Hi, Jack and others,

Jack asked to remove my comments. :((((((

Answering Jack's question, NO, I do not believe in the Theory of Evolution as it is taught (2nd route) but I do believe evolution is a reality and thanks to fossils it can be measured perfectly.

The introduction in the question at issue for itself a subject of epistemological discusseion it 's not a mandatory prerequisite for the question "Do you believe in theory of evolution"?

This question depends from the kind of knowledge, very precisely or only on the surface, of the work of Charles Darwin and the further development of his theory in the follling 150 years. To report the reception and the changes of this theory is an own thesis to get the academic PhD. Therefore, we should be careful with our expectations. I mention five points:

1) It is, quite simply, wrong to claim in a scientific discussion that "theories come and go". There are proven criteria after theories change due to research and new insights. That one theory ceases to exist from one day to the next and is replaced by another theory occurs in the history of science extremely rarely. It is much more common in religious or ideological dictatorships that dictate what ideology allows and what does not.

2) Darwin's theory is empirical founded - against non empirical dogmatic assertations of the churches( or general religion). Not science but the Christian Churches and other religions have lost the figth about the question how old is cosmos, earth, life and the human being.

3) Also Darwin could not verify all aspects of his discovery. His pangenesis theory turned out to be incorrect, as did a certain dependence on Lamarck's theories. So we have very carefully to judge about theories of life.

4) Darwin's theory of evolution is not a closed system of assumptions but a but is composed of several theories or theoretical pieces. When Darwin published his results in 1859, for example, the results of Gregor Mendel's theory of heredity were not yet available, which turned out to be correct. So also other theories play a role in the hypothetical construct "evolution"

5) In science "believe" plays a role only in the sense of "presuppose"; unfortunately the asked question could also be meant in a religious meaning, and not touching any scientific sphere.

HEIN RETTER

A scientific theory provides a ‘story' to weave together seemingly disparate findings, suggest new avenues for research, and providing predictions for new observations.  Evolution has great parsimony - a remarkably simple set of principles that brings coherence across so much we observe.  With evolution, we can explain: why men have nipples, why the laryngeal nerve in giraffes is so much longer than the most efficient path, why sharks (and other fish) propel themselves by moving their fins left-right while whales (and other marine mammals) propel themselves by moving their fins up-down, and why we love to eat sugary, salty, and fatty foods despite knowing how bad that is for us.  Evolution allows us to make predictions about how animals are responding to global climate change.  It allows farmers to predict what will happen when they selectively breed crops, or cows.  In 1848, evolution helped Henry Walter Bates explain different kinds of butterflies sharing appearance in the Amazon tropical rainforest and it guided his 11 year effort to find more pairs.  And, just last week, evolution helped us discover the mating habits across human species because we have a 50,000 year old bone fragment of a girl with a Neanderthal mother and Denisovan father!  Best wishes learning about evolution, Jack. ~ Kevin

@Everyone and anyone

@ Hein Retter

@ Kevin Grobman

Dear Hein

If I understand what you are saying, there is no valid theory here only empiricism!

1) Wrong! Recent scientific "errors": Polywater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater and Cold Fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

2) Darwin theory seems to be empirical dogma not a theory.

3) Darwin’s gemmules were make-believe that just didn’t work. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangenesis

4) There appears to be no single Theory of Evolution

5) Can the “Theory of Evolution” stand on its own? Apparently not; just an empirical law

……………………………………

Dear Kevin,

Please state: “the simple set of principles that brings coherence across so much we observe.”

What new prediction can you make from the simple set of principles?

Dear Kevin would you also please, contrast and compare your answer with that of Rein, so that we may learn about evolution and of course, Hein, would you pleas also, compare and contranst your answer with that of Kevin. Thanks

As a scientist, I believe in all rational theories until they are disproved or improved.

it's a very complicated subject especially for the evolution of the human being.

Dear Dr Jack Kornfield,

Being a scientist where is my freedom to disbelief a established and solved solution? But as a Muslim, I belief the Almighty first & of course I have rather a choice to select the creator first for any theory approved by the Holy Qurán.

