The Theory of Evolution Is Valid

However, I found it fundamentally flawed. Judging by the resolution, the burden of proof would appear to lean on my opponent's side. Therefore, my opponent's argument should carry more weight in evaluating this argument. Although technically, I am not obligated to show that the theory of evolution is not valid, it would certainly help my case as Con and maintain the debate's format. Regarding my views, I do not believe ID is scientific; it is a philosophical view as it deals with a metaphysical claim. I consider both ID and ToE (and creationism. .. ) as equally pseudosciences as far as science is concerned. There are simply things we can't scientifically conclude with the current available data like what is before the big bang. What we can scientifically do in such situations is exercise our imagination and basically make things up. Fooling ourselves and pretending that we know something we don't is simply harmful. 1- Science and Empirical limits. Although it is difficult to find a precise definition of science, I shall use Sir Karl Popper's criteria, as falsifiability is what separates science from pseudoscience. One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability. (1) a. Evolution is not observed It [The scientific method] is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. -Science Daily (2) Science highly relies on empirical evidence, observation, and testing. The claims of evolution do nothing of these. It is important to distinguish genetic variation introduced by Mendelian genetics (also called, "micro-evolution"). So depending on the definition, I do believe in evolution, species do under go change in their genetic pool over time. However, the theory of evolution has huge flaws and gaps compromised by tiny favorable evidence that are insignificant compared to the claim. There is simply no evidence for us to validly conclude that evolution accounts for all of nature. We simply have to wait for thousands of years (Labs can only speed this up by so much) to do science. Have we observed unicellular organisms joining together to form multicellular organisms? Why can’t we observe this? The weather patterns are different so they can't do it anymore? How can we know it happened or if it is even possible? How did hearts evolve? Why was mutating a 1/x00,000 of a heart, a tiny randomly placed tumor, naturally selected? Did mutations between every generation work together to invent an organ? What was the heart pumping, did blood exist? What evolved first, the heart, the lungs, or the blood vessels? Did speciation create species with a different organ set? Can multicellular creatures survive without vital organs? How did instincts evolve? A beaver's dam building instincts are based on the sound of running water (3), not parental teaching. So how did birds learn how to weave and construct nests? How did spiders learn (and evolve) weaving webs? Did spiders first evolve the double strand technique, and then the triple strand triangle technique for fun and record them in their genetics, until they were found convenient for hunting? Did birds lose a significant amount of eggs learning how to build nests? Maybe all these animals were once highly intelligent thinkers, and then they de-evolved their intelligent because they didn't need it. The scenarios that can arise to explain these are absurd, and more importunately, lacks any shred of evidence that evolution can, did, and will account for nature. All the ad hoc is in contradiction with the skeptical nature and critical thinking of science, which is what separates it from a dogmatic belief. We can't appeal to the future; how do you know that the evidence will ever exist? What evidence do you have to support such a prediction? *note* By using “Irreducible complexity", I am not saying that I find it hard to imagine. I am saying that it is (virtually) impossible. b. Untestable and unfalsifiable There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable'. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. (4) A scientific theory have the capability of being safely proven untrue, unlike a simple faith-based belief. History depends on testimony, we can't use the scientific method to prove or disprove a historical event, since by definition it is unrepeatable. Any alternative theory can have the same validity of evidence. One famous claim of falsifiability is the "Rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian" by J. B. S. Haldane. However, that is a mischaracterization of the ToE. We are not arguing about different fossils existing in specific times. From the definition of ToE, evolution would be falsifiable if we could show that a hypothesized common ancestor could not modify into a rabbit, which is a philosophical question if anything. Then there is Charles Darwin's criteria from chapter 6 of the origin of the species (By extension, Richard Dawkin's): "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. " So he asks for license to advance any scientific theory that is not demonstrated to be philosophically impossible. Right, not falsifiable. That sure is a strange way to say: "All complex organs are formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications". Where is the science? c. Lack of evidence Science is different from deductive logic. It is based on probability and confirmation. We can justify the use of fallacies based on probability in our everyday lives. One such fallacy science is dependent on is confirming the consequent, which goes like this: 1- If P, then Q. 2- Q. 3- Therefore, P. The same as: 1- If the moon is made from cheese, we should see craters. 2- We see craters. 3- Therefore, the moon is made from cheese. Or 1- If the sun revolves around the earth, the sun would rise and set. 2- The sun rises and sets. 3- Therefore, the sun revolves around the earth. Controlled tests minimizes the probability of other conditions interfering. As you can see from the two previous examples, any non-sense theory can "fit" a model. However this is not enough, a hypotheses must be shown to be more plausible than alternatives with the same prediction. To be frank, the majority of "evidence" I witnessed regarding evolution are simply observations that are not evidence for evolution or even unrelated at all, unless in the instance where evolution is being assumed. The evidence I often see presented isn't going to cut it. Especially with such claims like unicellular organisms forming into multicellular organisms, or that the complex biological systems and organs can randomly and efficiently form from scratch, needs to be supported. Otherwise, evolution is equally, if not less, plausible to alternative theories. 2. (Poor) Fossils Record "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils …. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. " - Stephen J. Gould (5) a. Failure of predictions When you learn about evolution, you'd think that the fossil record would look like a gradual fetal development spread over hundreds of millions, and potentially billions, of years. However, if anything, it looks like the evolution of the automobile. Where is the gradual growth? Growing/Losing teeth, growing eye socket, giraffe's neck getting taller, limbs changing? Why are the fossils recognizably static throughout their life time? Why didn't the T. Rex grow longer arms in 3 million years of evolution? Why do species remain unchanged for millions of years to disappear and be replaced by different species? Stephen and Niles Eldridge recognized these problems. However, the approach they took is simply giving the problem a name, "Punctured Equilibrium". Well. .. The problems still there. Sure, the ToE would have less success if Darwin named his book: "On the origin of species by means of surviving and producing offspring", but labeling it with a scientific name and making a contradictory ad hoc won't make a theory better. Then, there is the Cambrian explosion. No trace of animal life other than unicellular organisms for three billion years. Suddenly, fully formed complex organisms with eyes and brains show up. Instead, we get bizarre explanations, like a raccoon-sized mammal evolving into a blue whale. (6) Well, can you present evidence other than imagination constructed with lack of critical thinking? b. Living fossils Self-explanatory (7), not hard to imagine where I am going with this. So animals can go hundreds of millions of years with virtually no evolution? (1) . http://www.stephenjaygould.org... (2) . http://www.sciencedaily.com... (3) . http://www.neatorama.com... (4) . http://physics.ucr.edu... (5) . http://www.talkorigins.org... (6) . http://news.nationalgeographic.com... (7) . http://news.discovery.com...