Creation vs. Evolution

[mindwise]

We've been through this probably multiple times before but I will briefly revisit it. The plausibility of the Earth being flat was once believed as a fact. However as we know now it isn't.
This is in similar category although personally I think much more of a stretch.
At any rate, as TM points out, since it is theoritical it is subject to future discovery, analysis, observance, and opinion of such.
Likewise that tells you that at some point, it could certainly be less plausible or outright incorrect.

Well, you can go that road, however, it's the road of "nothing can be known with absolute certainty"
I actually agree to that in the sense of "absolute certainty does not exist."
absolute certainty is not needed however, its pointless.
The theory of aerodynamics, however far away from absolute certainty, still does allow for things like an airbbus380 to fly from Melbourne to London.

a flat earth is actually a funny example, i for one think it's a myth that a flat earth was considered fact by everyone. Taking into account the circumference of the earth was roughly calculated long before Christ was supposed to have walked the earth..

Absolute certainty is pointless, and Flat Earth Theory is used daily, for example when houses are built.

HERV's are a very strong indication, and forgetting everything else, already very strong evidence of common descent, and will be until irrefutable evidence is found they are not.
That combined with the nearly endless other evidences for common descent, claiming life was created as it is today, is on par with claiming our solar system is geocentric.

Unlike some I have no illusions about the scientific community's infallability to unprejudicially present any evidence for or against, having biased themselves to one conviction, before the fact.
This has already been shown to be true on more than one occasion. In short, people is people and they generally will act accordingly.
This is also the reality within the camp, that if anyone breaks rank, they are immediately denounced, berated, discredited, and excommunicated.

Especially the "excommunicated" is ironically well chosen.
Sure paradigm shifts occur, but it's also true that no paradigm shift ever has taken place in favor of the religious establishment, rather the other way around.
Now that does not mean that will never happen..... perhaps gravity reverses tomorrow, who knows, it's just not something i am betting on.

Since again this is a unproven theory, complete objectivity should win the day.

Dude, there exists no "proof" outside of math, there exist no "proven theories".
Yet, you find yourself reading this forum, flying over a world that's literally filled with the results science.
"Objectivity", you're having a laugh
Your claims are a far cry from being objective, especially seeing you opt for a position that boasts no evidence -at all-, whereas the other position holds practically all the cards. Objectivity dictates holding the side with the evidence as the most plausible.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Of course, and that is exactly what the scientific method does - provides a mechanism by which hypotheses are tested and theories are challenged. But a theory need only be dispensed with when evidence is found to contradict it - obviously, some hypotheses derived from theory could easily be incorrect, but your implication that all scientific theories will sooner or later be shown incorrect simply does not stand.

That is not the implication. I'm implying only that it could be, or its a possibility that it could.
That doesn't mean that it will.
In the earth being flat example, it was disproven, but thats obviously not the case with everything.

You do have a deep misunderstanding of the scientific method... "inability to admit he could be incorrect"?!? This is so far from the truth it is frankly laughable. It has been spelled out in this thread time and time again that a real scientific theory such as the theory of common descent could be shown false in a second, so long as the appropriate evidence was found. If this were remotely true, then why do real scientific theories have abundant "potential falsifications" -

Thats one of the best reasons I know of for not assuming prematurely a theory is a fact.

The assertion that evolutionists are right about the origins of our own species comes with a caveat - we are right insomuch as the evidence available at the present time supports our view completely. There is also another more general caveat which also applies to any scientific knowledge - that if any of the possible falsifications were to be unequivocally demonstrated, then the assertion of correctness should be (and would be) retracted immediately. This happens in science all the time - it always has and it always will. To insinuate that this doesn't happen is deeply misleading and simply untrue, and is an unjust and unwarranted accusation on your part.

I'm not questioning that it doesn't happen, I'm sure it does.
In the case of evolution I am suspect if it would. The biggest reason for that is it being touted as a fact, when it clearly is not. This in combination with the incidences at times of fraudulent claims makes me extremely leary of motive. There maybe evidence considered for it, subject to any number of evaluational opinions, but it is still a long way from proving the case. I see absolutely no good reason for the scientific community to have taken this tack.

Since you seem to think this would not be a problem, I will just say, if it happens, I hope you are right.

I'm sorry, but this is a thoroughly disgraceful thing to say. You have, infact, got it totally backwards. To accuse scientists like myself of being like this is a huge insult, and once again proves that you simply do not understand what the scientific method is or how it works. Speaking for myself here, my views on evolution are informed by the evidence - NOT the other way around... bloody hell, I grew up learning about God, Noah's Ark, The Bible, Adam and Eve and Jesus Christ like every other child in my school. I never even studied biology at high school, so I'm not sure how I could be accused of having either atheistic or Darwinian "bias" before I became a scientist and read the literature for myself. Although you don't accuse me personally, I would be very careful making such outrageous statements like that.

Sorry, maybe that wasn't the best way to say what I wanted to say.
I do not mean to infer disrepute as a whole or individually, on the scientific community, what I was trying to point out is that being made up of people, it is subject to the same politics, egos, influences, pressures and pitfalls of any other group. Accordingly, certain forces can and do hold sway and influence. Likewise it is not immune from the same frailties and failures that go with the human condition.

