Originally Posted by MJ1970
Originally Posted by BR
Evolution is science. It's VERY well supported.
Stop saying ridiculous things like that.
The basis of science is the scientific method. Surely you've heard of this? Evolution is the theory that the vast and wide diversity of life that we now witness has come about through the processes of random mutation/variation and natural selection ultimately resulting in the many varied species of plants and animals. The problem you have here is where and how this hypothesis is tested and validated? As this point, all that evolution is is a hypothesis about how the variety of life has come about. But there are no tests that validate this hypothesis.
I see the point that you are getting at, and it is an important one, but I'd like to correct a couple of things. Firstly, as you noted, it is the theory of evolution. While it was a hypothesis when Darwin initially proposed it, its broad applicability and complete consistency with the huge body of observation comprising the historical fossil record, historical genetic data and current genetic research, by definition, raise it to the level of a theory. Theories are not validated - they are only tested. That is also pertinent to your comment regarding testing and validation. The original hypothesis has been extensively tested by comparison with data, which is a perfectly valid form of testing - it does not have to comprise experiments to replicate the process - and that is why it is now accorded the status of theory. As another example to illustrate, astrophysicists do not need to replicate star formation itself to test the theories of gravitationally induced hydrogen cloud accretion and the consequential onset of hydrogen fusion - observation of evidence of the process having occurred is adequate.
That is not to say that the theory is proven - it is still falsifiable, most obviously either by new observations that are inconsistent with the theory or by new analysis that shows previous observations were incorrectly characterized as consistent. Either of those would represent scientific challenges that, if confirmed, would require the theory to be modified or discarded.
However, simply denying the validity of the theory, challenging it on the basis that it seems wrong or violates a belief, or simply asserting, without any new or revised data, that it is not correct, does not constitute a scientific challenge and is, by definition, unscientific. Arguing that it is unproven, as if that were a deficiency of the theory, and that one therefore disbelieves it, would also be unscientific since, by definition, all theories are unproven and the corollary of that statement is that you either choose to disbelieve all scientific theories or that otherwise you pick and choose on an unscientific basis.