Freediver,

Observation is part of the experiment [Schrödinger].

Cheers,

O.

Thanks Oliver.

From earlier posts:

You are effectively arguing that because evolution is scientific the definition of science should be expanded to include it, while totally ignoring all the other obviously unscientific theories that would also be included. Except of course for the bit where you conceded that 'God made it so' was scientific, which would make it still a scientific theory in other contexts, while making Newtonian mechanics unscientific.

Bugsy's latest post:

"but rather the definition of the terms used within it.

Go ahead then. Redefine them. Perhaps you want to broaden the definition of experiment to include observations. It would mean you could call evolution a scientific theory, but it would have the same problem of including too much else. It would also destroy any meaning to the term.

So... still waiting on alternative definitions.

"The weight of evidence is on my side

You mean people agree with you? I don't see how you can claim to have some kind of 'evidence' when you haven't even supplied the alternative definitions your argument would have to rest upon.

"lengthy counter-arguments that directly contradict your own, speaks volumes about your attitude to real science.

The argument does not directly contradict my own. I agree with parts of it and have pointed out the flaws in the bits I don't agree with. This is a question of philosophy, not science. It's about logic, not evidence or data. There is no need to read pages and pages of it when the brief paragraphs you have copied are enough for me to point out the errors of logic. If you cannot explain an argument in your own words, chances are you don't understand it. 'Here, read this paper and you will be convinced' is the last resort people use when they are loosing an argument they don't understand, but still think a long winded argument somehow holds water even though they cannot figure out why. If I were to read the whole thing and respond by saying it adds nothing to the debate beyond what I have already refuted, how would you respond?

Freediver,

I drawing a distinction between natural selection and evolution; wherein the survival of the fittest expection was unrealised for humans, supporting evolution outside of the bounds of natural selection in context with the savannah drought and relevant anatomy [kidneys].

I didn't concede "God made so", as I would rate 6.5/7 on Dawkin's Atheism pole. 1/7 or 7/7 suggest infaliability and I wont go there.

Newtonian Laws are valid, within non-relativistic referial frames.Einstein's Theory of Relativity is limited, it doesn't have solutions for antimatter: e.g., positrons. √E2=M2C4 is better [Davies], with two solutions [+ & -], but that doesn't account for momentum as known to particle physics [Penrose]. Building on limitations is what science does. It is a good thing.

A simple question. Trust me, there is nothing simple when it comes to creation. Ever since (thera)yes its wrong) slammed into our planet, and created our new world, and the moon, life began in the salty waters. This is painful for me to spell this out, but the paleo world, is the only one true course of thinking that's makes any sense.
( And you know you all have it) ( god has served its purpose) None of us have all the answer's, but we are close with.. ( give them time and understanding or commensurate) and lets not forget the word COMMONSENCE. Now you are making me look at my bible' THE Dictionary.

I have no intention of 'reinventing the wheel' as it were. I have no need to redefine your concepts, that's already been done a long time ago, and not by me. Many types of experiments were outlined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment (as a guide). What can constitute a 'prediction' has already been covered. All you have done is limit them again to suit your argument.

My reference to a previous paper was supposed to serve as an indication that this argument of yours is neither new nor accepted as valid under modern interpretations of science.

I reposted some of the material within it, so as to highlight what I thought were some pertinent points. To summarily dismiss it by countering excerpts, rather than the whole piece is to do a great disservice to both the author and yourself. I do not expect you to be convinced, but you really do need to understand that this debate has been done a long time ago, the concepts properly redefined, and contrary to your assertion we don't see any meaning destroyed in what is considered scientific by including too much. When was that supposed to happen?

All I see so far is that some of us seem to have actually covered relevant literature in response to the topic. In fact, in all of your writings I have hardly seen any attributions to what are essentially old ideas rehashed and long ago dispensed with. So if you actually could show that you have read relevant reviewed articles on the topic in question and then refuted them properly, that in itself would be something, and indeed worthy of publication. Thus science progresses.

If all you have is blog, and you get hit by a bus tomorrow, it's gone. But I suspect that your intended audience does not include actual scientists nor philosophers, but fellow bloggers.

One needs to publish, for we are all but dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants. And no, I don't know anyone who would be willing to co-author, and if you really need one, I wish you luck in finding them.

I don't agree with the first assumption of this thread.
"evolution' is based on the premise that information in the genome 'increases' and becomes more complex over time. (if not, then we would have 'devolution')"
I don't think that is the case at all.
"Devolution" (??) does and can happen, like humans loosing the ability to produce Vitamin C. If you want to put a value laden word like "Devolution" on it
Evolution has never said a species gets "better" or more complex.(Although there is much argument about the latter.)
The WA 3.5 billion year Old Stromatolites in Shark Bay WA are doing fine thank you just as they did 3.5 billion years ago.