AARRGGHH-- for the last frikkin' time, evolution is NOT a theory....

[mike_c]

Just came from reading-- and despairing-- in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2761952

Stamp this on your forehead, folks: evolution is NOT a theory. Not even in the sense that scientists use the term "theory." It is an observable phenomenon, i.e. a fact, just as real as time, tides, and taxes. Okay, maybe more real than time.

Seriously, even among apparently well educated people here on DU, there is real ignorance about just what biological evolution is. As a biologist, and especially as a biology professor, I find this REALLY distressing.

There are theories that explain the mechanisms of evolution, most of which (natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and so on) enjoy mountains of supporting data. There are theories about the role of evolution in speciation, most of which are even better supported-- I think you'd have trouble assembling more than half a dozen working biologists worldwide who disagree that microevolution is the primary engine of macroevolution (speciation, in brief).

Nonetheless, there is nothing speculative about evolution itself. It is directly observable. It happens in real life. You can watch it happening if you want to, just like you can watch the fall of ballistic objects and bear witness to the reality of gravity.

The next time you feel compelled to use the phrase "theory of evolution" stop and remember that that phrase reflects fundamental misunderstanding about what evolution is. Now flame away if you like-- I have to go teach a class, but I'll check back later in my flame retardant cape and cowl.

[Beetwasher]

1. Yup, Thanks

It pisses me off too...

[The River]

91. Excuse Me For Butting In Line

as it were. I'd just like to point something out before
you waste more bandwidth talking about just the evolution
of the species! The evolution of biological entities is just one small
part of what evolves. Everything evolves! Conservatives have hijacked the word "evolution" and narrowed the meaning so much as to render it unarguable!!

According to Mr. Webster:
ev-o-lu-tion noun.
1. any process of formation or growth;

Rather than focus on biological evolution, why not
take a look at the evolution of self-governance?
Have people always governed themselves in democratic ways
or did something else come first?
Early survival clans acting on instinct?
Ethnic tribes governing themselves with taboo's and "magic"?
Feudal empires governing their populations through force of arms
and "divine" right? (religion is codified magic)
Early nation states governing themselves according to cultural myths?
True nation states governing themselves according to principles?

And what comes next? Has one person one vote become a political
dinosaur doomed to extinction?
If the next stage in the evolution of self governance is
"Corporate Democracy" (it is) what comes after that and how do we
get there sooner rather than later?

/rant off
we now return your thread to man vs chimp!

[H2O Man]

256. I thought it was the John

Lennon song on the back of the "Hey Jude" 45. Now I'm all confused.

[Swamp Rat]

464. Revolution

Number nine... number nine... number nine...

[Xipe Totec]

419. If Evolution is Fact,

How come George Bush is still a chimp? Doesn't that prove that not all living things evolve?

/sarcasm off

[mike_c]

429. damn, I bow to superior treasoning....

er, um, good one.

[DrWeird]

2. Of course.

The extent to which this bullshit creationism prevades these debates is just another example of the decline and fall of the American empire.

[yellowdogintexas]

3. good points...I think the term "theory" got applied in the early

Darwin days and just stuck

appropriated by the fundy folks who have to call it a theory in order to disparage it.

[mike_c]

106. it's important to realize that the basic mechanisms of evolution...

...were a bit of a mystery to Darwin-- he know nothing about genetics. Mendel's work was still VERY obscure during Darwin's lifetime. Our current understanding of evolution really derives from work done in the early 20th century. Darwin got the ball rolling, but did not provide the definitive understanding.

[dummy-du1]

421. Darwin didn't know

And he didn't know about Mendel's research. I think Mendel's results would have been quite an obstacle for the development of his own theory.
So perhaps he was lucky...

[Modem Butterfly]

4. Evolution is a theory...

Just like germ theory, plate tectonics, and the theory of gravity.

I live in Cobb County, GA and take great delight in reminding people of these other "theories".

[fryguy]

wait...gravity is only THEORETICAL?

let me jump out my window then..... (sarcasm)

:bounce: :bounce:

[bowens43]

22. Yes it is.

But I wouldn't jump out the window if I were you. The law of gravity (not the theory which is different) tells us that if you're on a high enough floor you'll probably die. The Law of Gravity is just a formula that describes the attraction between two objects. The theory of gravity attempts to explain why that attraction occurs.

[Modem Butterfly]

40. Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

A very concise, and accurate, explanation.

Of course, anyone who's read Douglas Adams knows what happens if you start to fall and forget all about gravity at just the right moment...

[progressoid]

89. oh, I miss Doug nt

[flaminbats]

132. what about time and energy?

I suppose 9/11 was just another hypothetical possibility...or was it the will of God?

every action may or may not have a reaction of equal or unequal size :crazy:

[reprobate]

251. Oh, is THAT what happened to Mr. Adams?

[Hard_Work]

367. thread hijack alert!

On a completely unrelated note for Douglas Adams fans, they are bringing 'Hitchhikers Guide...' to the big screen soon. I saw the preview when we went to see 'After the Sunset'.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread...

[LeftHander]

153. Definition of theory

the·o·ry Pronunciation (th-r, thîr)
(Philosophy, Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, Physics)
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

[chopper]

207. not quite...

gravity is an observed phenomenon, just like evolution. the theory of gravity is not an attempt to explain why gravitational attraction occurs, but rather how, on the most basic level. the laws of gravitation merely provide an explanation as to how gravity operates on the large scale, but not the nuts and bolts.

evolution is like gravity. it is an observed phenomenon, like the tides. the theory of gravity is like the theory of evolution by natural selection, an attempt to scientifically explain the basics of how the phenomenon operates on the lowest, simplest level using interactions betweeen various things to explain the effect.

[RedCon1]

178. My theory of gravity is

based on the idea that there are unobservable dimensions in space/time that facilitate the movement of smaller objects towards bigger objects. I think it is something like a whirlpool in the multi-dimensional fabric of space time that smaller objects find themselves caught in. This is just my "theory" though.

[tom II]

15. It's a theory, only a theory, nothing but a theory

Evolution has not been demonstrably proven to be anything but a theory. Let us not confuse ADAPTATION which is the passing on of genetic traits that more likely ensure survival of a species with evolution - which is just theory as is global cooling and/or global warming.

[mike_c]

26. tom, you're the one who is confused....

Evolution is the change in allele frequency within a population over time. That's it. There's absolutely nothing theoretical about it.

Adaptation is the result of directional selection, i.e. evolution in response to selective pressure operating on the genetic variation within a population. That's a different animal altogether, although it is VERY well supported by a great deal of evidence. I'd take strong issue with your contention that it has not been "demonstrably proven."

[bowens43]

30. the 'ADAPTATION' nonsense

is standard creationist drivel. Here's a clue....that IS one of the mechanisms of evolution.

This is crazy, I thought I had to go to the freeper sight to see this nonsense.

[GinaMaria]

315. No need to go there. They will come here n/t

[RedCon1]

186. Sorry Tom,

the evolution of species resulting from various observable, testable, explainable, and replicable phenomena has been observed countless times, unlike the miracles described in the Bible. Furthermore, adaptation does not involve the passing of genetic information, you're thinking of natural selection I think. Adaptation is when the coyote, unable to succesfully hunt for his lunch, opts to eat out of the garbage cans at a camp ground instead. He has adapted and, thus, survived. Because his cerebral dominance allowed him to survive, he has an increased chance of breeding more successfully and will pass on the genes for his cerebral dominance to his offspring who can be said to be more highly evolved as a result of this natural selection in the coyote population, this selection for intelligence/adaptability.

[greenohio]

382. This would help.

Do you have links of observed and test cases where one species evolved into another? This would help in arguing this with my friends.

[ProfessorPlum]

388. See post #235 for studies of fish which have speciated in real time

Some discussion of this is in the book "The Beak of the Finch".

[greenohio]

390. Thank you I will.

I am a skeptic but am searching for valid reputable, reproducible and relatively controlled examples.

[RedCon1]

392. What?

GreenOhio? Are you from Bowling Green, Ohio by any chance? I went to college there for a year and a half where Dr. Deku and the other biology teachers did an excellent job of illustrating why evolution is reality, not a hypothetical possibility. I also went to school down there in Nelsonville, Ohio at Hocking College where I studied all sorts of ologies; ichthyology, dendrology, zoology, biology,etc, etc. All the ologies say the same thing GreenO, evolution is reality. Creationism is for simple lazy minds that can't grasp complicated concepts. These are the same simple lazy minds that created Gods to explain the changing seasons, the weather, the ocean, love, death, and every other thing that they couldn't understand. These are the same simple minds that refused to believe that washing your hands before surgery prevented patients from getting infections. Poor Ignez Semmelweis went crazy trying to convince Dr.s that washing their hands was a good idea. My advice to you is to just find new friends that don't argue about things like this. You don't want to end up like Ignez. I have a post a ways down on this thread that provides a few examples to throw at your "friends" if you decide to keep them around though. As far as links, you're just going to have to do your own research on that one. I think The post I mentioned will help though. Edit: post 215

[chopper]

208. uh...

global warming and cooling aren't theories, they're observable phenomena, facts if you will. what causes global cooling and warming is the theory part.

[Krocksice]

507. Changes in gene frequency over time

Evolution as defined by Charles J. Kunert, the Dean of the school of science at my school.
-"The change in gene frequencies over time."
Changes in gene frequencies lead to phenotypic changes that interract with environment and are thus subject to natural selection.
MOUNDS OF SUPPORTING DATA!

The people on this thread that are exposing the improper use of the term evolution are exactly correct.

[mike_c]

17. no its not, not even in that sense....

Evolution is a fact, just like gravity is a fact. The "theory of gravitation" is alternately a catalog of quantitative observations about that fact, and a series of mechanistic explanations for the phenomenon. But the realty of gravity is not in question. The same is true of evolution. It is an observable fact. "Theories" are simply mechanistic explanations for the observable phenomenon itself.

Plate tectonics is a fact, but geological explanations based upon plate tectonics are (increasingly well supported) theories. Germ theory is a bit of a hybrid. Disease is an observable fact. That disease is caused by pathogens is a VERY well supported theory, as you correctly point out.

[northzax]

18. actually, 'small e' evolution, along with gravity and plate tectonics

are observable physical realities. The theory part tries to explain why plate tectonics, gravity and evolution behave the way they do. There is actually a difference.

Look at it this way: obviously, my neighbor who voted for Bush is an idiot, but my ideas on WHY he voted for Bush is a theory.

[Modem Butterfly]

42. Exactly

But cretinists don't really grasp the difference between the scientific use of the term "theory" and the common use. I like to tweak their minds a little when I get the chance.

[shoelace414]

5. Was Darwin Wrong?

NO!

I don't think the word Theory means what the fundies think it means.

[northzax]

6. I think when most people use the word 'theory'

in association with evolution, they are referring to specific concepts about evolution, such as those proposed by Darwin, which most certainly is a 'theory' Gravity isn't a theory either, but the mechanisms used to explain it are.

[L0cke]

29. Exactly.

Obsevations can be facts. But their EXPLANATIONS are theories.

[newyawker99]

48. Hi L0cke!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[L0cke]

49. hihi

;)

[Hokie]

7. Check the latest issue of National Geographic Magazine

There is a great article on evolution that explains why Darwin was right about natural selection and the evolution of species.

The ignorance of science in this country is no more evident than in the childish affection with "Creation Science" and variations like Idiotic...err "Intelligent" Design.

[rainy]

8. my understanding is that evolution can explain different species

but that if fails at explaining differences within a species. What are your thoughts on that?

[bowens43]

32. Huh?

What exactly are you asking?

[mike_c]

105. I'm not sure I understand your question....

If by "differences within a species" you mean genetic variation (and its phenotypic expression), then evolution is simply the change in that variation that occurs over time.

[MsAnthropy]

9. Thank you--we can use all the ammunition you've got

this fight isn't ending any time soon.

[Spangle]

10. Nope, wrong.

STill just a theory.

More factual then Creationism, etc. But it is still a theory that will continue to develop based upon scientific studys.

But it's still just a theory that changes as knowledge grows. It's the only theory that I know of that since it first appeared has been basicly rewritten based upon present knowledge and kept the same name. Tee Hee.. Because the orginal concept of the theory is still the same. Evolving.

[mike_c]

31. no-- you simply don't know what evolution is....

Evolution is change in allele frequencies in populations over time. Absolutely nothing theoretical about it. It's a directly observable phenomenon. Darwin had some trouble articulating it clearly because he didn't know anything about genetics.

[L0cke]

47. Look at it this way.

Yes, things evolve. That's an obervation. But how and why do they evolve? That's a theory.

[RedCon1]

192. No it isn't

The hows and whys are known to those who wish to know. What's more, It is all observable and demonstrable via the scientific method. It is as demonstrable as dropping two objects of unequal weight from a tall edifice and observing that they hit the ground at the same time.

[Cheswick2.0]

11. well then the facts keep changing

[DrWeird]

19. Not in this context it doesn't.

That being a debate of Evolution vs. Creationism, where Evolution is the origin of homo sapiens and all living things from common ancestors. That's a fact and it's never changed.

[Cheswick2.0]

287. I believe in evolution...but it is still just a theory

because the facts keep changing.

Evolution, creation it's the same thing and we don't have the total understanding of it no matter what we call it.

[sui generis]

12. I'm amazed that thread hasn't been deleted yet

I can't post in there because I'm a religious bigot and my irrational god-gene did not express, so I know better, but yes I agree.

Science is science and its explanations, postulates, theories, axioms and methods exist to explain the world around us in a way that is reproducible and observable and derivable.

Any silly observation about "irreducible complexity" and "gaps" is temporal at best, or born of a complete ignorance of scientific process, and at any rate does not constitute a de rigeur proof of anthropomorphised "intelligent design" any more than a "gap" in our understanding proves the existence of the tooth fairy.

Okay I'll stop there. I am flame proof but subject to the occasional random explosion.

[L0cke]

13. It is indeed a theory.

A damn good one, but a theory nonetheless. This does not take ANYTHING away from its validity.

[mike_c]

33. no, you still don't know what evolution is....

See the comments above.

[L0cke]

35. I read the comments above...

I know what evolution is. Do you know what a theory is?

[sangh0]

39. I don't think so

he keeps derogating the Theory of Evolution as being "theoretical"

[mike_c]

107. dude, I'm a professional, working biologist....

If an electrician tells you that your wiring is going to burn your house down, do you ask him if he knows what a circuit breaker is? Its clear that you're stuck on the "theory of evolution" meme and haven't looked beyond what you think you know about it.

[H2O Man]

159. Good point.

I think that one thing that happens is that we have a number of people who believe in creation etc much in the manner of children believing in Santa Claus. If you were to encounter a small child who believed that his theory of Santa was equally valid to the "theory" of gravity, I suspect you would find it amusing. It would not be any sort of challenge to your knowledge. It's all that a small child's brain can process. Without being aware of it, those who say that evolution is a theory serve as the greatest proof of its reality.

[mike_c]

172. lol....

Without being aware of it, those who say that evolution is a theory serve as the greatest proof of its reality.

Amen to that, brother.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

263. lol perfect!

I was watching a surreal debate on Paula Zahn last night.

The debate was framed as a freedom of information/speech argument. The premise: teaching Creationism as well as evolution in science class.

The woman who was forced to argue that Creationism had no place in the science classroom looked like her head was going to explode when she realized she was being forced to look like she wanted to stifle learning by 'Banning' Creation in the science class.

Her pro Creation counterpart looked like Ralph Reid in a cheap suit. His arguments defied not only basic laws of science and physics but logic itself.

The woman arguing against Creation looked like my Mom, an educated, middle class professional. Her argument was essentially that the Creationist story being pushed by the evangelical right isn't even the version of Creation that all Christendom accepts, and therefore belongs in a religion class.


H2O I have enjoyed your insight on reality based political issues and current events. I would appreciate your thoughts on this bizzaro world we live in where supposed journalists are having debates on television about the validity of teaching Evolution as a theory among other equally possible Creation theories.


Is the US really being pushed into theocracy and the laughing stock of the civilized world?

I read somewhere, maybe here, that American Scientists are already requesting Canadian Data sets for research because American data was to heavily influenced by cooperate sponsors. I suspect those same scientist may now be considering moving altogether.

[H2O Man]

293. I think that the "creation story"

could be taught as part of the comparing of world religions. I think it is beautiful poetry. But it wasn't intended to be taken as a literal translation. Carl Sagan did a wonderful comparison of some of the bibical poetry and the reality of human evolution in his book The Dragons of Eden; it would be great for teen-agers to understand that early peoples did understand the process of evolution, but obviously not concepts like DNA, etc.

The funny thing is that the prophet Jesus taught the masses in the traditional style of the great Jewish teachers -- through the use of parables. Just as they are wonderful stories that rely upon symbolism, most of the stories of the O.T. are, also.

But to teach "creationism" as equal to valid science, in this case evolution, is as foolish as teaching that the Tooth Fairy, Bugs Bunny, and Bat Man were American presidents.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

298. So do you think this is real ?

Are the media whores pushing this as a legitimate policy discussion, or are they using this as a major distraction?

Part of me thinks this is part of the Rove MO.

First act like you want and are going to get the most extreme right wing version of a particular policy or issue, then settle for a very far right version after the manufactured dust settles and the people feel like they have reigned in the monster.


The scene I described in my previous post should have been in a movie written and directed by Jerry Falwell, instead it was live on CNN "The most Trusted name in news".

[H2O Man]

317. major distraction......

a simple way to create emotional reactions. I think that there are people in the administration who (ab)use archetypal imagery to manipulate the masses. That's why I think that our current status as a society is similar to that in Germany in the early 1900s. As C. G. Jung said, "All those personal things like incestuous tendencies and other childish tunes are mere surface; what the unconscious really contains are the great collective events of the time. In the collective unconscious of the individual, history prepares itself; and when the archetypes are activated in a number of individuals and come to the surface, we are in the midst of history, as we are at present."

[SomthingsGotaGive]

OK I'll try and make this relate to evolution some how to stay on topic..

With several 300+ threads on the evolution "debate" here on DU it seem to be a successfully distraction.

As a Canadian I look on with shocked disbelief.

The American Democracy rule book is open for the whole world to read and study. As Bush's first term proceeded the crimes, and atrocities piled up. The world waited to see if the American people would respond according to the rules of their democracy.


While more vocal and motivate people around the world protested and fought the bush administration tooth and nail, most of the world waited to pass judgment on the American people hoping the Bush administration was just another hic-up in an otherwise healthy democracy.

All the signs were positive.

Lets Quickly recap what the world expected the american people to answer for with their vote.


Election 2000 Supreme Court Decision

Cheney Energy Task Force

Enron / Cooperate Crime Wave

International Criminal Court

Kyoto

Non Proliferation Treaty

9/11

EPA cover up.

Afghan Massacre

Guantanamo

Taliban Connections to Unical pre 9/11

Karzi Connections to Unical and CIA

OBL connection to Bush Family CIA Saudi Royals Halliburton

Dick Cheney and Haliburton

Yellow Cake

Plame

Iraq

Haliburton Bechtel No Bids

WMD

Sadam's Trial

Abu Grahib........



And those are the ones I remember.

How could there be any doubt? The American people aren't monsters.


Today being discussed by your media is Creationism. Bush acts as if he and his administration have been acquitted on all charges and will no longer tolerate any questions about his first term.

Now he will only answer one question per reporter (no follow ups) on subjects related to his upcoming second term.

So is that it? None of the above can be discussed?

Is the big distraction you talk about just a simple smoke screen designed to generally stifle debate of real issues or is there something in particular happening now that requires it.

Thanks for indulging my rant questions.

[H2O Man]

381. Well, I would not call these

"rant questions." Not at all.

I believe that the tyrant-politician knows what the majority of Americans only vaguely suspect: that hatred is the greatest pacifier on the entire earth. All the administration has to do is to make the public hate a "common enemy" and pretty soon they will forget about everyone and everything else .... particularly their own low level of being.

And that happened on 9-11. I'm not sure if you have read the "Plame Threads" .... but on the latest one I discuss how the administration has used this "war on terrorism" to put through every single action they had planned for their own consolidated power, here and abroad. At a time that the world felt goodwill for the USA, the administration could have taken huge steps forward towards actually ending hatred around the globe. So how on earth could it have done the exact opposite?

Hatred is not natural. It is not inherent in humanity. Rather, it must be planted, and then constantly cultivated -- as this administration does -- because once it takes root, it demands existence. And then the person who hates must show their hatred in their thoughts and actions .... because, I have been taught, that person actually becomes hate himself.

When I read the LTTE in TIME magazine this afternoon, it was clear that this administration, as hatred, has become hated. It is safe to say that the Bush administration is the most divisive force on earth today.

Now, to get back to trying to respond to your question(s), while asking you to excuse my rant! (grin) I would say that the administration recognized that a significant portion of the country had come to view him as a liar and a thief. And in order to be able to "win" this election, they needed people like Karl Rove to feed the national hatred, including within our communities, and within our families .... and to accomplish that, they had to appeal to the most vile passions and ugly fears possible. And that they have.

When I read some of the threads regarding evolution versus science, I think of the old saying, "What do you have when a wise man argues with a fool? Two fools." I put a simply post on "science vs religion" this morning, but it remains to have anyone else respond to it. I am not saying this because I think the post is important because I wrote it; rather, I say it because the post proposes that there is no "conflict" between science and spirituality. It's something that has been planted and is now being cultivated -- it's ignorance, fear, and hatred.

Meanwhile, the administration is able to get away with its crimes, and to capitalize on that bounty of hatred.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

383. great post

Thanks for the reply.

I too agree that Science and Religion can compliment each other.


I'll take the rest of my comments to PM but one more evolution question for here.

Looking back at last nights Paula Zahn segment after reading your post I would have to agree whole heartedly.