Hein responded much more philosophically and makes some interesting points.  I don’t know if it makes so much sense to ask if we “believe” in evolution (or any scientific theory), because a scientific claim is true or false regardless of our belief.  In this sense it’s not the same things as asking, “do you believe in equality for all?”  Kenneth and I both pointed out empirical reasons to “believe” evolution.  I began by pointing out the role of parsimony in science to make the philosophical point and then provided 8 examples of how evolution as a scientific theory contributes to our understanding and has helped make predictions.  I wouldn’t say evolution, or any current scientific theory, is the be-all-end-all.  It’s intrinsic to science that we’re always testing our models and always improving, which makes it the opposite of a “dogma.”  After re-reading your question, Jack, I note you might be misconstruing this important strength of science for something nefarious (e.g., phlogiston was superseded by Lavoisier's creative experiments).  Given how well evolution accounts for such a wide range of findings from simple principles (i.e., parsimony), it’s incumbent upon those who are skeptical to suggest something better - do you have an alternative that can account for more phenomena or account for the same phenomena with fewer principles?

Hi dear colleagues,

I fully agree with Dear Dr. Abderrahmane Khechekhouche. Really this is a very complicated subject.

However, for Muslims, this is not a complicated subject because our God said in the Holy Quran about the origin of the human " And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay (12) Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging (13) Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah, the best of creators (14)".

You can visit this link: http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/translations/english/342.html?a=2674

Regards

@ Dr. Md Zafar Alam Bhuiyan @Hamid Gadouri @ Everyone and Anyone

Here I would hope for a discussion based only on “natural” philosophy. Not a discussion that in anyway involves theology, or any other school of knowledge.

Basically is there a “Theory of Evolution” or only empiricism?

@Everyone and anyone

@Kevin

Dear Kevin,

Please state: “the simple set of principles that brings coherence across so much we observe.”

What new prediction can you make from the simple set of principles?

Dr. Kenneth M Towe has apparently given much thought to the matter and might just be hitting the nail on its head. (See above)

Hi, Jack and others,

Jack asked to remove my comments. :((((((

Answering Jack's question, NO, I do not believe in the Theory of Evolution as it is taught (2nd route) but I do believe evolution is a reality and thanks to fossils it can be measured perfectly.

One of the most common misguided comments regarding biological evolution says more or less the following: “The problem with evolution is that it is only a theory”. It’s a double mistake. Firstly, because it ignores the importance of the theories and the role that the theories play in science; secondly, because it suggests that theories would be like balloons floating adrift in the air, without links to the facts of nature.

I still call attention to two points: (1) hypotheses, laws and theories are different things, the latter being the more inclusive of three; and (2) the terms ‘speciation’ and ‘evolution’ should not be treated as synonyms (Darwin and Wallace were not exactly interested in species, they were interested in lineages or, more specifically, in how the divergence between the lineages would be determined by the ecological context of life). About these two points, I think it would be worth consulting:

+ ‘What is a scientific theory’, by Patrick Suppes. In: Morgenbesser (ed.) Philosophy of science today (NY, Basic Books, 1967); and

+ Ereshefsky. 2010. Darwin’s solution to the species problem. Synthese 175: 405-25.

Felipe, Thanks for the references. They can be found on the internet. We should check-them-out.

‘What is a scientific theory’, by Patrick Suppes. In: Morgenbesser (ed.) Philosophy of science today (NY, Basic Books, 1967)

https://www.princeton.edu/~hhalvors/teaching/phi520_f2012/Suppe_2000.pdf

Ereshefsky. 2010. Darwin’s solution to the species problem. Synthese 175: 405-25.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226647692_Darwin%27s_solution_to_the_species_problem

Yes, I believe theory of evolution.

@Jorge Costa-de-Moura

You state: “Things can be measured directly or indirectly. . . . .If we calculate momentum that means it is being indirectly measured.”

Momentum is the tendency of a moving object to continue moving.

How is momentum measured directly?

Recovering evolution

by Paul Carline

2009 is a special 'Darwin Year', marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species; and coincidentally also the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth. An international campaign is under way to declare February 12th Darwin Day. According to many of his modern followers, Darwin is the world's greatest scientist, and his theory is the cornerstone of modern biology - if not of the whole of modern science.

