{1}One of the single most fundamental assumptions we make in these discussions is that some sort of "theory" of evolution exists. Clearly this is something that we should not have to assume. If it exists, it should be available. Indeed, it must have been available in the past, if it has been tested already, right?
I would like to read it. I may be mistaken, and I may learn something. At this moment, I do not believe there is an actual "theory" of evolution. I used to take it for granted; I've stopped taking it for granted. Until I see an actual theory, I shall consider it vaporware.
We are continually bombarded with "the theory of evolution says" or "does not say" such-and-such. There's an easy way to find out what it says - if it exists! Somehow, we never see any "theory" consulted when these disputes arise. Why this is the case can no longer be any mystery.
{2} Let us consider an oft-overlooked aspect of the term 'theory' in the English language.
"News theory"
http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/theoryc/
"Car and tractor theory"
http://www.dsa.gov.uk/
"Music theory"
http://library.thinkquest.org/15413/theory/theory.htm
"Feminist theory"
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/
Enough with the sources.
"Opening theory"
"Number theory"
"Particle theory"
"Graph theory"
"Game theory"
The dictionary doesn't make a critical distinction when it defines 'theory'. The meaning of the term changes substantially depending on placement. "The theory of X" refers to a single, specific theory. "X theory" refers to a collection of ideas. This is the loosest of all known definitions, even looser than the common "any old idea" definition. "X theory" can incorporate any number of real, make-believe, and even contradictory ideas.
{3}I want to point out another thing: When using the posterior application of the term 'theory', the implication is neutral as to scientific validity. Germ theory is valid. Why then is it not "the theory of germs"? Because there's actually a separate theory for each germ. But particle theory is what it is. It cannot all be true because some of the ideas are inconsistent with each other.
I maintain some of the things we see called "X theory" are scientifically without any merit at all. I'd name names, but I prefer to stay on topic. The only time 'theory' connotes merit in experimental science is when an hypothesis withstands scrutiny and legitimate testing. Such cases are called "so-and-so's theory of such-and-such". The placement of the term differs. If I'm mistaken about how our Language works, I'd like to see some counter-examples. I prefer older ones because skills, knowledge. and respect have been declining steadily when you're talking about English. Examples from partially literate sources will not impress me either.
{4}Does "Evolution theory" exist? Certainly. I've seen tons of ideas involving different sorts of "evolution". Is there a scientific "Theory of Evolution"? No. Some evolutionists point to the dictionary, and a chosen definition. It may indeed differ from "any old idea". But it is not scientific. It is improperly employed when the claim is made that a "Theory of Evolution" exists. Perhaps some dictionaries make the distinction. I would like to see them all do so. Of course the Language itself takes precedence over dictionaries in any case. Their job is not to dictate reality, but to report it - an essentially scientific task.
I repeat once more, as this one of the things people are most likely to "overlook": EVOLUTION THEORY DOES EXIST.
In order to meet the scientific standard, and experimentally testable, a falsifiable hypothesis must exist.
{5}If a "theory" should be presented, I intend to evaluate it. I intend to determine whether or not it is subject to experimental falsification, and meets the proper criteria. A candidate "theory" should have been stated as an hypothesis, and clearly recognizable as such. It will need to be complete. It will not consist of descriptions of a "theory"; it will have to actually be one itself. Telling you about my dog is not the same as showing you that I actually have a dog.
To those who would sell evolution, here's your chance to present your "theory". I think it's reasonable to ask to see the product, and one might even expect some degree of enthusiasm on the part of the sales staff. I admit in advance that I do not possess universal knowledge, and I make mistakes. By nature, my claim relies upon universal observation. If a properly scientific "theory of evolution" should be discovered - not some partial element, but the whole thing - what I said would be falsified. See? I know how to set an example.
IMPORTANT
{6} I am fully aware that many people believe such a "theory" exists, and they write about what they imagine. Such does not demonstrate the existence of an actual "theory". Such writings can be found anywhere. Anyone wasting my time linking me to talk about a "theory", rather than a "theory" itself will be wasting their own time.