Progressives and educated people like the woman in the debate see the absurdity of the arguments being presented for discussion.

However I think most, if not 99%, of Progressives think this is the actualization of an agenda promised (in a wink and a nod fashion) to the Religious right before the election. As such the they get caught in your two fools dilemma because they see this as the new front post election needing the activists attention. Stop the Theocracy !!

But as a mechanism of hate mongering it is even more effective. It would also explain why CNN framed the creationists as Victims of Censorship.

While educated people get themselves worked up into a lather over religious ignorance, the right wing gets to cry God Hating Liberal.

Everyone hates each other while Bushco laughs.


How can we avoid this trap when the media is in on?

The media makes extremists look like moderates and moderates look like zealots.

[H2O Man]

394. Quite often, when we are

confronted with these types of things, we react, rather than respond. I always think of a simple example: if a person (A) is playing high school basketball, and a person (B) on the opposing team purposely and cheaply fouls him, the normal reaction is for (A) to immediately foul (B). But if he does, the ref will always call (A) for his reaction, and the crowd will view him (A) as a sore sport, and (B) as a victim. So player (A)'s best option is to wait a few moments, and then "respond."

Same thing here. The natural reaction is to say something along the line of, "you jerk, we can't teach fairy tales as being equal to science." The moderator on CNN will, in essence, call foul! And the viewers will think, "Sore sport!"

Instead, we need to be prepared to respond. That includes saying what we want to, rather than even answering the question posed by the moderator, etc. If we look at Malcolm X as the role model for this, we see that he always responded in a way that literally turned the table. "If we study the Lakota Indians, are we required to teach their creation myth as equal in validity to the Bering Strait explanation of how they got into North America?" Though this isn't a perfect example, it will make them react to our statement. Make the "ref" call the foul on them. Make the audience identify them as the sore sport.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

299. dupe

[murielm99]

515. Evolution is fact, dude.

It is observable.

Speciation is the smallest irreversible unit of evolution.

HOW evolution happens is the theory part of it.

Lamarck had one theory. Darwin and Wallace another. Eldgridge and Gould theorized punctuated equilibrium, as opposed to gradualism.

Higher levels of evolution above the species level are the result of differences accumulated from a long series of speciation events.

Individual speciation events cause more divergence, more branches, in a group of organisms.

Look at the evolution of the horse, for example. The horse separated into individual species, and adapted to local conditions.

The modern horse horse is the result of accumulated changes. We don't see any of the ancestors of the horse around today because of extinction. Extinction is part of evolution, too.

Just because there are gaps in our knowledge of evolution, and different ideas about how it comes about, does not mean that it is not fact. Get over it.

[BOSSHOG]

14. No flame here Professor

You are right on the money. Another way to prove your point is to listen to American Family Radio and hear the logic of the lunatic wackos who blather on about creationism. Quite a hoot. Thanks for the great post.

[H2O Man]

16. Yeah, right.

Next you'll be saying that gravity is more than some wild theory. I find people who understand things to be a dangerous influence on our society. By no small coincidence, you mention "taxes" : no doubt you are a Kerry-supporter. If ignorance and stupidity are good enough for the president of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, we sure don't need science.

[mike_c]

34. lol....

Thanks!

[ixat]

122. OMG...

he IS a Kerry supporter!! Run, kids! Get the fumigators!! :O

[H2O Man]

137. even without looking

I'm sure he has eyes that look just like Karl Marx's! It's people like him that seek to lead the children of America astray!

[MindPilot]

20. evolution is not something you "believe in"

anymore than than gravity or magnatism. It is reality...which is of course a concept unfamilar to your average believer.

[BOSSHOG]

28. The basic difference

between conservatives and liberals; Conservatives believe stuff because it makes them feel good about who they think they are (creation, virgin birth, WMD, bush's outstanding military service; the irrelevance of heterosexual divorce and incest to any discussion of sanctity of marriage). Liberals know stuff because they implement rational thought and make an effort to sort through information. The average believer in the state of Mississippi is an idiot who "religiously" gets his/her directions from the pulpit.

[m berst]

44. hey wait a minute there

"The average believer in the state of Mississippi is an idiot who religiously gets his/her directions from the pulpit."

I believe in Mississippi. I have seen it. Does that make me an idiot? And, I didn't get my directions from a pulpit, I looked at a map for directions.



:)

[reprobate]

262. It's your right as an american to believe in Mississippi, but....

.....can you describe for us the Theory of Mississippi. And remember that Mississippi is ONLY a theory, whether you believe in it or not.

[sandnsea]

21. Teach more please

If evolution is not a theory, is it a law? What do you mean exactly?

Do the theories that explain the possible mechanisms of the fact of evolution have specific names? That we could add to the debate.

I get what you're saying, just need a little more info. High school biology was a long, long, long, time ago.

[DrWeird]

24. It's a fact.

Not a "theory" in the layman's definition of the word.

That point seemed pretty clear to me.

[mike_c]

108. yep, not even a "theory" in the sense that scientists use the term

The mechanisms and consequences of evolution are "theories" in the scientific sense, i.e. well supported explanations of observable phenomena, but biological evolution itself is simply a fact.

[Xipe Totec]

425. An unfortunate consequence of living in a sound bite universe

The complete title is "Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection" which is in fact a theory.

As you pointed out, evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a fact. That evolution of the species occurred through natural selection is the theory.

Fundamentalists (who tend to take everything literally by reflex) take the shortened title "theory of evolution" and assume it means exactly what it says.

[Birthmark]

23. It's not just evolution, though.

The general populace's understanding of anything scientific is rudimentary...at best. I agree that evolution is particularly misunderstood, but a lot of that is fomented by creationists who stand to gain from the confusion.

[cavanaghjam]

25. What is often offered as "proof"

is that it can't be reproduced in a laboratory. What these idiots don't understand is that there are observational sciences. Anyone reminded of Galileo and his treatment by the Church by these wackos?

[mike_c]

109. evolution is easily observed in the laboratory....

Very easily, as a matter of fact. It helps to use organisms with rapid generations, e.g. microbes or invertebrates, but one can easily measure unambiguous, consistent changes in allele frequency in organisms like Drosophila in response to selection in about 20 generations or so.

[a_random_joel]

27. As someone who has accepted evolution...

I actually do think it is a theory.

A theory that is accepted and has been proven until new evidence is found.

I think this actually works as an argument FOR evolution vs. creationism, adn have used this argument successfully.

Creationists argue that their "belief" is static and concrete - cannot be changed, even in light of opposing evidence.

Evolutionists can argue that it is just a theory, but evidence backs it up, however if new evidence is discovered the theory can be adapted or changed. Which actually makes it a more compelling argument than creationism.

Just my .02

[MindPilot]

38. Not "just" a theory

Why minimize it like a theory just isn't as good as a fact or a law? the mechanism by which an airplane flies is also just a theory, but you don't mind trusting your life to "just a theory".

Evolution is observable. It exists. The theory part is how does it work?

[a_random_joel]

45. You are neglecting part of the definition of a "theory"

The status of being a theory does not have any merit on whether it has been accepted.

Evolution is a working theory. It's premise has been supported by observed evidence. It has been accepted.

This status as a theory does not make it any less viable.

[rodeodance]

68. thanks--you said it well:-)

[xerox]

36. Hello Mike_C

You just defined what theory is... It is an observable phenomenon, or as defined in the dictionary...

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

or

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


Now Phenomena is defined as


pl. phe·nom·e·nons
An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel.
A remarkable or outstanding person; a paragon. See Synonyms at wonder.


It is unaccountable fact or occurence. Theory is used to explain this unaccountable fact or occurence.

[Beetwasher]

58. Yeah, So?

Notice it say Facts OR Phenomena?

The FACTS are, evolution occurs. It's observable and definite. The theory part comes in to explain HOW and WHY. Evolution is FACT. The WHY and HOW of it is THEORY.

Gravity is FACT. It's observable and definite. The WHY and HOW of it is THEORY.

Understand?

[xerox]

180. no

Gravity is a law not a theory. I give you an A for effort.

[Beetwasher]

182. Uhh, What?

Gravity is an observable FACT. So is evolution.

I give you an F for willful ignornace and for playing bullshit semantic games.

[xerox]

365. Read it... Telsa is full of horsehockey

When discussing the theory of gravity versus the laws of gravity we are talking about two different things.


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

I give you an A for trying to make me look stupid. Nice try!

This is elementary physics.

[ProfessorPlum]

191. Jesus, Mary, and Chthulu

Read the whole thread. There is a law of gravity - a mathematical theory. There is also a theory of gravity, about all physical objects attracting all other objects. And then there are the observational facts . . . things fall down.

I give you a C- for not reading the thread and understanding your own disputed point before posting.

[reprobate]

269. A suggestion that might lower the intensity of arguement.

Since the religous right has hijacked the word "theory" every discussion on the subject of evolution starts with a bias in favor of the creationists.

I suggest that in the future instead of "theory" we use the word "theorem". It's a word that is still untouched by ignorance and it's definition fits the test of scientific rigor.

"A formula, proposition, or statement in mathematics or logic deduced or to be deduced from other formulas or propositions. (A theorem is the last step, after other statements have been proved.)"
nces.ed.gov/nceskids/glossary.asp

Note the last line: A theorem is the last step, after other statements have been proved.

Thus a "theorem" is a statement that has been proved to the limit of scientific inquiry and is beyond the "but it's only a theory" arguement.

And the creationists will just HATE having to learn a new word just to destroy it.

[ProfessorPlum]

281. A lovely, elegant suggestion n/t

[jobycom]

37. Help me out, here, then

First, I'm an atheist, and don't believe in Creationism, so don't misread anything here.

I understand that you're saying the mechanisms of evolution are observable, and therefore proven, or at least as proven as a scientist would declare anything to be (It is the nature of scientific observation to accept that anything can at least theoretically be disproven). Are you also saying that there is proof that evolution started the whole life cycle? I've always associated the phrase "Theory of Evolution" with the idea that life began as a single cell or glob of cells and evolved into what we have now, using the mechanisms you mention. I don't see how that can be proven, other than taking on faith that what we observe now is the way it had to be at the beginning.

My point is that when fundies are arguing Creationism versus Evolution, they aren't arguing against the observable mechanisms of evolution, they are arguing over the ultimate beginning. While I don't believe their ideas, it seems to me that a claim that a creator started the process somewhere near the end of the whole evolutionary change-- in other words, created the world with life already roughly as we know it-- is strictly a faith based argument. We have faith that science now answers questions from then. They have faith that it doesn't.

For instance, if I were a creator and made a world and a full array of life that grew old and died, I might build in a sort of artificial intelligence that adapted life as time wore on. Thus, my cute little creatures--ranging from amoebas to aardvarks-- could evolve into something more. Thus, a scientist observing how my amoebas evolve, and how my aardvarks evolve, could extrapolate backwards and assume that there must have been a single cell that evolved into all of this. That assumption in my little scenario would be wrong, obviously, because the extrapolation went back too far.

That's where the Theory of Evolution to me becomes a theory. One I believe, but one I won't crucify others for not believing.

Notice, others don't have to believe in evolution as the origins of life to then accept that science and even evolution now works. That way, they can still use science despite (what I consider to be) their superstitious beliefs about creation.

[mike_c]

110. no, I did not say "the mechanisms of evolution are observable...."

Although most of them are well supported by mountains of experimental evidence. I said that evolution itself is directly observable. Think it this way, if you step in front of a moving vehicle, you're going to receive an impact. That's a fact. Try it, and you'll observe that fact directly. Whether you know anything about the mechanics of moving bodies or not, you will experience the impact. Explanations for why that happens are theories in the scientific sense, i.e. well supported by oodles of evidence. But the phenomenon itself is not in question-- you can experience it directly.

Biological evolution is a fact in that same sense. You can observe it directly, measure it, and record it. Scientific theories deal with explaining the mechanisms of evolution and predicting its consequences, but among biologists, the phenomenon itself is not in question.

[jobycom]

144. Thanks. What about the rest of the post?

Thanks for explaining that, I misunderstood. What about the rest of the post, Creationism versus Evolution as the ultimate beginning of life, and Evolution as a theory in that regard?

[mike_c]

214. that is where we pass from the realm of observed phenomena...

...to the realm of empirical evidence supporting working hypotheses about the mechanisms and consequences of evolution. Parkening's comments aside-- and I'd refer him to an undergraduate biology text if he wants copious citations-- one of the most fundamental notions in biology-- a theory that unites virtually every aspect of biological study-- is that one consequence of evolution is that once populations become reproductively isolated from one another their accumlated evolutionary change ultimately leads them to become different enough that we assign them to different "species."

If you accept that populations do change over time for a variety of reasons, and given enough time, the diversification of life that we see on Earth is likely inevitable. But this really is another discussion altogether. I don't mean to blow off your question, but I also don't want to go where you're going-- we'd be there for a LONG time. :)

[jobycom]

242. But that's where I want to go

One of my degrees is in engineering, so I have studied a lot of science. I get the whole evolution species thing. I agree with it, it's where I hang my beliefs, too.

But ultimately, it's a belief. I don't believe in a creator, so I have to find some way to explain life, and evolution works. However, if I believed in a creator, I could easily believe that evolution started on a full grown, created, diverse species chain, rather than with a glob of cells.

I'm aware science is my religion. I worry about science fundies who aren't aware of their own assumptions.

[Xipe Totec]

435. It did not start with a glob of cells

There is evidence to suggest that organelles within the cell evolved independently first and then fused into the cell as we know it today. An example of this is the mitochondria which reproduces through replication of RNA instead of DNA.

Some living organisms such as slime mold don't even have cells, yet they too are living creatures.

Lichens are symbiotic combinations of fungi and algae and are not fused into a single organism.

These are questions at the forefront of evolution research, yet an explanation of first origins of life is not required to validate the theory of evolution through natural selection as a whole.

By the way, I was trained as a scientist, but I do believe in a supreme being. I just don't believe in the particular brand of creator peddled by most of the major Religions. I do not believe in God the micro-manager, or in Man as God's magnum opus, created in His own image.

[parkening]

194. Congratulations Mike_c

on using another humble analogy to prove evolution rather than actual science. And also for informing us that there is indeed oodles of evidence without actually sharing any.

[ProfessorPlum]

202. Visit any museum of natural history

and ask to see their collection of fossils.

I'll await your theory on how and why they came to be . . . but you won't be able to deny that evolution occurs.

[jobycom]

244. So why couldn't a Creator create fossils?

You aren't citing evidence, you are citing the argument itself as evidence.

Science fundies are as clueless as religious fundies. At least science fundies can build a light bulb, though. Praying for light is too iffy.

[ProfessorPlum]

273. I think God did it just to test your faith, jobycom

I don't have to rely on the fossil record (though there are mounds of evidence there). Evolution and speciation has been documented in real time, too.

How do we know there was a Roman Empire, by your analogy? The archeological, documentary, and historical evidence for it could have been created five minutes ago, when we were all created (your memories of your life up to this point were just created, too).

If we assume we weren't all just created with our memories 5 minutes ago, we can only work on what we observe. Yours is a pointless argument.

[jobycom]

359. No, yours is a red herring

The Roman Empire existed while humans did. We have written records of it. Assuming we were all created five minutes ago is an epistimological game.

The Earth began before humans, whether one buys creationism or evolution. There are no written records. There are assumptions based on evidence we assume means one thing. You assume there is no god. You assume there was no creation. Thus, you interpret your evidence using that assumption. Just as Jerry Falwell begins with the opposite assumption.

You're both fundamentalists, too certain of your own infallibility to question your beliefs.

[ProfessorPlum]

385. A pox on both of our houses, huh?

There is a difference, though.

Succesful scientific theories can be used to predict what will happen in the future, and to devise new medicines, technologies, and techniques that can lead to heretofore unknown benefits to humankind (and horrors, as in the case of weapons).

Closing your eyes to science only gives you the strength of ignorance.

[jobycom]

404. Did I say otherwise?

I'm over here, professor, not over there where you're arguing.

Though, actually, you've proven my point. "Successful scientific theories can be use dto predict what will happen in the future." That's exactly my point. When you can use evolution to predict the emergence and development of new life from scratch on a planet, from a glob of cells to a reasonably diverse ecoculture, then you will have a successful scientific theory. Until then, you have a theory based on untested assumptions. THAT was exactly my point all along, and frankly, it's more scientific than yours.

And again, since you seem to ignore anything in a post you don't want to notice, I am an atheist, I don't believe in Creation, and I do also assume evolution is more or less right. I just don't assume it's unarguable.

[ProfessorPlum]

406. Natural selection has little to say about the origin of life

But it can be used to predict the future.

Selective breeding is based on the results of selection. Apply antibiotics to people in hospitals, and resistance will develop. Change some selection criterion to favor a certain phenotype, and the frequency of the allele which causes that phenotype will increase in the population.

Isolate a bunch of animals on an island, and they will evolve into forms rarely seen on the mainland. That's happened a hell of a lot of times, and just because it was an experiment that I didn't do in a laboratory, doesn't make the outcome any less valid.

Evolution, being the observation that life changes, can't be used to predict anything except that life changes. But you can succesfully predict all kinds of stuff using the theories of selection. In particular, it has massive impacts on agriculture and fighting infectious diseases.

And just for the record, I belong to a Christian church and have no problem with the idea that a creator being somehow set the universe in motion. That's just as plausible/implausible as anything else. What has happened since then is the interesting part.

You don't have to have an experiment on a planetary scale to see that a theory works.

[jobycom]

407. Again, did I say otherwise?

I'm left wondering what you are arguing about. My point was never about selective breeding, nor about ongoing processes of evolution. In fact, I clearly stated and implied throughout this whole discussion that evolution was observable. How else could I argue that science was extrapolating backwards from observable phenomena?

My whole and only point is that in the discussion of Evolution versus Creation as the origin of life, it comes down to faith. And you finally seem to say the same thing in your final point.

So I don't get what you are arguing about. It doesn't seem to be with anything I've said. You scornfully hurl insults at me over views that I have not expressed, and you arrogantly assert proofs that I have already said are proven. You've missed my whole point throughout this discussion, until you finally brush against it by accident in your final post when you sum up my argument precisely, seeming to think it is your own. You say you "have no problem with the idea that a creator being somehow set the universe in motion. That's just as plausible/implausible as anything else. What has happened since then is the interesting part.
"

That's PRECISELY what I have said all along. Thanks for finally understanding. Hope you are more attentive to your students than to me in this post.

[parkening]

302. It is considered being

untruthful. That's the problem Biblical creationists have with created fossils.

I suppose if someone believes that the Creator was not necessarily good, nice, truthful, then there would be no reason they couldn't have been created in situ.

[jobycom]

363. No, that's just an excuse

Pretend there is a creator. Wouldn't he know more about what he was doing than you would? He puts something into creation that to us looks like a fossil. Maybe to him it served some other function, one our simple little minds--which he would have created also--simply haven't grasped yet. There's no need to assume it's dishonest.

I went through that same argument once, about fossils being a trick if they were created. I finally realized why it got me so mad. I had no answer for it. I was reaching. You are reaching.

The cool thing about finally admitting I just believed in science and not religion, and that there was no proof one way or the other, is it got me over the feeling that people who believed differently than me were fundamentally stupid. I still think they are wrong, I just don't feel so smug about it. Keep working at it, you'll see one day.

[ProfessorPlum]

386. You still seem plenty smug

Keep working on enlightment, man.

[jobycom]

403. Good, pithy, fact-filled argument. Pleasure discussing things with

such an open, thoughtful mind, there.

[K-W]

305. I guess thats why we dont allow physical evidence in courtrooms

because god might have just put it there.

[jobycom]

364. Same red herring as the one above. nt.

[parkening]

304. It takes a major catastrophe to form a fossil

If an animal dies and lays there on the ground or in the water, it decays, is eaten, etc. It is not slowly buried by layer after layer of dirt until after millions of years it turns to a fossil. Fossils are only formed when the specimen is quickly and usually catastrophically buried usually in the presence of water. The interstitials in the hard parts are filled with water-born minerals. This is science. The less mobile creatures end up at the bottom, the more mobile/smarter/bloaters end up at the top or not there at all.

Man, an explanation of the fossil record without using evolution or even relying on a lot of time.

[K-W]

307. Your explanation doesnt fit the facts.

Perhaps you should dedicate your life to geology before pretending that those who did know less than you about it.

[parkening]

312. Which facts exactly

oh no, not another one who spouts without facts!

[K-W]

318. If you want to falsify modern geology and archeology,

perhaps you should start studying it a little.

[parkening]

328. Just asking for a fact, kw

[DrWeird]

361. Not at all.

All it takes is for an animal to die and then get covered by soil. It can sit around and rot for awhile while scavengers pick off the meat. It can drown while crossing a river and end up getting covered by silt. It can sink into a swamp or a tarpit. But that's neither here nor there with regard to this debate.

"This is science. The less mobile creatures end up at the bottom, the more mobile/smarter/bloaters end up at the top or not there at all."

LOL. Are you saying all the dumb primitive animals sink faster and that's why they're in lower strata than the more evolved animals?! When I was a kid I asked a creationist classmate to explain dinosaur fossils. She said they were just big dog bones. How old are you?

[TlalocW]

41. I was always taught

That in science theory basically means fact - unless something comes along that disproves it. When lay-people say they have a theory, what they actually should be saying is, "I have a hypothesis." When you gather enough evidence to support said hypothesis, and your results/research can be duplicated, etc. then you have a theory.

So it is proper to say Theory of Evolution and Theory of Gravity.

When the uneducated masses say, "Evolution is just a theory!" they don't understand what the word theory really means.

TlalocW

[McKenzie]

43. what is really scary

about fundamentalist Christians is their belief in the Second Coming. I did a Google a couple of days ago for links to the Revelation to John. A few were scholarly but most took the line that we are living in End Time, that the great Satan is almost upon us and other drivel.