I will say your confidence is assuring, and I sincerly hope it is not overstated.

 

[Perfect Balance]

The biggest reason for that is it being touted as a fact, when it clearly is not.

Present day evolution has been observed and document, it is a fact. The problem is whether or not things just appeared in this "aged" manner a couple thousand years ago, or if it really has been around for billions of years.

 

[niky]

We've been through this probably multiple times before but I will briefly revisit it. The plausibility of the Earth being flat was once believed as a fact. However as we know now it isn't.

This is in similar category although personally I think much more of a stretch.
At any rate, as TM points out, since it is theoritical it is subject to future discovery, analysis, observance, and opinion of such.
Likewise that tells you that at some point, it could certainly be less plausible or outright incorrect.

Again. Misconstruing the word theory and wasting our time by chasing a straw man.

The idea that the Earth was flat was based on observation. But it was a flawed interpretation of observation. If the Earth truly was flat, then, from a high enough vantage point, you could conceivably see to the ends of the Earth. Observation shows that your horizon is limited, pointing to the fact that the horizon falls away after a point. Indicating curvature.

Now... what future evidence would contradict the (rough) sphericity of the world? You have solid proof that can be replicated anywhere that anyone chooses to replicate it. Developments in science do not destroy older theories if those older theories are based soundly on fact. They may amend it... as Einstein's Theory of General Relativity amended Isaac Newton's Theory of Gravitation... but the older theories still hold true.

And Darwin's theory is simple and robust enough to hold up, no matter what. His theory: That species that adapt to change survive, and species that don't, die out.

We have enough examples of this in our modern world. Pigs and rats adapt and thrive... Marsupial wolves, Dodos, Moas... don't. Pretty simple, huh? (of course, there were no Moas on the Ark... which may have had something to do with their disappearance... the Ostrich is still a mystery, though.)

The beauty of science is that, again, anyone with two eyes and a pair of hands can replicate the scientific experiments (well... short of smashing atoms together) that led to all the major discoveries. Get out and actually study anthropology, archeology and... perhaps... even biology... then come back when you have a more solid foundation for your ideas. You're simply chasing semantics and wasting time.

Once that is done, he has put himself in the unenviable position of trying to prove his point of view, and the only thing equally resistable with so much now on the line, is his inability to admit he could be incorrect. Unlike some I have no illusions about the scientific community's infallability to unprejudicially present any evidence for or against, having biased themselves to one conviction, before the fact. This has already been shown to be true on more than one occasion. In short, people is people and they generally will act accordingly.
This is also the reality within the camp, that if anyone breaks rank, they are immediately denounced, berated, discredited, and excommunicated.

Utterly laughable. You think the "scientific camp" is a men's club that totes the party line? Do you know how much arguing, bickering and debate goes on about differing hypotheses put forward by individual scientists? When scientists reach a consensus on something, they only do so because they apply the scientific method... dissect all the evidence and facts... and each come to an individual conclusion about the issue. This couldn't be further from the Creationist camp than anarchy is from fascism.

Since again this is a unproven theory, complete objectivity should win the day.

You're ignoring thousands of words posted... specifically for you in the past several pages. Laughable to talk about complete objectivity while ignoring the evidence.

Why not? I don't see any difference from a Intellegent design stantpoint.

The question is... if you leave so much to chance... why design at all? Why not set up a gigantic "Conway's Game of Life" and run it for a few billion years to see what happens? The mutability of biological systems doesn't preclude the presence of a Creator... but they still show that systems change over time.

Precisely, thats why there are similarities.

Precisely what? Convergent evolution shows that there is an optimum design for a specific environment. All eco-geek cars look similar. This is not because of a conscious decision to design them that way, but because the shape is optimum for the constraints placed upon the design. Note... multiple designers will often follow different courses to achieve one goal. A single designer would simply reuse the same design over and over again.

And yet... not. Birds, bats, pterosaurs and insects arrived at flight via different methods, starting from vastly different starting points and arrived at the same solution. They arrived at this solution only because this is the limitation given by physics...

And most of them are so inefficient. An intelligently designed organism would not have to make all the compromises these organisms made to achieve flight.

Maybe GOD is not as vain as you are?

Have you even read the Bible from cover to cover? Yasuweh... God is vain. And vengeful, and petty. He smites down those who worship other gods before him. He floods worlds, levels cities, turns women into pillars of salt just for taking a peek at his awful fury.

Most people focus on the first few lines of Genesis and the entire book of Revelations... ignoring the vast morass of contradictory, politically-charged, racist, scandalous (Delilah... hubbah hubbah...), war-mongering, peacenik-y (yeah... contradictory) and action-packed chapters between the two. It's more interesting reading than Psalms and Proverbs... I'll tell you that.

Good question, who knows?

Not the Bible, obviously. Since there is only one God. And only one people... the Jewish race. Of course... where the rest of us come from, nobody knows.

