Freediver, I’m still right at the most basic level of trying to understand where you are coming from.

You don’t believe that evolution is real? Or perhaps you do, but that it is just not scientifically proven and therefore not technically fact, despite overwhelming evidence?

You’ve got me stumped with your differentiation between evolution and natural selection.

From Ozpolitic: I disagree with the circumspection of science as having to be a methodology, not a field of study. Botany and geology are fields of study and they are very much sciences.

I disagree also that there even have to be hypotheses, let alone falsifiable ones.

One of my main interests in botany is data gathering - of the distributions of species, species inventories for given areas, species / substrate relationships, the differences in vigour and abundance of a given species in different ecological circumstances, etc.

This is pure science, but it doesn’t directly involve hypotheses, although they can be developed around the data.

“The term science gets thrown around very loosely these days”

Yes, but there have always been fields that are considered fully scientific without hypotheses, experiments or debate between experts as to the implications of theories or outcomes.

You shouldn't have posted that - there is a limit on the number of posts too lol.

Go here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

There is a link at the bottom to a forum without those limits. Don't let your stuff go to waste.
Posted by freediver, Sunday, 7 January 2007 4:41:52 PM

I think freediver is trying to claim that, because evolutionary theory cannot be replicated (that it only fits our observations), it is not science.

I am sorry - but much of that ozpolitic website is rubbish (although some things I do agree with). For example, much of what we 'know' about astronomy and the universe is not reproducable in on earth. But we still call it science. Like evolution, the theories are based upon our observations.

Whoever commented on geologists: Without them, and their (non-reproducable) theories developed based on observation, you would not have oil, or coal, or uranium to produce electricity. You would not have the metals and plastics to construct the computer you are posting on. And the list goes on.

Try This.

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167973400/3#3

Zacco,

If you had read the rules before you jumped in, you would have known. You have just wasted about 40 words telling everyone that you don’t read the directions!

Another dill.

Oh, and yet more predictive benefits of evolutionary theory.
'Missing links' are not a short-coming of evolution. They are spots within a biological classification system that are yet to be filled by unknown or yet to be discovered species.

The classification system is developed based on observations and yes, evolutionary theory. As can be expected when developing a classification system, there are still blanks spaces that can be filled in later with further information. The reason why the classification system keeps changing (if only slightly) is that further information from genetic and protein analysis continues to grow.

This is exactly what happened when Mendeleev developed his periodic table of the elements. He left blank spaces because he knew that these were spots in the classification system that were still unknown. A prime example of this in biology is the Archaeopteryx.

That’s a bit of an unfortunate post Leigh.

From personal experience, directions or rules can be very easy to miss.

Welcome to OLO Zacco.