I posted a comment earlier about how two Jehovah's Witnesses turned up on my doorstep on Sunday. I didn't mention that one of the comments they made was about living in End Time and, this is the fucking scary shit, how the UN will probably turn against religion. Nutters.

[ixat]

127. I dunno, they actually may have a point.

From the look of things, it's about to hit the fan in the next 50 years, in more ways than one: ecological catastrophe, wars, population explosion, AIDS, you name it...

[tom II]

46. Evolution is only a theory - PERIOD

Evolution is only a theory, just like all other unproven theories.

People confuse adaptation with evolution.

When I look to the night sky and see the billions upon billions of stars; I see intelligent design and the handiwork of God.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

52. It is not a theory. How do you explain dinosaurs?

Keep wallowing in your ignorance. I feel bad for your kids in Georgia public schools.

[cags]

56. Extinction

Sorry I had to say it

[parkening]

85. What is there to explain

there used to be dinosaurs. Now, as far as we know, there are none. This is neither evidence for or against evolution.

[Beetwasher]

59. The Only Person Who Is Confused Is You

You confuse nonsense w/ reality.

WTF does the night sky have to do w/ evolution?

Personally, I think all the stars were created by Keebler Elves. You can't prove they weren't. And the extradimensional aliens from Svxknxlr seeded our planet w/ their love juice and guided our development. Makes just about as much sense as intelligent design. :eyes:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

73. *snort*

The Keebler Elves make good cookies and the stars! Wow!

Intelligent design is crap... we may as well say Zeus and Odin created the world. Obviously, those that believe in (un)intelligent design don't know that every civilization has creation myths. The Bible's is just one of them.

[TahitiNut]

74. No, you SEE lights in the sky. You've LEARNED they're stars, planets,

... and airplanes. And you BELIEVE in "intelligent design and the handiwork of God."

It seems language isn't a forte, though. :shrug: Too bad.

[bowens43]

94. That's ridiculous creationist bullshit.

You obviously know nothing about the scientific method and even less about evolution.

This is why you bible thumpers are considered to be idiots. You deny the evidence that is around you yet you believe an ancient myth. BTW which God are you referring to? There are dozens.

I believe on your preferred website they call you 'poofists'.

[mike_c]

111. ok, you've stopped listening, so enjoy your ignorance....

eom

[datasuspect]

120. HEY

wipe the drool off your chin

[parkening]

50. I'm afraid that all your doing, mike_c,

is equivocating. You claim, properly, that natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, allele frequency changes, speciation are observed scientific facts. Then you call this evolution. The problem is that no informed creationist disputes any of these facts.

The burden for the evolutionist is not to prove that changes occur within a species (which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt) but that these mechanisms (mutation, etc) can account for all the kingdoms, families, genera, etc that we observe. On this critical issue, evolution theory is a miserable failure and can not point to a single example. If you have such an example, I'd be happy to hear it.

We can not simply say that change occurs therefore evolution is a fact. Evolution must be considered a most tenuous theory at best.

What I find most disconcerting about evolution are the fossils that we dig up from hundreds of millions of years ago --- and they match species we have today!!! What's up with that?

It concerns me that you are passing your dogmatism and blindness to evolution's gross shortcomings on to another generation.

[ecstatic]

57. excellent points

I think most people believe in microevolution. It's the macroevolution that is controversial. Furthermore, the big bang theory simply doesn't cut it with a lot of people.

[parkening]

63. Thanks

One little nit to pick is that the term "microevolution" is too easily misunderstood by the general public. We have other terms that don't poison the well quite so much; genetic drift, natural selection, mutation work quite well.

cheers THAL!

[BillZBubb]

65. Yeah all that cosmic background radiation is just a hoax!

The Big Bang never happened! That 3 degree background noise surrounding the entire universe is just God's way of hiding his face. The expansion of the universe is just a mirage--we're getting smaller, the universe isn't getting bigger. Yep, it never happened.

(sarcasm off)

[ecstatic]

69. Can you prove the Big Bang occured?

Hmm... didn't think so. It requires the same amount of faith required for believing in creationism.

[DrWeird]

70. There's evidence for the Big Bang. Quite a bit of it.

Not only is there no evidence for Creationism, there's mountains of evidence against it.

So, no. That's kind of like saying it requires the same amount of faith to believe that the world is round as it does to believe in the Easter Bunny.

[parkening]

87. There's evidence for Creationism. Quite a bit of it.

Yowch! We need to do better than this.

One thing to remember is we all get the same facts. Facts get interpreted within a belief framework.

The creationist and evolutionist must look at their facts and their interpretations (as well as the other side's) as honestly as possible and mold their beliefs accordingly.

After examining the facts, I believe that creationism better explains the evidence. It answers the questions of: where did the original 'stuff' come from before there was 'stuff'? How did life arise where there was no life? How on earth did a self-replicating system arise by chance?

I'm really leaving now (I hope)!

[DrWeird]

92. No, there isn't.

But if you've got any, please present it.

But seeing how I've caught you being intellectually dishonest below, I doubt you've got any.

[parkening]

97. check below

on the charge of intellectual dishonesty.

I really have to go. Am taking the family to the library tonight. Will get back with you tomorrow re creation evidence.

[BillZBubb]

116. Hogwash! You present NO evidence.

What you've presented is an excuse for ignorance. You cannot comprehend how matter came into being, so you ascribe it to a creator (who conveniently didn't have to come into being).

You cannot understand how replication arose, so you take the intellectual shortcut of ascribing that to a living, in some sense, creator (who conveniently is always alive).

Creationism is baloney for the weak minded. It has NO scientific basis in fact.

[parkening]

117. You call it hogwash

and yet you do not provide any proof of your position. Help out this weak minded guy here and throw me a bone.

Explain to me in purely naturalistic terms how something came from nothing!

Try to wrap your mind around the claim that all the information it takes to make a self-replicating organism arose purely by random chance. You can't even begin to have natural selection until you get that first self-sustaining, self-duplicating unit. So that first "cell" had to get it exactly right the first time or else you just had a useless bunch of molecules. You make it sound like you understand how this happened. I don't believe you and am waiting for you to prove me wrong.

As promised to DrWeird, my evidence for creation will be forth-coming, hopefully tomorrow. Watch this space.

[BillZBubb]

124. Your response is simplistic.

Explain to me in purely naturalistic terms how something came from nothing!

Easy, it happens ALL THE TIME! Throughout space, particle/anti-particle pairs are created randomly in the vacuum. It is a fundamental feature of space and energy. Do a little reading of real science and maybe you'll get a clue.

Try to wrap your mind around the claim that all the information it takes to make a self-replicating organism arose purely by random chance. You can't even begin to have natural selection until you get that first self-sustaining, self-duplicating unit. So that first "cell" had to get it exactly right the first time or else you just had a useless bunch of molecules. You make it sound like you understand how this happened. I don't believe you and am waiting for you to prove me wrong.

You have no understanding of the basics of evolution and its relationship to randomness. You do not need to create a cell, much less an organism, to have chemical replication. What you have to have is all the building blocks--amino acids and peptide chains. These are quite common in nature.

No one understands yet how the first life evolved, but that doesn't mean we throw our hands in the air and say God did it. It is highly probable that given enough chemical building blocks, enough time, and certain environmental conditions that a sustainable replicating MOLECULE evolved--not a cell. Remember we are not talking about a single shot attempt to get this right. There would have been TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS of chemical reactions over time. Eventually, a working model occured.

This molecule then underwent natural selection and became a virus like entity. From this basic building block natural selection made more and more improvements until we had prokaryotic cells. Continuing improvements led to symbiotic joinings of prokaryotic cells into eukaryotic cells. Etc, Etc, Etc.

Notice that we don't look at a finished end product and say "Aha, the probability of that happening makes it impossible." What is happening is a series of small steps each of which is quite probable.

A classic creationist fallacy is that their is no way a human being arose by random chance because the complexity makes that impossible. Of course it is impossible if their are no intervening small steps (evolution!). But there were intervening steps and we know that.

[datasuspect]

119. lack of an explanation

is not an explanation

i agree with your post

[fujiyama]

398. Creationism

explains NOTHING.

It's a bunch of fables created in a time when there were no tools (either analytical or intellectual) to observe nature and the world around us. Creationism is about as valid as "Rain is caused by God raining" or "Thunder is caused by God playing bowling".

It's not based on ANYTHING BUT BELIEF. It is not based on any observable phenomenon whatsoever.

So please don't even put the two in the same category. It insults science as a whole. Creationism stories are interesting from a cultural view point. It shows the similarities in thought between cultures in their view of mythology.

[BillZBubb]

115. Baloney. You need to think and you need to understand science.

There is evidence that supports the Big Bang theory. Lots of it. There have been EXPERIMENTS to test it. To date, no experimental evidence has contradicted the theory, only supported it.

Creationism is bunk. There is NO evidence to support it. There are NO experiments to support it. Like the flat earth, it is religious nonsense masquerading as "science".

[Xipe Totec]

427. I would say it's fanatical nonesense masquerading as religion n/t

[parkening]

171. Explain to me

how Cosmic Background Radiation has anything to do with evolution? Does that somehow affect the allele frequency?

[mike_c]

112. that is not what I claimed-- you are not listening....

"You claim, properly, that natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, allele frequency changes, speciation are observed scientific facts."

I never said that. I said evolution is an observable occurrence. The processes you listed are proposed mechanisms of evolution, all of which are VERY well supported by experimental evidence, but they are not themselve evolution.

"Then you call this evolution."

no, I did not. I defined evolution quite specifically as "change in allele frequency in a population over time." That is the ONLY thing I have ever called "evolution," in this thread or in any other. I don't think you're listening.

"We can not simply say that change occurs therefore evolution is a fact."

Since biological evolution IS simply change in allele frequency over time, we can indeed say that evolution is a fact if allele frequencies change. And they do.

"It concerns me that you are passing your dogmatism and blindness to evolution's gross shortcomings on to another generation."

Pray that your children never end up in my classes.

[parkening]

169. If all your saying is that

change occurs then I believe that.

What I don't buy is that any or all the mechanisms proposed account for increased complexity.

Natural selection or genetic drift only acts on existing information. It can only be neutral or trend downward. Even when the fittest survive, the total gene pool becomes smaller.

Mutation is a corruption of existing information. Although it may be conceived as a mechanism for adding info to the allele, as observed in nature, its affect on the population trends neutral at best and massively negative in reality. I'd be interested to see any evidence of a positive mutation that added info to the allele.

Speciation results in a smaller gene pool. When sub-species no longer interbreed, the total available information decreases.

These all go in the opposite direction required by the theory that species changed from simple to more complex. Do you have other mechanisms that trend in the positive direction that you've not shared?

If you insist that evolution is merely change in allele frequency (which has been observed by you and your buddies) then you have a great definition that does not explain or predict anything. You've succeeded in reducing "What is Evolution?" to the Jeopardy answer to "change in allele frequency". Congratulations!

[ProfessorPlum]

173. Good for you!

You finally get it.

Now that we've reclaimed the word "evolution" to its proper definition from you, feel free to not believe the currently accepted mechanisms for why or how it occurs. That is your prerogative. However, you should know that current theories have mounds and mounds of evidence behind them and though many details are still being hard fought, the general framework has held up well over time and through testing.

Now spread the word! Evolution, the change in allele frequency over time, is a fact.

[DrWeird]

213. Not at all.

Mutation can be beneficial and there's numerous case examples of where it's beneficial.

Standard Creationist bullshit. Seriously. Do you have any new ideas that haven't already been debunked numerous times?

[parkening]

276. You'll note that

I never said that there are not beneficial mutations. I know that there are. What is necessary is that a beneficial mutation that adds information to the allele. This has never been observed. Unless, that is, it's in those mounds of evidence that you're not sharing.

So we're insisting upon positive evolution using a mechanism that has never been observed. Not a good start.

[ProfessorPlum]

286. I think instead of "allele" you mean "genome"

Or perhaps the entire genetic makeup of a particular species.

Here's just one example: one mutation could be the duplication of a gene. That happens all the time - our genome is riddled with gene duplications, and partial duplications.

Now, the two copies of the gene in a genome are free to evolve independently of each other. One can retain its original function, while the other may evolve entirely new functions.

Voila! Information added to the genome. Gene duplication is a common phenomenon, and is an excellent theory to describe the hundreds of very similar receptors we have in our bodies, for a wide variety of ligands.

And I didn't even break a sweat.

[parkening]

297. ProfessorPlum gets the award

for actually injecting some facts into the discussion! Woo-hoo!

Mutations are about the only possible mechanism that Big Evolution proponents can count on. Gene duplication and polyploidy are considered possibilities for adding info. The overwhelming trouble with this is that mutations are observed to trend either neutral or massively negative. They trend toward weakening of the species rather than strengthening -- toward extinction rather than advancement. So mutations in the copy will trend negative. Not what we're looking for. Once this mutant gene is switched back on it must not be fatal. It must be useful to be selected for. There are lots of strikes against it. We must bear in mind we only have half a billion years to do it all in, too.

Good job, PP! Not resounding evidence for your point but not blatantly silly either. Given ideal circumstances, phenomenally fast (and heretofore unobserved) mutation times (think of our probability exercise only to the nth degree), suspension of Murphy's Law, cross your fingers, and you've got a prayer of it working. Well not a prayer I guess.

[ProfessorPlum]

301. Thanks

It's OK that most mutations are negative, though, and to be expected. You only need a positive one once in a while. Even a negative mutation can become a positive one as conditions change, eg sickle cell anemia and malaria.

The half a billion year time period is only the time it takes to get life going. If I remember correctly, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and we keep finding older and older fossils of single celled organisms, going back almost 4 billion years. So the half a billion years is all pre-evolutionary time. The 4 billion years since the evolutionary clock started ticking was mostly filled with single-celled organisms, followed by the Cambrian explosion when all known modern phyla appeared in the fossil record. Most of evolution after that has been extinction of some branches and brachiation of others. But it's a hell of a long time, certainly long enough to account for current complexity.

[parkening]

311. You need positive ones

very often to fit them all in in the time alotted. And pushing the start closer to the beginning of the earth only exacerbates the problem of the first selfrepx "cell".

Considering the complications of sickle cell anemia I don't see how malaria resistance would outweigh the problems that arise. Even today the prognosis for SCA sufferers is not good.

4.5 billion years only sounds like a long time. When you sit down and do the math, though, it is grievously short.

I think I'm done here guys. I haven't got any work done today. I've hopefully brought up some points that thoughtful people will consider. Thanks, it's been fun.

[ProfessorPlum]

326. It's been what, 2-3 billion years since the arrival of multi-cellular life

That is, again, more than enough time to accomplish what we see today. There is no question of "fitting" it into the time alotted. There has been time enough for fully mature, complex ecosystems to arise about 4-5 times before being wiped out in huge die-offs.

And sickle cell anemia definitely confers malarial resistance. It is a horrible disease, but it keeps you alive long enough to reproduce in areas where malaria is endemic.

[parkening]

327. I need some backup

from you on the 2-3 billion years. Give me some math, mutation rates, etc.

Just pointing at the fossil record and saying, "there", isn't enough. Once again you're assuming what you're trying to prove.

[ProfessorPlum]

338. You're kidding, right?

Just because something happened, is not proof that it happened?

Do you agree that there used to be dinosaurs? And now there are not?

[parkening]

345. I don't dispute

that things go extinct, in fact, I expect it. The universal genome is becoming less and less complex over time. It supports my point exactly, thanks.

[ProfessorPlum]

349. The number of species in the record goes up and down

Implying there is no "direction" to evolution in terms of numbers of species.

[parkening]

356. The traits also

appear and disappear over and over, showing that there is not any new information.

[DrWeird]

376. Not at all.

There's plenty of new information found in pleistocene fossils that isn't seen in 3 billion year old fossils.

[Krocksice]

510. what traits appear and disappear?

I guess it's true that there are only four base pairs so any 'new' information is just a retooling of the same machinery... but what exactly are you talking about here?

[Swamp Rat]

466. Kick ass mike_c!

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

54. And the best part about living in New England

is that we go to church and no one tries to shove religion down your throat. Religion is personal. religion is private belief. I don't discuss my bodily fundtions with strangers, please don't talk to me about the Rapture on an airplane.

[DrWeird]

60. Stop insulting the majority of Christians who believe in Evolution.

Creationists are liars and idiots regardless of their religion. The members of KKK call themselves christian too, that doesn't mean an attack on them is an attack on Christians.

[raggedcompany]

75. Darwin was Christian

Darwin was christian. As far as he was concerned, God made the world as the Bible describes, and the observations he made were merely a description of how God's creatures changed over time. Only an ignorant Christian could be offended by Darwin or his studies.

This kind of thing should be common knowledge, not arcane mystery. People need to read more books.

[Terran]

79. ...Which has WHAT to do with evolution...?

Ya know, God doesn't want you to spend your life in ignorance and stupidity. Did you ever consider that?

[bowens43]

95. Do you really think that science is run by polls?

Your president is a fucking idiot and I have no doubt that he too is a 'poofist' . You seem to think that because there are a lot of stupid people it justifys their stupidity. It doesn't.

Let me ask you this. Where are the fossils of the cockatrice? They're mentioned several times in the bible. Where are the fossils?

[mike_c]

113. memo to tom: the earth is not flat, and neither is it the center...

...of the solar system. Do you find these truths equally insulting? Equally threatening?

[juliagoolia]

125. Maybe this Lumping of Dems is not so inclusive as you think

As a Democrat, who is Spiritual, and believes in a creative greater intelligence.. I don't think the six day mix it up and call it light ideology works well for me.

Now you can stop insulting me by lumping me into your storybook ideas. I know many Christians believe in fundamental reading of Genesis, but even they can't explain why man is created in Gen 1, and Gen 2. Many Christians are science oriented and even though they read the Bible they've advanced beyond flat worlds.

I have plenty of values, and have stood up for them and fought many battles for the underdog. My values are not narrowly defined by someone else's dogma. I was not born into my spirituality and faith. I had to work hard for it, and found it for my self. I am also hoping whom ever I support would have found their own truths, and feel solidly grounded in them.

Additionally as someone that worked for Harris Polls at one time, I have a little insight to polls too. You can't answer a question that isn't asked, and you can get misleading results by narrowing the possible responses. Polls are often very misleading.

Here is a different poll commisioned by Zogby
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38001-2004Nov9.html
"The poll found that 42 percent of voters cited the war in Iraq as the "moral issue" that most influenced their choice of candidates, while 13 percent cited abortion and 9 percent same-sex marriage. Asked to name the greatest threat to marriage, 31 percent said "infidelity," 25 percent cited "rising financial burdens" and 22 percent named same-sex marriage."

As you can see, the poll questions make a big difference. So does the audience. So in your example if asked if my religion is important to me and extends beyond my own personal life. Yes. Thats what Polls do. They limit and constrain ideas into little convenient lumps for politicians so they can say...see here? See this poll?


I am not offended by Evolution and think if thats the process God/intelligent creative force/He/It/She uses well isn't that nifty!

Faith is not religious, and it is not dogmatic. Its personal and its a verb. Faith has zilch nothing at all to do with evolution!

Don't take your Dogma and decide for me that I am insulted about Evolution. I'm not. Dogma does not equate to the same thing as faith, or values.

I'm not a biologist, nor a PHD in Science but evolution sure is more plausible than the 6 thousand year 'theory'.

[Hello_Kitty]

129. I wish we lived in a country where no one cared

what religious faith (or lack thereof) a political candidate held.

[seemunkee]

53. It is a fact AND a theory

The fact of evolution is that is it happens and is observable. It can even be produced in a lab. The theory part is what causes the changes to occure.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

[parkening]

61. The REAL fact

is that alleles frequency changes occur between generations. Defining this as evolution is ludicrous. Every leading creationist and intelligent designist agrees that this happens. What causes them to occur isn't the issue either.

Evolution must not just account for genetic drift within a species, but somehow for all the kindoms, phyla, etc in our world. It has not been even close to being successful. It's almost embarrassing to watch. Where are all the slight changes from simple creatures to complex in the fossil record? Show me a single credible example. It doesn't exist.

Someone explain to me how the coelecanth can exist for 65 million years virtually unchanged, yet in that same time little furry mammals evolved into humans. Gimme a break.

[Beetwasher]

62. God Did It!

Just shut off your brain and stop asking questions! :eyes:

It's called billions of years of evolution. That's what accounts for diversity. Billions an billions of years of evolution. Do you think that fossils are like library records??? We have to use what is found and NOT everything is recorded or preserved in fossils. Duh.

As far as some species NOT evolving, such as colecanth, so what? It's unusual but certainly not impossible and MOST certainly more probable than some divine being snapping his fingers and creating the earth and everything on it.

How silly. The only ludicrous thing is people who think God did it is the answer to everything.

[parkening]

78. I'll let Stephen J Gould

answer for me from his 1995 book Dinosaur in a Haystack, page 127: "...the stasis or nonchange of most fossil species during their lengthy geological spans had been tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists,..." So, yeah, maybe it's not like a library recording everything, but virtually nothing that it does show supports evolution. And the observed stasis can be interpreted as support for non-evolutionary theories.

Let's see what we have so far. Coelecanths, bugs preserved in amber, crocodiles are essentially unchanged over millions of years (billions and billions is hugely over-reaching). A fossil record that provides no unequivocal support to change across species, genera, etc. Genetic drift that the creationist already accepts. This all smacks of falsification to me.

I see a theory that requires as much faith to believe as creationism does. "God did it" may not be the answer to everything, but it may be the answer to something, eh?

[DrWeird]

82. Gould is rolling over in his grave.

He, being one of the world's greatest advocates of teaching Evolution in high schools, was outraged when creationists took his quotes out of context.

You still haven't replied to my post, btw.