The nuts and bolts of it all are certainly still a mystery.

Proverbs 25:2 (Amplified Bible)
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the glory of kings is to search out a thing.

So, you're agreeing we should search out knowledge for knowledge's sake and not take the word of a book that may or may not have been inspired by God directly... written and edited by hundreds of different authors... and encompassing the beliefs of two or three completely different religions?

Excellent quote, so is this one:

Dirty Harry:
A man has got to know his limitations.

My personal limitation is quantum physics. I've a good head for math... but not that good.

 

[wfooshee]

The fact that the phrase "unproven theory" was even used illustrates completely how far over his head he is. He's using "theory" in the way a detective on a TV show would use it.

Monk: I've got a theory about how he did that!

That's not what a scientific theory is at all. By the time something reaches the status of "theory" it has been tested and examined by observation of the evidence. Discoveries are published for peer review. Experiments are applied where applicable and repeated by others for verification.

Gravity is a theory, but it's readily observable, and its effects are easily measured.

Nowhere does "opinion" enter into it at all. Not a single one of us who are trying to teach you how the theory should be described is of an "opinion" that Evolution or Natural Selection is correct. We do not "believe" it to be correct. We know the science, we see the evidence, we study the conclusions, and some of us are in a position to contribute to such findings. Some of us are just in a position to read what others have learned and described and concluded, but that reading includes descriptions of the evidence that led to those conclusions.

Personally, I'm a computer geek, not a scientist. I understand science, though, and I know that neither Creation nor Intelligent Design is science, they are faith. They have no physical evidence supporting their claims. They have no markers in the natural world which could remotely by any means conceivable be observed, measured, quantified, and then lead anyone to the conclusion that all that there is appeared one day as it is today, some 6000 years ago, and has been unchanged since that day.

Some will find the next paragraph offensive. I don't really care much about that. You can call this opinion if you want, but it's a fairly valid observation of historical evidence, so "opinion" isn't really what it is.

Religion's place has always been to explain the unexplainable. Its power has always been the secret knowledge of the way things are, have been, and always will be. I'm not talking Judaism, Christianity, or Bhuddism here, I'm talking religion, generally. All the way back to cave men worshipping animal spirits and totems, to having a god for every purpose (god of war, god of thunder, god of the ocean, god of the fields, god of the crops, god of love, god of . . . etc. etc.) it has always been the place of religion to "explain" that which was otherwise unexplainable. Why did the sea rise and drown our homes? We've been bad and are being punished. Repent, give alms to the priests, and all will be made well. Why did the rain not come and water our crops? Well, we were bad again, and are being punished. Why are these mean people invading our space and killing our women? They challenge us, and their evil gods drive them mad, but our true gods will see us prevail!! On and on and on and on.

If the Bible means so much to you, you should study its history a bit, and see how it was made. The selection of books came about by the selection of writings, pretty much just picking and choosing those which fit the desired agenda at the time, and discarding other contemporary writings from other members of the same groups of people. It was not a smooth process, and there were some serious hissy-fits involved. This was some 3 centuries after the time of Christ, by men with definite agenda, and many books not selected were discarded, perhaps even burned. It was pretty much an arbitrary process by "learned" men who felt that Christianity meant thus-and-so, and so they made The Book that defined it.

The problem "religious" people have, all through history, not just in Creation vs. Evolution, is that scientific discoveries challenge the authority of those who control the "secret knowledge" of the way things work. Galileo was declared a heretic because he described a system of worlds revolving around another world, when the church taught that the Earth was the Center of All, and only recently has the Church (actually the Pope) recognized officially the error of its ways and forgiven him. A challenge to the "secret" power and authority, and as it happens, a valid one. Over and over and over.

Creation vs. Evolution is not new. American southerners were still keeping slaves when On the Origin of Species was published! That's an awful lot of science, validated by an awful lot of people, over an awful lot of time. Further study only reinforces the concept, nothing contradictory has been found in all that time. The only arguments ever put forth against Natural Selection, Common Descent, and other aspects of Evolution have been faith-based. "That can't be right, because God/Allah/Spaghetti-Monster has procaimed it thus!" The secret knowledge is being exposed for what it is. Snake oil and healing potions sold by the roadside, and the salesmen don't like it at all.

 

[Denur]

@wfooshee

I greatly enjoyed reading this. Not so much because of the content (because I know it to be true), but more so of how you wrote it. 👍

 

[orimarc]

The fact that the phrase "unproven theory" was even used illustrates completely how far over his head he is.

*Big Freakin' Wall-of-text*

Snake oil and healing potions sold by the roadside, and the salesmen don't like it at all.

I approve this message:

==👍

 

[Mark T]

I just watched an amazing documentary by Dr Adam Rutherford on the BBC. The documentary shows how scientists are very close to creating new life in the form of a basic cell (they describe it as the second genesis).

The most amazing thing was the fact that they have managed to create a synthetic working ribosome to decode RNA.

If you live in the UK it's a must watch. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00mbvfh/The_Cell_The_Spark_of_Life/

Sorry if this has been posted here before.

