Evolution: An adult fairytale?

I often have heard this claim but not once has anyone saying this ever presented scientific evidence why we should believe this. Often I am given biblical reasons or reasons of evolution's improbability. Can anyone give me any valid scientific reasons that evolution is a fairytale?

Because humans don't come from monkeys, duh.

Edit: ***Sarcasm intended***

Popper (pro-evolutionist)called evolution a metaphysical research program , since it could not be shown to be false. This does not mean evolution is nonsense, but strictly speaking not scientific . I am pro-evolution.

Originally posted by kaminsky
Popper (pro-evolutionist)called evolution a metaphysical research program , since it could not be shown to be false. This does not mean evolution is nonsense, but strictly speaking not scientific . I am pro-evolution.

Karl Popper's falsifiability is not a valid criteria for science. Astrology is falsifiable, is astrology science? Evolution is science and it is falsifiable and it also makes scientific predictions.

Originally posted by Phil Hill
I often have heard this claim but not once has anyone saying this ever presented scientific evidence why we should believe this. Often I am given biblical reasons or reasons of evolution's improbability. Can anyone give me any valid scientific reasons that evolution is a fairytale?

I ( or anyone else ) cannot give any valid reasons why evolution could be or is a fairytale but I can give reasons why evolution is NOT a fairytale:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
“...Observed instances
Island genetics, the tendency of small, isolated genetic pools to produce unusual traits, has been observed in many circumstances,...
….
….
Observed instances
Ring species
The Larus gulls form a ring species around the North Pole.
The Ensatina salamanders, which form a ring round the Central Valley in California.
The Greenish Warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas.
the grass Anthoxanthum has been known to undergo parapatric speciation in such cases as mine contamination of an area.
…..”

there are also some much more DIRECTLY observed instances of speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
“...Example three:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)
….
…
...Example four:
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
….”
-and more from that link.




http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
“...
How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred?
The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:

1.   
the fossil record of change in earlier species
2.
the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3.
the geographic distribution of related species
4. 
the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations
...”
-the link then explains each in detail.



http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

-and many more links like this.

Originally posted by humy

but not once has anyone saying this ever presented scientific evidence why we should believe this.

where have you been for the last 100 years? I find it is extremely hard to imagine absolutely no one ever pointing out any part of the VAST mountain of evidence that proves evolution beyond any doubt whatsoever.

Try this just for starters:
...[text shortened]... origins.si.edu/evidence

-and many more links like this. Just google “evidence for evolution”.

Man, reread the OP. Right now, I think a damn rock has more reading comprehension than you.

This is from Karl Popper, Unended Quest, " Take adaptation .At first sight natural selection appears to explain it, and in a way it does ; but hardly in a scientific way. To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment is , in fact ,almost tautological. Indeed we use the terms "adaptation" and "selection" in such a way that we can say that, if the species were not adapted, it would have been eliminated by natural selection. Similarly, if a species has been eliminated it must have been ill adapted to the conditions. Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists as survival value and can be measured by actual success in survival: there is hardly any possibilty of testing a theory as feeble as this."
Popper in the next paragraph goes on to say " yet the theory is invaluable" . Although he deems evolution unscientific in the sense that it is untestable , this seems unimportant since " it sheds light on very concrete and very practical researches".
Does it matter that evolution could be regarded as unscientific .

Originally posted by Phil Hill
Man, reread the OP. Right now, I think a damn rock has more reading comprehension than you.

yes, I did read that OP far to fast the first time with my dyslexic brain. Sorry about that.
I have corrected by post accordingly.

Originally posted by kaminsky
This is from Karl Popper, Unended Quest, " Take adaptation .At first sight natural selection appears to explain it, and in a way it does ; but hardly in a scientific way. To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment is , in fact ,almost tautological. Indeed we use the terms "adaptation" and "selection" in such a way that we can say that, i tical researches".
Does it matter that evolution could be regarded as unscientific .

Karl Popper was a PHILOSOPHER and not a scientist nor any type of authority on evolution. What Popper says is in disagreement with all of established evolutionary science. If you want to go on believing evolution isn't scientific, then I suggest you explain much better than Karl Popper did. Truth be told, I would side with what established science says unless you want egg on your face. Anyway, based on the second sentence of your quote, Popper knew evolutionary theory about as good as most third grad students (which means he didn't know much).