[parkening]

83. He was

outraged, yet he said it and I don't believe I, or creationists, have taken it out of context -- merely used it in a way he didn't intend.

I think I finally got to your post. I'll check back tomorrow.

[DrWeird]

88. Yes, you and other creationists have taken it out of context.

So much so that it's up on talkorigins.org as standard Creationist bullshit propganda:

"Note that the above starts with the unmarked deletion of "Before Niles Eldredge and I proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972, the . . .".


The very next paragraph is, in its entirely:


"But Eldredge and I proposed that stasis should be an expected and interesting norm (not an embarrassing failure to detect change), and that evolution should be concentrated in brief episodes of branching speciation. Under our theory, stasis became interesting and worthy of documentation -- as a norm disrupted by rare events of change. We took as the motto of punctuated equilibrium: "Stasis is data." (One might quibble about the grammar, but I think we won the conceptual battle.) Punctuated equilibrium is still a subject of lively debate, and some (or most) of its claims may end up on the ash heap of history, but I take pride in one success relevant to Cordelia's dilemma: our theory has brought stasis out of the conceptual closet. Twenty-five years ago, stasis was a non-subject -- a "nothing" under prevailing theory. No one would have published, or even proposed, an active study of lineages known not to change. Now such studies are routinely pursued and published, and a burgeoning literature has documented the character and extent of stasis in quantitative terms.



This is yet another example of creationists misconstruing a debate among scientists (once again, about Punctuated Equilibria) as something more. Quite simply, Gould is chiding scientists for a misinterpretation of the fossil record bearing on the tempo and mode of evolution, not the fact that it occurred. If they really had an argument that the peculiarity of the fossil record that Gould is describing is evidence against the fact of evolution, then they should make the argument openly, so it and its ramifications could be tested, instead of trying to hijack the words of real scientists. But blowing smoke is so much easier."

- J. (catshark) Pieret


It's really a shame that you have to cut and paste bullshit propaganda around here. Have you no original ideas of your own?

[parkening]

96. SJG had to come up a theory

to explain why the fossils contradicted evolution. Thus we have "punctuated equilibria". Gould admits that the existing theory (gradualism) was completely unsatisfactory to explain the hard evidence. So the committed atheist proposed a completely unfalsifiable hypothesis to explain it. This is not serious science folks!

So evolution happens so slowly we can't observe it, yet so quickly we can't record it.

[DrWeird]

102. Now you're flip-flopping.

You know, instead of repeating your same mistakes you'd think you'd learn from them.

Punctuated Equilibrium does in no way contradict evolution. That would be ironic, since Gould, being a Darwinist, co-authored the original work. Gould simply modified a fairly minor point to fit with the experimental data. He proved the Earth was an oblate spheroid instead of a perfect sphere, as it were, nevertheless it's still round. It is serious science and that's why every serious scientist agrees with it. And that's why Creationists get there "doctorates" from degree mills.

"So evolution happens so slowly we can't observe it, yet so quickly we can't record it."

Again, ignorant. Evolution is recorded in fossils and can be observed in the field. So much so that the rate of change over time can be measured and quanitified.

[parkening]

149. Of course PE doesn't contradict evolution

it was made up by Gould to prop up the theory because the physical evidence did not match the prevailing theory (gradualism). It was a required addition to the evolutionary theory because, contra you, it is not recorded in the fossils. This much is admitted by Gould.

The rate of change over time can only be "measured and quanitified" because the theory is assumed to be true!!

[ProfessorPlum]

151. Gould was trying to explain the RELATIVE dearth of transitional forms

in the fossil record that we would expect if evolution occured via gradualism.

That doesn't mean that Gould or anyone else claims there are NO transitional forms (he has written extensively on many of them) and it doesn't mean that he thinks that life hasn't changed forms over the course of time. He based his career on that very fact.

[parkening]

157. Stasis is the

overwhelming rule. My point, and try to keep up with this guys, is that he was forced to explain stasis by proposing an unfalsifiable hypothesis. He explains stasis by proposing that something unobservable and untestable accounts for morphological changes. That sounds like what the creationists are accused of doing, doesn't it.

PE is not science, by definition --- it is story-telling.

[ProfessorPlum]

160. There is no magic to punctuated equilibrium

All it means is that, say, if species A evolves into species B in 100 years, and you have pretty good fossil records for those years, you might expect that at the beginning of time you have something very A-like in the record, that after 50 years you find forms that are about half A and half B, and after 75 years you find forms that are about 3/4 B, and at 100 years you find all B forms. Obviously in real cases the timelines are much much longer.

The fossil record actually usually shows that the change from A to B, or the arising of B, occurs very rapidly, usually such that the odds of transitional forms being preserved are very small.

Gould (and his grad student) observed this, then said, "huh". Then they developed a theory that speciation changes often occur rapidly, and that many morphological forms continue along unchanged for long stretches of time. Not that they never changed, but just that the fossil record seemed to be consistent with dramatic changes occuring rapidly, not gradually.

There is nothing magical about that.

[parkening]

176. Yes I understand fully

what PE is and what it attempts to explain.

My point is that it is not science. It is a just-so story. In order for it to be real science it must be falsifiable. By its very makeup it is completely unfalsifiable, therefore not science, not a theory, not even a viable hypothesis.

Even in the formulation of your reply you betray yourself. You, and most scientists, don't ask themselves "did this evolve" they ask "how did this evolve". They've given up questioning the axioms and just assume them to be true. Hmmm, sounds like the same thing the creatx are accused of.

[Beetwasher]

177. Do You Question Gravity?

No, you observe it. Then you ask WHY and HOW it happens.

Same w/ evolution. We observe change. Period. Then we ask WHY and HOW it happens. Pretty simple really, except for religious nutbags who don't like to think. It's much easier, I know, to say GOD DID IT! and then shut off your brain. It's lazy and pathetic, but there you are.

Dense is as dense does I guess.

[parkening]

190. I observe gravity and change

We have a good idea of the HOW and WHY of change already. I have no problem with any of the hard science.

We must remember that no one has observed an organism trending in the more complex direction. No one! Further, no one has even proposed a mechanism of change that will affect this change that is not laughable. You or anyone else can critique what I've said regarding the proposed mechanisms in post #169 (I'll get that # on edit)

We can wave our hands around and make all kinds of grand comparisons, but the fact remains that naturalistic change from simple to complex is virtually unsupported by hard science. Still waiting for anyone to show me otherwise.

[DrWeird]

195. Doesn't the Bible say something about...

not giving false witness?

I've always thought it was ironic that the biblical literalists were some of the slimiest, sleaziest bunch of liars around.

[parkening]

255. It does say something about that

I don't see how that's relevant. Unless you can show me where I've been doing it, I believe you're off-topic.

[DrWeird]

260. The Gould quote, for example.

It's a deliberate misquote and it's completely dishonest.

But you've made numerous examples of dishonesty in nearly all of your posts in this thread. In addition yo your waffling and dodging questions and changing topics when you're proven wrong.

[parkening]

288. I did not misquote Gould

He said something that has ramifications that he didn't intend but are never-the-less true.

Show me any other example of dishonesty. Show me an example of waffling, dodging, show me one instance where any one of you have proven me wrong on anything. Show me one instance where any of you have proven anything!!

[ProfessorPlum]

291. Are you from Missouri?

:)

[Beetwasher]

294. LOL! Here You Go Einstein:

"The REAL fact is that alleles frequency changes occur between generations. Defining this as evolution is ludicrous."

Well, since that pretty much IS the definition of evolution, you've been PROVEN to be wrong about that. There's one. Shall I continue, or are you embarassed enough? LOL!

OK, one more waffle/dodge/equivocation:

The topic of the post is about evolution being FACT not theory and yet all of a sudden, when the above quote was shown to be completely and embarassingly wrong, you want to change the subject and start discussing the origin of life on the planet or the theory of natural selection instead of how wrong you were about the definition of evolution.

If that ain't a dodge, then the word itself must only refer to an automobile.

[parkening]

300. The topic indeed is as you said

but nowhere in the whole first post is evolution defined.

My grand sweep assumption was not what mike_c had in mind. Once he defined how he was using the word, you'll note my change of tack. I'm okay with that. I wouldn't call that proven wrong.

You and I both know that the theory of evolution predicts much more than small changes within a species. This is where I find issue with it. That predictive part of the evolutionary theory is what I take issue with. And that part is indeed theoretical. It has not been demonstrated, observed, or plausibly explained. Discussing the implications of evolution can hardly be called a dodge.

[ProfessorPlum]

303. It's OK, but we really are off topic here

mike_c's excellent point was the definition of evolution. The theory of natural selection is a whole other kettle of fish, and off topic.

[parkening]

314. ~protesting quietly to self~

[Beetwasher]

310. And You Were Shown To Be Wrong

Or PROVEN to be wrong when you claimed the very definition of evolution was ludicrous. You asked for an example, I supplied it. You were wrong, end of story.

It's hard to take someone seriously on anything when they use that tactic. It's called moving the goal posts. The origin of life is a completely separate issue as is the very well supported theory of natural selection. You conveniently (or not) changed the subject to that after you were shown to be completely wrong about the original topic. That's called a dodge or an equivocation, unless of course you'd like to redefine those words as well.

[parkening]

330. whatever

[Beetwasher]

339. LOL!

Uh huh...

[Beetwasher]

197. We Observe Change

Therefore, evolution is fact. Period. You said it yourself.

I wish I could go back in time, live a billion years and watch a single celled organism evolve into a more complex one, it would be cool, but I can't. But just because I can't doesn't mean GOD DID IT. And it's silly and pathetic that just because we can't show a continuous fossil record, like a film strip, from a single cell to humanity, that people claim evolution is just a theory.

I do notice how your argument has totally changed by the way and that too is pathetic. You are now arguing something completely different than when you started w/ your nonsense.

[parkening]

203. Arguments change

--- therefore evolution is a fact!!! I'm just keeping up with the flow here.

Please respond to post 169. Just because there is change does not mean that the grand sweep of self-replicating molecules (the probability of which is beyond the realm of possibility, just ask any mathematician) to humans is a leap that all proposed mechanisms fall miserably short of explaining.

[Beetwasher]

What A Load Of Utter Crap

Something is 100% probable if it happens. Given enough time and the right conditions, probability increases.

The mechanisms most certainly do NOT fall short of explaining the "leap". Note even close.

And just because there is change, does mean that there is evolution and your original argument is full of shit, so now you move the goal posts. Bravo! How typical for lunatic creationists.

What's the probability of a divine all powerful being just popping into existence? How pathetic.

[parkening]

236. Yikes

Your grasp of probability is atrocious. Things aren't 100% probable even if they happen. They're only 100% probable if they happen every time.

Check me on this: suppose it takes 100 things in the proper order to make a self-replicating molecule (this is a gross under-estimate).

The odds of this happening by random chance are roughly: 1 in ~ 10^100

Suppose a trillion trillion entities are trying to do this at once. That brings the odds down to 1 in 10^70.

Given: there are 20 billion years of evolutionary history (I know that's grossly more than the accepted amount)

Now suppose that every millionth of a second another combination is tried by each of the trillion trillion entities at the same time(completely undirected of course). That brings the odds down to ~ 1 in 10^47.

You don't get any more ideal conditions than that folks. Still the odds are insurmountable. This is like winning the Powerball lottery forty times in a row! And that's just for one self-replicating molecule!

I am appalled by the lack of scholarship here and the ample supply of ad hominem. The lot of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Accusing me of reading off a list while all you have to show for yourselves is talkorigins! You should all consider yourselves soundly trounced in this debate.

[Beetwasher]

243. No, You Are Parsing Bullshit

I don't need a lesson in probabilities from you, I understand them just fine. W/ "god did it!" who needs 'em anyway? You misconstrue what I said, what a surprise.

You would love to go off on a tangent about statistics I'm sure, since you've proven to be so willfully ignorant about evolution, but I won't take your strawman bait.

You've admitted evolution is a fact. You have been embarassingly spanked for everyone on the board to see. If you'd like to continue to get spanked, go ahead.

The only thing that is appalling and shameful is your complete and willful ignorance.

[parkening]

252. No tangents

Just building a case that hasn't even been challenged by any of you. I have provided facts and probabilities to support myself. I have answered nearly all your objections. You all have provided no supporting data for your position. You've managed to equivocate and straw-man mine. You all have merely insisted that you're right and anyone who disagrees is an idiot. This is one of the most pathetic displays I've had the displeasure of witnessing.

I'll let the readers be the final judge of the winner of this debate. They will see that although I prodded you all into showing me even one shred of evidence, you repeatedly refused to do it. You would not engage my argument but would only come back with attacks against me personally, and not the facts I presented.

If this is a spanking, I think I like it.

[Beetwasher]

253. How Pathetic, You Get Spanked and Then Try To Change The Subject

What case have you built? You've argued evolution is just a theory and then recanted because you were spanked and shown to be wrong, so you moved on to argue that the formation of the first cellular organism is statistically impossible because of random probabilities, and this has nothing to do w/ evolution. So, you got spanked and had to admit evolution is fact so you moved the goal posts and started to argue about the formation of molecules. What did I miss? You made no case whatsoever, except the case that you are a willfully ignorant fool who can't stay on one topic, or rather, after being embarassingly spanked, changes the subject. :shrug:

[parkening]

265. This, class, is called

equivocation. Not once did I recant anything. Not once did I agree that simple organisms change into more complex ones. And interestingly enough, none of you even offered any evidence to support it. I'm sounding like a broken record here but show me what you got. You're waiting for the science guys to do it for you, BW, but they're not doing it. Doesn't that give you pause?!

Here's my case as presented:

Yes, limited change does occur. There are mechanisms that have been proposed to explain these changes. These mechx do explain small changes within species (beaks getting bigger and smaller again). These mechanisms (my nat sel post for instance) do not explain the huge amount of new info needed to go (even in hyper-small steps) from most simple to most complex. No one here provided evidence to the contrary. No one has even laid a hand on me and yet you throw around "spanking" like by your oft mentioning will make it so.

Here's a little more probability for you.

Likelihood of a self-existent Being: 50 - 50 (either there is or isn't -- no room for other options)

Likelihood of this Being creating the universe: again 50-50 (either He/She/It/They did or didn't -- no room for other options)

conclusion: chances of a self-existent Creator 1 in 4. Pretty good odds given the alternative, eh?

[Beetwasher]

275. That's Gotta Be the Dumbest Thing I Ever Heard

So, either invisible aliens are under my bed or they aren't. 50/50 chance of that too, eh? Dumbest. Thing. Ever. Bar none. And you deigned to lecture me about statistics? LOL!!!

Talk about equivocating. You argued Evolution was just a theory. You didn't originally argue that simple organisms can't change into complex one's. Evolution is fact. You've admitted it. You lose. SPNAK! End of story. Now you change the subject and that makes you pathetic AND a loser.

[parkening]

337. Point to the error in my

statistical analysis. You cannot find an error in them.

You yell a lot and call me a lot of names but you've added nothing of intellectual value to this debate.

SPNAK, indeed!

[Beetwasher]

341. If You Don't See The Fallacy In Your "Analysis"

It's pointless.

Your analysis means there a 50/50 chance for EVERYTHING. Either something happens or it doesn't. 50/50 FOR EVERYTHING. Either life forms on the planet or it doesn't. 50/50. Duh.

Dumbest. Thing. Ever.

[parkening]

352. You're slowly catching on

but quicker than I expected!

You've indeed stumbled upon the truth that the probability of an event with two possible outcomes happening is 50/50. Congratulations!

The sticky part is when you try to get a particular outcome from a string of these events. If you flip a coin, its chance of being heads is 50-50. Try to get 100 heads in a row. Are those odds 50-50? No? I thought either something happens or it doesn't? I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. There are many, many events (much more than the 100 I used in my example) required to form that first "cell". Like flipping 100 heads in a row, the probability of life arising on its own is infinitesimally small. Mathematicians consider it to be zero.


My probability exercises are virtually impeccable, BW. You really need to drop it.

[Beetwasher]

354. Uh, No, I Guess You've Never Heard Of Variables

Impeccable? Hardly. Ridiculous? Very.

Is there a 50/50 chance that I will fly if I jump off the roof? No.

Either I do or I don't though, right?

Dumbest. Thing. Ever.

[parkening]

369. You're digging a hole here buddy

There is a 100% chance that you will move toward the center of the earth. There is only one possible outcome. Like having a one-sided die. You always roll the same thing.

This is getting embarrassing to watch. You really need to stop.

[Beetwasher]

373. No, What's Embarrassing Is Your Contortions

If you play semantic games everything and nothing is possible. Words mean things and in statistics there are things called variables that affect probable outcomes. You should learn about them before you do "analysis".

Even more important than variables are assumptions. Your big mistake is you're ASSUMING a god CAN exist in the first place. Big assumption. Might I ask what variables would act upon that probability of it's coming into existence (or not)? How well do you know god? :eyes: :freak:

[ProfessorPlum]

278. Oy vey

Evolution does not have anything to say about whether there is a creator being. That is a matter of faith, and is completely separate to this discussion. There is nothing about evolution that contradicts a God.

Read "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins. One problem you are having is that you don't comprehend the VAST amounts of time that have been available to make the changes we observe today. A billion years is a fecking long time, and a lot will/did happen in that time. Like the arisal of organs, all the phyla we know today, vast extinctions, etc. There is time aplenty to account for the complexity we see today. But that should not threaten your theology. Why does it?

[ProfessorPlum]

264. Natural selection doesn't have to explain the origins of life

As has been eloquently described elsewhere in this thread. But if it makes you feel better, you could say God put together the first cell. Or the first self-replicating RNA molecule, wherever you want to start. If that makes you feel better, go for it.

But you vastly overestimate the difficulty of getting a self-replicating molecule. We don't know what the first ones of those might have been (they might have all been eaten, for example), but we can guess it is RNA. All it takes to get that going is a sugar, a phosphate (highly abundant inorganic material), and a small organic cyclic part, either a purine or a pyrimidine base. That's it. You string a couple of those babies together and they form a template to make an infinite number of offspring.

Scientists will still be looking for valid pathways to these early molecules while you wallow in your beliefs, which is fine. But don't pass them on to others, if you please. I like my fellow humans to be educated.

And speaking of lack of scholarship, I have a PhD in pharmaceutical/medicinal chemistry and structural biology, I teach graduate courses in a chemistry department, and I work in drug discovery. AND I read a lot about evolutionary theory in my spare time. Shove your lack of scholarship.

[ProfessorPlum]

210. Ah, see, here is the sticking point

You are angry because evolution applies to HUMANS too. Well, that's just tough.

Self-replicating molecules are actually extremely common and easy to find. Crystals are self-replicating molecules. One seed crystal can grow many copies of itself, enlarge, break into smaller versions of itself, etc. And that is just a thermodynamic process.

They've found clouds of precursor molecules to RNA in clouds of space dust. RNA was probably the first kind of molecule to contain lots of information that self-replicated, and they are finding the precursors just floating around in our galaxy. Again, not too much of a stretch, especially given the half a billion years or so it took life to arise on our planet.

[parkening]

237. Let's see

you give me an example of something moving from a complex state to a simpler state and you call it support for your position!!!!

A precursor molecule is nothing until it can reproduce by itself. See my probability post to see why I laugh at your "half a billion years".

[Beetwasher]

249. The Formation Of the First Cell IS NOT EVOLUTION

It's something different, and who says it was RANDOM. Duh. You're probability argument is total bullshit because it's NOT random probabilities that are involved, and I notice you're moving the goal posts yet again, from evolution to the formation of the first cellular organism. How typical, you get spanked and then start another argument on something completely different. Pathetic.

Your ignorance is astounding.

[parkening]

254. Just keep it coming BeetWasher

Show me evolution without the first self-repx molecule.

If it's not random, what are you suggesting, some Guiding Force, an Intelligence perhaps? Unless you're willing to admit there's a Designer you're stuck with random chance, sorry.

You might call it moving the goal posts, but you'll find that I've just been following you guys around. When you can't bluff through one topic you move on to another. I'm happy to follow.

I'm just asking one of you, show me the money. Where's these mounds of evidence. I expect you'll avoid this plea again.

[Beetwasher]

259. What A Load of Crap, You Get Spanked and Try To Change The Subject

It's not random because of the conditions that are involved that aid formation (among other things).

And yes, this IS actually a theory, though scientists ARE working on it and trying to replicate those conditions.

But it's a different subject than evolution and different mechanisms and processes are involved, and I suspect you know that on some level, but choose to remain willfully ignornant.

Yes, I know, it's much easier for brain dead lazy morons to say "god did it!" than to actually think about things.

[DrWeird]

250. Crystal formation is something moving from simple to complex.

It involves a decrease in entropy. Which, according to creationists, is impossible. Nevertheless it occurs and is fully allowed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You're bound to make mistakes like this when you're ignorant of simple scientific facts.

[ProfessorPlum]

266. Actually, the half a billion years is a relatively short time for life

to have come into being, but it is starting to look like it didn't take much longer than that. This would imply that the processes you are describing are actually much easier than you think.

[parkening]

270. You're forgetting something

You're starting with the assumption that you're right. Here's what you just said, "Well we've got less than a half billion years to work with, so it must have happened in that time." I hope you can see this is circular reasoning. You can right? Now can you see the ridiculousness of saying what you just said?

[Beetwasher]

279. Good Lord Are You Clueless

Unless you are an amazingly ignorant fundy (which it's becoming even more apparent that perhaps you indeed are) and think god created the earth a few thousand years ago in 7 days, we KNOW when the earth was created and when the first cellular organisms appeared. Duh. We have the time frame.

Ignorance upon ignorance upon ignorance. You just keep piling one ignorant statement on top of another. You are simply not up to the task of debating scientific concepts with anyone.