In reality, no objective, unbiased assessment of his work could possibly come to that conclusion. Darwin was at times a good scientist, but certainly not a great one, and his 'great' work is riddled with speculation, unfounded assertion and argument from assumed authority. He did not - as popularly believed (and heavily promoted by various establishments) — either discover or invent evolution as such. Nor did he discover how evolution actually occurs - the 'mechanism' of adaption and structural change - he merely put forward a theory as to how it might occur: a superficially plausible theory, to be sure, but one which cannot be shown to be true and which depends utterly on materialistic assumptions. There is no 'mechanism' because Nature is not a machine. We have to look beyond physics and chemistry for the forces which mould and transform living things. A 'biology' (the study of life) which fundamentally denies that there is anything special about life is not worthy of he name. He did not, as biologist Douglas Futuyma claimed (in his book Evolutionary Biology), show that "material causes are a sufficient explanation not only for physical phenomena, as Descartes and Newton had shown [even this can be challenged], but also for biological phenomena with all their seeming evidence of design and purpose", or: "by coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection [make] theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous". ...

https://primerdigital.com/science/recovering_evolution.html

Darwin did not give anything essentially new in addition to what was already contained in Lamarckism. "But it was only beginning with Darwin that this view was widely spread, this is connected with the life relations of the 19th century." Life itself has become different, social life itself has become a struggle for existence ... it remains so today. "

yes sure, without this theory - this is huge gaps in theory of everything :)

@ Marina Valentukevičienė

Please clarify your "reply." Thanks

Sorry but a question that begins with "do you believe" for something like evolution theory guarantees only a hot conflict and a scientific brawl, it will not add something new...

@ Demetris Christopoulos

You may delete your “reply.” It appears you have not read what was posted before or the “ground-rules.” Thanks

Hi, Jack,

You wrote that "Momentum is the tendency of a moving object to continue moving."

This a wrong definition. This is more or less the definition of Inertia.

Momentum maybe linear or angular.

Linear Momentum is m x V. Angular momentum is m x v x r.

They both are sort of latent energy. Both can be measured. Both can be altered by external forces. Both are vector quantities.

How is momentum measured directly? :))) Enter in front of a bus in movement. :)))))

Hi Jorge,

Let us not confuse momentum with another physical concept, inertia. Inertia, as defined by the second law of motion, is the tendency of an object in motion to remain in motion, and of an object at rest to remain at rest. The more inertia a body has the less its acceleration for a given applied force. So mass, as it appears in the equation

a = F/m, measures a body's inertia. Momentum, by definition, involves a body in motion. A body at rest has inertia but it does not have momentum. Momentum is calculated as m * v.

Jorge, you stated: “Things can be measured directly or indirectly. . . . .If we calculate momentum that means it is being indirectly measured.” I asked how momentum is measured directly.

Your answer: “Enter in front of a bus in movement. :)))))] “

Will you say a little more about the direct measurement of momentum?

Is the directly measured momentum that of the bus or the person or the bus and person?

Please say a little more if you must, but I’d like to get back to the main question. Thanks

Dear Dr Jack Kornfield Some of these links may be useful

https://www.faseb.org/portals/2/PDFs/opa/Why%20is%20it%20important%20to%20teach%20evolution.pdf.

https://www.nap.edu/read/5787/chapter/2

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-important

In this discussion, it is important to remember that evolution, natural selection and Darwinism do not mean the same thing and therefore should not be treated as synonyms.

1. EVOLUTION. Dictionaries define evolution as a process of change. The word comes from the Latin evolutio, noun form of the verb evolvere. Recalls, therefore, the act of open, unfold or unroll something that is closed, folded or rolled up. In the context of biology, evolution can be defined as any change occurs in the gene pool of a population. These changes do not necessarily imply ‘improvements’ or ‘progress.’

