but no science depends on ToE?
Well the theory that stars shine because of fusion reactions at their cores depends on physics but physics does not depend on the theory that stars shine because of fusion reactions at their cores.

Is this a new form of Science?

The idea that thunder occurs because compression waves emanate from air, superheated by lightning, depends on physics but physics does not depend on that theory.
So again while ToE shares certain attributes with other sciences, these attributes are in some way fatal for ToE but not for the other scientific theories. Other attributes, for example "defined techniques", just do not make sense in the context of a theory, simply because defined techniques are part of a discipline used to construct a theory. In that case, this attribute does apply to ToE.

Cannot some base level of these things be recreated in a lab, using physics? Endosymbiosis can not.

PHILOSOPHY, INTERPRETATION, SCIENCE (or SOME DATA IS NOT INTERPRETED?)

But exactly what was wrong with what ST88 said? Mind you, how ST88 said it was wrong?
Not only need science not be in the realm of hard core lab work, even when it is in that realm interpretation is always the order of the day. Even in the hardcore lab, all that is done, observationally, is the collection of data. The observations still have to be interpreted. No "can leave room for" about it. Interpretation is always done.
And we are back to that notion that ToE depends on science but science does not depend on ToE. Thus you wrote "Mendel + Mendel + Mendel = Darwin" (where as "Darwin + Darwin + Darwin does not equal Mendel").

I believe you have a good understanding of what science does in reality. But what is Science supposed to be? Our interpretations and creation of theories should remain theory until they can be elevated to the level of Empirical Data, thereby becoming the foundation for a new type of Science. Theories are a part of Science but are not Science in isolation.

If this is how you define science however then you must surely agree that:-
Fusion physics + fusion physics + fusion physics = Stellar energy generation
Whereas
Stellar energy generation + stellar energy generation does not equal Fusion Physics + Fusion physics.
Therefore the theory that stars shine via fusion reactions at their cores is not a scientific theory.
Are you willing to accept that conclusion?

I know nothing of the evidence for Stellar Energy generation or how it is taught, or what proof there is to its validity as the explanation and its reproducibility and relevance to Science as a whole.

What is even worse for you is the following. All of our descriptions of chemical reactions ultimately boil down to physics. Therefore:-
Physics + physics + physics = chemistry
Where as
Chemistry + chemistry + chemistry does not equal physics.
Therefore chemistry is not scientific. Yet you say that it is. What is more many of the processes in chemistry are unobserved and unobservable. Yet you accept the interpretations we place on our observed chemical data. What are these interpretations? They are explanations for unobservable processes!!

Which processes? I dont agree. Chemical interaction has given rise to new areas of Physics by observing how chemicals interact.
I never made the point that Mendel+ Mendel+ Mendel+ Mendel+ Mendel+ Mendel= Darwin as proof that Darwinism or the ToE is not Science. It was only brought up to make the simple point that Genetic experiments exist in the absence of the ToE and, the ToE is not a necessary precursor to understand them nor does it effect the study or validity of genetics. Your statement that Chemistry is not a Science is not the correct representation of the use of that model or what I was saying.

You argue that scientists should be "consumed in proving evolution". They are. Libraries are full of research journals on molecular biology, geology, paleontology, zoology, genetics which are full of articles either demonstrating evolution or attempting to understand various aspects of evolution. This has been so ever since Darwin proposed his theory.

This makes me Glad.

This is no different to theories on how stars shine. Go to any library and you will find journals on astronomy, astrophysics, physics, solar astronomy all dedicated to demonstrating or attempting to understand how stars shine via fusion reactions at their centers.
Why are there so many journals devoted to the subject of how stars shine? Because there are so many outstanding problems, some of which are quite fundamental.

But as I understand in youre explanation, they have all converged on the truth of fusion. I dont know the reason or proof for this, but if there isnt proof then that would be a shame.

You write that evolutionists should be performing tightly controlled experiments.
How much research literature do you read? (I do not mean this disparagingly either. My point is serious.) Tightly controlled experiments are done to understand the mechanism of speciation. This is an outstanding and fundamental problem in biology and well as evolution. Some recent ones done with fruit flies demonstrate that as little as a single gene can play an important role in this. Other tightly controlled experiments have been able to re-trace, in real time, and thereby demonstrate, a proposed speciation event which occurred some 60,000 to 120,000 years ago, for a type of sunflower growing in the US. Yet more tightly controlled lab work has been able to demonstrate a possible pathway for part of the transition from crustacean to insect some 400 million years ago, as evidenced in the fossil record. Other tightly controlled field experiments careful dating and study of bones, has been able to demonstrate sound evidence for the transition from either mesonychids or artiodoctyls to whales over a period of some 15 million years, beginning about 55 million years ago. This list goes on and on.
Where tightly controlled experiments cannot be performed, then there are restrictions placed on just what can be said and with what confidence - that is all.

I believe that all depends on whos talking and where.