[parkening]

316. show me da money

[Beetwasher]

324. Lazy

and pathetic. It's all been shown to you, you ignore it.

[ProfessorPlum]

283. Sigh. Yes.

Life arose relatively rapidly on the cooling earth, probably just about as soon as conditions could sustain it.

The implication is therefore that UNLESS Zeus/space aliens came down and dropped a vial of E coli in the primordial ooze on their way through the solar system, that the processes necessary to set life and evolution in motion are actually not all that improbable.

Either way, I'm glad that you admit that life arose from simple, single cell organisms. You're getting smarter.

But I've got no problem with a God creating the universe and allowing his/her/its creation to bloom and flower through the processes of evolution and natural selction. Why do you?

[parkening]

325. This is

a just-so story. Can you admit that this is unfalsifiable conjecture and not science in any way?

I don't know where I admitted life arose from single cell. Show me please.

I have a problem with God allowing what you said because the evidence does not fit. I asked you and other professionals for evidence and all I got was your gene dup thing, which is very tenuous at best (see sickle cell reply (i've lost track of which post it was)).

To call the probabilities astronomical would be an extreme understatement.

You say life arose rapidly, what you neglect to acknowledge is that you're assuming you're right to begin with, and you're required to believe that it arose rapidly out of necessity, and against all probability.

If you can accept that God created the universe, why is it so hard to accept He/she/it/they made it very similar to what we see today?

[ProfessorPlum]

336. Because there is no physical evidence for that

and there is physical evidence out the yin-yang for what the currently accepted model is.

If you look in rocks that are 4 billion years old, there are no cows there. Why not? The answer is evolution. The theory of how we got from no cows to cows is natural selection of genomes.

What is tenuous about gene duplication?

I could be totally wrong. Maybe all of the scientists who have ever written books were just lying to me, and I live in a Skinner Box like the Truman Show. But if I accept an external reality, then the evidence for both the existance of evolution and the mechanism of evolution are extraordinarily clear.

We haven't even gotten into molecular evolution - protein sequences, mutations, adaptations, etc. where the evidence is just as strong if not stronger than gross morphological evolution.

[parkening]

342. I got into molecular evolution

and you told me I was off-topic.

You can believe what you want. Just question the assumptions. Scientists are not all-wise wonderful folks. They have biases and prejudices just like you and me.

I'm wondering how you know the rock is 4 bya. Did it have a sell by date stamped on it or something. Question the assumptions.

Parkening, out!

[ProfessorPlum]

346. Objectivity in science is another can of worms

And scientists are definitely just as flawed in the assumptions, prejudices, biases, etc., as everyone else. The only difference is that our work exists in an environment where everyone in the world can review them, throw other data at them, try to break them, prove them wrong. What's left after all that messy human fallability is blown away is a useful construct of self-consistent concepts.

There was a guy once who said that certain brain disorders were caused by an infection agent that was just a protein. A laughable theory. He was abused by his colleagues, and he abused them right back. Decades later, he won a Nobel prize. His theory stood up against the test of time.

You don't need to tell scientists to question the assumptions. We do that every god damned day of our lives. We stand on hundreds of years of questioned and re-questioned and re-tested assumptions, on millions of hours of arguments back and forth.

[parkening]

355. I don't believe that the

axioms of naturalistic science are questioned at all. I doubt you could pick even one instance. You admitted yourself that you don't question whether big evolution happened.

The mainstream scientific community is a closed society. Ideas outside of big evolution are not even allowed to be peer reviewed. This discourages thinking outside the box.

[ProfessorPlum]

384. You have got to be kidding me

Just because some fights haven't happened recently, doesn't mean they didn't happen. They were fought bitterly, over decades.

Do you think Pasteur came up with the germ theory, and then everyone just said, "Well, that sounds pretty reasonable, I too think tiny organisms too small to be seen with the eye cause disease"? Scientists fought over that, bitterly, for a long time, until the experiments were formulated to prove Pasteur right.

The last part of the 19th century saw bitter, violent arguments about Darwin's observations and conclusions. But by the first part of the 20th century, the evidence was starting to really pile up in support of it.

There are modern wars of competing theories being fought now, that will in 50 years time, be taught as having proved one side of the argument or the other correct and the other not correct, but it is still up in the air currently.

You are correct that science is conservative. Most scientists look askance at ideas that rock the boat - the prion example I gave earlier is a great example. But the power of scientific review is such that theories that stand up to testing survive.

However, you are a little late to the party on this one. The major battles over the fact of evolutionary change, and the mechanisms of natural selection and genetic mechanisms, are long since over in the scientific realm, unless someone comes up with an experiment to suddenly prove them wrong. But the arguments were made, many times over, by people smarter than you, over a hundred years ago. The fact that the scientific community has reached a consensus on this issue tells you which side had theories which were consistent with observational data. You are fighting a war long since lost.

[parkening]

238. self delete

[ProfessorPlum]

199. Evolution doesn't imply increasing complexity

That is another fallacy.

Evolution just implies changes over time.

There are theories that encompass why organisms might get more complex over time, though. Complexity allows some organisms to survive better and reproduce more. See? That's not so hard.

[DrWeird]

206. He's going off on the second law of thermodynamics tangent.

He's checking the list.

[ProfessorPlum]

212. gotcha n/t

[parkening]

209. It is hard

What you've just expressed demonstrates precisely why "positive" evolution doesn't happen. The fittest may survive but at the expense of a smaller gene pool. An increasing gene pool is required for change in allele frequency trend more complex.

Please respond to post #169. If evolution is just change over time, and all conceivable mechanisms trend neutral or negative then we can not use it to explain increasing complexity. It has left the realm of science and become faith.

[Beetwasher]

216. Now That You've Been Shown To Be Full Of Shit, You Move The Goal Posts

How typical.

I let the scientists on the board spank your ass on your next round of bullshit.

Round 1 to science and rationality though. We got a believer to admit evolution is not a theory. I'll take that as a win.

[ProfessorPlum]

218. That's another fallacy

though I note we are now arguing about natural selection, not evolution.

Selection doesn't affect an organisms inherent ability to evolve. It just talks about what forms are favored at any given time.

Read the "Beak of the Finch" - rainfall and plant life in the Galapagos affects which kinds of finch beaks are beneficial, and the populations of various sized birds goes back and forth with the amount of rainfall and kind of plant life.

[parkening]

227. there's no new information

and no direction in the finch beak "evolution". That example shoots you in the foot. You've just proven that all the beak morphology information already exists. Already existing information is merely selected for with no new information added.

Natural selection is a perfectly valid subject to be discussing as it is one of the proposed mechanisms of evolution.

[Beetwasher]

230. Sporadic Genetic Mutation Is NOT Uncommon

It's caused by things like radiation which is just ONE thing that accounts for new information being introduced into a genome. Mix in natural selection and VOILA! You have forward progress and the introduction of a more complexity. It makes more sense that "god did it!"

[DrWeird]

233. No direction?

You mean the finches just happen to have beaks perfectly shaped to get at the most available food source on a specific island?

[parkening]

241. You said it yourself

as the environment changed, the beaks changed -- back and forth.

[DrWeird]

246. Therefore the finches are evolving.

Due to pressure from natural selection.

So what's your point?

[parkening]

285. but not in a way

that that population will ever,ever,ever be anything other than finches.

This discussion is taking a turn toward the pedantic. You guys are constantly equivocating between big evolution and little evolution. No informed person disagrees that change occurs. Let's move beyond that, people! I am not arguing that now nor at any time in this discussion. So either engage my points in a grown-up way or get out of the discussion.

[ProfessorPlum]

290. Why would anyone want to discuss natural selection with you?

You are obviously unequipped to do so. Do you know the difference between a genotype and a phenotype, for example?

[DrWeird]

223. Not at all.

Computer simulations have been performed where simply systems undergo random changes (mimicking mutations) and then are selected against on a number of parameters. Complexity increases dramaticly after a relatively small number of generations. Nothing magical, nothing in violation of probability of the second law of thermodynamics. This phony creationist argument has been debunked numerous times over the decades. Funny how you people still pretend it's useful.

[parkening]

245. Computer sims

already assume that there is some sort of self-replicating system. This does not apply to the case where we are trying to form the first system. There is no such thing as selection until there is self-replication. Nice try, though.

[DrWeird]

247. So then you're admitting that evolution occurs.

Evolution doesn't cover the formation of the first cell, so that doesn't apply.

[parkening]

267. Show me evolution without that first cell

I will say this once more, really slowly, I agree that change does indeed occur. Now before you say "aha - we win" like some of you have done already (and it was seen for the lame thing that it was), I do not agree that the types of changes we see in the lab can account for the changes required to go from simple to complex. I earnestly await you or anyone in the whole world to show me a piece of evidence to the contrary and not just reply with "oh yeah, you're stupid".

[DrWeird]

271. The changes in the lab ARE from simple to complex.

As are the observations in the field.

As far as the creation of the first cell, it's completely irrelevant, since that's not what Evolution has covered.

As far as "winning" this debate. It was won a hundred and fifty years ago. For the context of this thread, it's clear we won it a hundred or so posts ago, since all you've got are dodges and lies and misrepresentations and ignorance. So far we've shown you hundreds of pieces of evidence contrary to the claims you've made, but you've just ignored them and pretend they don't exist.

I'll once again refer you to the Ten Commandments.

[parkening]

358. I don't believe you

link me to a single in nature or in lab mutation that goes from simple to complex. It does not exist.

No one has successfully shown me a dodge, untruth, or misrepx.

You guys, except for beetwasher embarassingly trying to make hay with the probability thing, have not engaged any of my points. Oh, I guess ProfessorPlum had the gene dup thing.

This ought to give y'all pause to reconsider your stand. I'm sure in the near future it won't but keep on thinking about it.

[Beetwasher]

374. You "Probability Thing" Is One Of The Dumbest Things I've Ever Read

And it suggests you are either stunningly, willfully ignorant or pulling a prank on us.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

377. come on people ... we can do it ... 400 replies about SEMANTICS

ain't language grand?

theProdigal

[ProfessorPlum]

280. That's not what this discussion is about

it's about whether the word "evolution" describes an observable, factual phenomenon. Which it does.

Who the hell knows how the first cell came together? That isn't the purview of evolution or natural selection.

But there have been some pretty sophisticated studies about it.

Aha! We win.

[parkening]

362. I guess you got me

If you're happy proving evolution means change then I guess you won. I'll claim victory on all the other items.

I think I'll go evolve my underwear.

[ProfessorPlum]

188. If by "just-so" story, you mean a theory which fits the

observable facts, then yes, I agree. When you look at some facts and it seems that dramatic changes occur quickly, then call that a theory, it doesn't seem like much, does it? But sometimes that is all observational science is about. You observe facts, you create theories to explain them, then you cast about for other observations that would destroy your theory (or more often than not, others do it for you).

And no, I don't have to ask "did this evolve". Unless you can show me lifeforms that have always existed in the fossil record, back to the dawn of life, then I know that creatures evolve from the fossil record. Facts don't get much more solid than that. If you choose to ignore all of the amazing facts peopl keep digging up, again that is your prerogative . . . but that ceases to be science.

[parkening]

222. At best PE is a hypothesis

and it is not testable! Therefore it is not nor ever can be considered a theory or science. It is a purely unverifiable conjecture. It is a story we use to reassure ourselves, nothing more.

You have closed your mind to any other explanation of the fossil record. You see it strictly as a timeline. Scientists now explain the fossil record as a series of catastrophic events. So just because we don't see lifeforms always existing it is not evidence to support your view.

[ProfessorPlum]

225. Ok, whatever you say

I don't really find punctuated equilibrium all that "reassuring", though. It's just an observation, turned around to make a prediction. Standard science.

[DrWeird]

226. Sure it's testable.

There's the fossil record. I propose there's large amounts of evolutionary change over short periods of time followed by long periods of relatively little change, I go digging for fossils, and that's what I find. Furthermore, PE was hypothesized by looking at the data to begin with.

Aren't you just a little embarassed?

[parkening]

239. Yup

I can't see anything therefore my hypothesis is supported!!!??? This is more like poisoning the well. Look up the definition of science.

We dug up fossils and didn't find what we thought we would. Provided damage control.

[DrWeird]

248. That's who science works.

Make on observation based on what you find in nature. Make a hypothesis as to why that is. Find more data to corraborate that hypothesis. That's how science works, so it appears you're having trouble with definitions again.

We theorized the theory of evolution. That all life on Earth descended from single common ancestors. We dug up fossils and that's exactly what we found. No ifs, ands, or buts.

[parkening]

274. We found fossils

that are remarkably static!!!! And we use this as evidence that species change from simple to more complex!!!! You guys are no different than what you accuse the creationists of.

Still patiently waiting for the mounds and mounds of supporting evidence.

[DrWeird]

277. Yes? What's the problem?

Theory of Evolution says that three billion years ago there shouldn't be any complex life. We go digging in strata that old and sure enough, we don't find any, only stromatolites. The theory says that during the precamrian there should be a lot of interesting marine invertebrates and early vertebrates with no land animals and no flowering plants and certainly no mammals are humans. Go digging and that's what you find. Evolution predicts that around fifty million years ago there should be land mammals that are evolving into sea mammals. Go digging in fifty million year old strata, that's what you'll find. Evolution predicts that three million years ago, there were no humans, but there were human-like, ape-like intermediates. Go diggin and that's what you'll find. If Evolution didn't occur you'd find things like human fossils intermingling with dinosaur fossils. But there's no such thing. The fossil record is a clear and undeniable proof of Evolution.

You want mounds and mounds of evidence? It was already given to you. Not surprisingly, you ignored it.

www.talkorigins.com

It's the best on-line database on the topic. Instead of just repeating already debunked bullshit like creationists do, they reference material. In peer-reviewed scientific journals. Of course you could always go to your local library or museum. But you're obviously not interested in learning.

[parkening]

343. Professional evolution debaters are

surprisingly quiet regarding the fossil record as support of Big Evolution. You should be, too.

[DrWeird]

357. There's no such thing as "professional evolution debaters"

However, scientists have never been quite about the fossil record, since it convincingly proves Evolution.

[parkening]

360. There are, too,

scientists with an ax to grind re creation.

What breakthrough has there been in the understanding of the fossil record has there been since SJG came up with PE? I believe there have been none, they've artificially taken the pressure off. PE is a lame explanation for why the fossil record does not show what big ev folks predicted it would.

[DrWeird]

368. Free-thinking people everywhere have an "ax to grind" against creationism.

Creationism is to biology what flat-Earth theory is to geology, what astrology is to astronomy, and what holocaust denial is to history.

It's pseuodscience, and the worst kind of ignorancy.

"What breakthrough has there been in the understanding of the fossil record has there been since SJG came up with PE? I believe there have been none, they've artificially taken the pressure off. PE is a lame explanation for why the fossil record does not show what big ev folks predicted it would."

There have been many breakthroughs in paleontology in last forty years. Including many of the "transitional forms" that Creationists said didn't exist. And it all corraborate PE and Evolution and it's just what the "big ev" folks expected.

PE is a lame explanation? Seems a much better explanation than "God did it with magic."

So how much do professional evolution debaters make in terms of annual salary?

[parkening]

371. Ignorancy, eh?

and the worst kind no less!

You've made plenty of claims, but been short on support.

Still waiting to see some actual transitional forms. Not some list compiled by an endocrinologist.

God did it with magic has as much scientific footing as PE does (remember, unfalsifiable?) "I predict I won't see anything that supports big Ev" What kind of crap "science" is that?

[DrWeird]

375. You're flip-flopping again.

You said earlier that PE didn't contradict "big Ev" as you're now calling it, but now you're making that assertation again. PE is falsifiable yet, it just hasn't been falsified. Round Earth Theory is falsifiable too, you can just go into space and take a photograph of the flat earth and bring it back for everybody to see. But I'm not expecting that to happen.

As for the proof, we've already shown it to you. The fact that the list was compiled for easy reading by an endocrinologist is immaterial. The research is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals by paleontologists. One of many facts you like to ignore.

[mike_c]

379. as a scientist, I'd like to state for the record...

...that until I see some actual data to evaluate, I have no real opinion on the notion of "creation" except that it is an unsupported working hypothesis. I certainly don't have any "ax to grind." As far as I'm concerned there's nothing to grind in the absence of empirical data.

[DrWeird]

405. As a scientist, I'd like to remind you...

that the basic tenets of evolution call for a 6,000 year old Earth, humans being created in their present day form sans evolution, that dinosaurs are extinct because they didn't make it to Noah's Ark (seriously), and that the fossil record is a trick from the devil. That's one hell of a hypothesis but it sure ain't working.

[mike_c]

114. Gould was describing punctuated equilibrium...

...which is in fact a working hypothesis used to explain numerous observed patterns of speciation in the paleontological record. That's NOT evolution, but a consequence of evolution.

[parkening]

118. I believe it's officially known as

grasping at straws. It is by definition unfalsifiable. It is used to explain something we do not observe! ie evolution of species. This is not science.

[mike_c]

128. with all due respect...

...I wonder whether you would recognize science if it rose up and bit you on the buttocks. Goulds punctuated equibrium is a working hypothesis, largely untested except by recognition that some of the paleontological evidence is consistent with it. Personally, I've never been much of an SJG fan, but I'll withhold judgemtnt about punctuated equilibrium until some evidence is produced independent of the data used to propose the model.

On the other hand, your assertion that evolution cannot be observed is patently false, and I'll refer you to any undergraduate text on the topic for suitable references. Evolution is easily observed-- whole subdisciplines of my colleagues do so every day. Unless you care to produce evidence to the contrary, your assertions do more to showcase your misunderstandings-- persistent and apparently willful misunderstandings it seems-- than to convince me that your position has merit. I call that "embracing ignorance," and its a trait that I discourage among my students.

[parkening]

154. If you do not embrace

PE you must have an alternative explanation for why the overwhelming rule is stasis in the fossil record. I'm interested in what your alternative explanation is. Gould, a paleontologist, recognized the paucity of fossil evidence and proposed PE to explain it.

You tout "change in allele frequency" as being the sole and complete definition of evolution. If this were so, the fossil record would, necessarily, be replete with morphological drift that we could observe. And I submit to you that if this drift existed, it would be trumpeted from the rooftops as proof positive of evolution (and be pretty stinkin' good evidence, I must admit). Maybe you have this evidence squirrelled away somewhere, but I haven't come across any. Maybe it's in those biology texts? No?!!

If the complete and full definition of evolution were indeed "change in allele frequency over time" I would have no issue with it whatsoever. Allele frequency change does not explain the huge amount of new information that must be added in order to change from self-replicating molecule to human and beyond.

[mike_c]

161. here....

"...a common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974"

This is the definition of evolution as taught by my colleagues and I since the early 20th century.


From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

"When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.

Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself."

You said: If the complete and full definition of evolution were indeed "change in allele frequency over time" I would have no issue with it whatsoever.

Good on 'ya!

[parkening]

181. I'm embarrassed

for you professor. I've begged, prodded, insulted you to get you to answer any of my claims, or provide any hard evidence contra me or pro you. I have gotten none.

All you've given me is "evolution means change, so there". This is pathetic and ought to be embarassing. I hope my children never have you as a professor.

[Beetwasher]

183. You Should Be Embarrassed Because You're Willfully Ignorant and Lazy

But I suspect you revel in those qualities.

[ProfessorPlum]

193. That's the whole point

He is trying to dissociate the word "theory" from "evolution", which is useful and also correct.

Evolution is change in life over time (and now we know the mechanism of that change to be genetic). This is only in dispute if you also agree that we don't know the earth is round.

How and why evolution happens is the subject of theory. I thought you got this??

[DrWeird]

64. You want a fossil that changes from simple to complex?

That would be a neat trick. Since fossils are made out of minerals and they don't move very much.

But let me get this straight. You want to have a fossil of a "simple" creature and then have the fossil of its immediate offspring that is "complex?" You, clearly, haven't even a cursory understanding of how evolution works. And considering this is the early twenty-first century and not the early nineteenth, that says a lot about you. And it isn't very flattering.

Now, if you wanted a transitional fossil, say like a animal that was halfway evolved from a land mammal to a whale or a "half human/half ape" like you would properly expect from Evolution, than yes. We have plenty of examples of those. But I'll bet you already knew that.

"Someone explain to me how the coelecanth can exist for 65 million years virtually unchanged, yet in that same time little furry mammals evolved into humans. Gimme a break."

Coelcanths still exist because they haven't been completely selected against yet. That's why little furry mammals exist too. I mean it's not rocket science or anything. You're, snarf, not suggesting that lobe-finned fishes were an evolutionary dead-end. Are you? Or was your whole post just tongue-in-cheek sarcasm?

[parkening]

81. Yeah, I've seen the

"classic" examples. See this site for example . Forgive me if I'm unconvinced by the evidence. Let's see, we have a partial skull of some sort of animal, and yet we have an artist's conception of the whole animal! We have a leg bone of another animal, let's make a whale ancestor out of it.

The "ancestors of man" are equally lame. Line up some monkeys and humans from shortest to tallest and call it "the ascent of man". Show me some convincing evidence that they're there for any other reason.

The point re the coelecanths is that if evolution is blind and it does occur, then we would predict that the coelx and every other species would be different after 65 million years (a hugely significant amount of evolutionary time). Yet we find, like Steven J Gould did, there is stasis.

I'm leaving for today, will check in tomorrow. I appreciate all your input.

[DrWeird]

86. Again, you're showing profound ignorance.

You fail to acknowledge that the fossils are more than just skulls. We've found whales with small stunted legs, like your own link explains.

You ignore that the fossils we've found in regard to human evolution are neither humans or monkeys, but the gradual and linear evolution from ape-like creatures to modern humans.

You completely ignore the genetic evidence.

And you completely ignore my valid explanation as to why there are still coelecanths which is perfect accord with Evolution. And you'd know that if you actually read Gould.

Frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[parkening]

93. Most fossils are

grossly incomplete. Some more complete. My link does not suggest anything like "small stunted legs". I presume you're referring to Rodhocetus kasrani which as you'll note from the skeletal drawing does not show any legs at all!!!!

I ignore the "not-quite-monkey, not-quite-human" fossils because there are none. I welcome you to show me otherwise.

The genetic evidence shows that all humans descended from one female and one male tens of thousands of years ago. Hardly resounding evolutionary support.

I didn't ignore your coelx/furry mammal point, as careful reading of my posts will show.

Condescension is not becoming of you.

[DrWeird]

99. Again, you're being ignorant. You're purposefullly ignoring things.

Like the basilosaurus for example, which was in your own link.

And the "not quite ape, not quite human fossils" like Lucy.



And mitochondrial DNA. LOL. Yes, there's evidence from mitochondrial DNA that indicates that all modern humans decended from the same ancestor. Not only do you fail to mention this falls perfectly in line with Evolutionary theory, but that the same Mitochondrial DNA shows that this common ancestor of humans evolved from the same common ancestor as chimps, and all other living things on Earth.

"The genetic evidence shows that all humans descended from one female and one male tens of thousands of years ago. Hardly resounding evolutionary support."

One female, actually. We're talking mitochondrial DNA, which is passed only from mother to child. Males have nothing to do with it. And you'd probably know that if you actually understood what you're talking about instead of parroting random Creationist bullshit.

[parkening]

366. Lucy, Lucy??!!

You mean the fossil Leakey wouldn't let anyone see. That thing isn't even considered by big ev peeps as being in the human line.

Would like to see the mitox DNA study.

[mike_c]

133. skeletons develop and function according to predictable...

...biomechanical principles. Given a connecting rod and a bit of a crankshaft, a good engineer could go a long way toward reconstructing the likely engine configuration from which is was derived, at least within a range of plausible design specifications. Reconstructing likely animals from partial skeletons is not any different. The length, density, and cross sectional area of any given bone is determined by the stresses placed on that bone. The placement of connective tissues for ligaments and tendons is easily discernible from surface features, as are the articulation point-- all of these provide essential engineering parameters that predict the likely biomechanical configuration that the partial skeleton functioned within.

It's not magic, dude. It's an exercise in probabilities, in which the parameters are pretty well understood, especially for vertebrates.

[bowens43]

98. They are all over the fossil record.

You are showing your ignorance. You really should try to learn a little about the subject being discussed before jumping in and making yourself look foolish. You're regurgitating the creationist nonsense that has been refuted hundreds of times. Where did you learn about evolution, a Jack Chick tract?

The theory of evolution does not say that every species will evolve. When a creature finds it's perfect niche it tends to stay there.

[parkening]

121. I'm only asking for one

If they are all over you shouldn't have any trouble showing me a "fer instance". Stephen J Gould, as pointed out before, had to concoct punctuated equilibria to explain the embarassing absense of transitional fossils.

If this has been refuted hundreds of times you should be able to do it. Refute anything I've said with facts (no hand-waving which is what most here have been doing.)

You said: "The theory of evolution does not say that every species will evolve. When a creature finds it's perfect niche it tends to stay there."

This is ignorance on stilts. I dare say you'd be hard pressed to find a serious proponent of evolution that would agree with you. Mike_c?

[bowens43]

135. You should try to learn a little about a subject before spouting off

about it. Seriously , do a little reading. You won't look so silly when you accuse others of ignorance. It's quite obvious that you learned all you know about evolution from Christian comic books.

transitionals: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

[parkening]

140. It tickles me that you guys all

give me the same web page to look at. Google transitional fossils. The result is most interesting. Looking through the first couple pages of results, and ignoring the creationist leaning ones, all you get are talkorigins and atheist.com or folks who refer you to talkx and athx. The author of your faq-transitional.html is a freaking endocrinologist! Show me pictures --- show me timelines --- don't show me a list. And use experts in the field!

[mike_c]

134. I'm sorry-- now you're talking about speciation, and that's...

...another kettle of fish. Darwin suggested that one of the mechanisms of evolution-- natural selection-- could account for some proportion of speciation. Again, the evidence OVERWHELMINGLY supports that conclusion, but that is a consequence of evolution, not evolution itself.

Your statement that "defining evolution as change in allele frequency is ludicrous" shows how little you actually know about evolution. That is exactly how biologists define evolution. That's how it's been defined since the new synthesis days in the early 20th century-- remember, Darwin did not know what an allele is, did not know ANYTHING about genetics at all, in fact, other than what he could guess. The modern definition of evolution owes more to Dhobzhansky and Mayr than to Darwin, and more to Drosophila and E. coli than to the Galopagos finches.

[RebelOne]

66. In my opinion, evolution is fact, fact, fact.

How could anyone dispute it?

[Zhade]

55. Some depressing ignorance in that thread.

No wonder the rest of the world looks aghast at our religiosity.

[allemand]

67. Paul Waldman about the "theory" trap

"First off, let's talk evolution. Here's the question Gallup asked:
"Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is: a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence, or don't you know enough about it to say?"

Before we get to the answers, let's unpack the question. This question is asking people their opinion about a fact. Evolution is, indeed, well-supported by evidence, in the form of thousands of studies and mountains of data. This is not disputable. You could argue that there are flaws in the theory, or that there is evidence against it, but to say that it is "just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence" is like asking people whether they believe that the square of the hypotenuse of a triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides, or if this is just a theory that hasn't been well supported.

Secondly, the question falls into the "theory" trap that creationists use to undermine evolution. The scientific term "theory" means a system of explanation that accurately explains and predicts observed phenomena. It takes a long time and lots of testing for something to become a "theory." Lots of things that we accept as true - like gravity - are, in scientific terms, theories. But in common parlance, we use the word "theory" the way scientists use the word "hypothesis" - a guess or a prediction for how things work, that might or might not be true because it hasn't been tested yet. So when people hear that evolution is a "theory," they think it's just a guess and scientists must not really have any evidence to back it up."

More:
http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200447#1201

[KansDem]

71. Man, no wonder there's so much confusion regarding this topic...

I'm going ape just trying to sort this all out!!!

[leyton]

72. "Evolution is the source of life on Earth" is and always will be a theory.

A theory is a model that explains some natural phenomenon, and except in mathematics you cannot really prove theories. You can only support them or refute them with evidence.

Also, you have to differentiate between evolution as a phenomenon that is observed today and evolution as an explanation of life on Earth. The first is more of an observation than a theory, and the second is the application of that observation to Earth's history.

Evolution as an explanation of the diversity of life on Earth is just a theory. A well supported one, but a theory nonetheless. You can no more prove that the Earth wasn't created with a variety of species who began evolving at that point than can you prove that the Earth wasn't created the day you were born with everyone else in it. Now, I subscribe to the idea that species on Earth arose from evolution, but I have no real way of knowing.

Gravity is also a theory, by the way. Things fall towards the Earth, so its effects can be seen, so gravity is an excellent model for explaining why I'm still sitting in my chair. But you have no way of proving that in every case, always, now and forever, objects will attract each other with gravitational force as Newton described it.

[bowens43]

101. You need to do more research into evolution.

Unless you can support 'poofism' with convincing evidence it's silly to bring it up in this discussion.

[leyton]

292. You would do well to find out what a theory is.

Until it's proven, which it never will be since we don't have time machines, we'll never know if that is the way the earth came about.

[CatholicEug]

76. Example

of observing it, please?

No worries ... I accept evolution and it's perfectly fine by Catholicism ... just wondering what example is observable in nature by a layman like me.

[seemunkee]

104. examples of speciation

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

[raggedcompany]

77. thanks for saying so n/t

[against all enemies]

80. Theory of Gravity? Hey you creationists, you can fly, jump. it's only a

Theory. Why is our country so ass backwards, the idiots are in charge.

[w4rma]

84. theory of evolution vs. law of evolution. I believe the proper terminology

is Theory of Evolution. I know of no "Law of Evolution". However, I'm positive that evolution is how our ecosystem on Earth evolved into what it was a few hundred years ago.

And I don't dispute the theory of gravity, either. The term "theory" is used because in science a "theory" is backed by lots and lots of evidence. There is no "theory of creation" because there is no evidence to support it. A "theory of creation" would be based only on faith that your interpretation of the Bible is correct.

[mike_c]

131. that's a smoke screen that obscures the real issues involved....

Semantics really have no place in this debate, IMO. Evolution is simply something that happens, just like cannon balls drop to the earth from leaning towers. The theory part, and the need to understand the difference between the way scientists and lay persons (for want of a better word) use the term, comes into play when we discuss the mechanisms of evolution and its consequences. But its reality is no more debatable than the roundness of the earth.

on edit: not a flame, but a clarification. :)

[EnfantTerrible]

90. For me the real argument is

that creationism shouldn't be taught in federally funded schools. Otherwise I really don't care what people choose to believe. I may believe that both are correct... I may not, but in public schools that rely on tax dollars nothing evoking religous ideas should be put in the curriculum. People are free to believe whatever they like. Just my two cents.

[Book Lover]

100. Ye gods...

Many thanks Professor, for starting this thread and stating the issue in black and white.

[Randers]

103. I am also interested in the semantics -

law, theory, are there any other choices we should be considering.

And could evolution be called a "law"?

Seems like it could be one of those "frames" that can make quite a difference in perception - esp. for us "lay" people - non-scientists.

[thinkingwoman]

136. I've twice been married

to men with biology degrees.

They say it is a theory, not a law. Both have explained to me that, in fact, it will remain a theory until we either:

A. Discover the "missing link"
B. Observe evolution in modern day.

Like it or not, that's the way it is. Do they (and I) think evolution is the answer to the ages-old question "how did we get here?" Absolutely. But this semantic argument is silly and unwinnable.

Better to fight creationists with evidence and reason, rather than semantics.

[ProfessorPlum]

139. It is not a law, that is true. It is an observation. An observable fact.

Discovering a missing link will not change anything. (though, they think they've indeed found a transitional form, just in the last week or so).

And evolution is being observed in the modern day all the time. Read "The Beak of the Finch" for numerous examples.

And the semantics are important. Creationists either have to ignore that life changes (which is a fact), provide a different theory as to why that is (which is fine, that theory can be tested) or just fall back on the idea that God made the world to work through evolution - ie some kind of Deism.

[thinkingwoman]

184. there is a difference between changing

which demonstrates natural selection and evolution of a new species.

When did a new species evolve in modern day?

[ProfessorPlum]

198. It has been observed in fish that live in mountain pools

Populations have been seen to separate and evolve in these interconnected pools in mountains, and over the course of just a few decades, the fish in the bottom pools cannot interbreed with those in the upper pools, though they arose from the same stock. That's just one example. Read "The Beak of the Finch" by Weiner for many more.

Besides, the arising of new species is a fact . . . unless all the species that exist today existed at the start of life some 4 billion years ago.

Evolution doesn't have to explain speciation - it just encompasses it. Speciation happens, clearly.

Theories about evolution have to take it into account, though. See the subject of this thread.

[thinkingwoman]

219. I'll pass on your response

to the biologists I know. They'll ask for the names of those fish though. Can you provide them?

[ProfessorPlum]

221. Gaa. Don't have the book with me here.

Here is the Amazon link to it: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067973337X/qid=1101837264/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-3305233-6842518?v=glance&s=books&n=507846


The back chapters deal with observed speciation.

Cool! There is even a review there which mentions the fish speciation:

"Weiner sets the reader down with the ghost of Darwin, on the Galapagos Islands where the Grants have been studying since 1973. He introduces us to 'Darwin's finches,' the same birds Darwin observed and wrote about in "Origin of the Species".

We're introduced to a populationg that is perfect for evolutionary studies--a limited number of species in a closed ecosystem on an isolated island. Darwin couldn't have known what his observations would lead to so many years later, but Weiner shares with us the Grants meticulous study of over 20 generations of finches. Thousands of individual birds were measured, and their progeny tracked. Through this book, we see what they saw--evolution in action.
Weiner weaves facts into a nice story. The book is engaging and reads like a novel, so much so that my 13 year-old daughter is now reading it.

The conclusions (and no, this isn't a spoiler) are that evolution by natural selection occurs and that selection can occur quickly (it's not always a slow process). Weiner (and the Grants) also touches on speciation in fish populations, and bacterial and viral evolution.

This was required reading in an introductory evolution class in college. I hope, someday, students in high school will be assigned this book. It was excellent, and will probably be wrapped up as Christmas gifts for a few of my friends and family."

[thinkingwoman]

228. thanks!

I've printed out your response. Thanks for being so prompt!

[mike_c]

235. there are several such studies, but the one that ProfPlum is...

...referring to looked at evolution in the guppy Poecilia reticulata under varying predation pressure from the pike cichlid Crenicichla alta I believe. The work was done in Venezuala and Trinidad by a team headed by David Reznick. Here's a link to a description (not the original report, but I'm sure you can find that with a google search): http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0072437316/120060/evolution_in_action20.pdf

It's a fascinating piece of work. I've seen Resnick describing it.

[ProfessorPlum]

258. Thanks. Those are the studies described by Weiner nt

[moggie]

185. Aha! Another gap!

A transitional form, you say? You've now turned one gap into two, and God still has plenty of room to hide in! The cretinists aren't defeated that easily.

[mike_c]

174. I'm afraid lots of people who get biology degrees...

...especially undergraduate degrees, never get past their own preconceptions about evolution, even if they do learn a bit about it. As an academic scientist I find that immensely frustrating and unfortunate.

[thinkingwoman]

187. I can relate to that frustration

as someone who experiences it in my field as well.

But both husbands strongly believe in evolution, so how does your statement about not moving past their own preconceptions apply here?

[mike_c]

201. take a look at my post #161...

...(ignoring parkening's creationist diatribe). Oddly enough, my sense (from questioning my own students over the last decade) is that only about 30 percent of graduating senior biology majors give that definition of evolution when asked. Instead, most give a definition like the one at the bottom of that post, which misses the point entirely, and substitutes both method and consequence for the phenomenon itself. I think they do this because the "theory of evolution" meme is so thoroughly implanted before they get to college that actual information to the contrary fails to make a deep impression.

[thinkingwoman]

224. ok I did

And now I'm even more confused.

I though that the theory of evolution explained the development of every living thing on earth and how all life came from those single celled thingies (pardon my scientific language there--I was an English major).

If we change the definition of evolution to mean the same as what I was taught that natural selection means, then certainly it should be scientific law rather than theory right? Because it is a fact that life changes from one generation to the next. It's verifiable with the dna testing we have today.

And yet, what explains the development of man and ape and zebra and lion and bear, and everything else withOUT them springing from the ooze in their present forms?

I thought that was what the theory of evolution was all about...not longer noses/beaks or webbed feet or black moths vs. white moths in heavily poluted areas.

[DrWeird]

229. So you were an English major.

Then you'd understand how words have different meanings in different contexts. Evolution means all the things you said in your post. Evolution is the process, while natural selection is the mechanism. Evolution explains how all living things evolved from that single cell. The theory of Evolution doesn't go back any further than that, since it only cover biotic processes, as far as biologists are concerned. It certainly doesn't cover the Big Bang. That's cosmology. So where did the single cell come from? Well, that hasn't been fully worked out yet. But any unbiased neutral observer would clearly see it's through an abiotic process where biological macromolecules are synthesized and come together into little spheres of goo that can self replicate. That much has been worked out in the laboratory. How those little self replicating blobs, with proteins and nucleic acids and fats a sugars, turn into what would qualify as "life" hasn't been duplicated yet. Although to say "God did it" is scientifically and theologically vapid.

[mike_c]

232. bingo....

"...it is a fact that life changes from one generation to the next. It's verifiable with the dna testing we have today."

That's what stimulated my original post. Evolution itself is an indesputable "fact" in the sense that we can directly observe it-- and easily too.

The explanation for "the development of every living thing on earth" is the theory that evolution in populations of a species that are isolated from reproducing with one another will eventually result in the accumulation of sufficient differences to merit calling those new populations different "species." Again, this is a "theory" in the sense that scientists use the term-- an explanation for observed events that is so well supported by evidence as to be almost universally accepted. But as you noted above, evolution itself is simply something that happens. There's nothing theoretical about that at all.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the definition of evolution has not changed at all, at least not since the early days of the twentieth century. Evolution is the change in genetic structure in populations over time. That's it. The general public, and that includes a lot of knowledgable, well educated folks (including a bunch of my own students), has for the most part not "gotten it" for nearly a century now. This has resulted in the propogation of serious misconceptions that have become almost cultural icons. It boggles my mind.

[AgadorSparticus]

123. no flames, mikec. you are spot on. the place just stinks of trolls that

is all. i don't know how you can explain it any better than the gravity analogy. i think h2oman closed the case with that one.

[hyphenate]

126. You won't get flamed--

at least not from me. I haven't yet read the responses, though. I think what you will get are a lot of questions, some redundant, some insightful and others that are quite obvious. But I think that the majority of those here at DU are smart and intelligent enough to know that the radical right's mission of teaching their misguided and even harmful shit--er, beliefs--is going to make Bangladesh look like the absolute best country in the world soon in comparison to what we have here.

It's shameful, and it's wrong, but they breed faster than those of us who believe in more advanced forms of thinking. :) We know that we need less than even zero population growth right now, but they're still breeding like rabbits and dropping babies like maggots. So if they like the regime so bad, let all their birthin' of babies be the ones sent off to war. Let's hear their complaints when it's their children that aren't getting scholarships because they're dumber than Dubya, because they don't have any knowledge greater than a 9th grader (mostly because of their homeschooling methods, based on religion and fundamentalism), and because their scientific knowledge simply doesn't exist. Hey, I know a fundie who is homeschooling her 5 year old because she doesn't want her to learn how to put a condom on a banana! Oh, and she's still breastfeeding her, last I heard.

If we're to succeed in keeping this country above water, we're going to have to lay down the law, and really teach these miserable SOBs that it's not just their country, it's OURS too. And a 50-50 split vote across this country does not give them a mandate to try and take away OUR rights along the way.

[mike_c]

130. amen, sister....

That's why I still believe in the power of education. Truth actually does set one free. The tough part is being willing to learn.

[RUDUing2]

138. I don't think you understand what theory means...

it doesn't necessarily mean *unproven conjuncture*...

http://evonet.sdsc.edu/evoscisociety/evolu_fact_theo.htm
When biologists refer to the theory of evolution, they use the word "theory" as it is used throughout science. It does not mean a mere speculation or an unsupported hypothesis. Rather, as The Oxford English Dictionary puts it, "a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed" (our italics). The complex body of principles that explain evolutionary change is a theory in the same sense as "quantum theory" in physics or "atomic theory" in chemistry: it has been developed from evidence, tested, and refined, and it accounts for literally thousands of observations made throughout the entirety of biological science and paleontology.

Like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is a current best explanation. It has withstood innumerable tests and attempts to disprove it, but it is still being refined, modified in the light of new knowledge, and extended to account for newly discovered phenomena. The theory of genetics has had such a history, progressing from Mendel's simple early principles to the complex body of molecular principles that constitute today's theory of inheritance, and it is constantly being refined and modified, even though its core principles have remained valid for a century. So it is with the theory of evolution....(more at link)

[ProfessorPlum]

141. Read the rest of the thread

Evolution is the observable phenomenon of life changing over time.

The how and the why are theories that we can argue, though the main theories of why and how evolution occur are very well fleshed out.

When I hit my thumb with a hammer, it hurts. That is an observable fact. Transmission of impulses from pain receptors to my brain, etc. are all theories to explain that observation.

[RUDUing2]

143. So? The *fact* still remains that

Evolution is a theory. Just because fundamentalist try to change what the term theory means in scientific terminology, doesn't change that fact or mean that we should also use incorrect terminology. That only gives them ammo to use against reason and logic.

[ProfessorPlum]

146. No. They are trying to define evolution, incorrectly

Read the rest of the thread.

Objects fall. That is a fact. That all objects attract each other is a theory that helps explain this fact.

Life changes over time. That is a fact. (It's called evolution.) That this happens because of natural selection is a theory that helps explain this fact.

You've heard the phrase "theory of evolution" so often that it sticks, but when you hear that, think "theory that explains evolution".

I agree that using incorrect terminology muddies the issue. That's why we should use correct terminology and insist the poofists do too.

[RUDUing2]

150. I still disagree

in scientific terms theory means: an explanation of observations.

ergo: evolution is a theory. It is the explanation of observations of how life started and how it has advanced.

more explanation of this
http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm
Is Evolution only a theory?


Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts....(read more at link)

Evolution is a theory..it is an explanation that correlates and interprets the facts which have been observed and or measured regarding life and the universe...

[ProfessorPlum]

152. You seem to be disagreeing while agreeing

Yes, a theory is an explanation of observations.

Any explanation that explains the observation that evolution occurs is a theory. There have been many such, and our modified theory of natural selection, seen through the lens of genetic mechanisms, is the best one we have to date.

But evolution itself, life changing over the course of time, is the observation.

Get it?

[mike_c]

155. I'm a working scientist-- I understand precisely what the terms...

..."theory" and "hypothesis" mean, and I also understand-- all too well-- the differences between lay usage and usage among scientists. Those concepts apply to theories regarding the mechanisms and consequences of evolution, but not to the phenomenon itself, which is simply a real phenomenon observed in nature. The "theory of evolution" meme obscures the real event itself, which is common and ubiquitous in living systems.

Theories about the mechanisms and consequences of evolution are "current best explanations," generally so well supported by empirical data as to be axiomatic among biologists. There is no need to invoke any such explanation about evolution itself-- it simply happens, by whatever method and to whatever end. That's why this whole public debate about "evolution" is so frustrating for me as a biologist and as an educator. Debating the reality of evolution itself is tantamount to debating the roundness of the Earth-- not even the most convincing rhetoric will change its shape, nor make biological evolution-- as biologists define the phenomenon-- any less certain.