 

[Sureboss]

Aye, saw that before. That whole series was excellent.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

There is an apparent impervious layer of misconception here among some regarding the obvious difference between a theory and a fact.

This is another inevitable problem with the practice of accepting one as a equal substitute for the other. Possibilities can become construed as factual.

From such innocent beginnings confusion and misconception will ultimately reign.

Case in point right here, Gravity is being proclaimed as a "theory". How one came upon that deduction is certainly one for the books.
Gravity unlike evolution is not confined to theoritcal possibility, but an ever present absolute bonifide established fact.
It is replicable and repeatable, with absolute consistency from the present to as far back as reasonably determinable. It's proveability with certainty is such that it is a "physical law".

I would add here to demonstrate, the sheer magnitudinous hurdle evolutional theory must overcome, that if "reproduction of species" is examined in the same light, the true viability of such a theory falls woefully short of any factuality.

Lastly, for those who persist in misconstruability concerning theory and fact, I sincerly hope that if you are ever charged with a crime you didn't commit, your lawyer is not of the same mindset.

BTW thats why they call "conspiracy theories" just that. Subject to individual opinion, they may be possible, plausible, reasonable, and believable. However they are rarely provable to establish as a fact.

The "Theory of Evolution" is of the same category.

Well, you can go that road, however, it's the road of "nothing can be known with absolute certainty"
I actually agree to that in the sense of "absolute certainty does not exist."
absolute certainty is not needed however, its pointless.
The theory of aerodynamics, however far away from absolute certainty, still does allow for things like an airbbus380 to fly from Melbourne to London.

Thats a far cry more certain than evolution.

a flat earth is actually a funny example, i for one think it's a myth that a flat earth was considered fact by everyone. Taking into account the circumference of the earth was roughly calculated long before Christ was supposed to have walked the earth.

While not perfect, its use is for a like principle example.

Absolute certainty is pointless, and Flat Earth Theory is used daily, for example when houses are built.

Its not generally relevant in that application, however depending on the leveling method used, it could be being taken into account without even realizing it.

HERV's are a very strong indication, and forgetting everything else, already very strong evidence of common descent, and will be until irrefutable evidence is found they are not.
That combined with the nearly endless other evidences for common descent, claiming life was created as it is today, is on par with claiming our solar system is geocentric.

Common descent is just as supportive to Intelligent design.

..... perhaps gravity reverses tomorrow, who knows, it's just not something i am betting on.

Thats due to its consistent factual certainty.

Dude, there exists no "proof" outside of math, there exist no "proven theories".
Yet, you find yourself reading this forum, flying over a world that's literally filled with the results science.
"Objectivity", you're having a laugh
Your claims are a far cry from being objective, especially seeing you opt for a position that boasts no evidence -at all-, whereas the other position holds practically all the cards. Objectivity dictates holding the side with the evidence as the most plausible.

Not quite. Objectivity holds that since neither theory is definitively provable, both are possible, so niether can be dismissed. Considered evidence, and plausibility in this case, is strictly subject to a matter of opinion and therefore inconclusive as to actual factuality.

Nowhere does "opinion" enter into it at all. Not a single one of us who are trying to teach you how the theory should be described is of an "opinion" that Evolution or Natural Selection is correct. We do not "believe" it to be correct. We know the science, we see the evidence, we study the conclusions, and some of us are in a position to contribute to such findings. Some of us are just in a position to read what others have learned and described and concluded, but that reading includes descriptions of the evidence that led to those conclusions.

There appears to be some misconception about what an "opinion" is as well.

 

[Famine]

Case in point right here, Gravity is being proclaimed as a "theory". How one came upon that deduction is certainly one for the books.
Gravity unlike evolution is not confined to theoritcal possibility, but an ever present absolute bonifide established fact.
It is replicable and repeatable, with absolute consistency from the present to as far back as reasonably determinable. It's proveability with certainty is such that it is a "physical law".

And yet we know less about the mechanisms behind gravity than the mechanisms behind evolution.

Makes you think, eh?

 

[mindwise]

There is an apparent impervious layer of misconception here among some regarding the obvious difference between a theory and a fact.

Sure, in science (and that is whatwe are descussing here) the theory is what explains the facts.

Case in point right here, Gravity is being proclaimed as a "theory". How one came upon that deduction is certainly one for the books.

*sigh*... it's really not difficult.
Gravity is both fact and theory. The phenomenon is the Fact (the falling of an apple), and the explanation of the phenomenon is called the theory. (the calculation as to how quickly it will fall (together with the Theory of aerodynamics ofcourse. (aerodynamics is both a theory and a fact. (no surprise here).
That's been pointed out too many times now, i think you're just having us on..

Gravity unlike evolution is not confined to theoritcal possibility, but an ever present absolute bonifide established fact.
It is replicable and repeatable, with absolute consistency from the present to as far back as reasonably determinable. It's proveability with certainty is such that it is a "physical law".

Here you have things backwards...
In science, the theory is actually more important then "laws".
Laws are a subset of a Theory.
Think of something like the theory of thermodynamics that contains the various laws of thermodynamics. (i'm sure you are familiar with the 2nd law of thermodynamics
I don't know where you pull out of your hat that evolution is theoretical.

