| Smidlee said: I agree you should read some older evolution books and see just how many failed prediction evolution has made thoughout the years. I doubt Darwin would even recognize his own theory (unlike Issac Newton.) This is the opposite of other science fields , like for engineering. For example books on steam engines 100 years ago maybe out of date because of newer technology yet everything in those old books are still true. The same with books about vaccuum tubes. Trying to nail down evolution is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. That's because evolution is based more on human opinion than hardcore facts. (not stating evolution does not contain any facts but those facts are not what is being questioned) |
No it isn't. Our understanding of evolution has increased dramatically over time because of new discoveries (like genetics) which have provided a better insight into the mechanisms. But despite our understanding changing towards the better, the core idea of evolution is still exactly the same.
Darwin said that speciation occurs because of environmental pressures, and those that are fit will be the ones who survive and pass on traits. This is still the core idea of biological evolution today, and all evidence supports this. Darwin would recognise the modern version his theory in a second, he would just be impressed at how well the original concept has stood up to testing.
All we've done is better refine his theory. This is what I means by changing frequently to conform with evidence.
Pretty much all scientific fields follow this. It's called the scientific method and it's been pretty successful y'know.
(And I'm sorry, but your attempt to use engineering contrary to this is poor, because all advances in engineering at some point come from refining and utilising our understanding of the natural world, just like in evolution).
...
And evolution is not "based on human opinion", it's a logical interpretation of facts that has been through rigorous peer review processes and extensive testing... Saying it's "based on human opinion" is almost an insult to science.