2. DARWINISM. Darwinism is one of the possible interpretations of evolution. Among the various existing alternatives (e.g., Lamarckism, neutralism, punctuated equilibrium), Darwinism is an interpretation which is characterized by (1) assumes that lineages gradually change over the course of successive generations; and (2) presuming that such changes are guided (mainly but not exclusively) by natural selection operating on intrapopulational (and intragenerational) variation.

3. NATURAL SELECTION. Natural selection is what occurs when survival (and reproduction) within a population is dictated by an association between phenotype and fitness. Natural selection is a process, not a mechanism. What are the mechanisms, or causal agents, of this process? The agents of selection must be investigated between environmental factors (e.g., partners, resources, enemies, hazards) that provide the assotiation between fitness (viability and fecundity) and phenotype. Remembering that not every agent of selection is a source of mortality, as well as not all sources of mortality are agents of selection.

For an introductory reading, I would indicate: The beak of the finch (Knopf, 1994), by Weiner. (For the visitor of this page that reads Portuguese, I also would indicate [at the risk of sounding too pretentious] my most recent book, The flying evolutionist & other inventors of modern biology [2017].) However, for a more detailed examination of these issues, I think it would be worth consulting:

+ Evolutionary analysis (Pearson, 2014, 5th edition), by Herron & Freeman;

+ Darwin et l’aprés-Darwin: Une historie de l’hypothèse de sélection naturelle (Kimé. 1992 [English edition: CUP, 1998]), by Gayon; and

+ The statistics of natural selection (Chapman, 1985), by Manly.

Dear Dr. Hom Nath Chalise

Thank you

The evolution of living organisms is a fact proven by an enormous array of genetic, paleontological, anatomical, etc., etc. evidence. As famously stated ( Theodosius Dobzhansky) "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". It is not a question of belief, rather one of accepting the undeniable, similar to accepting that the earth is not flat and that the earth revolves around the sun.

Dear Kenneth,

Not the evolution theory, the formulation of question tends there...

(Any reference to belief system is problematic)

In your question you state a common misconception about what a scientific theory is. A *scientific* theory is quite different than the word in common usage. A scientific theory is an explanation of a phenomenon of nature that is based on such an abundant and diverse amount of research that it is unlikely to ever be abandoned, for example, The Theory of Relativity, Big Bang Theory, Germ Theory.

And there is an abundant and diverse amount of empirical evidence for the Theory of Evolution, including the fossil record, homologies, current and past experiments, and observations from every aspect of life on Earth. It is also based on a logical sequence of steps, which brings me to the second problem with your question.

We base our understanding of nature on the scientific method, a logical sequence of steps that ensures, to the best of our ability, that research is defensible and repeatable. We don't need to believe in a scientific theory. There is no onus of faith. You can find a problem with some integral assumption, find fault with the science, fail to accept the conclusions, but without knowledge of the the theory and the science behind it, your decision is without merit.

The difference between beliefs and scientific knowledge in verifiability and the principle possibility of refutation (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/).

So the question is not correct for me. I'd use something that alternative to the Theory of Evolution when it will be better to explain biological and paleontological phenomena. It does not recuire faith or religious rites.

One can go deeper and justify that scientific knowledge and the description of the world appeared as a method of combating existential fears. And science gave another explanation to the terrible natural events and gave a different cosmology than religious ideas.

Yes, I believe in the Theory of Evolution, and I think the question "What new species will be discovered?" is somewhat naive when you speak of that theory. The theory explains mechanisms, but understanding mechanisms doesn't mean you can necessarily predict exact results. As for "What can you predict right now from the Theory of Evolution?", that's a fairly easy one, I think. For example, I predict that climate change will result in some species going extinct and some changing to adapt to the new conditions.

I think many of the respondents have done a good job of addressing the larger issues behind the question of believing in the Theory of Evolution, but nobody really directly addressed your questions. I wanted to do so and also to introduce another question: Why would you NOT believe in the Theory of Evolution? If you remove religion from the discussion, what possible argument could outweigh the vast preponderance of evidence supporting the theory?

Yes i do

@V Wensley Koch and all

V Wensley Koch, you stated:

As for "What can you predict right now from the Theory of Evolution?", that's a fairly easy one, I think. For example, I predict that climate change will result in some species going extinct and some changing to adapt to the new conditions.

