Why is evolution scinece?

[Ravenstorm]

I don't see why evolution is science. Is there any scientific evidence of it?

[Scotracer]

If you used to be an "evolutionist" as you claim in your introduction thread, how would you not be privy to the evidence? Surely one must examine evidence before accepting a position?

[Goat]

I don't see why evolution is science. Is there any scientific evidence of it?

It all depends. Biological evolution is not science, it is just a fact. The theory of evolution is science, because of the fact it uses objective evidence, is testable, and makes accurate predictions.

[JoeyKnothead]

I don't see why evolution is science. Is there any scientific evidence of it?

Cause Darwin (among others) says so

Evolution, as an "act", is an observable phenomenon, liable to scientific study and all that entails.

Among the evidence for evolution is DNA, fossils, and a myriad and comprehensive assortment of other data.

I consider morphology one of the strongest indicators of evolution, though it must be considered in light of other data.

[McCulloch]

I don't see why evolution is science. Is there any scientific evidence of it?

[sarcasm]Of course not! It is merely a conspiracy of god hating, liberal atheists who wish to excuse their own sins. We concocted this unlikely story, fabricated evidence, twisted the interpretation of the evidence and deceptively wheedled it into the institutes of learning. All because we want to escape the guilt of our sinful lifestyle. [/sarcasm]

[Sir Rhetor]

Surely one must examine evidence before accepting a position?

Not necessarily:

Sorry for the low blow, but I thought it would be a consciousness raiser. Not all beliefs are held to the same standards, shall we say.

Note: I thought it a possibility that a moderator would have a problem with what I showed above. However, I feel that the question in the initial post is more of a trojan horse for some deeper (almost) resentment of the theory, and so I think it is important to keep everything on the table. Additionally, I would like to point out that I don't want to lead this topic astray by talking about evidence for Christianity, so please include evolutionary discussion in any post relating to Christianity.

There are three intrinsic properties of life (at least three, I guess). All organisms that possess these properties will evolve. This is a fact.

1) Everything that is living will die.
2) Animals who are unsuited to their environment will die faster.
3) Reproduction results in offspring which are different than their parents.

Do you deny any of these properties? If so, which ones, and most importantly, why?

The reason that watches and everything else which is created (eg not life) does not evolve is simple: watches do not die or reproduce, and are thus not subject to natural selection.

[McCulloch]

Firstly, let us be straight about what we mean by the word evolution.
For evolution to happen, you must have three things:

1. A population of self-replicating entities
   These could be any reasonably well defined entities, but most famously, it is applied to populations of life forms.
2. A replication process which is imperfect.
   The process that generates the copies, does so with variation. The individuals in the next generation are not identical to the individuals in the current one.
3. A Selection process
   If it were not for some selection, then the variations generated by the replication process would simply branch out in all possible directions. In biology, natural selection, the ability to survive and sexual selection, the ability to find a mate and to reproduce, provide that process.

We have found, that whenever these three elements are present, a process of evolution occurs. This process has become a powerful explanatory theory in, most famously Biology, but in an increasing number of sciences.

[McCulloch]

There are three intrinsic properties of life (at least three, I guess). All organisms that possess these properties will evolve. This is a fact.

1) Everything that is living will die.
2) Animals who are unsuited to their environment will die faster.
3) Reproduction results in offspring which are different than their parents.

Do you deny any of these properties? If so, which ones, and most importantly, why?

Fruit flies are eminently well suited to their environment, yet to a fruit fly, the expression born yesterday is one of longevity not a short life. I would restate your properties as:

1. Everything that is living will die.
2. Living entities (no need to restrict it to just animals) that are unsuited to their environment are less likely to produce the next generation.
3. Offspring vary from their parents.

[Sir Rhetor]

We have found, that whenever these three elements are present, a process of evolution occurs. This process has become a powerful explanatory theory in, most famously Biology, but in an increasing number of sciences.

I actually watched a very interesting video a while back in which someone wrote a program which evolved pocket watches. Not surprisingly, all of the elements we stated were present. Additionally, things which creationists commonly point to, like "gaps" in the fossil record are predicted by the population graphs. When one clock grew a third hand and became far more capable of telling time (this was the criteria for the natural selection), all of the clocks had three hands within a couple generations. A real-life example is the eye. Animals tend to need to adapt pretty quickly when the predator can see better than the prey. So evolution predicts that there may be a gap in the fossil record in the transition between the inferior eye and the superior eye, or between the two and the three-handed clocks. I mean, geeze, it isn't exactly easy to make a fossil...

And sorry, I'm at school and they block Youtube, so I can't link to the video. But I can tell y'all that it is called something like "Evolution is a Blind Watchmaker!".

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 9:

I actually watched a very interesting video a while back in which someone wrote a program which evolved pocket watches. Not surprisingly, all of the elements we stated were present. Additionally, things which creationists commonly point to, like "gaps" in the fossil record are predicted by the population graphs. When one clock grew a third hand and became far more capable of telling time (this was the criteria for the natural selection), all of the clocks had three hands within a couple generations.

The problem here is convincing others how it relates to the ToE. Too many will just say "humans made the program, so intelligent design".

Can someone present an argument for the use of these programs that overcomes the ID angle?

A real-life example is the eye. Animals tend to need to adapt pretty quickly when the predator can see better than the prey. So evolution predicts that there may be a gap in the fossil record in the transition between the inferior eye and the superior eye, or between the two and the three-handed clocks. I mean, geeze, it isn't exactly easy to make a fossil...

Not only that, but there's really great extant examples of eye evolution. From the eyespots of euglena, to the cupped eyes of planaria, onto the pinhole eye of the nautilus and humans.

We can even track the evolution of color vision (Talk Origins).