Is Darwinism still fact after Science 02 Jan 1998: Vol. 279, Issue 5347, pp. 28-29?

[questfortruth]

Below references proved the Biblical Creationism (which tells, that Adam’s Family is just 7000 years old), but in order to be published in Darwinists’ journals the authors are saying, that they have not proved Creationism, but simply have questioned some aspects of the Darwinism:

Parsons, T., Muniec, D., Sullivan, K. et al. A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nat Genet 15, 363–368 (1997); N. Howell, I. Kubacka, and D. A. Mackey, How rapidly does the human mitochondrial genome evolve? Am J Hum Genet. 1996 Sep; 59(3): 501–509; Ann Gibbons, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science 02 Jan 1998: Vol. 279, Issue 5347, pp. 28-29; Jacob A. Tennessen, et al., Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes, Science 06 Jul 2012: Vol. 337, Issue 6090, pp. 64-69.

In the references above is put in doubt the 100 000 years old Adam. Thus, all ToE is put in doubt, if such major aspect is put in doubt.
But then Darwinian Evolution has lost its proud title „fact“. If one aspect of the fact is put in doubt, then it is not fact anymore. These references are in "Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline" BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. JANUARY 09, 2013 Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline

Are these peer-reviewed papers, which proved Creationism, debunked already? Perhaps they are all debunked now, because of this verse: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." Revelation 3:20, so the God does not break the "door". If a human wants to ignore the facts, the facts become debunked sooner or later. The great Richard Dawkins said: "God, why are you taking so many efforts to hide Yourself from us?" (in the end of the video "Expelled: no intelligence allowed" by Ben Stein).

However, if the papers, which prove Biblical Creationism get to be debunked, they nevertheless put in doubt the Darwinian Evolution. Thus, even if they do not disprove Darwinism, they have debunked it long ago.

Nevertheless, the true faith is not blind, one can know all and be believer in God: God is not atheist, cf.
1 Corinthians 13:2.

 

[columbus]

Darwinism was never a fact.

Next question?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Darwinism was never a fact.

Next question?
Tom

That's not accurate.
Like the theory of gravity, darwinism is of such uncontested
usefulness that calling it "factual" is quite reasonable. It's
even an engineering tool of the bio-mimicry type.

 

[columbus]

That's not accurate.

Yes it is. As you illustrated with:

the theory of gravity,

Theory is not fact. Some theories are so well supported by mountains of facts that they are treated similarly.
Tom

 

[exchemist]

Yes it is. As you illustrated with:

Theory is not fact. Some theories are so well supported by mountains of facts that they are treated similarly.
Tom

I think that is right, evolution is both an observed fact (we've seen it happen) and a theory of how it happens. I'm not sure what "Darwinism" is, though. It is term thrown, widely thrown around, that seems to mean different things to different people. I suppose we call the theory of evolution by natural selection Darwinian evolution.

 

[Revoltingest]

Theory is not fact.

You're welcome to treat the theory of gravity as mere speculation if you wish.
But I'm glad you're not an engineer designing bridges & spacecraft.
Stick to picture framing.

Btw, I have a bunch of vintage machine photos needing conservation
mounting. Do you offer that? Do I get a discount?

 

[exchemist]

You're welcome to treat the theory of gravity as mere speculation if you wish.
But I'm glad you're not an engineer designing bridges & spacecraft.
Stick to picture framing.

Btw, I have a bunch of vintage machine photos needing conservation
mounting. Do you offer that? Do I get a discount?

In science a theory is NOT "mere speculation". And, as it happens, Newton's theory of gravity is now treated as a naive approximation. Though still good enough for engineering and most orbital mechanics.

 

[Father Heathen]

Science hasn't been supplanted by magic, so yes.

 

[columbus]

You're welcome to treat the theory of gravity as mere speculation if you wish.

That's not what I said, you Deplorable you.

Unsupported theories are speculation. Like genesis.
Theories supported by mountains of evidence(facts) are scientific consensus. They might still be wrong. But the more evidence that accumulates the less likely that is. That's the difference between Scriptural biology and scientific biology. Despite centuries of effort on the part of biblical scholars there's no more objective evidence for genesis than there was 500 years ago. Evolution, speciation through natural selection, keeps being supported by an ever increasing, cross discipline, body of facts.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

In science a theory is NOT "mere speculation".

You make it sound so dismissive.
It can range from speculation to the level of fact though.

And, as it happens, Newton's theory of gravity is now treated as a naive approximation. Though still good enough for engineering and most orbital mechanics.

Approximation can be factual, eg,
Pi approximately = 3.14159
That is a fact.

We're getting rather pedantic, eh.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unsupported theories are speculation. Like genesis.

Genesis, as in the Bible story?
That's not even a theory, just untestable magical thinking.
Darwinism, ie, the TOE, is more that that. Testing comes
also in the form of applying it to engineering design.
And there is not one competing theory ever dreamed up.

And what about my picture framing needs?

 

[exchemist]

You make it sound so dismissive.
It can range from speculation to the level of fact though.

Approximation can be factual, eg,
Pi approximately = 3.14159
That is a fact.

We're getting rather pedantic, eh.

Nope. A theory in science is a predictive model of an aspect of the physical world.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope. A theory in science is a predictive model of an aspect of the physical world.

I'm arguing that a theory which undergoes extraordinary testing,
& results in entirely dependable utility rises to the level of fact.
Your example of Newton's theory of gravity being an approximation
in certain common circumstances is factual. Even newer better
theories of gravity won't change the factuality of that approximation.

 

[Ouroboros]

Modern evolution isn't really "Darwinism" anymore. The current theory is more like Evolution 2.0, containing things far beyond Darwin thought or knew. Some things Darwin was even wrong about, but that's for another discussion. The modern synthesis theory takes more things into account. When anyone talks about "darwinism" is really just a subset of what evolution is.

 

[Altfish]

Untested, unsupported theories are called hypothesis

 

[columbus]

That's not even a theory,

Sure it is.
It's a model of reality where magic works and primitive people know more about God than we do.

And what about my picture framing needs?

You probably can't afford me.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure it is.
It's a model of reality where magic works and primitive people know more about God than we do.

If it cannot be objectively tested, then it's not a theory in the realm of science.
It's just a sky fairy belief.

You probably can't afford me.

You're a price gouger, eh.

 

[columbus]

If it cannot be objectively tested, then it's not a theory in the realm of science.
It's just a sky fairy belief.

And you call yourself educated?

You cannot objectively test a theory. What you can do is objectively test the data and predictions and such. Do they support the theory, contradict it, or suggest improvements.

"Sky fairy" theories have been tested. Zillions of people have tried to produce objective data corroborating the theories. There's a whole thread about some dude who spent his life trying to find solid evidence corroborating Scriptural history. His personal sky fairy.
The fact that he failed miserably is solid evidence on the subject.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

And you call yourself educated?

I've never called myself that.
What do you claim?

You cannot objectively test a theory. What you can do is objectively test the data and predictions and such. Do they support the theory, contradict it, or suggest improvements.

You just described how to objectively test a theory.

"Sky fairy" theories have been tested. Zillions of people have tried to produce objective data corroborating the theories. There's a whole thread about some dude who spent his life trying to find solid evidence corroborating Scriptural history. His personal sky fairy.
The fact that he failed miserably is solid evidence on the subject.
Tom

That's your idea of science?
Oh, dear.

 

[metis]

"Evolution" is basically considered an "axiom" in science since all material objects appear to change one way or another over time, and life forms are material objects. It's the details of which that can be conjectural at times.