I would add here to demonstrate, the sheer magnitudinous hurdle evolutional theory must overcome, that if "reproduction of species" is examined in the same light, the true viability of such a theory falls woefully short of any factuality.

I have no idea what you're saying here, reproduction of species is actually an important subtheory within the theory of evolution. It's certainly a subject on which we have a very large body of knowledge. Please explain.

Lastly, for those who persist in misconstruability concerning theory and fact, I sincerly hope that if you are ever charged with a crime you didn't commit, your lawyer is not of the same mindset.

Well, i certainly cannot not accuse you of being stubborn

BTW thats why they call "conspiracy theories" just that. Subject to individual opinion, they may be possible, plausible, reasonable, and believable. However they are rarely provable to establish as a fact.
The "Theory of Evolution" is of the same category.

Hmm, perhaps i can

Thats a far cry more certain than evolution.

Common descent is just as supportive to Intelligent design.

.
Sure, you can spin intelligent design any way you want.
But HERV's are not actually supportive of any intelligence behind a design, right now you're just saying things wthout being hindered by any knowledge on the subject. Perhaps you should read in on why HERV's are significant.
You're minutes away from claiming Sickle-cell disease was intelligently designed to remedy Malaria.

Well, don't take it from me, as i'm sure you won't

 

[orimarc]

And yet we know less about the mechanisms behind gravity than the mechanisms behind evolution.

Makes you think, eh?

But...how...but...gravity...is...fact...visible...*BOOM HEADSHOT*

 

[Touring Mars]

There is an apparent impervious layer of misconception here among some regarding the obvious difference between a theory and a fact.

This is another inevitable problem with the practice of accepting one as a equal substitute for the other. Possibilities can become construed as factual.

Just to be clear about this, Theory ≠ Fact.

Any valid scientific theory explains a given set of facts - theories consist of facts. For any given set of facts, there may be more than one explanation (theory) that adequately explains them all at a given time - but clearly, as time progresses, all theories are tested against new evidence as it becomes available - many theories that were once adequate to explain the available data become inadequate, and only those that continue to be consistent with all the evidence (old and new) survive. As a result of this, it is impossible to ever call a theory "fact", but that does not rob a theory of its explanatory power, or its legitimacy - and it certainly doesn't make the facts that make up the theory any less factual! That theories develop over time is an inevitable consequence of continued enquiry and of the nature of the scientific method - but to dismiss an entire theory as 'speculation', 'unproven' or 'fantasy' simply on the basis that it could be proven wrong at some point in the future is completely illegitimate, and a fundamental misrepresentation of what scientific theories are. Indeed, any valid scientific theory must incorporate new data, thereby providing tests for their hypotheses, and providing the potential for falsification - in other words, scientific theories must be falsifiable.

The nascent theory of common descent originally arose in order to explain the presence of some basic facts - that all lifeforms share common features i.e. they are all made of cells, and all cells consist of similar chemical species (proteins, nucleotides) and utilise the same chemistry etc.; and that different species exhibit marked similarities in anatomical structure with recognisable patterns of similarity within different groups of species. But current evolution theory (of which the theory of common descent is an integral part) has long since matured to incorporate a massive amount of new information that its founding fathers couldn't have possibly known about and yet, their original hypotheses - predictions based on their nascent theory of common descent (informed as it was only by the facts available to them at the time) - have been confirmed time and time again by factual observations.

Among the key hypotheses that arose from the nascent theory were that:- all life has a common origin; all lifeforms are related biologically; and there exist natural processes that can explain how this could happen. These hypotheses didn't necessarily follow from the facts as they were known at the time, but they could be tested - and they could easily have been proven erroneous. But they haven't - indeed far from it. Take "all lifeforms are related biologically" as an example (which has implications for the other two). When the theory of common descent was born, the biology (or indeed, the chemistry) of life was not well understood at all. The concept of the gene didn't exist. The hereditary material was unknown, etc. etc. But since then, genes have been discovered... DNA identified as the hereditary material... and the way that DNA is passed on (i.e. the molecular processes involved in sexual reproduction in species like our own etc.) has been elucidated. And in recent years, analytical techniques have allowed scientists to explore the genome in astonishing detail...

Simply put, evolution theory as it stands today accounts for all of these new discoveries, and retains most of that nascent "theory of common descent" from a time before genetics even existed because it still holds true, even in the light of a mountain of new evidence that could so easily have derailed it long ago.

Possibilities can become construed as factual.

Only if one fails to distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis. In addition to what I've already said about the fallacy of equating theory with fact, it is also of critical importance not to confuse the hypothetical (including the "possible") with the actual... of all possibilities, only a tiny subset will turn out to be actual. At the time of writing, the scientific method is by far and away the best method from discriminating between the two.

 

[Danoff]

Just to be explicit - even though I have said this in this very thread before...