Originally posted by kaminsky
Popper (pro-evolutionist)called evolution a metaphysical research program , since it could not be shown to be false. This does not mean evolution is nonsense, but strictly speaking not scientific . I am pro-evolution.

The theory of evolution predicts various empirically verifiable phenomena. I don't see how it's not falsifiable.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The theory of evolution predicts various empirically verifiable phenomena. I don't see how it's not falsifiable.

Popper was what you call a "theological expert" in evolution. Which means he made sweeping statements regarding a field he had no authority nor expertise in.

Originally posted by kaminsky
Popper (pro-evolutionist)called evolution a metaphysical research program , since it could not be shown to be false. This does not mean evolution is nonsense, but strictly speaking not scientific . I am pro-evolution.

Of course evolution is falsifiable. The biggest problem though is that 'evolution' covers so much ground that one cannot easily make claims about it without being more specific.
For example, the basic meaning of the word 'evolution' is that species change over time. This is not only falsifiable (one could check whether a species' genes change over time) but so obviously true (even rudimentary knowledge of genetics would confirm it) that one hardly even needs to call it 'theory' or 'hypothesis' as it is more a statement of fact.

However the 'Theory of Evolution' covers how and why species change over time going into much detail and the various mechanisms involved and within that there may be claims that are false, claims that are true, claims that are not verified etc yet even if one of the claims is proven false, it doesn't invalidate the 'Theory of Evolution' as a whole. Partly because the name is not so much a specific theory, but an overall name tag for a collection of theories and their descendants as they evolve over time. Its like saying the 'Theory of Gravity' which may cover anything from Newtons Laws to Relativity or Quantum mechanics. Unless you specify say 'Darwins Theory of Evolution' then you are not being specific enough to even begin to look for concrete claims let alone falsifiable ones. If for example it turned out that Darwin was wrong and most of us do not share a common ancestor, then we would modify the 'Theory of Evolution' rather than say 'its false, throw it out and replace it with something else'.

The question is simple, do you believe you were born from the forces of nature and time
or found by the lift of a rock?

We can see adaptation in simple organisms under changes of conditions and we can make predictions based on observations , these predictions are testable ,falsifiable if you will.The problem I think is going from the specific to the general , can we apply evolutionary causality in the adaptations of simple organisms to organisms in general. The answer is yes but not in a scientific sense ,since we can not test all organisms in all conditions over all time. The argument is really about what criteria we use for the demarcation of science and non science ,if we use Popper's , then the theory of evolution is not scientific.

Originally posted by kaminsky
We can see adaptation in simple organisms under changes of conditions and we can make predictions based on observations , these predictions are testable ,falsifiable if you will.The problem I think is going from the specific to the general , can we apply evolutionary causality in the adaptations of simple organisms to organisms in general. The answer is ye ...[text shortened]... f science and non science ,if we use Popper's , then the theory of evolution is not scientific.

We can see adaptation in simple organisms under changes of conditions and

we can see adaptation in ALL organisms whether you would call them 'simple' or not.

can we apply evolutionary causality in the adaptations of simple organisms to organisms in general.

but we don't only see adaptations in just 'simple' organisms but a great many species within ALL major types/groups of organisms including some of the most 'complex' ( if that is the right word ) such as ourselves. So of course evolution applies general!

The answer is yes but not in a scientific sense, since we can not test all organisms in all conditions over all time.

we don't have to 'test' all organisms in all conditions over all time to find evidence that they adapted and evolved.
We can study genetic drift and fossils etc that gives us the evidence of how they changed over long time periods. This is a perfectly valid scientific way of testing the theory of evolution although there are several other equally valid ways of doing so which work just fine as well.

If the theory of evolution ( in its most basic form ) was wrong, we would expect to have found good evidence of it being wrong ( which we haven't of course ) .
This is because evolution makes many predictions ( I will give several examples on request ) which are testable and would not be expected to be correct if evolution was wrong and yet every one of these predictions to date has been proven entirely correct.
Therefore, basically, evolution IS falsifiable ( not to mention also proven as well ) .