Again, lots of stuff in your post.
So... where to begin.
Like yourself, I am not highly trained nor educated as I mentioned.
I hope you don't mind myself cutting and pasting you comments into this answer? The better to address all the myriad points raised/put forward.
"Secularism is far from new. What is different is that you couldn't be as open about it as now and the dominant or fashionable trend is to be atheist and to believe in evolution. Previously, you had to include religion in your philosophy to be taken seriously or not to be accused of heresy. Rene Descarte for example was an atheist a few centuries ago but he added references to 'God' to make people read his works."
Okay... I'll leave this alone since it'll diverge/digress from the topic of evolution. It kind of needs its own thread for said topic to be discussed more.
"....... I am not a scientist and science is not my field, so my apologies for lack of knowledge in this subject area, but in my limited understanding here in relation to observation of evolution, everything is a theory until or unless it is tested."
*Nods* Nor I. However, from what I understand of things the process works like this.
Initially some one has a thought or they see/notice something and they from an idea about such.
Then they work out an hypothesis that attempts to explain such
After much testing and peer review if said hypothesis does make proper/useful predictions/explanations about said event?
Then it is accepted as the best, current theory.
A theory is as good as it gets, really. Also, a theory is always open to new testing and new scrutiny etc. A theory is always open to being changed or thrown out for a 'Better' theory.
"A test shows the accuracy or fallacy of a given theory."
Many tests, observations and peer review (Other people independent testing experimenting etc) as well as the actual predictive power of said theory. A theory not only explains what has happened, it can be used to predict what (Under the said theory's concept) may/should happen. Hence, we have a theory of gravity which we can not only test about things falling down... we can conduct experiments to determine how things will fall down in the future (I simplify and paraphrase here) leading to things such as ballistic trajectories and orbital mechanics. If, at any time, said theory is shown to have something that doesn't fit? Then the theory is revised, changed or even scrapped. (As in we find an extreme example of something not falling down... or we find a planet that isn't in the place where orbital mechanics predicts it should be)
"Darwin himself until his dying day called evolution a theory and he never said he observed evolution."
Yes, because calling it such is the correct word use. Also, given the knowledge of the time, he had seen evolution. Both the wild-life of the Galapagos Islands as well as the tiny shelled mollusks (Perry-winkles) of his own English shores were used to demonstrate such. Darwin spent many years working on and formulating the ideas within his thesis (Which became a book).
"His own theories were never tested and he never created any hypotheses either."
I beg to differ, Both at the time in the past as well as continuously up until the present day has/have, as well as across a huge amount of different fields of science, said ideas about evolution continued to be tested. Indeed, it is the new ideas for devising tests to disprove the idea that is driving our knowledge and discoveries forwards even as we exchange our ideas.
"I do not say evolution should be set back to hypothesis, science uses it to make theories into facts through tests and since evolution claims to be true science today is seen as the most helpful form to see if it really is correct and as such scientifically provable."
Again, our use of the words and hence their meanings are different. You seem to be saying that evolution should not be called a theory.. so the next step back is to call it an hypothesis.
Science actually kind of uses facts to test/establish theories.
The theory of evolution continues to be tested and shown that it is currently the very best theory about what it is/does.
"In the absence of a rational understanding between those who believe in religion and those who don't, science today is used most to demonstrate proof [and not logic]."
I will honestly admit I am not sure how best to even approach this comment. My mind wants to throw forwards so many things... Perhaps it too is best left to another thread?
"I would like to ask you however, what have you observed personally about evolution that makes you say it is true and factual for all to see."
Ah! Why yes, indeed I have personally such observations. I have been born with two mutations. (One affecting eyesight, the other affecting hearing) So, there has been a slight mutation/variation within the coding of the genes passed onto myself from my parents. Should the lottery of such a shuffle have turned out differently? Who knows, perhaps I might have been born with the ability to see more colurs or something else. I am hazarding a guess as to say that you, yourself, are not a carbon copy of either one of your parents but a unique gene shuffle/combination of both. It is partly by this gene shuffle that things change over time. I emphasis the point 'Partly', other things effect such in the theory of evolution. It is not the individual what evolves but the species as a whole over time.
"I realize you did not say these words, but I am interested in the concept of 'evolution', meaning it 'evolves', it is not static by definition so where is it observable. Under Microevolution what can you say you [or anyone else] have seen that is still evolving and where is the proof of it. Evolution does not stop, it continues so in this sense where is it happening [location], what is it happening to [species] and how [processes]. To say it is happening everywhere and to all is not enough, otherwise it is based on faith and as you know faith and atheism do not mix."
While there is a lot happening in the above section, I believe I can answer it all 'At once'. So, I have already shown.. (Kind of) about the change between parents and offspring... really that is ALL evolution is. That change over an immense amount of time. Now, if there are no other factors acting upon things then... you'll get random changes 'shifting things about'. Often... the changes won't actually add up to make a difference within the species as a whole and so...at the species level nothing actually will change even though gene shuffling continues to happen.