Thus, with respect to whale evolution, it cannot be said that whales evolved from mesonychids. Nor can it really be said that they evolved from artiodoctyls. Because both ancestor groups are so closely related (genetically and in the fossil record), it is not at all clear that either group can claim to be the ancestor. However, the molecular data and the fossil data certainly favors the artiodoctyls.
Whether experiments are tightly controlled or loosely controlled the data still has to be interpreted. If an experiment is tightly controlled then you still may not get data which decides a dispute between opposing theories. Consider gravity. We can measure it to the 16th decimal point but such precision still does not allow us to say what gravity is. Hence competing theories are the order of the day. Measurements in gravitational research are just not good enough even though the experiments are tightly controlled!!
Hence, if the reasons you provide here cause you to deem ToE an art or a philosophy, you should also consider gravitational theory, stellar physics, meteorology, medicine etc. to be such.
Probably you should throw chemistry into the mix as well. On further reflection, because biology is genetics and genetics is chemistry, they should go in as well.

EVOLUTION AS PHILOSOPHY

Here you argue that evolution is no more than a philosophy. Your reasoning appears to be that observations are interpreted (contextualized) within ToE. Furthermore you argue that ToE did not develop a science (cell biology).
Let me look at your first point that observations are interpreted within ToE.
This is a very one-sided view of ToE. Theories in science serve two purposes. They both explain data/observations and suggest new observations to be undertaken whereby they (the theories) can be tested and hence verified, modified or rejected.
So of course observations are "contextualized" within ToE, just as observations are contextualized within any other theory in any other scientific discipline. Thus, observations of neutrinos from the sun are "contextualized" within the theory that fusion reactions occur at the centre of the sun. Those observations also support that theory. Likewise, observations of a set of mesonychid/artiodacty/whale mosaics are interpreted in the context of ToE and they support the notion that whales did evolve from land dwelling animals.

Like any other theory, ToE is always being tested by the collection of new data. This data, so far, both confirms the theory in general and modifies it in particular. No consistent set of observations have been conducted which require ToE to be thrown out despite creationist claims to the otherwise.

And no experiment has been done to elevate it from theory to empirical data. Thereby, becoming the foundation for a new branch of Science. This basis for my point.

It is certainly easy to think of observations which would call the theory into question and even require its abandonment such as the collection of fossils of all kinds which consistently date to 4 billion years (or 6,000 years) or unequivocal evidence from some deity where by it does proclaim that life was created supernaturalistically etc.

The second point has been dealt with earlier except to say that cell biology relies on physics and chemistry. They gave rise to cell biology. Cell biology did not give rise to either of them. Cell biology just could not exist without physics and chemistry. Physics and Chemistry can certainly do without cell biology.

There is one area where you have a point kind of. Certainly some have used and still use ToE as an argument against supernaturalism. ToE can have strong philosophical undertones in this respect. However, this is no different to the rest of science. Interpreting any phenomenon naturalistically as opposed to supernaturalistically brings in the same undertones. Many people once understood that meteorological phenomena and medical phenomena were caused directly by the supernatural. The mere fact that these began to be explained naturalistically undermined the whole supernatural worldview.

That choice is still there in these fields and some still exercise it to interpret things supernaturalistically in opposition to the mainstream.

What is new then with respect to ToE?

The fact that it has permeated into culture. As you call it mainstream.


INTERPRETATION

You write as if ToE is the only science that is concerned with interpretation. And you make it sound as if ToE deals only with interpretation.

Not the only Science concerned with interpretation. Evolutionary biology is the only Science solely devoted to interpretation. Name me something else that an evolutionary biologist does that is not another Scientific discipline.

Interpretation cannot be done on non-existent data or observations. Hence to interpret, ToE must have data to deal with in the first place. Thus ToE, like all other sciences, deals with data and observation.

Science to me also includes the generation of new data.

All of science deals with interpretation.

But is not exclusively relegated to it.

If this were not so then how come flat earthers exist; many Pentacostalists view mental illness as demonic possession rather than chemical imbalance in the brain; some Muslims view radio propagation through the ionosphere as directly caused by God and not due to the physical interaction of e.m. waves with electrical charges etc.
Same data different interpretation.

There is nothing stopping you from abandoning the naturalistic descriptions of meteorological phenomena and accepting Jobs interpretation of direct action by God just as you abandon naturalistic descriptions for the development of life on earth in favor of some authors supernaturalistic descriptions in Genesis.

There is nothing stopping you viewing the same data that I do and accepting that I am kidding myself the earth is flat.

But I agree that the Earth is round, does that prove that there is adequate evidence to prove evolution.

If you accept naturalistic theories over supernatural theories as explanations for some unseen and unobservable processes then it really is a choice you make.
Same data different choices of interpretation.

It is a choice. However it is presented as a choice between empirical data and theoretical in education. Not theoretical versus theoretical.


UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS.

This one is very much a matter of personal opinion as to what one sees as acceptable evidence. Nevertheless, while I sympathize with some of your requirements, I do think you are being a very unrealistic.