Scientific theory is at the highest level of certainty it will ever achieve. A theory will never graduate to becoming a law or scientific fact. Theory is the end of the road. The only way for a theory to get any stronger is to have more evidence supporting it. The more evidence, the stronger the theory. But a theory will, by definition, never be proven. 1000 years from now the theory of evolution will still be a theory. Even if we could literally see evolution right in front of our very eyes, and non-existent God himself came down and told us exactly what it was we were seeing - that it was evolution in action... even if that happened, it would still be a theory. It will never be anything else.

 

[Touring Mars]

I have no intention of getting involved in this debate. I did just finish reading this article though. Quite interesting.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/ardi-2/

With regards to Ardipithecus ramidus, a friend of mine is actually studying right now at Kent State with C. Owen Lovejoy. I'm extremely jealous of her.

I'm glad to report that Science has made it's special issue on Ardipithecus ramidus free to non-subscribers (very rare indeed!), so knock yourself out! 👍

http://www.sciencemag.org/ardipithecus/

 

[SuperCobraJet]

And yet we know less about the mechanisms behind gravity than the mechanisms behind evolution.

Makes you think, eh?

It would except for one minor detail.

The assurance of results, from a demonstration of gravity, are the same as from a demonstration of reproductive offspring of any given species, and has been since, again a reasonably determinable point in time.


Sorry in advance, I'm sure you think that is very short-sighted on my part.

I have no idea what you're saying here, reproduction of species is actually an important subtheory within the theory of evolution. It's certainly a subject on which we have a very large body of knowledge. Please explain.

That is what I'm saying.

Just to be explicit - even though I have said this in this very thread before...

Scientific theory is at the highest level of certainty it will ever achieve. A theory will never graduate to becoming a law or scientific fact. Theory is the end of the road. The only way for a theory to get any stronger is to have more evidence supporting it. The more evidence, the stronger the theory. But a theory will, by definition, never be proven. 1000 years from now the theory of evolution will still be a theory. Even if we could literally see evolution right in front of our very eyes, and non-existent God himself came down and told us exactly what it was we were seeing - that it was evolution in action... even if that happened, it would still be a theory. It will never be anything else.

I don't agree entirely. In your example the theory would be validated, (shown to be correct and vindicated in that particular case), as representative of a truthful factual result.

A theory maybe expressive of, or used to equate a factual certainty or a law. If the elements and processes of the theory are demonstrable then the theory can be exercised to determine validity. Theories outside of demonstrability, maybe true or false as well, but are not exercisable to actually show or prove validity.

Just to be clear about this, Theory ≠ Fact.

Any valid scientific theory explains a given set of facts - theories consist of facts. For any given set of facts, there may be more than one explanation (theory) that adequately explains them all at a given time - but clearly, as time progresses, all theories are tested against new evidence as it becomes available - many theories that were once adequate to explain the available data become inadequate, and only those that continue to be consistent with all the evidence (old and new) survive. As a result of this, it is impossible to ever call a theory "fact", but that does not rob a theory of its explanatory power, or its legitimacy - and it certainly doesn't make the facts that make up the theory any less factual! That theories develop over time is an inevitable consequence of continued enquiry and of the nature of the scientific method - but to dismiss an entire theory as 'speculation', 'unproven' or 'fantasy' simply on the basis that it could be proven wrong at some point in the future is completely illegitimate, and a fundamental misrepresentation of what scientific theories are. Indeed, any valid scientific theory must incorporate new data, thereby providing tests for their hypotheses, and providing the potential for falsification - in other words, scientific theories must be falsifiable.

The nascent theory of common descent originally arose in order to explain the presence of some basic facts - that all lifeforms share common features i.e. they are all made of cells, and all cells consist of similar chemical species (proteins, nucleotides) and utilise the same chemistry etc.; and that different species exhibit marked similarities in anatomical structure with recognisable patterns of similarity within different groups of species. But current evolution theory (of which the theory of common descent is an integral part) has long since matured to incorporate a massive amount of new information that its founding fathers couldn't have possibly known about and yet, their original hypotheses - predictions based on their nascent theory of common descent (informed as it was only by the facts available to them at the time) - have been confirmed time and time again by factual observations.

Among the key hypotheses that arose from the nascent theory were that:- all life has a common origin; all lifeforms are related biologically; and there exist natural processes that can explain how this could happen. These hypotheses didn't necessarily follow from the facts as they were known at the time, but they could be tested - and they could easily have been proven erroneous. But they haven't - indeed far from it. Take "all lifeforms are related biologically" as an example (which has implications for the other two). When the theory of common descent was born, the biology (or indeed, the chemistry) of life was not well understood at all. The concept of the gene didn't exist. The hereditary material was unknown, etc. etc. But since then, genes have been discovered... DNA identified as the hereditary material... and the way that DNA is passed on (i.e. the molecular processes involved in sexual reproduction in species like our own etc.) has been elucidated. And in recent years, analytical techniques have allowed scientists to explore the genome in astonishing detail...

Simply put, evolution theory as it stands today accounts for all of these new discoveries, and retains most of that nascent "theory of common descent" from a time before genetics even existed because it still holds true, even in the light of a mountain of new evidence that could so easily have derailed it long ago.