I feel you have become hooked on the term/word 'Micro-evolution'. I state again that there is only evolution and that 'Micro' and 'Macro' are being used to highlight the speed of changes within species or specie-ation. So, you are correct to say that evolution does not stop.. but there are more things within the theory than just the gene shuffling. Every offspring is a different and unique variation from the parent. Over an immense period of time said changes between parent and offspring can lead to two separate offspring being so different from each other that first new species develop and thence over even more immense amount of time whole new genus etc may/might develop.
"You have made a claim, so the onus is on you to prove it. Finally, if evolution is correct then what are we the human race evolving into. You cannot say we are not or you don't know as that shows limitations in the theory"
No.. I am not making any claims. You are making the claim that evolution is wrong, hence you are putting forwards your ideas as to why it is wrong. I do not think that evolution is wrong and hence do not have to put forwards ideas as to why it is wrong. The current default position is that evolution is currently the best theory we have. That you then ask about "What are people turning into'? Shows a lack of understanding about the theory. The theory predicts change over time.. Should something happen and being born randomly with two thumbs... or the ability to see with four photo-receptors offers amount of an advantage then, selectively over time, said amount of such people will predominate within the make up of humanity. Over even more time and more selective pressures? Who knows what else may or may not be selected fro (Or against). You have omitted another aspect of the theory. it is the 'elective pressures' that affect/effect the changes.
"Evolutionists have been observing both the human race and other species since Darwin's Day so they will have noticed something by now (if there was something at all)."
Indeed, a mere hundred and fifty years. When people go into the labs and watch creatures who's gene expression/life cycle is measured in weeks or months instead of decades they see said changes happening. Have documented such. Have shown such work to their peers and the wider public. Now, for such to progress to the level of change over time that you are insisting upon...? Will require the similar same amount of time that has already happened over the previous course of the planet. Specialization has been seen in the wild, in many forms and variations. It has been observed happening within the lab and experiments. For more than that? There will needs to have been more time. Only one hundred and fifty years is, in truth, no time at all.
"If not than what do you think evolutionists are likely to find for any species. Lastly, have we evolved fully. If so then evolution must be revised as the very definition at present is understood to mean it cannot and won't stop, so the human race itself is going to keep on tuning into something else and so forth and the same is true for every other species as well."
As I pointed out, new species have arisen within experiments (Both along predicted selective pressures as well ass showing novel, unexpected changes) The theory is constantly being changed to adjust to new knowledge. Is it not interesting that with the discovery of DNA the theory's basic tenants were so correct that the discovery of a completely new amount/field of knowledge did not effect it? As for your comment about 'Humans being finished' ? The obvious examples of constant mutation and variation within our forms would seem to negate that.
We now have many hues of hair colour. Many hues of eye colour. Those who can continue to drink milk into their adult years and those who cannot. You are correct. evolution, as you are suing the term here, is not stopping. It is not halting. Every new offspring is a subtle variation of the mixing of their parent's genes. As for 'Turning into'? That relies upon outside, selective pressures which I have covered before.
What is your belief about evolution? Not as in if it is true or not but what each species will become and what we are slowly turning into or not. Please give reasons and proof to support your arguments.
As for what species will become I have not the training for that. I can point to examples in the wild of species variation a well as experiments within research that have created new species. Within the wild? We have 'Ring species' a Google search will give you more Within the lab? We have new species of bacteria so different from their progenitors that they can consume and live off the artificial plastics that humans have invented. I would need more time to find this more specific information, but a Google search for yourself might be quicker.
"I added about this issue that this (observation) is what science uses as a measurement for scientific truth and in this case evolution is not scientific. You can argue evolution is philosophically true if you wish based on feelings and sentiment, but you can't use science to support it. How so?"
I believe my examples will hopefully be the source of more discussion as well as showing/pointing out that you opinions aren't holding much sway.
That variation between parent and offspring is observable. That, given enough time, such radical changes have created enough genetic shift that offspring can change beyond matching their parents I have offered.
For you to say that such changes over enough time will not lead to new genus? That is for you to demonstrate/give a reason as to why such small, incremental, infinitesimal changes can not give rise to new species/genus/etc.
"Observation is something that can be seen and for it to be accurate, it must be."
Again, I do not disagree with your comment and again put forward my examples. I also offer up the evidence that is the discovery of DNA which, should evolution have been the wrong theory? Then said discovery would have created a new and 'better' theory. That Watson's and Crick's discovery did not abolish said theory is better proof than anything I can think of.
As another example, though in a different field, Einstein's work re-wrote our understanding of the very big and very small far beyond Newton's works. Einstein's theories allowed for a more complete understanding of what is happening within the physics of things around us. Note, however, that there are still places where Newton's theories can still be useful? Einstein's theories added to Newton's theories... They explain all the things that Newton's does PLUS more/the things that Newton's do not or can not.
I think, perhaps, we should step back and actually nut out/explain what it is the theory of evolution is?
Much cheers to you and I look forwards to out future discourse.
