Axeman Again.... using this flawed logic, if this biochemist was consistent, he would have to reject ALL SCIENCE that was not based on "direct observation" and "detailed accounts". Simply ridiculous. ** First you call me a fourth grade debater, and now you call me Sherlock. Some people seem to get emotional when their unobservable, vast periods of time, theory of evolution without a mechanism is criticized. I seem to be progressing, I even used Google to find a definition of science. It wasn't very difficult, just in case you were wondering. If you need help or a link, just let me know. Do you accept the following definitions of the term 'science'? Please give a straight forward answer, unequivocal? Yes or no? Are these acceptable definitions of science? ** Biology Dictionary Definition: 1. The study of the material universe or physical reality in order to understand it. This is done by making observations and collecting data about natural events and conditions, then organizing and explaining them with hypotheses, theories, models, laws, and principles. 2. The organized body of knowledge about the material universe which can be verified or tested. 3. A particular branch of either the process of study or the body of knowledge, such as astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics. Definition: a method of reaming about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
First of all... I did not call you Sherlock. That was in reference to the biologist who stated the obvious. Further.... lets look at the original quote: but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system Now lets take a look at the first definition you posted: The study of the material universe or physical reality in order to understand it. This is done by making observations and collecting data about natural events and conditions, then organizing and explaining them with hypotheses, theories, models, laws, and principles. Does this definition state ANYWHERE that the observations must be DIRECT detailed accounts??? No, of course not. Because science frequently uses observations which are NOT direct observations of what they are studying. They use data in the form of evidence *left behind* by what they are studying. They use mathematical models, etc. Science has NO "detailed account" of a a galaxy forming, or a star being born, and a planet being formed. Yet, they can rely on all kinds of other data to piece together the puzzle. If by "detailed account", this guy is claiming there is no evidence for macroevolution, then he is simply wrong. If he means that "detailed account" is an observable instance of this kind of evolution, then all I can say is DUH, since it typically take much more than a life time for this to occur. Again.... we have never, and will never observe another grand canyon forming. So of course, there will never be a "detailed account" of a grand canyon forming. However, this is NO WAY means that we cannot piece together the puzzle via scientific means and propose a theory on HOW the grand canyon formed. The fact is, as humans, we will NEVER experience macroevoltion occuring. We simple do not live long enough. Will we experience biomechanical evolution? I seriously doubt it, for the same reason. peace axeman
The evidence supporting evolution accretes, and accretes, and accretes, and just keeps coming. As for this new "instrumentation", can you get any more vague? ART, do you actually understand the principles of evolution, genetics, DNA replication, Messenger RNA and protein synthesis?????? You speak in such a vague tongue that it seems you don't have a handle on the topic at hand.
Change occurs over time in some species. In other species we don't see the same changes nor rate of changes, so there is inconsistency across species as to change. I don't see evidence of cause, I see speculation of cause from looking at the effect. If we find a chemcial and or biological reaction, yet we don't know why the chemicals or biological species do indeed react the way they do, and we chalk it up to "nature" then we discover the more we think we "know" the more we realize we lack knowledge of what "nature" really is and why "nature" exists. Determining a causal realtionship as to the exact cause of the effect, i.e. the change happens because of a particular influence, power, or force is a theory at the present time, not a proof. If there are 1000 pieces of evidence that lead someone to believe that Darwinian evolution takes place, and at the same time there are 5 pieces of evidence that counter that theory, is evolution a hard science, or just a theory and possible spurious conclusions? There may be a random cause that leads to the effect of change, or it may be an orderly "natural" process, or it may be by design of some intelligent power. In the final analysis, there is nothing that is a proof of direct cause and effect, only speculation. Those who accept Darwinian theory as fact, or invest themselves in that theory emotionally as to lose their scientific objectivity, are practicing a religion of sorts. Science can study, record, and note changes and effect in living beings....but lacking knowledge, absolute and certain knowledge of the ultimate cause of those changes that appear to lead to the effects, what remains is an unproven and incomplete theory. What is vague about that?