Originally posted by ColoradoFB:
Not so. Science takes a hypothesis, tests it, formulates and refines, develops theories, etc. If new data reflect a change, as has happened many times (e.g. plate tectonics, moon origins, etc), then old views are further refined. It is an iterative process. That does not negate what is learned via the scientific process.
From
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
Let's talk real science. Here's the Scientific Method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature
According to the above, macroevolution is not even strong enough to be a hypothesis or theory, since it has never been observed. Nobody has observed a microorganism evolve into a beaver. Such macroevolution has only been postulated as a possibility based on the variety we see today.
It is most certainly not a theory, since there have never been any experiments that have borne out this thing prematurely labelled as a hypothesis. Nobody has reproduced the process of macroevolution in the lab, and nobody is likely to ever do so, because (assuming it were true) it would require millions/billions of years to reproduce the process in a way that would reliably confirm the premature hypothesis.
Scientists often refer to evolution as a theory because they rarely differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution can be observed, therefore they paint the whole concept with a wide brush and say, voila, macroevolution is a theory. But all they've done is extrapolate the evidence for microevolution into evidence for macroevolution. That is nothing more than a dream or fantasy. Extrapolation works when you can demonstrate
scientifically that the extrapolation has a legitimate basis. One must demonstrate
scientifically that, given enough time, microevolution would lead to macroevolution. Obviously, this has never been done. Nobody has watched bacteria adapt to various antibiotics until the bacteria eventually turned into a beaver.
Finally, allow me to head off an tired objection: Some say that speciation is evidence of macroevolution. This is patently false. The biological species concept (speciation through reproductive isolation) is an arbitrary concept that doesn't even work for anything but a narrow band of life. It doesn't work for plant life, for example. And it is contradicted by examples such as the lion and tiger, which can produce fertile offspring (the liger). Finally, speciation doesn't produce significantly different life forms. It may produce two different kinds of mosquitos, but it doesn't produce a mosquito and a wasp (or, to keep the illustrations consistent, a beaver).