I am only interested in seeing the alleged "theory" itself. Do not waste our time with links like the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introdu...dern_synthesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_...nary_synthesis
None of those contain the "theory" itself. Do not assume I will simply forget, either.
{7} A phrase to avoid:
"can explain" or "can be explained by"
This is simply claiming a theory can be formulated which will explain something. Duh! That's why we have theories. A theory which simply claims theories are possible is redundant and meaningless. Candidates containing these phrases, or their kinsmen, should not be presented.
Neither is this an invitation to compose nonsense and try to pass it off. We're told again and again that the "Theory of Evolution" has already been rigoursly tested. A fresh new candidate is out of the question from the get-go. A link to an extant "theory" is in order. If you are a sincerely scientific evolutionist, you might take this matter seriously and start a thread on how to go about formulating and actual "Hypothesis of Evolution". I might even be persuaded to discuss why it cannot be done. (Obviously the loss of plasticity which accompanies existence-in-writing is a big factor.)
{8} I'll be honest and state up front what I'm expecting. I expect hostility, and a lot of blatant overlooking of things I just got done saying. I expect to observe the antithesis of mature behaviour. I expect sharing screenshots and/or excerpts to be a means of providing amusement for some of my friends. I do not expect to encounter a single evolutionist who takes the matter seriously. They certainly should - and if sincere they must, as this can hardly be written off as "a mere technicality"; but my experience as an evolutionologist tells me few, if any, actually do. The nonchalance we may expect to observe regarding correspondence with reality, as well as scientific procedures and propriety, places evolutionism squarely within the category of religious belief.
I have a suggestion for those who are tempted to make excuses for the absence of any theory: hold off a spell, and give others a chance. Maybe they can find one, eh? Okay, not really. Go ahead and make me laugh.
In order to expidite discussion, I have inserted numbers. Should the inattentive rear their heads, they can quickly be referred to the section(s) which address the things they "chance" to miss. A poor student I'd be if I couldn't learn from experience and direct observation.
Finally, for those with short attention spans, ADHD, etc. my request is simple: Show me the "theory".
********************************************************************************
I'm sorry that I haven't the time to give this the attention that it deserves [I'm about to
start my day in Ft. Worth, TX and then I'm heading to Amarillo, TX ... Denver, CO ...
North Platte, NE and Laramie, WY --- check out the latest weather report in
those
'sunny' spots --- pray for me!].
Anyway, with the few minutes that I have let me just say this
: I am reminded of a
political science course that I took long ago (long ago!) in which the professor
asked, in a manner similar as you do here, about Communism. In the interest
of time let me jump to the punch line ...
Communism always takes on the 'definition' -- the 'shape' -- of the 'gangster' that
was in charge. Stalin's version of Communism was nothing like Mao's version
and neither of these was like Pol Pot's version and (Fidel) Castro's version also
conforms to its fearless leader. There is no
one "Communism" that is identifiable.
If you think about it, the so-called 'Theory of Evolution' is
much harder to define
than is Communism. It's like silly-putty --- taking on virtually whatever 'shape' it
has to in order to mold itself to the circumstances. Of course, the Evo-Faithful
will justify this by saying, "Duh, that's what science does -- it changes..."
That typical comeback avoids the point. When you have something that is able
to become
whatever it needs to -- with virtually
no limits placed on it (except that
it
HAS to be Materialistic!) -- then we open the doors to
anything -- Hopeful Monsters,
Directed Panspermia, Selfish Genes ...
anything becomes game. Then they get a
few PhD's to promote it, they publish it in
Nature or
Science and call it "science".
In short, trying to get a solid definition of the ToE is like trying to nail a jelly fish
to a concrete wall using wet noodles as the nails. Go at it!
Got'ta run .................. hope to be back sometime this afternoon.
Jorge
). I like the fact that places like TWeb exist where everyone can meet up and form dynamic relationships where, if everything goes well, every person gains insight and empathy for others' beliefs.
- {sets up OP for maximum obfuscation and semantics}
?