Only if one fails to distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis. In addition to what I've already said about the fallacy of equating theory with fact, it is also of critical importance not to confuse the hypothetical (including the "possible") with the actual... of all possibilities, only a tiny subset will turn out to be actual. At the time of writing, the scientific method is by far and away the best method from discriminating between the two.

TM, since your commentary here is one of the most skillful literary tight-rope walks I've seen in sometime, I will reserve comment on it, at least for the time being.

I wonder if you possibly could have missed your true calling.

 

[Danoff]

I don't agree entirely. In your example the theory would be validated, (shown to be correct and vindicated in that particular case), as representative of a truthful factual result.

Yup. Just like every fossil we've discovered has validated (shown to be correct and vindicated in that particular case) the theory of evolution. That doesn't change anything. Facts can validate the theory, but they'll never prove it. It will be a theory until the end of time unless some fact comes along to disprove it. It will never graduate to a law - because theories and laws are completely different.

A theory maybe expressive of, or used to equate a factual certainty or a law. If the elements and processes of the theory are demonstrable then the theory can be exercised to determine validity.

Agreed. But a theory it remains.

Theories outside of demonstrability, maybe true or false as well, but are not exercisable to actually show or prove validity.

You cannot prove any scientific theory - ever. You can provide evidence to show that it fits the facts, but it will never be proven. No scientific theory will ever been proven.

I want you to think about that for a moment, because it is key to this conversation. The scientific community will never declare the theory of evolution to be proven. No amount of evidence will ever be sufficient to declare it anything more than a theory (and hence, there is no scientific terminology for anything greater than a theory). All we have for evolution is this mountain of evidence. But no matter how many experiments fit the theory of evolution, no matter how many fossils are predicted by it, no matter how many centuries of scientific research fall exactly in line with it - it will never be anything else. The scientific community has no higher honor for it. It will never be proven, because it is not possible to prove. Neither, by the way, is gravity, physics, or the existence of the universe.

 

[Joey D]

I'm glad to report that Science has made it's special issue on Ardipithecus ramidus free to non-subscribers (very rare indeed!), so knock yourself out! 👍

http://www.sciencemag.org/ardipithecus/

Very cool! Thanks for letting me know, guess I'll have to use my laptop to supply my reading material tonight.

 

[homeforsummer]

I've been reserving comment on this whole thread for quite a while as every time I think of something that would add to the conversation, TM drops a literary H-Bomb which would make anything I write look fairly silly.

What I intend to do though when I'm next home is grab the article about a series of experiments observing the evolution of a virus cultivated in a laboratory. It offered a fascinating insight into natural selection and given that organisms such as viruses can multiply so quickly, the whole evolutionary process was clearly observable in a reasonable timeframe.

I'm home at the weekend so I'll grab the article and scan it in for all to read then 👍

 

[niky]

It would except for one minor detail.

The assurance of results, from a demonstration of gravity, are the same as from a demonstration of reproductive offspring of any given species, and has been since, again a reasonably determinable point in time.

How do you know that it's gravity working when you drop an object?

Because it could just be the Earth underneath moving upwards to meet it. An Earth that is in constant acceleration... at... say... 9.8 meters per second, squared, will give the same effect as gravity. A localized distortion in spacetime would create gravity just as well as a particle exchange of gravitons. Or little pixies made of dark matter could be pushing all us light matter things together, to give themselves more space. The theory of gravity, much the same as the theory of evolution, doesn't care whether the mechanism is divine, occult, scientific or other... the results are still the same, and still as predicted by theory.

Again... asking for proof? There are multiple studeis showing genetic movement between generations. Anthropological examples of how isolated populations under stress change due to interbreeding. (witness the Vadoma tribe)...

(rather thought there'd be more pics on the net... but this issue had its day in the sun way back in the 80's, I guess...)

It doesn't matter that this is a mutation... if the mutation is viable, gets passed to the offspring and doesn't interfere with a species' survival (which is all a mutation has to do to pass scrutiny in evolution)... it will hold. In fact, ostrich-feet reportedly help in tree-climbing. Given enough generations, such a condition may completely erase any trace of normal feet in the tribe.

You don't have to go to such extremes, though... you can find genetic drift, everywhere. Differences like the consistency of our earwax, the thickness of our hair (and the ability to grow facial hair... in fact), body phenotype, etcetera...

There are solid arguments put forth for the evolution of man within historical times... as here:
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/3594/

I was looking for another article that I read in the same magazine (offline) years ago, but I came upon this, instead. It touches upon the same points... that there are biological differences that are spreading through the population that differentiate some tribes from others. Would you believe that lactose intolerance is the human norm? Developing a tolerance for lactose, and thus, the ability to drink milk... helped some tribes of humanity (Europeans, for one, Arabs and Mongols, another) conquer the world. In fact... up to 60 percent of the world is lactose intolerant.

Some other examples... here...