One certainly does not need a Theory of Evolution to make this prediction.. So why bother with a Theory of Evolution at all.

How would you test the prediction?

V Wensley Koch, you also stated”

. . . . and also to introduce another question: Why would you NOT believe in the Theory of Evolution? If you remove religion from the discussion, what possible argument could outweigh the vast preponderance of evidence supporting the theory?

I do not know if there is a theory there; is what is called theory just a pendulum swing that can be used to tell time without knowing anything about gravity?

Perhaps we could start by addressing the observations to be addressed in a study of evolution? And then address empirical relationships known to exist between and among the observations?

Is there any theoretical construct in the theory or are we just dealing with an empirical law?

I agree with Kenneth M Towe, evolution is a fact. How exactly it happened is the theory.

VWK: For example, I predict that climate change will result in some species going extinct and some changing to adapt to the new conditions.

JK: One certainly does not need a Theory of Evolution to make this prediction.

If a species changes to adapt to new conditions, what is it but evolution? If there were no evolution, the species wouldn't change. Clearly, species DO change to adapt to new conditions, which is why the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming.

V Wensley Koch stated:

As for "What can you predict right now from the Theory of Evolution?", that's a fairly easy one, I think. For example, I predict that climate change will result in some species going extinct and some changing to adapt to the new conditions.

JK: One certainly does not need a Theory of Evolution to make this prediction.. So why bother with a Theory of Evolution at all.

JK: How would you test the prediction?

. . . . . . . . . . . .

V Wensley Koch also stated”. . . . and also to introduce another question: Why would you NOT believe in the Theory of Evolution? If you remove religion from the discussion, what possible argument could outweigh the vast preponderance of evidence supporting the theory?

JK: I do not know if there is a theory there; is what is called theory just a pendulum swing that can be used to tell time without knowing anything about gravity?

JK: Perhaps we could start by addressing the observations to be addressed in a study of evolution? And then address empirical relationships known to exist between and among the observations?

JK: Is there any theoretical construct in the theory or are we just dealing with an empirical law?

In the discipline of stratigraphy, evolution is not believed but rather applied in dating of rocks and other geological processes. It is used in geological exploration, correlating rocks over distances and across continents based on fossils. It is the very useful tool in geology, it is evident. Evolution also obtains in the environment as that of the earth. Some minerals occur in more ancient rocks than the younger, that is evolution.

Obianuju P. Umeji

Here I would hope for a discussion based only on “natural” philosophy. Not a discussion that in anyway involves theology, or any other school of knowledge.

I am very surprised to see this question in this page. It certainly is not a serious question about science. Personal belief in a theory is completely irrelevant. Evolution is a scientific fact and the theory of evolution is the scientific explanation for the mechanisms of evolution. The support for the theory of evolution is so overwhelming that it is one of the best established an most important scientific theories in the history of science. It does not matter whether anyone believes or does not believe it. People who have basic questions about it probably need to read some reputable basic biology books and visit some natural history museums.

Of course!

We are scientists.

I don't see why the statement is puzzling. The fact of evolution has been observed millions of times, thus the word fact. The mechanism of how it happens includes natural selection as the main explanation and it is called the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution (explanation of mechanisms) explains how evolution (which is a fact) works.

@ Kenneth M Towe @Ashkan Latifi @Anyone

What if we accept the possibility that crosses our alien's mind that they may be still building such cars somewhere?

Please see @ Kenneth M Towe a reply by Ashkan Latifi above.

Why shouldn't we 'believe' in evolution? Look around and see how many kinds of dogs are living today. There were much less such species one thousand years ago, right? Yes, they are mutants, but isn't the mutation one of two ingredients of evolution? Indeed, many mutations are simply destructive but at the same time many other mutations are hard to spot. Yet they are accumulating, generation after generation, to become well visible only some time later.

@Kenneth

LOL

Following answers from experts

VWK: I predict that climate change will result in some species going extinct and some changing to adapt to the new conditions.

JK: How would you test the prediction?

Pick some species likely to change or die out and follow them into the future.

