The E wrote:snip
Here's the correct definition: Evolution is the process of change in living organisms over time. Devolution does not exist. End of story.
If evolution is any
change, in what way can the theory be tested? It has been written that any theory which cannot be falsified is not scientific.
Dr. Carl Werner, when in college, had a fellow student challenge his belief in evolution, stating four problems with it. Three of them were not in his area of competence. The fourth one kept bothering him - thirty years later, he decided to examine the evidence personally. His wife agreed to the trip, provided that everything was documented. (She may have been interested in using her photography skills, as well as enjoying the trips.
) They traveled over 100,000 miles during the investigation.
They spent years traveling to dig sites, museums, etc. asking questions, and documenting results, with photographs. I just found out, so have only read one of the books produced; "Living Fossils." If nothing else, the photographs are very enjoyable! It is interesting to find a number of fossils, not easily distinguishable from currently living organisms, which don't even have the same genera name. This should mean that they are different.
Of course, with fossils, it is not possible to apply the inter-fertility test as we can with living species.
In geology, we have many exposed oil well bores, outcrops, cores, cross sections, and seismic data for stratigraphic columns. The only place I know where these columns are being gathered into one data base and work on correlating them is being done is the column project of the Institute for Creation Research. There may be others - even with web searches, it is not possible to check out everything. IIRC, in "Unwillingly to School" by Pauline Ashwell, a device that allowed reading at speeds of multiple thousands of words per minute to become common was a critical part of the story. Yearn, yearn, sigh
An anti-hypnosis feature of the device was a key part of the good story. (Astounding 1958)
Anyone who disparages those who disagree with any theory they accept and ignores work done by them is not going to easily see problems. That person will also miss much interesting reading.
I'm reminded of two places in one (or two) of Gordon Dickson's stories (don't remember which), where one character closes his eyes so he can honestly say he didn't see what he didn't want to see.
Worth reading: Schmidt, C. et al 2016. "The cryo-EM structure of a ribosome-Ski2-Ski3-Ski8 helicase complex" Science 354 (6318):1431>1433
A person who is certain that the theory they have been taught is correct has reverted to the pre Blaise Pascal method of determining what is known, relying on authorities. If you check the FDA's methods, you will see they rank probabilities, with the meta-analysis of multiple experiments and observations as the most probable, and hearsay as the least. When the procedure is followed the untested word of an authority is not accepted. Is this procedure always followed?
Rob Stadler's criteria for high confidence science make sense to me. I usually need to go over something several times to internalize it - this is my current project.