I would love to see a good cell theory experiment too. I do not know whether one exists or not. I am a layman, not a scientist like Jose or yourself.

You are correct in that if the foundation is shaky then the edifice may collapse. However, the lack of a good cell experiment does not necessarily make the foundation shaky. It just means that the experiment has not been done yet for one reason or another.

You write that you "dont just want the Mito or Chloroplasts, [you] want the evolution of all organelles into a single cell".

But isnt this just denial of existing evidence (Mito and Chloroplasts) and requiring instead that everything be demonstrated?

If so then your demand becomes unreasonable, surely. I could deny every naturalistic theory in every field on precisely those grounds, namely:-


a) denial of existing evidence and

This is where you totally loose me. I never stated that Mito and Chloroplasts dont exist. I only stated that the mechanism for their existence, which was the greatest mechanism of evolution of all time (if true) has yet to be proven.

b) in its place demanding that everything be demonstrated and hence explained by that theory.

If it is taught as empirical truth, then yes.

Thus, I reject the theory that the sun shines via nuclear reactions by:-

a) denying all the evidence and astronomer or physicist would offer in favor of the idea and

Except the reaction occurring in a controlled environment.

b) I go to a library and read up on all outstanding problems and say "Solve all those first then I shall believe that stars shine via fusion reactions at their cores".

No just the reaction that you are proposing or in Biology, the Mechanism of engulfing bacteria and incorporating them as functioning parts of your cell.

You stated that Marguilis theory is considered to be fact. I doubt it. Most defer to it simply because it is a good idea and has a lot of evidence in support of it. The link you provided lists the evidence. From memory, there are many (from the mainstream) who do not accept her idea. The fact that most accept the idea or defer to it at least, hardly constitutes anything peculiar to ToE does it? All science consists of theories where most accept the theory or defer to it at least. Certainly I get no feeling from reading the literature and I got no sense from that link you supplied, that Margulis idea was considered to be "fact". It was an idea that had a lot of evidence for it. Hence most/many accept it.
Surely this is not unusual in science and it is not peculiar to ToE.

But this is the problem. Although Jose has pointed out that the ideal is not to call anything Truth (calling things truth is for the religious), that is not the reality. There are numerous people who believe that evolution is true, without knowing all or many times any of the evidence. These people believe the things that they do not know or understand by faith in the authority of the presenter. This is a testament not only to its power as a philosophy, but makes me believe that it has become a religion.

Again that is an excellent idea. However our inability to do this is not peculiar to ToE. Nor does it tell against ToE. Your demand is unrealistic. Maybe it is unrealistic because the ToE is false. But maybe it is unrealistic because the experiment is just to complex to do now and so we have to do other experiments to argue our cause?

That is my point. The evidence is to complex to say that a theory should be elevated to a new branch of Science.

We cannot get enough of a critical mass of hydrogen together to see if it can fuse naturally. We have to rely on artificial means to do this. We cannot get a huge mass of molten iron and silicon and surround it with silicon, oxygen, and other elements then rotate this mass to see if a magnetic field will result. We have to rely on experiments in the lab which can only simulate bits of what we actually think does happen. We cannot go back 200 years and watch the supposed micro mutation event that led to the formation of AIDS. Nobody has gotten the proposed cellular precursor to HIV and done the exact manipulations to demonstrate what might have happened etc.
Why does the fact that extraordinary hard experiments that cannot (yet) be done, count against ToE but not other sciences?

How does the point that my expectations for proof seem impossible to you, prove the validity of Endosymbiosis?

OBSERVATION and EXPECTATIONS

Here you argue "reproduce the proposed process and you will believe it". You also argue "show me one step at a time the proposed process and you will believe it." And you argue that the symbiosis idea is accepted as "fact" and that researchers are moving on as if no further work need be done.

You appear to make demands of ToE, which you do not make for other sciences.

Why so?

This is a bit of a jump. I think this basic principle applies across the board. Any theory created from data should be scrutinized before it is used as the foundation for a new branch of Science. I believe that the evidence holds for Chemistry because of its interaction with the development of Physics and it reproducibility in a controlled environment. Evolutionary biology produces no unique data that cant be generated in any other scientific discipline. However, I believe it is a common occurance for men to want their theories to be right. My point was to ask where Evolution should be taught. I find the most compelling evidence for it being a philosophy in the words that you said.

Yet more tightly controlled lab work has been able to demonstrate a possible pathway for part of the transition from crustacean to insect some 400 million years ago, as evidenced in the fossil record.

You claim that you arent a scientist. Yet this statement sounds kind of scientific. What is your statement really saying? That "when fossils a and b are run through machine c we arrive at a date of d assuming e,f, and g." Why do you choose not to present it this way? You do not know the extensive details of the science. Neither do I. You have expectations for proof and faith that the standards applied in interpretation are equivalent to the methodology. Because my expectations are stricter than yours as to what can be stated as empirical fact in no way negates them based on complexity. I'm sure I missed a lot in that. Next time could you keep it short. It is too time consuming to try and think about everything at once. Thank you for your interest.