re: Why are theories on evolution, climate change, etc sacrosanct,

quote:

---

You see? that's my whole point. If there were solid evidence it would be a law.

---

Please stop saying this, unless you are also going to argue that there isn't "solid evidence" for gravity.

quote:

---

You see? that's my whole point. If there were solid evidence it would be a law. There is observational evidence, which is not the same thing. But 400 years ago there was observational evidence that the sun rotated around the earth....or so they thought...until it changed. 400 years from now? Who knows? EVERY scientist will tell you that science changes.

The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.

---

There is solid evidence. There is more than solid evidence. Scientific theories aren't synonymous with the general concept of a "theory" - they're substantiated by facts, tested hypotheses, and actual laws.

Most of our current understanding of evolutionary theory comes from molecular analysis and genetics, which corroborates and indisputably validates the troves of already extant data and evidence.

quote:

---

Evolution by natural Selection is but one theory of evolution. Do you have any idea of how many theories of evolution there are?

Evolution by Natural Selection
Front-loaded Evolution
Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo)
Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering
Somatic Selection Structuralist / Platonic Evolution
Biological Self-Organization
Multilevel Evolution
Epigenetic Evolution
Evolution by Symbiogenesis
Teleological Selection

---

None of those concepts have anything to do with evolution via natural selection.

Front-loaded "evolution" has nothing to do with how populations change over time. Nothing. This "theory" has theological undertones and appears to be synonymous with intelligent design. Fun fact: evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Developmental biology is an incredibly important field, and a lot of the findings from this field have helped further corroborate evolutionary theory. Just look at Hox genes, for example.

NGE, again, has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. It simply refers to how alterations within a genome occur. As we've developed more advanced investigative methods, we continue to discover just how intricate some of these DNA altering methods can be. For example, just a simple methylation of a histone complex could result in differentiated genetic regulation, and therefore altered phenotypic expression.

Biological self-organization has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Molecules react in specific ways based on chemical interactions to form everything from proteins to various cellular structures.

Multilevel evolution (group selection) is a concept that corroborates evolutionary theory. Mathematical models have been employed to evaluate the significance of individuals within a group acting altruistically, or selfishly, and how that influences the net fitness of not only the individual, but of the group. This entire model operates on the paradigm of evolutionary theory via natural selection.

Epigenetic evolution, or really...just "epigenetics" refers to how alterations are made in the differential expression of genes due to biochemical modifications made to chemical structures other than nucleotides themselves. Again, this really has nothing to do with evolution.

Symbiogenesis, like abiogenesis, has nothing to do with evolution via natural selection.

Teleological selection, like front-loaded evolution, are philosophical and theistically insidious concepts masquerading as scientific theories. Teleology makes no refutations or contradictions to the tenants of evolution via natural selection; rather, it seems to misrepresent and misunderstand why certain functions exist - for example, a mouse with a dark brown coat allows it to blend in to the foliage and soil, allowing it to evade predation from hawks. Teleology questions the "function" of the coat, rather than why the coloration of the coat is the way it is. The brown coat of the mouse doesn't serve any inherent "function" and it wasn't "guided" in any way. Rather, the genetic variance in the mouse population resulted in some mice with darker coats than the average for the population. With the hawks soaring overhead, they were able to more easily identify mice with lighter coats, thereby affording the mice with darker coats a higher fitness. Over time, the genetic variance of the mice population shifts to darker colored coats, which serve no preconceived "function", but are rather strictly a product of the stressors of the environment.

I've never heard of Platonic Evolution, so perhaps you could provide some specifics regarding this concept.