Evolution is real

http://science.yourdictionary.com...theoryA set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.hypothesisA statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.evolutionThe process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and udergo change over time through natural selection.natural selectionThe process by which organisms that are better suited to their environment than others produce more offspring.My opponent's argument was shorter than expected. Can be argued to be too short, but an argument's an argument and I shall address them. Before that I shall present my counter arguments on why the resolution cannot be fulfilled.Theories are supported, not proven Sensing and acquiring Data is factual. Theories (explanations of data) are not. 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. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable. (1) So we have three possibilities for evolution assuming that it is not falsified:1- It is a theory, meaning that it is fallible. Thus, not a fact.2- It is an untestable hypothesis, thus pseudoscience and have no validity. Therefore, not a fact.3- It is not science.The Berkeley website states that the word "Fact" lacks meaning in science. It only reefers to the fact that X was observed/tested. And even so, it is established in philosophy that our sensory data cannot be trusted. factStatement that is known to be true through direct observation. Since scientific ideas are inherently tentative, the term fact is more meaningful in everyday language than in the language of science. (2)The Berkeley website also states that: "Scientific ideas cannot be absolutely proven"(3)And that's that. Experiments are based on induction, which is repetition, which is based on probability. Calling something based on that method a fact would be a formal fallacy, hasty generalization, argument from ignorance, and possibly more.Science is a way of understanding the world, not a mountain of facts. Before anyone can truly understand scientific information, they must know how science works. Science does not prove anything absolutely -- all scientific ideas are open to revision in the light of new evidence. The process of science, therefore, involves making educated guesses (hypotheses) that are then rigorously and repeatedly tested. (4)So, if evolution is not science what could it be? Well... “A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modifications in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at complete and final demonstration…Science thus encourages the abandonment of the search for absolute truth, and the substitution of what may be called ‘technical’ truth, which belongs to any theory that can be successfully employed in inventions or in predicting the future…’Knowledge’ ceases to be a mental mirror of the universe, and becomes merely a practical tool in the manipulation of matter.” - Bertrand Russell (5) What it claims to avoid, a religion. Calling it fact is the same as making it a religion. I am not even going to address ancient attempts at forgeries or all the wishful evidence presented. Calling evolution a fact is hiding metaphysical and philosophical beliefs under the garb of science. There is also the question if it is a theory at all. Richard Dawkins states: " MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact? DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening. MOYERS: What do you mean it's been observed. DAWKINS: The consequences of. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Now, any detective… MOYERS: Circumstantial evidence. DAWKINS: Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English. Evolution is true. I mean it's as circumstantial as that, but it's as true as that. " (6) If that is the case, then it is a "Protoscience" at best since it is not observable, thus does not have scientifically empirical evidence. It is unlikely to be able to conduct controlled tests since laboratories can only "speed up" so much in case evolution was true.Evolution is dependent on the past, is there any laboratory experiment that can disprove evolution? Perhaps we did not wait long enough. Species need to demonstrate the ability to evolve new organs or information before we make the claim with an acceptable degree of accuracy.I am not saying that the status of evolution is a fact, but the existence of a possibility also means it is not a fact.RebuttalI have already won the debate since science is changeable. Proving something is a fact scientifically is equivalent to being omniscient. No amount of experiments is enough to prove any idea in science, but only one experiment is enough to falsify an idea in science.1- Natural selectionI need you to define me criteria for natural selection so we can determine if the claim is true. Is it surviving for a longer time than others of the same species? Is it producing more offspring? Is it something else?The term by itself allows for some very vague interruptions and tautology. If it is just surviving then anything is natural selection. If a peacock have a long tail, hey it is for intimidating enemies and attracting females. if an animal have a short tail, then it is for hiding from enemies and stealth.So kindly determine the criteria. if it can explain everything then it can't prove or disprove anything.For example:"It is curious that I remember well time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, & now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" -Charles Darwin (7)Darwin thought of a peacock's tail as against natural selection. That is why sexual selection was introduced. The hypothesis is that species may have traits that allows them to reproduce better, even if they were disadvantageous. So that claim can be falsified if as seemingly disadvantageous trait was shown not to help in reproducing. (8)As for your example, you assume that natural selection causes evolution. I have not encountered any evidence regarding that. It is plausible for it to contribute to evolution, but claiming that it causes evolution is just ridiculous and needs support from evidence.This is your argument:1- If NS exists, then E exists.2- NS exists.3- Therefore, E exists.NS = Natural selection. - E = Evolution.It is flawed because premise 1, "If NS exists, then E exists", is assumed to be true, while it must be demonstrated that is true. This is begging the question; the first premise needs as much proof as the conclusion. Therefore, the argument is flawed.Lets do this natural selection experiment:You are an investigator sent to a car factory. You need to inspect the cars and send the flawed ones to be recycled. So you test the body, the steering, the brakes, the wheels. etc...You send a relatively high number of cars to be recycled.Alright. Pop quiz:How long will it take for the good cars to evolve into space ships?It won't, or at least we have no basis for this prediction. Because we have no evidence to support that cars can evolve.It is the same with evolution. We need evidence to support that animals can evolve first.2- Small scale evolutionI don't see any evolution. From our understanding, unless evolution is proven dogs that don't have genes for feathers will not grow feather even after billions of years of breeding. The breeding is basic Mendelian genetics. "Mendelian Inheritance" or "Variations" may or may not appear in the next generation depending on the genes of the parents and the method these traits are inherited. (9)This is the same as calling your eye color an evolution. Traits that come from breeding are not unlimited, this is excluding distortion that can rarely come from mutation. You must first prove that the trait in question was not existent in the genetics of previous generations.Farmers and pet store owners don't have to worry about their bussiness. Their animals will still remain the same species. Not evolution.(1) http://physics.ucr.edu...(2) http://undsci.berkeley.edu...(3) http://undsci.berkeley.edu...(4) http://www.pbs.org...(5) http://lesekreis.wikispaces.com... P. 14(6) http://www.pbs.org...(7) http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk...(8) http://www.newscientist.com...(9) http://anthro.palomar.edu...