[RUDUing2]

163. but since we still don't understand *all* of the whys and wherefores

or how they apply and why they don't always apply, etc..Evolution is a theory. Claiming it to be a fact simply gives free ammo to fundies who then can claim that evolution is a lie...

[ProfessorPlum]

168. Let's be precise in our terms

Life changes. That is evolution. And a fact.

Why it changes, how it changes - those are the subjects of theories about evolution.

You can debate the theories (and God knows people have bitterly debated them for over 100 years), but serious people can agree to the fact that life does, indeed change. That is evolution.

The whys and wherefores are included in the currently accepted versions of the theory of natural selection. Which is a theory. Evolution itself is not.

[RUDUing2]

179. that is your conclusion..one that is a theory..

again when you claim that evolution itself is a fact you are giving free ammo to fundies and actually helping to bolster their claims and causing problems for those who believe in the theory of evolution.

[ProfessorPlum]

189. Who believes in the "theory of evolution"?

Are you talking about people who "believe" in the fact that life changes over time?

Or are you talking about the people who think natural selection in its currently accepted form is a pretty good theory?

[RUDUing2]

240. both

thing is I was raised a fundamentalist in the south..so I know how their minds work and how they will latch on to and twist things around. When you claim that evolution is a fact and not a theory they will then *prove* how it can not be supported in its entirity or in its most extreme form..
however when you say it is a scientific theory based on observation and verifiable facts, you take that ability to twist the meaning away from them.

[ProfessorPlum]

268. I think we are actually agreeing on this

It's just the language we have to get straight.

How about this: if you tell fundies that life changes over time, and that is a fact, they may or may not agree with it.

If you tell them that life changes over time because of natural selection, then you could have an argument on your hands.

In the first case, you are talking about evolution. In the second, natural selection.

You are saying, it might not be profitable or advisable to use this language with fundies. That is different on whether the terms are correct. And I would argue that clearing up in their minds what they mean when THEY say "evolution" would be a useful discussion. Since they are most likely full of crap.

[RUDUing2]

282. problem is that unfortunately it is impossible to clear up their minds..

there has to be an opening in them to do that..

[ProfessorPlum]

289. What is the real problem with evolution to them?

Is it that they think it implies that society should follow Social Darwinism or eugenics?

[RUDUing2]

295. no they think that if they accept evolution

then maybe they might start questioning if other parts of the Bible only tell part of the story or are allegorical...

IMO most fundies think God made a mistake when he created free will and so it is their job to correct that mistake...and the way you do that is by never applying thought to religion, just blind acceptance.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

142. Technically it's still the Theory of Evolution...

It's just widely accepted as truth by the scientific community.
Duckie

[ProfessorPlum]

147. The "Theory" is really the "theory that explains evolution"

Just because you've heard the phrase "theory of evolution" a lot doesn't mean that it has any meaning, technical or otherwise.

[petron]

145. thanks for the explanation mike_c

This kind of post is why I love these boards. Thanks for explaining evolution so succinctly for us mike_c.

The biggest problem I have with these close-minded "creationists" in this discussion (and other evo discussions) is that I think they want us all to stop thinking about the WHY and HOW of evolution.

That's the biggest crock 'o' chit I have ever seen. Why are these "creationists" trying to stop the progress of science? I just don't get it.

Can anyone explain this to me?

Oh and don't try to tell me that by using "god" to explain the unknown mechanics of evolution you aren't also trying to stifle further scientific progress in evolution.

[ProfessorPlum]

148. Thanks, I tried to make this same point some weeks ago in a similar thread

And met with the same kind of resistance. You don't even need to resort to the technical term allele, which makes their heads spin. Just the fact that lifeforms change over time is the observable fact of evolution.

The punctuated equilibrium nonsense is just Gould's way of trying to explain why we don't find more transitional forms over the course of the fossil record. It doesn't mean we find NO transitional forms, or that life hasn't changed quite a lot, observably, over the last 4 billion years or so.

Why can't these morons (creationists) accept the fact that their Creator may have made the universe such that evolution could occur and bring about his grand design? There is no contradiction there. Such ignorance.

[mike_c]

158. the public debate about evolution is like...

...focusing on the calculations cartographers use as evidence that the roundness of the Earth is only a "theory", even though you can clearly see the curvature from the ground and have photographs from space. That doesn't make any sense, does it? It's so bloody frustrating!

[lateo]

156. There is no such thing as scientific fact.

Actually, there is a scientific definition of "fact" that does not rely on absolute truth.

All scientific facts are actually theories. However, all theories are not equal. Theories can range from the very very very certain (i.e. 'facts') to the very far-fetched (weak hypothesis).

The theory of evolution has its weak points. However, the intelligent design / creationists do not provide any scientific evidence to support their claims. They provide anecdotal evidence and conjecture which is not scientific. Therefore the theory of evolution is still the primarily accepted scientific theory about how life got to its current state.

[ProfessorPlum]

165. Of course there are facts

The sun exists. That is a fact.

How the sun came to be is a theory.

Life changes. That is a fact.

How it changes, why it changes - those are theories.

Evolution = life changes = fact

Natural selection = how it changes = theory

[lateo]

370. Is it?

How do you know the sun exists?

[ProfessorPlum]

387. See "Philosophy for Dummies"

Here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764551531/qid=1101869723/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-7820453-4062264?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

The scientists are busy discovering things that will make all of our lives better.

Note: I actually love philosophy. But not in this discussion.

[lateo]

389. Nice none answer...

If you would like to answer the question we can continue. Scientists are making our lives better. Scientists are also making our lives more difficult. I like philosophy myself but this isn't a question of philosophy, it is one about science.

In all seriousness, how do you know the sun is really there?

[datasuspect]

409. uhh

because you can verify it with the evidence of your senses.

[lateo]

436. You can?

Sense(s) being plural? You can't taste the sun...you can't smell the sun...nor can you hear the sun. You can "see" the sun but how do you know it really is what you are seeing?

This has very little to do with philosophy and every bit to do with scientific proof.

[ProfessorPlum]

437. Go read Plato on objective reality

the theory of "forms" and all that other interesting stuff.

Science has long since moved on from questioning objective reality to just assuming it is there - and creating wonderful technology and other discoveries with it.

If you want to discuss whether the sun exists, this isn't the thread for you.

[lateo]

453. Excuse me?

You are the one who brought up the sun...not me. I have read Plato's theory of forms several times that is why I can assure you this isn't a philosophical debate but a scientific one.

Plato's forms had to do with abstract properties of objects and I fail to see what that has to do with this discussion.

My discussion was about scientific fact and theory, you are the one who has changed the topic.

It isn't a debate on whether the sun exists or not...or course it does...but how do you KNOW it is indeed the sun? You can trot out the theory of forms in your defense but what I am looking for is "scientific
fact" about the existance of the sun.

Scientific fact goes beyond saying ..."I see the sun therefore I know it exists".

[datasuspect]

459. an epistemological claim

regarding the sun (or as you say how do you KNOW it is the sun) is really easy to make and simply requires observation. the conditions for that acquiring and developing the knowledge of the sun's existence are rather mundane and pedestrian.

the sun IS. meaning, the sun exists. maybe you should rephrase the question or read more philosophy. you can know this is the case through observation, measurement of the sun's rays, or deducing climatological changes based on the solar radiation.

[lateo]

468. What ever.

You seem more interested in telling me I don't know enough about philosophy than discussing science. And oddly in your last sentence you seem to finally have grasped what this conversation was about from the beginning until you derailed it with your nonsense.

[datasuspect]

469. you have a lot of nerve

accusing people of spouting nonsense when you are the one who makes absolutely no sense.

toodles

[lateo]

472. Again...

If you would go and look at MY ORIGINAL POST THAT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE SUN...you will see that the other poster was the one who derailed this topic.

Go read it! See for yourself that you have no freaking idea what you are talking about.

You can find it here if you pull your head out of your ass for a second.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2762801&mesg_id=2766669&page=




Drive through now.

[datasuspect]

470. and anyway

you were the one thrashing about wanting to know how someone can KNOW something.

that's within the province of philosophy.

if you want scientific proof, you can conduct your own experiments to determine if the sun exists or not.

you should be more precise in your inquiry, though, because you weren't very clear.

you seemed to want two things, neither of which you you were claiming to want(?)

anyway, i can't waste anymore time with you until you can discuss things more coherently.

[datasuspect]

441. are you for real?

solar radiation affects our climate for one . . . you can deduce on the basis of warming that the sun exists.

you can measure solar radiation.

what level of proof do you want?

[K-W]

443. It would seem he wants to be launched into the sun.

Just joking of course :p

[datasuspect]

444. it seems that way

get too close to that "theoretical sun" and your ass would be burned to a cinder right quick.

i'll propose another test for our disingenuous friend:

go stare at the sun during the entire duration of a full solar eclipse.

that ought to convince the person. or at least their eye damage should.

[ProfessorPlum]

447. I knew that's exactly where he was going

with that baloney.

It's fun for philosophy 101, but isn't helpful here.

[lateo]

457. This is more along the lines of what I am talking aboot.

The senses can be decieving. Measuring solar radiation would be must more scientificly sound that saying..."I feel the sun shining on me". I'm not at all trying to say the sun doesn't exist. There seems to be some mis-understanding here on this topic. I was discussing scientific theory NOT whether the sun exists or not.

[datasuspect]

458. it is a well established fact

that there is a sun.

you don't need much of a scientific apparatus to suss this.

common sense would help.

what theoretical claim are you trying to make vis-a-vis an existence claim for the sun?

[mike_c]

166. you've jumped to your preconceptions and not listened to what...

...I said. Evolution is an observable phenomenon that is common and ubiquitous in nature. Semantics has nothing to do with that. Evolution is simply something that happens. Period.

[lateo]

372. I agree with you Mike

Although my statement didn't sound like it...anyone who denies that evolution is observable and true is just plain stupid or delusional.

[RedCon1]

215. Descarte refused to believe anything

for the most part, other than he exists because he thinks. I think therefore I am. According to him, very little beyond that is verifiable. However, one can take a flask full of E. Coli, drop in some penicillin and swish it around for a few days. One can then poor that medium out onto petri dishes and grow the survivors. One can then repeat this process a few times and create a strain of E.Coli that is resistant to penicillin and, in so doing, can observe a species evolving to survive in a particular environment. The mechanisms of this survival can be identified via genetic identification of genes that confer penicillin resistance to the organism and other organisms when integrated into their genome. Therefore, the mechanisms of the evolution aren't even really theoretical at this point, at least for E. Coli and penicillin resistance.
I recently became aware of new powerful evidence to support our evolution from simion creatures too which is worth hearing about. Newborn human infants demonstrate several innate reflexes including the two known as the palmar grasp and the plantar grasp. This reflex can be observed in the newborn by placing a finger in the palm of their hand or in the ball of their foot. The infant will reflexively grasp the object. This reflex is also seen in monkey neonates that must grasp the fur of their mothers in order to avoid falling to their deaths. Apply the example of the E. Coli to this scenario and see how nature selected for infants that could grasp their mothers fur with their hands and feet. Then, ask yourself, "why would human babies also have this innate trait?" Could it be that at some point in our history, we were covered with lots of body fur and hung out in trees to avoid predators that would eat babies that fell? That sounds like we were monkeys at one point. Guess what, we're still freaking monkeys, we're just "wise monkeys", that's all.

[Beetwasher]

220. Great Post, and WELCOME!

Good to have you on board!

[GoSolar]

162. Thanks mike_c!!!

I remember Carl Sagan mentioning this in "Cosmos" - that evolution is not a theory, but a Fact. Oh for the good old days of PBS...

[bbqshoes]

164. It's a "theory" in the sense of "best available model we have"

"for the evidence".

It's not a "theory" like "I have a theory that if I just wish hard enough, I can fly"..

[mike_c]

167. my forehead is becoming bloody...

...from beating it against the wall of ignorant memes.

[seemunkee]

205. Maybe everyone should start with this

http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/dp.html

Dear Creationist,

We who follow conventional science appreciate your zeal and
commitment in desiring to show us the errors of evolution. However,
it has been our experience that the vast majority of challengers
such as yourself are woefully unequipped for this endeavor. So in
order to save us all some time and grief, and to keep you from
making an utter fool of yourself, we have prepared this text to help
you out.

Step 1: Do you know anything at all about evolution? (you'd be
surprised how many creationists don't) Please answer the following
yes or no questions:

1. Does evolution rely entirely on randomness?
2. Does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
3. Does evolution say anything about the origin of life?
4. Does evolution say anything about the origin of the universe?
5. Does evolution deny the existance of God?
6. Does evolution proceed from simplicity to complexity?
7. Does evolution proceed from lower to higher lifeforms?
8. Does evolution incorporate the notion of progress?
9. Does evolution have any moral consequences?
10. Does evolution stipulate any political attitudes?
11. Is evolution incompatible with any major religion?
12. Is it true that their are no transitional forms?

Step 2: Scoring. Count up the number of times you answered "yes". If
this number is zero, proceed to step 3. Otherwise slam your head
against the wall as many times as you answered "yes" and go back to
step 1.

Please go to the link and follow through to step 8

[annabanana]

211. dear mike-c..

You are doing a yeoman's service, wading in here all knowledgeable to deal with the "catch a phrase and spit pre-programmed response" posters, as well as those who work SO HARD at justifying their ignorance.

I salute you! (and go bandage your noggin.. there are none so blind as those who will not see)

:pals:

[ProfessorPlum]

170. Evolution itself IS "the evidence"

the genetic makeup of life changes over time. That is evolution, and it is a fact.

Theories describe how and why these changes occur, and the currently accepted theories are indeed the best available model we have about them.

When you hear or read "theory of evolution", think "theory which tries to explain evolution".

[Beetwasher]

175. Holy Crap! PEOPLE, READ THE FRIGGIN' THREAD BEFORE YOU POST IGNORANT BS!

Incredible...

I can't believe (or maybe I can) how many stupid people there are...

[bbqshoes]

309. Excuse me?

If it's MY "ignorant BS" you're responding to, please... explain.

I guess you understand what a "theory" is, then, in the context of the Scientific Method.

[Beetwasher]

322. Uh, Yes I Do, You However Do Not Know A Damn Thing About Evolution

If you think it's a theory. Read the friggin' thread for fucks sake. Yeesh.

Is gravity a theory? Gravity is an observed fact, the how and why of gravity is where the theory comes in. Same w/ evolution. Natural selection is the theory associated w/ evolution, that living things change on a genetic level over time (evolution)is an established, observed fact NOT a theory.

[bbqshoes]

329. I'm reading the thread, and I still think you're having problems with

semantics. I'm reading the rest of the damn thread... and from what I see I think you're going to give yourself high blood pressure at this rate. Why don't you find some actual creationists to flip out on?

If you want to say "theory of natural selection processes which cause evolution" instead of "theory of evolution", be my friggin' guest. No one is more pissed off than me about the fact that only 1/3 (according to Frank Gallup's ever-accurate poll numbers) or so of my countrymen accept that we are primates... (with all the attendant screaming, turf defense, and sh*t flinging, apparently) But the fact remains that people do use "theory of Gravity" when they really mean "theory of how and why of gravity"... So I'm not sure what you think you're going to accomplish, particularly by yelling at someone such as myself in all caps. Presumably you want me, a confirmed secular humanist who spends more than half his time railing against the f*cking religious right, to say "Evolution is NOT a THEORY"? Fine. There you go. Happy to do it. Feel better?

Edit: People also say "Big Bang Theory", when we have evidence for the big bang in the form of 3 degrees of background microwave radiation. The big bang is, also, a fact. The how and why is less clear, but people still refer to it, erroniously, as a "theoretical" event.

[Beetwasher]

333. Well, Since That's The Point Of The Thread, Yes

:shrug:

Peace.

[bbqshoes]

348. Maybe the problem is that I don't think scientifically in terms of "facts"

Rather, I've been trained to think of everything in varying degrees of likelihoods and probabilities, and to rigorously question ALL assumptions or "facts". And my first post said "theory" in the sense of "best available model". In my mind, that's what science is, a constant updating of models, or maps, which do a consecutively better job of describing the territory of reality. Religious people are notorious for confusing the map with the territory, or the menu with the meal, so much so that they are totally wedded to their maps even when they are 2,000 years outdated and bear absolutely no resemblance to the observable evidence. However, I really have no way to "prove", say, that I am not a head floating a jar somewhere, hallucinating this entire experience, including DU, this thread, and the recent crap-fest of an "election"... (No such luck, I fear) Therefore, in my mind, to say something is a "theory" backed up with all the available evidence, particularly in a science context, does not weaken it, but rather means that it is the most intelligent explanation available. Again, I do realize how this translates into the minds of the public, much as the way the right uses "theories of global warming" to discredit something that is obviously f*cking happening. So, if you want to say Evolution(1) is not a Theory(1) --to get all Korzybyski on ya- that, to me, makes sense. But not everyone who uses "theory" in the context the thread author is being critical of is automatically a creationist.

[Beetwasher]

351. Yeah, I Got It

No problem. For the record, I AM just a head floating in a jar! ;-)

Mike-c was starting this thread though to address exactly that problem of the misconception of the use of the word theory as it's applied to evolution. It's a misnomer for sure, but it's stuck w/ and associated w/ evolution. Mike was trying to dispell that notion and VOILA! Sorry for the misperception of your position, it's clear to me that you do in fact get the distinction, though many (even relatively intelligent liberals) do not.

[bbqshoes]

319. By the way, my point is that I BELIEVE in evolution...

Maybe y'all didn't get that from the post, or maybe you didn't bother to read it.

I think anyone trying to justify "creationism", particularly in a scientific setting, is high...

People get bogged down in semantics- saying something is a "theory" doesn't mean it isn't any less of a "fact".. when I say it's the best model we have, that means that- because we're talking about science, here, and not blind (or religious) faith- the model or theory can always be improved or updated to accomodate new data. Look at the "theory" of Gravity... for a very long time the Newtonian explanation was accepted, with gravity being an interaction of mass and distance, until Einstein came along and was able to incorporate that explanation into a larger paradigm of gravity being the warp that mass creates in four dimensional space-time. So because we're dealing with science, we talk of "theories" because we are open to improvements in our understanding. The mere word "theory" should not (even though it does) conjur up ideas of any "weakness" in the underlying concepts.

Now. Does anyone else want to slam me for my "ignorant BS"? Oh, and I'd appreciate not recieving the automatic knee-jerk marginalization due to the low post count (and nothing else); I've spent plenty of time here, I'm just not at my normal computer today. Okay?

[Beetwasher]

323. *sigh*

Read my other response.

[bbqshoes]

331. *sigh*

read mine. Peace.

[Beetwasher]

335. Truce

Didn't mean to slam you, wasn't commenting on your post count, it's just there were quite a few fundies in this thread saying *similar* things...I get it that you get it, no worries! Peace.

[bbqshoes]

350. Right on.

Believe me, I understand the frustration. I don't want anyone teaching my kids that creationist nonsense in public school science classes, either.

[mike_c]

347. again, I think you're missing the point if you "believe" in evolution

It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of observation. You don't need to "believe" in the law of mass attraction to know better than to drop heavy objects on your foot.

[bbqshoes]

353. Okay, I believe the explanation that we are descended from

primitive, more simple life forms, and got to where we are through natural selection, reproduction, and other natural forces (although I do think DNA is a more crafty molecule than we sometimes give it credit for) ... Maybe I should have said I accept the Darwinian explanation of origin of species. Okay? But I'm not a strict meat and potatoes materialist, or some kind of Ayn Rand Objectivist.. I reserve the right to question everything, thank-you-very-much. I "believe" that I'm sitting here, I "believe" that the sun isn't going to explode in five minutes.. To believe something isn't necessarially weak, neither is it mutually exclusive with understanding something.

[greyfox]

196. Of course....

it is a theory. And a rather poor one at that.

[Beetwasher]

200. Oy Vey! Really? Care to Explain, or is This Just Hit and Run Idiocy?

Whaddaya say Einstein? :eyes:

[greyfox]

272. Hit and run works...

I go by the Word of God, so I am on the outside of the discussion, I suppose. If God said HE made it all, I trust that. Completely.

Einstien enough?

God loves you -- no matter whom you THINK "made" you.

[Beetwasher]

284. So, You Speak To God Personally?

Funny, God told me he created us through evolution. Who's right? You're god or mine?

How silly and pathetic. I suppose you think the earth was created in 7 days a few thousand years ago?

[greyfox]

306. Yes, I do

That bothers you?

[Beetwasher]

313. No, It Doesn't Bother Me, As Long As You Aren't Responsible

for anything important. Keep talking to him all you want and keep taking your meds, or if you don't have any, get some and you might find those voices in your head clear right up. :freak:

[greyfox]

408. Bless you

for being such a kind, compassionate person and saying such nice things. You should be so proud.

[Beetwasher]

520. Eh?

If you think you're speaking to god, or rather, you hear him talking to you, you need help. I got news for you, those voices in your head are not god. Maybe no one else in your life is kind and compassionate enough to tell you the truth. I am.

[datasuspect]

481. what's even scarier

is that this person HEARS GOD TALKING BACK???!!!!???

[ProfessorPlum]

204. ignorant fool n/t

[K-W]

320. Im sure scientists will cry that they didnt pass your standards.

Cause Im sure your standards are based on sound logic.

[Kenergy]

217. Thanks Mike for your post

I learned something here.

[hangloose]

231. Well technically it is but a very very solid theory

[Beetwasher]

234. *sigh* No, Actually, Technically It's NOT! Read the Thread for Fucks Sake!

The word "theory" is something that is WRONGLY associated w/ Evolution. The theory part has to do w/ natural selection, which is a theory that deals with the MECHANISM of evolution.

