Ludwig:

"The history of humanity’s awareness and development of the understanding of evolution is about as scientific as anything can be….surely."

History and science use different methodologies. Ultimately, what we are arguing here is philosophy.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/history-modern-scientific-method.html

"Natural selection is about as well entrenched in the realm of fact and removed from the realm of theory as anything can be."

Then why do practicioners call it a theory? It is intrenched in the field of belief, or faith, but not fact. But this is beside the point.

"science, which surely holds up the same principle as our legal system"

Not sure what you are getting at here.

"Yes, but that simply means that they are evolution on different scales, that’s all. "

No it doesn't. There are fundamental differences that are not just a matter of scale. See the 4th paragraph:

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

"the gathering of records of plant species so that we can better understand their distributional patterns"

These patterns are a form of interpretation. It reduces pages of data to a single page (or whatever) which is easily understood. TI adds meaning. But I agree with you that it is still science, even if it is just observations.

"theories are not conclusions!"

Yes they are. They are conclusions draw by a given person. I was not implying that the term conclusion had any well recognised scientific meaning.

If anyone wishes to discuss this in more detail, can I suggest we take it up here:

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

In response to Philo's request to show how genetic information increases from an "omeba" to a human.

No we can not actually SHOW that. However, as for an increase in new genetic information through evolution, yes there is ample evidence. For example, in the human genome there is a huge amount of superfluous material. Much of this is duplicate genes that are never translated into proteins. These duplicate genes are close copies or cousins of the actual working genes but with slight differences. At some point these genes have been copied but are no longer useful. Other less complex species than human actually have much more genetic material. There has probably been alot more duplication genes through their evolutionary history.

Also, many bacteria possess mechanisms for incorporating foreign genetic material within their own genome. These mechanisms are what have been developed into technology that is utilised in genetic re-engineering. So the evidence and the mechanisms exist and are fully known.

"Also, many bacteria possess mechanisms for incorporating foreign genetic material within their own genome."

Doesn't this contradict the theory of evolution?

Zacco,

What a tender flower you must be if you think that I have "abused" you. Was it the "dill". I still think that anyone who announces his frustration with OLO rather than expressing his view on the subject is a dill. You have done it again - more interested in what I said than commenting on the subject. We still don't know what you think about evolution even though you claim to have written 1500 words on the subject.

I do not believe that I have abused you in any real sense of the word and neither, apparently, does the editor who is sole arbiter of such things. If you had been around for a while, you would have seen me called a Nazi, a racist, ignorant and many other things. All of these things I ignore.

It appears that you have a rather thin skin and are more interested in yourself than in discussing topics on OLO.

I look forward to the time that you do get over yourself and start expressing your opinions.

Ludwig is a bit of dear who often feels the need to "protect" the innocent from such terrible ogres as I am supposed to be.

Unfortunately he cannot protect you from any insensitive brutes you might encounter as a result of your taking the opportunity to express an opinion, and you will have to toughen up. You do not, of course have to read anything I, or others of whom you disapprove, post.

Thanks for completely ignoring my posts, freediver.

Check it out: when scientists use the term 'theory', they do not use it in the same way it is used in common language, ie as a 'hunch' or a 'guess'. The term is used to describe a valid collection of facts, rather than one specific fact. Evolution is the only valid scientific explanation for the facts that are presented, and it is an extremely valid one. In this sense, scientists do consider Evolution to be factual. True story.

I'm not interested in your countless weblinks. I'm aware there are many crackpot websites around. It is the internet, after all. It does not validate your position in the slightest.

It's good that theories are constantly questioned. But unfortunately what happens is someone questions evolution in say, an article. People who want to not accept Evolution go: 'hey, yeah! look at that!' sometime later, it may be debunked with thorough and proper scientific analysis. No one pays attention to the debunking though, because thats boring and complex. The questioning is all thats remembered.

For example, 'Irreducible Complexity' was thoroughly and completely debunked some time ago. Those who do not accept Evolution don't seem to care about that. The theory of is still all over the internet, that's all that seems to matter.

Again: there is only one scientifically valid explanation for life in this world. That's the FACT of the matter, and no amount of bickering will change it. Unlike the other theories, you don't have to 'believe' in Evolution for it to be real. Life is in a constant state of Evolution, whether you like it or not.

Actually, the theory could easily be adjust to take that into account. That is the main endearing quality of the theory - it's almost infinite flexibility. Just like theological explanations, with the added advantage of a veneer of science.

Spendocrat, I did not ignore your posts. I used a considerabel portion of my daily post allowance in responding to you. Unfortunately I cannot explain it all in this short space, so you will have to read some of the links.

"The term is used to describe a valid collection of facts, rather than one specific fact."

No. The term fact is not used at all in the scientific method. Theory is used to differentiate from law. A scientific law is universally accepted (but still not a fact). A theory is not universally accepted, but is more widely accepted than a hypothesis (which anyone can come up with).

"Evolution is the only valid scientific explanation for the facts that are presented"

1) It is not scientific.

2) The fact that it is the only explanation you accept is irrelevant to this discussion.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/logical-fallacies.html#best%20available%20explanation

"I'm aware there are many crackpot websites around. "

Yes, but mine is not a crackpot site. It is the same as what I post here. It's just that I've already responded to all the points you make and it is easier to just post a link. The fact that there are other crackpot sites is not a valid criticism of OzPolitic.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/logical-fallacies.html#association%20fallacy

I think this will be my last post here for the day. Sorry if I have wasted it. For more discussion, see here:

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