LeoDV
• Evolution hasn't been proven.
• However, evolution is in contradiction with genetics.
• And genetics *have* been proven.
• Following the non-contradiction rule of logic : genetics and evolution cannot both be true.
• Since genetics is true, then evolution can only be false.
I'll wait for the long form.
Evolution hasn't been proven
We might point out, in a similar context, neither has your existence.
cf Descartes for the mere tip of
that iceberg.
Gravity, for instance, is still a mere
theory, by the standard you're advocating.
Evolution contradicts genetics
For instance, as you point out that the goal of science is to observe facts and determine laws from said observations, I'm quite sure you can provide us some elaboration on your statement that evolution and genetics are contradictory. Did I miss a scientific confession? Or can you point us to the data in the NAS links which bring you to such a conclusion.
And, no, genetics aren't proven. the mother/father data is proven, but genetics is still a theoretic science. Take "junk DNA", for instance. Search is over, right? Won't we feel silly when we figure out that it has a specific purpose?
Junk DNA? It serves a specific purpose; nature isn't extraneous.
The problem with disagreeing with evolutionary theory
The problem that comes with disagreeing with evolutionary theory is fundamental.
Why disagree? Well, it appears that some feel they know better--e.g. Creationists--and others may simply seek to reject an explanation they find unappealing or else dissatisfactory.
Why dissastisfactory? Of faith and appeal, we understand much. But satisfaction?
I always note that the scientific process isn't finished. As such, what is so dissatisfying? A simplistic conclusion that evolution must be false? If it is so simple as evolution and genetics being contradictory, by all means, please demonstrate.
So what do the naysayers have to offer? Various divine comedies that reduce humanity to marionettes or accidents? Have they any observable data to support a cohesive theory? Can, for instance, the creationists, show us the creator?
That, as the NAS notes,
The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming, you'll note the genetecists aren't complaining? In fact, as NAS points out, genetics is vital to the evolutionary database:
In historical sciences like astronomy, geology, evolutionary biology, and archaeology, logical inferences are made and then tested against data. Sometimes the test cannot be made until new data are available, but a great deal has been done to help us understand the past. For example, scorpionflies (Mecoptera) and true flies (Diptera) have enough similarities that entomologists consider them to be closely related. Scorpionflies have four wings of about the same size, and true flies have a large front pair of wings but the back pair is replaced by small club-shaped structures. If two-winged flies evolved from scorpionfly-like ancestors, as comparative anatomy suggests, then an intermediate true fly with four wings should have existed--and in 1976 fossils of such a fly were discovered. Furthermore, geneticists have found that the number of wings in flies can be changed through mutations in a single gene.
Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions. Furthermore, many key mechanisms of evolution occur over relatively short periods and can be observed directly--such as the evolution of bacteria resistant to antibiotics.
Evolution is a well-supported theory drawn from a variety of sources of data, including observations about the fossil record, genetic information, the distribution of plants and animals, and the similarities across species of anatomy and development. Scientists have inferred that descent with modification offers the best scientific explanation for these observations.
Thus, seeing as how your argument against evolution includes the idea that genetics contradicts evolution, I would hope you can show us where in these pages you've noted as a testament against evolution you derive this opinion.
And, in light of the failure of theistic opponents of evolution to hitherto present a cohesive, testable alternative theory, I might ask what alternative you would present? The most part of the objective wing of the science crowd seems on the trolly for evolutionary theory. What else is out there?
thanx much,
Tiassa
