Evolution Is Not A Valid Scientific Theory

Hello there,I am a little confused after reading my opponent's remarks, but I will address that in my rebuttals. I also listed the second definition because I believed the first one I provided might not be satisfactory and could be one that even you agreed with. I agree to simply argue on the basis of the first definition given.My Arguments will be following this format:Argument 1 l What is a Theory?Argument 2 l What Makes a Theory Valid?Argument 3 l How is Evolution Then a Valid Theory?A final remark before I begin my arguments. I am not a scientist, and my knowledge of biology and the other related fields of science are limited based upon my lack expertise. I will however attempt to demonstrate that it is reasonable for any person scientific or not, to accept this theory.Argument #1 l What is a Theory?Contrary to popular belief, a theory is not mere speculation, the usage of the word "theory" in scientific writings is much stronger than that. The definition for a theory that I will be working with is also provided from the National Academy of Sciences.Theory: "A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena."[1]In order to meet my burden, I must demonstrate that evolution meets this criteria as defined above. Which brings me to my second point, what makes a theory valid.Argument #2 l What Makes a Theory Valid?When we speak of a theory being valid, what do we mean? Simply, that a theory is well grounded and reasonable.[2] Theories and their contents are not infallible classifications, as aspects of the theory may be incorrect, and theories also differ in strength. Here are a list of criteria that can be used to deduce whether or not a theory is valid. It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics). It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct. It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.) It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time. It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)[3] Using what we have gleaned from our defining the word "theory," and by also establishing the criteria for what makes a theory valid, I will no demonstrate how evolution is a valid theory within my third and primary argument.Argument #3 l How is Evolution Then a Valid TheoryEvolution is something that takes place over vast periods of time, and as such, most of the evolutionary processes have already happened. This in some ways limits the ability of scientists to make clear falsifiable predictions concerning evolution. However, scientists also have the ability to make retrodictions, to make "predictions" and inferences about the past, given the informatoin and data that we have.An example of a retrodiction of this kind would be Darwin's prediction that humans arose in Africa, which he based of course on the likeness that we share with other primates. Numerous studies have been confirming Darwin's hypothesis on this matter in more recent years, and has been almost universally accepted in the field of biology. The study took genetic data along with a large sample of skulls to demonstrate that humans originated from one area, Africa.[4] Evolution should also be supported by a large strand of evidence, I will list several below to meet this criteria.Evidence #1Lenski's extensive experiment is one of the most successful evolutionary experiments, and has provided us the ability to watch evolution happen. Remember, the first part of my definition was this, "Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another." Based upon this definition, I all but have met my burden when I tell you that we observed changes in the heritable traits of a population of E. coli, which namely was the ability to metabolize nitrate.[5] Evidence #2Another piece of evidence is the fossil record. Simply the evidence is the fact that at certain times we have observed in the fossil record that species arise and often go extinct. Scientists even believe that billions of species, the vast majority have gone extinct, the question arises. Where did all these species come from? For example, dinosaurs did not show in the fossil record about 231.4 million years ago. Yet, life has existed on Earth for about 3.8 billion years. Did Dinosaurs just pop into existence 231.4 million years ago, or is the best explanation provided by my definition. That these dinosaurs evolved from previously existing life forms via natural selection over a period of billions of years.Replace dinosaurs with any other major group of animals or even specific species and you run into the same problem. Where did all this diverity arise from, given that the evidence we have supports that it arose over a huge expanse of time? The Theory of Evolution can be the only one to provide a reasonable and substantiated response to this question.Evidence #3I am not a geneticist, nor do I have much expertise or knowledge in the field, but scientists regard genetic evidence among the strongest we have for evolution. With the genetic difference between us and Chimpanzee's only being at 1.2%,[6] it is difficult (if not impossible) to provide an alternate interpretation for why there would be so much in common among organisms on earth.ConclusionI have limited time today, so I could not go as in depth as I wanted to, and we can discuss the evidence in the rebuttal rounds a bit more. However, I want to conclude by saying that Evolution is the only possible explanation, given the spectrum of choices. The only alternative to evolution is the special creation by some kind of higher being, be it an alien or God. And that special creation of immutable or near immutable species is the explanation for the diversity of life. Not only is this an unscientific answer, but it also fails to address all the evidence particularly with regards to the fossil record.Voters should vote Pro, that Evolution is a valid theory, and is indeed the only valid theory to explain the diversity of life as we see today.Regards,TrueScotsman[1] http://www.nas.edu...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://humanorigins.si.edu...;