JK: I do not know if there is a theory there; is what is called theory just a pendulum swing that can be used to tell time without knowing anything about gravity?

Perhaps to some extent See below.

JK: Perhaps we could start by addressing the observations to be addressed in a study of evolution? And then address empirical relationships known to exist between and among the observations?

You seem to be hung up on "observations" and "empirical relationships"as if they're something new. As Kenneth M Towe noted, "that's exactly what has been going on." That's also how Darwin came up with the theory in the first place.

JK: Is there any theoretical construct in the theory or are we just dealing with an empirical law?

I think Jimena Aracena summed it up pretty well: "The theory of evolution (explanation of mechanisms) explains how evolution (which is a fact) works." So, evolution is an empirical law, but the theory has to do with how it happens. As Kenneth M Towe noted: "Evolution is a fact but we do not have the mechanisms sorted out." Natural selection is one, but not the only, mechanism, and we're still studying how the various mechanisms work. We're doing so by making observations and studying empirical relationships. So, what, exactly, are you proposing that is different from what is already happening?

Any Comments on the proposed Experiment?

First Person: I predict that climate change will result in some species going extinct and some changing to adapt to the new conditions.

Second Person: How would you test the prediction?

First Person: Pick some species likely to change or die out and follow them into the future.

I smelled one digit up , out of permafrost , dinosaur 🦕 🦖 Leg-bon on Yukon mining property , it smelled freshly good !

How can one distinguish between a new species and a newly discovered species?

I believe in Allah and His creative power. But I'm interested in any scientific explanation on the theory of evolution.....

The word evolution can be interpreted in three different ways: (1) the fact of evolution; (2) the evolutionary history (phylogeny) of lineages; and (3) the process of change within populations. (The controversies among biologists generally involve only items 2 and 3.)

Disregard such interpretations, as I think it occurred in our discussion more than once, can induce us to mistakes or misunderstandings.

About this point, I think it would be worth consulting Taking Darwin seriously (Blackwell, 1985), by Michael Ruse.

Here I would hope for a discussion based only on “natural” philosophy. Not a discussion that in anyway involves theology, or any other school of knowledge.

A Theory has nothing to do with "Belief". A theory is a proposed explanation for observed events and processes. If, after repeated tests by many observers, the same result is observed a Theory becomes known as a fact.

Your question "Do you believe in the Theory of evolution?" is ill formed. I can say for a fact the Theory of evolution exists among the human race. This is not a belief. Dumb question.

Bob,

We believe in what we can prove and we try to prove what we believe. This is the basis of science.

Answering the question, yes, I believe in evolution because it is proved, it happens, we see it watching fossils in the rocks. But I do not believe in the Theory of Evolution as it has been proposed. For me it makes no sense if a wolf swims a million years and become a whale.

Regarding the evolution's mechanism it has been surely understood and accepted it is mutation, what is not clear is what causes the mutation and if it is slowly transforming a species into another or if it suddenly create a new species from an older one.

Looking into the fossiliferous data it is also clear that it is a sudden creation of new species on the expenses of the ancestors that most of the time go into extinction. But how it happens remains a mystery.

Many people here trying to define science. Each one has a personnel definition. For me, science is experimental philosophy. Philosophy does not make experiments to prove its truth. Science needs to be proved by experiments. A theory is not yet science. A theory is a theory. It is philosophy. It becomes science when it is proved experimentally. When it is proved by observation.

"Je pense, donc je sui, qu'il est certain que je suis et que j'existe". How to prove this famous Descartes' affirmation with an experiment? You don't need to prove because cogito ergo sum!

Back-in-the-day,

A fact was a verifiable observation; and,

We did not prove anything in science; we checked to see if a prediction verified with an observation or if a prediction did not verify with an observation; and,

There was a common Scientific Method known to most-all; and

My pet peeve, we used to say low temperatures; we did not say cold temperatures; and,

Hopefully this will be a useful start:

In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research.Jul 28, 2017

What Is a Law in Science? | Definition of Scientific Law - Live Science

https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law....