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2006/september/evolution.htm

Interesting note there about scurvy. Seems the intelligent thing to do would be to design humans with the ability to manufacture Vitamin C... just like other animals. But the fact that humans and primates have this gene-shift mutation (which again, doesn't affect survivability, since you can always eat fruit if you're an omnivore) also helps tie them together and supports the idea that they were derived from a common ancestor.

Like I've said, previously... if you actually study medicine or biology... you'd understand how imperfect humans are. Why can't we live 900 years like Adam? Turtles and other reptiles show that lifespans of over 150 years are certainly possible. And yet the human body starts self-destructing as early as the mid-thirties.

We don't grow extra sets of teeth to replace those that fall out, as other mammals can.

Our brains start shrinking (as early as the twenties) and decaying.

Our bones grow brittle... our organs fail. Cancers develop and spread. DNA decays.

Human beings are only built to last thirty to forty years. Every year after that is just a battle to keep your systems from breaking down.

Some may say that the human body is a magnificent machine. It is. It's also magnificently complex in a Rube Goldberg sort of way... in a way that points to thousands upon thousands of compromises in design forced upon it by the evolution of its subsystems from simpler mechanisms. The hormone system is one such headache. Needless complex and overly complicated... and it keeps breaking down... which is why you get diabetes, gigantism and all manner of interesting stuff...

It's like an expensive tourbillion. An incredible number of clockwork mechanisms complexly interlinked to form a timepiece that costs more than most people's houses. A timepiece, that, since it still relies on the action of a mechanical spring and a gearing mechanism, is still nowhere near as accurate as a tenpenny digital clock.

If I were the Intelligent Designer... we'd all be Cesium clocks... with multiple redundant failsafes built in so that we'd last a few thousand years, at least.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

If you go to an islamic country (ehm iran) if you say the word darwin, they will start swearing at you. Right after the revolution, they stapled the darwin chapter of the textbooks closed. Your opinion?

 

[Famine]

I've never tried this myself. When did you go to Iran and say "Darwin"?

It's a good job there wasn't an Iranian girl (and an Iraqi girl) on my MSc. genetics course, otherwise I'd think you might be making up a fantasy situation and overstating it for some reason.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

My parents are iranian.

 

[Famine]

Mine are dead. Doesn't make me an expert in the afterlife.

 

[Mark T]

I have a question regarding evolution which hopefuly someone here can help me with.

I was watching a plant documentary on the weekend and they were in the rain forest examining various plants and there defence mechanisms. One plant regularly came under attack from caterpillars because the butterflies laid there eggs on the leaves of the plant. When the eggs hatched the caterpillars would hatch and consume all the leaves.

The eggs that were laid were bright yellow dots. Other butterflies would not lay there eggs on a plant which already had eggs on it. The plant had evolved a defence mechanism whereby it produced bright yellow dots on it's leaves to fool the butterflies into thinking it had already been visited. I'm just wondering how the plant recognised the eggs as being yellow and how it managed to replicate the size so accurately without having any visual receptors.

 

[livemusic]

I have a question regarding evolution which hopefuly someone here can help me with.

I was watching a plant documentary on the weekend and they were in the rain forest examining various plants and there defence mechanisms. One plant regularly came under attack from caterpillars because the butterflies laid there eggs on the leaves of the plant. When the eggs hatched the caterpillars would hatch and consume all the leaves.

The eggs that were laid were bright yellow dots. Other butterflies would not lay there eggs on a plant which already had eggs on it. The plant had evolved a defence mechanism whereby it produced bright yellow dots on it's leaves to fool the butterflies into thinking it had already been visited. I'm just wondering how the plant recognised the eggs as being yellow and how it managed to replicate the size so accurately without having any visual receptors.

As far as I understand evolution this is random. On chance, a plant had yellow dots on it, so the butterflies didn't lay eggs on it and the plant survived. Then other plants like it were made from this one's seeds, and the dotless plants perished and this kind lasted. Isn't that how it works?

 

[Famine]

The mutation is random - and there would have been billions of other mutations with varying effects - but the subsequent "natural selection" is not.

 

[niky]

Random mutation, over millions of years. Some plant got a genetic mutation that gave them spotted leaves. This plant and its offspring received less attacks, while the plants in the subpopulation with green leaves were wiped out. But the butterflies still attacked them. One mutation chanced upon the right-sized spots... and these plants thrived while those with wrong-sized spots were slowly wiped out. You don't even have to wipe out the other subpopulation. Once they've outnumbered the "normal" plants, the mutated plants pass their genes on to a bigger and bigger percentage of the offspring until the entire population is converted.

And this one isn't too hard to see happening... coloration in many creatures and plants isn't iron-clad, anyway... note the variety of colors in roses... dogs... horses... some fish... people...

There are plants with even more bizarre adaptations... flowers that look, to certain insects, like Playboy pin-up girls. Even more bizarre are Pitcher plants and Venus Fly Traps... makes for some fascinating reading...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivorous_plant

 

[wfooshee]

I'm in the D.C. area visiting my stepson and his family (i.e. the grandbabies.) Played tourist today and went to the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History. These are the banners over the entrance at the moment, and I realized instantly where I needed to post them.