I think saying "I believe in the theory of evolution" is a bit awkward, did you hear anybody saying "I believe in gravity" or "I believe in magnetic fields" or "I believe in thermodynamics"? Theory of Evolution is a consensus of scientific concepts surpassing many diverse fields, which are mostly accepted in scientific community not believed. This is the difference between religion and science, in religion you believe a dogma from the start there is no logic or explanation, in science you accept or reject according to logical real word explanations and experiments. The domain of evolution is very diverse and science still has a long long way for explaining all the underlying diverse mechanisms, thus it is not a law like thermodynamics.

Kenneth,

for example sharks, turtles and crocodiles do not agree with " older rocks contain fossils of more primitive, less-evolved organisms than do the younger rocks that rest above them."

Some life forms insist in remaining the same, while some disappear, while some others change and become better forms of life .

That's why Evolution is not very well explained nor understood.

But speaking in a general way, it is like you wrote except by the exceptions.

"Do you believe in the theory of evolution? "

Bob Neuweiler said it right, it is surely not a question of belief, this common misunderstanding originates from the use of the English word "theory", in other languages, it can be a different word (theorem-like). "Theory is based on things you cannot measure", no, it is the framework of hypothesis that can be (and have been) tested and verified by empirical data. Huge work has been done to explain evolution, it is still a work in progress. The last "version" of the evolution theory now includes complex effects such as epigenetic factors, and ecological contributions, which are increasingly discussed in scientific articles and many-times proven important for the evolution of organisms at short and long-term scales.

I invite you to read the wikipedia page that summarize all of these considerations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_evolutionary_synthesis

"What can you predict right now from the Theory of Evolution? "

The emergence of new features in populations, and things that surely worth to be understood. For exemple, I m interested in "How antibiotic resistance emerge and remain in bacteria populations" or "The origin of life". You know, such things.

"What new species will be discovered? "

I doubt the goal of evolution and its synthesis is to make prediction about what species we can discover.

@ Arda Cem Kuyucu

If you read the threads you will find logical discussions. The discussions are based only on “natural” philosophy. Not a discussion that in anyway involves theology, or any other school of knowledge. After reading the scientific discussion, I believe you will find the question is well formed.

Please do check-out the discussion from the very beginning. Thanks

Jack

@Arno Germond

If you read the threads you will find logical discussions. The discussions are based only on “natural” philosophy. Not a discussion that in anyway involves theology, or any other school of knowledge. After reading the scientific discussion, I believe you will find the question is well formed.

Please do check-out the discussion from the very beginning. Thanks

Jack

The mechanism how and why does it happen?

I think this is the "lost link" to make it believable.

No, I do not "believe" in the "theory of evolution". "Belief" applies to religion and to the supernatural but not to scientific thought. I accept the "theory of evolution" to the extent that it provides a complete, consistent and coherent accounting of the presence of plants and animals on planet Earth. I also accept the possibility that there may be a better accounting of Nature's realm than that posed by Darwin. That is science, not religion.

Here I would hope for a discussion based only on “natural” philosophy. Not a discussion that in anyway involves theology, or any other school of knowledge.

{Science is replete with beliefs. Scientific beliefs can come and go just as religious beliefs come and go. But that is not the discussion here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

http://www.superstringtheory.com/history/index.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=aether+theory&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab }

Again, here I would hope for a discussion based only on “natural” philosophy. Not a discussion that in anyway involves theology, or any other school of knowledge.

In science nothing is permanent till new theory or laws formed. Only philosophy belief in ultimate truth. In this context I not fully believe on theory of evolution till we have new theory to counteract same. As in science no ultimate truth so same can be challenged.

@ Aleš Kralj

Informational evolutions and evolution of cosmos (for now) lie beyond our ability to do repeatable experiments on them. So, we are only observers as these evolutions unfold. We have historical records and some laws of physics allow some crude and temporary predictions.

1) How accurate can the crude and temporary predictions be in the area of bio-evolution?

2) Why hasn’t the problem been reported before by say, AI experts, for example?

It doesn't go backwards as time's arrow moves forward but in many cases it also doesn't go forwards at all but remains the same as it was in the past million years.

Does evolution apply to technology or just biology?