Evolution is a factual observable phenomenon that is NOT in dispute. Like gravity, which is a word used to describe the observable, factual phenomon of the attraction of massive objects and things falling, we observe change in lifeforms over time. That is Evolution and it is fact, period.

[lupita]

257. Thank you so much for posting this!

I really have been looking for an explanation this clear.

Lupita

[mike_c]

261. my work here is done, Tonto....

You're most welcome. Now I REALLY do have to get back to my day job....

[superconnected]

296. I've always tried to grasp evolution

but it has so dang many holes in it. I still believe we evolved though. I also believe in Christ. He's a historical figure, you know. So is the Apostle Paul. I like his writings. I don't remember anything he said about there not being an evolution. I didn't like Moses writings though and consider them to be way off. How do you explain the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus - even more screwed up than Genesis, in my opinion.

You gotta love how people who insist on creationism are often old testament "Christian" fundamentalists that don't even really believe in what Christ was saying or the New Testament is the new covenant that takes precedence over the old eye for an eye mentality. Then there's the people who insult all religion and are really uneducated about it, who are of course, just as bad.

[K-W]

308. holes arent a problem, if it didnt have holes it would have to be a lie.

Only faith offers complete explenations, only faith offers concrete truth.

Science is a method of analyzing the world around us logically and systematically. If you want the truth, you need to learn to live with the fact that a picture full of holes is often the best picture we can have.

If you want a complete picture, you have to invent alot of it.

[mike_c]

378. "grasping" evolution is easy....

The problem is that most of what you've been told is sort of a smoke screen that obscures evolution.

Evolution occurs when genetic traits change within a population over time. That's all there is to biological evolution. If 10 percent of an animal population has dark hair today, but 50 generations from now 20 percent has dark hair (assuming hair color is heritable), that's evolution. There's nothing else to grasp. That's what makes this whole debate so silly-- when non-biologists finally understand what evolution actually is they go "Doh! I knew that happened all along!"

The sketchier part has to do with 1) why evolution occurs (the mechanisms of evolution, e.g. natural selection), and 2) the consequences of evolution, e.g. diversification of life on earth. But neither of those calls the basic phenomenon into question. There's absolutely nothing speculative about the fact that evolution really happens.

[AnIndependentTexan]

321. But in Jesusland commonsense is a theory as well

[Cheswick2.0]

332. it can't be proved under scientific method...it's a theory

one I believe in.
But we have missing links and we have significant disagreement on some of the process. It's still a theory.

[ProfessorPlum]

340. We are talking about the observation that life changes over time

as the definition of evolution.

How and why it changes are the theory part, and that is not evolution, it is natural selection (with other fancy frills).

[mike_c]

344. and you're still not clear about what "evolution" is....

You're still confusing "evolution" and the mechanisms of evolution. Also, those mechanisms CAN indeed be subject to scrutiny with any of the several varients of the "scientific method." They've withstood extensive testing to date. That's why the "theory of natural selection," for example, is so well supported as to be axiomatic among biologists.

[Redleg]

393. Actually, the scientific method cannot really "prove" anything.

The objective is to develop a theoretical model for a given phenomenon. That model includes an explanation for how specific constructs are related and expresses these relationships in the form of propositions or hypotheses. The model is necessarily just a depiction of reality but is not reality itself. The scientist then tests those hypotheses using direct observation or other means of measurement, and rules out other plausible explanations for the phenomenon in question. Doing so provides support for the theory but does not prove the theory per se.

[rman]

402. Your definition of "theory" is more like what is usually called "an idea"

"Theory" is by definition proven under scientific method.

If there's lots of evidence/proof for an idea (and none disproving it), then it's a theory.

That's why theory is not a matter of belief or faith, which is why science is not like religion.

[Lerkfish]

334. no, what's really frustrating: evolution and religion are NOT same topics

they are dissimiliar topics.

for the topics to make sense, the conflict should not be:

Evolution vs. Religion (or existence of God)

they are improper litmus tests for each other. One cannot be used properly to discount the other....

rather, it should be several separate but more direct conflicts:

Existence of God/nonexistence of God
Creation/universe spontaneously occurred
Evolution/independent but simultaneously originated species.

those pairings are more appropriate.

The reason the standard evolution/religion conflict is pointless to argue, is that all of these statements are conceivable:

There could be a God AND Evolution occurred
There could not be a God AND evolution occurred
There could be a God but evolution DID NOT occur
There could not be a God but evolution DID NOT occur

However, what is not conceivable is:

God exists AND God DOESN"T exist
Creation Happened AND the universe spontaneously occurred instead
Evolution occurred AND independent but simultaneously originated species occurred.

Only the last examples can actually disprove the other choice. Prove one and you've disproved the other.

However, you can prove Evolution but NOT disprove God or religion, or vice versa.

To me, this is the whole problem with the debate. Science-minded folk HOPE to disprove religion by proving evolution, and religious minded folk HOPE to validate religion by disproving evolution. They're both wrong in that desire because it doesn't accomplish what they want it to.

The debate needs to be reframed, as I have suggested.

[mike_c]

380. ok, nearly 400 replies later it's clear to me that MANY DUers...

...know less about biological evolution-- what it really is, what likely causes it, what its possible consequences are, and why it's so important in biology-- than I expect from freshman biology students. That's a sad indictment, folks. Many of the replies in this thread are based on gross misconceptions about evolution. So instead of arguing your favorite position, I recommend that unless you can provide a simple, one sentence definition of evolution based on actual observed occurrences in nature, you should crack a basic biology text and learn the truth. It's not about semantics. Religion has nothing to do with it. It's not a "theory," or a hypothesis, or speculation.

Evolution is change in gene frequency within a population over time. That's all it is. That's all it's ever been. All it means is that living organisms change from one generation to the next. That anyone would find this controversial amazes me, but strongly suggests that they are either badly misinformed, or tilting after some other windmills altogether.

[Redleg]

391. Mike, most of the misunderstanding is about what is meant by "theory."

Laypeople use the term "theory" very loosely. As many scientific terms adopted into routine use, they lose their precise scientific meaning.

Thank you for trying to clear this up. Apparently there is still a bit of work to do at DU and in our society at large.

[Runcible Spoon]

395. don't lose faith....or belief...or whatever! in us..

for every 5 jackasses that decide to play semantic musical chairs with you, there are 1,000 other sympathetic people who are reading this and choose not to respond; it is a large thread. I am on another thread trying to explain why attempting to "recreate natural selection in a lab with repeatable, predictable results" is impossible, since that would be HUMAN not be natural selection! Plus we already have enough Alsatians and rat terriers to show that. But since some people think that observable phenomena in support of theory means petri dishes and bunson burners, I am fighting a losing battle to the absurd.

[Randers]

396. I agree with you on the one hand

that we shouldn't call evolution a theory. But I disagree that there is not a problem of semantics.

As you posted yourself - there are various definitions:

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.ht...

For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

----

This will probably ruin your day as well:

Evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This article is about biological evolution. For other possible meanings, see Evolution (disambiguation).

Evolution generally refers to any process of change over time; in the context of the life sciences, evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a group - a population of interbreeding individuals within a species. Since the emergence of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next.


The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection. This theory states that all species today are the result of an extensive process of evolution that began several billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and that evolution via natural selection accounts for the great diversity of life, extinct and extant.

As the theory of evolution has become almost universally accepted in the scientific community, it has repeatedly been suggested that it provides an explanation as to the origin of life as well as its diversity. However these are two separate issues, and while the theory of evolution is widely accepted, the question of the origin of life remains controversial.

This controversy has resulted in a common misconception that controversy also exists concerning the theory itself. In public discussion the two issues are frequently confused, either accidentally or in attempts to either promote or discredit religious beliefs. See origin of life, spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, Young Earth creationism, Miller and Urey,Creation vs. evolution debate.

------
There are obviously various (mis)understandings of the definition.

I realize you have to start somewhere - but with so many out in the world misusing/misdefining the word - it seems that the usage becomes the definition. It might be easier for scientists to come up with a new word for the observable fact that "living organisms change from one generation to the next" than it would be to get everybody on the same page (or for most people to change the page) on what the word evolution means.

Most people ARE referring to the evolutionary theories which you yourself say exist - most people are NOT arguing that "living organisms DO NOT change from one generation to the next" - even the fundies. So it seems to me that it is all about semantics.

[dummy-du1]

423. Not quite true

Evolution is change in gene frequency within a population over time. That's all it is. That's all it's ever been.


No, that's not true. Actually, Albrecht von Haller, who coined the word thought that humans evolved (evolvere - Latin for develop, unfold) from little humans (homunculi) that were packed into sperms. I guess he thought of it like Russian puppets, because at least male homunculi obviously also had sperms. Females only were used as incubators in this model. (This macho idea was definitely stolen from Aristotle.) I think it's quite a good first guess. Leeuwenhoek, the inventor of the microscope, could even observe them. So, it's obvious that he either had a very bad microscope or a very blooming fantasy.

[mike_c]

473. what's the point, for god's sake...?

We're all aware that when we use the term "evolution" we're not talking about metamorphosis of homunculi. We (biologists) are talking about changing allele frequency from one generation to the next.

[dummy-du1]

508. Well...

The point is that concepts change over time, while the words and the described facts may stay the same. Another example in science would be the concept of mass that has another meaning in Newtonian Mechanics than it has in Relativistic Mechanics.

[zeek]

397. Much of the theory of evolution is not science

It is philosophy.

When I say the "theory of evolution" I am refering to Darwin's writing
the Origin of the Species and the various "theorys" it includes (natural selection, variation, hybridism etc). As you say some of it is fact. But the idea of inter-species transformation among animals (.ie speciation) is not. It is completely unsupported by experimental evidence, and does not even meet the scientific definition of a theory, much less a law. It would be more accurate to call it a hypothesis. Darwin himself even uses wording like "I believe" and "It seems", that is a far cry from a law which is proven only after exhaustive controlled experimenation.

Darwin's idea that all creatures evolved from "four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number" is complete speculation. Further this idea is actually at odds with the limited available observed evidence regarding reproduction and survival of genetic mutations which alter the chromosonal match neccesary for members of a unique species to procreate.

If most Biologists agree with it, it is only because there is currently no better answer. That fact doesn't make it correct, to the contrary history has taught us that answers based soley in reason, and unsupported by experimentation are often proven wrong despite being believed by the greatest minds of the time.

For example:

2500 years ago Greek philosophers were were wrong when they stated all
matter was composed of only 4 elements (earth, air, fire and water).

100 years ago every Physicist believed that time was constant and conservation of mass or conservation of energy were laws (all 3 are false).

70 years ago scientists thought it was impossible for man to orbit the
earth.

The list could go on and on, but without experimentation, it is wrong to call the whole of the theory of evolution a law or really even a theory in the strict sense. The central points which people disagree over are philosophy and are no more scientifically proven then other ideas such as hyperspace physics or the big bang. Because of this it shouldn't be taught as fact in our schools, and for the record niether should creationism.

[mike_c]

399. again, your response illustrates a profound misunderstanding...

...of biological evolution. It's 5:00 AM here and I have limited time to respond before I have to leave for work, but Darwin dealt more with the consequences and mechanisms of evolution than the phenomenon itself. The modern biological definition of evolution owes more to the new synthesis of the early twentieth century than to Darwin-- my point in making the original post was to illustrate how silly the public debate about "evolution" is, because 99 percent of the public seems not to know what biologists mean when they talk about evolution.

You're confusing evolution and speciation, for example, which is a common mistake. You're also making the error of assuming that speciation can not be demonstrated experimentally or observed in nature. It can. I've cited numerous papers describing examples in other threads within the last 24 hours- I'll leave it to you to find them, or even better, search for your own examples.

Your statement that evolution (by which you really mean speciation) is "not scientifically proven" is patently false unless you want to split Popperian hairs, in which case it's equally true that a massive effort to find equally compelling alternative explanations has utterly failed, and I wonder whether this is simply ignorance on your part or whether it is an out right lie. Who are you trying to drag back into the Dark Ages?

Finally, read the definition of evolution as it's accepted by biologists. All the other hoohaw is irrelevant noise.

Evolution is change in allele frequency in populations from one generation to the next.

If you actually argue that this is "philosophy" rather than an observed phenomenon then I can't really respond-- that's tantamount to arguing that the "round earth theory" is philosophy and that the evidence is all Photoshopped. You really will have us back in the Dark Ages if that's what you want others to believe.

[6000eliot]

411. Thanks

Thank you for posting this thread, Mike. I'm really sick of superstitious bullshit holding sway over public opinion and now policy. As a test of the truth claims of science vs. religion, I'll go with science getting us to the moon and out of the galaxy. Religious zealotry has gotten us nowhere but ignorance. Sorry for the over generalization. I'm not anti-religion, but I refuse to see it as a replacement for human reason, our best hope.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

400. wooohooo....y'all did it!

over 400 posts on what is in many cases a matter of sheer semantics...WOW!

theProdigal

[manuelthebarber]

401. and counting

sounds like exactly what the creationists would have liked.

[Liberal Classic]

410. I'm sorry professor, evolution is a theory just as relativity and gravity

Critics of evolutionary theory when they say things like "it's just a theory" mean something more like "it's just a hypothesis" or even conjecture. However, it's just that the layman's connotation of "theory" isn't precise. This is the misunderstanding. Evolutionary theory is not physical law.

Here is a quote by Stephen Hawking on the subject: "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations... Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.

I strongly disagree when you say that calling evolutionary theory a theory reflects fundamental misundestandings about what evoluton is. I reject the call to redefine evolutionary theory as physical law simply for the purpose of avoiding collision with the common meaning of the word "theory." Inaccurate criticisms from the pseudo-scientific community, i.e. the creationists, not withstanding.

If you are distressed that some people cannot accept evoultionary theory, well, I can't help you cope with that. I would have thought a biology professor would know better. Cheers.

[ProfessorPlum]

412. Evolution is the "large class of observations"

Natural selection is the theory/model used to explain it.

That's all he's saying.

[Liberal Classic]

414. Plate tectonics is also a theory

There is a large body of geologic observations, and the theory of plate tectonics is the theory/model used to explain them.

[ProfessorPlum]

415. You missed the point

"Evolution" itself is the large body of observations that life changes over time. If you include genetics in the formulation, that allele frequencies changes over time.

How and why evolution occurs is the theory of natural selection.

Do you see the analogy now? It is a terminology issue. Read mike_c's posts, he explains it beautifully.

[Liberal Classic]

424. I explained my objections to the author of this thread thusly

It is a terminology issue. The author of this thread stated clearly that the established scientific practice of calling evolutionary theory a theory is wrong. Extrodinary claims require extraordinary proof.

"Evolution" itself is the large body of observations that life changes over time. If you include genetics in the formulation, that allele frequencies changes over time.

Evolution is the theory which seeks to explain the process by which life changes over time. Comparitive genomics can demonstrate how closely one population may be related to another by counting similar genes. This in and of itself is not evolution. In measuring the difference in the frequency of occurance of one gene versus another over time in a population, scientists do say that evolution has occured. It is the difference in gene distribution which is the observable phenomena. Evolutionary theory describes how forces such as environmental pressures, mutations, migrations, those sorts of things drive genetic diversity through the selection process. This is the theory.

[ProfessorPlum]

426. It is a terminology issue

And your terminology is messed up.

"Evolutionary theory" has a much better, more precise, and less confusing name, which is natural selection. All of what you are talking about in your last paragraph is natural selection.

We need to clarify our terminology so that we are all on the same playing field so that we can bring some sanity to this subject both amongst ourselves and when dealing with the public.

For our terms, which are also correct biologically,

"Evolution" is the observation that life changes with time

"Natural selection" is the theory about how and why those changes occur

"The origin of life on the planet" is separate from both of those issues, and is not dealt with either by evolution or natural selection.

[Liberal Classic]

428. But the author says scientists use the term wrongly

Here is what the author wrote:

Stamp this on your forehead, folks: evolution is NOT a theory. Not even in the sense that scientists use the term "theory."

This is getting to be a debate of semantics, however, the author has made the extraordinary claim that currently accepted scientific usage of the term theory is wrong. I am arguing in favor of the status quo, that evolution is correctly called a theory. As he is arguing against the status quo, the burden of proof is on the author of this thread.

Are you supporting the author of this thread that scientists use the term wrongly, and evolution should not be called a theory?

[ProfessorPlum]

430. What he means (if I may be allowed to speak for him)

is that for laypeople, "theory" is something like "guess".

For scientists, an old, well-supported "theory" is something that cannot be proved, but has been shown to be reliable in explaining past results and in predicting future results. Much more reliable than a "guess", which in scientific parlance is better described as a "hypothesis".

What mike_c means is that the TERM "evolution" should not be used in the place of "theory of natural selection" anymore. It just causes too much confusion.

The fact that life changes over time is neither a guess or a well-supported scientific theory. It is an observable phenomenon, like ice melting above its freezing point.

So, yes, I would say that some scientists, and many more laypeople, use the term "evolution" as a short hand for "theory of evolution by natural selection", but that that is confusing. The term evolution should be reserved for the observable phenomenon of life changing. "Natural selection" should be used to describe the theory of why this happens.

[dummy-du1]

449. More than one theory

But there isn't only one theory of evolution (a theory that explains why evolution happens). Before Darwin there was a Lamarckian theory of evolution that proposed that characteristics that were acquired during an organism's lifetime could be inherited. Or in more modern times the Neutral theory of molecular evolution was proposed by Motoo Kimura, which was later integrated into the Modern Synthetic Theory (a combination of Darwin's Theory and (Population-)Genetics). The later example is also a proof that it's possible to change the theories if necessary. No trace of dogmatism that some "creation scientists" sense if their fairy tales of intelligent design are rejected.

I think mike_c overemphasizes that evolution IS change in allele frequency in populations over time, because it's quite obvious that before population genetics was conceived it couldn't be observed in nature. That's quite typical in science and called theory-ladeness of observation. And before genetics there weren't changes in the genotypes observed, but only in the phenotypes. And of course in general this is still the case in palaeontology for obvious reasons. It could as well be that in the future evolution will BE something else but the facts will still be the same - I hope. :)

[mike_c]

476. I could not have said it better....

Thanks. I'm getting really discouraged over the tenacity with which people hold onto their misconceptions in this thread.

[mike_c]

474. hmmm, this starts off incorrectly but then it gets better....

"Evolution is the theory which seeks to explain the process by which life changes over time."

This is not the definition of evolution accepted or used by biologists (I'm a biologist, so I'm not making this up). The accepted definition is "Evolution is change in allele frequency in populations from one generation to the next." That is all. Other things-- such as theories about the process-- follow from that statement, but the basic phenomenon of changing allele frequencies is a simple, observable event.

"In measuring the difference in the frequency of occurance of one gene versus another over time in a population, scientists do say that evolution has occured. It is the difference in gene distribution which is the observable phenomena."

This is correct. The difference in gene frequency IS evolution.

"Evolutionary theory describes how forces such as environmental pressures, mutations, migrations, those sorts of things drive genetic diversity through the selection process. This is the theory."

This is also correct. Other than that first sentence, we are mostly in agreement.

[mike_c]

416. you've missed the point utterly, as have WAY too many...

...respondents in this thread. Evolution is an observed phenomenon. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING theoretical about it. You're confusing evolution, as biologists define it, with the mechanisms and consequences of evolution, or with evolution as journalists and other lay persons misdefine it.

[Liberal Classic]

422. I most respectfully beg to differ

Theory is the correct term to apply to evolution, plate tectonics, gravity, and relativity. The confusion lies in that the layman's connotation of "theory" is imprecise and means something closer to "conjecture." Thus the creationist's criticism of 'it's only a theory."

As I said in my initial post, I reject any suggestion to call evolutionary theory anything other than a theory. I oppose the promotion of evolution to that of physical law. The existance of observable phenomena does not prove a theory, rather a theory may only be disproven by making predictions based on the theory that turn out to be false. Just because a theory has not been disproven doesn't mean it will never be disproven. As a scientifically knowledgably person, you should understand this. In fact, I'm certain that you already understand this, but are forging on ahead anyway.

You say I am confusing the observable phenomena with the theory. I disagree, in fact I think that you are the one who is making this mistake. Consider:

Stamp this on your forehead, folks: evolution is NOT a theory. Not even in the sense that scientists use the term "theory." It is an observable phenomenon, i.e. a fact, just as real as time, tides, and taxes.

Point one, here you are making the case that the scientifically established use of the term "theory" is incorrect. You are not saying that the general public is mistake, you are saying the scientific community is mistaken. Since you are arguing against the status quo, the burden of proof is on you to show the scientific community how they are wrong. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Point two, time is an observable phenomena. The tides are an observable phenomena. Gravity is an observable phenomena. However, relativity is a theory. A great deal of stake is placed on relativity, in fact the computers we now use to communicate with each other owe their existance to it. We still call relativity a theory.

Point three, you have accused me of confusing observable phenomena with theory, but here you have done the exact same at the top of this thread.

Time is a fact.
Gravity is a fact.
Therefore evolution is a fact?

This does not logically follow.

Here is why I say you are doing what you're accusing me of doing.

Sexual reproduction and mutation are observable phenomena, just as time and gravity are observable phenomena. The theory of evolution seeks to explain a "force" which drives the genetic changes among populations. Individuals from a particular population may have their DNA sequenced, and the number of genes counted and compared with other individuals from either simiar or dissimilar populations. That genetics vary from population to population is an observable fact. Comparative genomics is not evolution, it does not describe how different distributions of genes made it though different populations and how these changes cause the diversity of life that we can see around us. That is what the theory of evolution tells us.

Until a better theory comes along, anyhow.

I'm sorry, friend, but you're going to have to try harder to convince me that evolution is not a theory. I believe the brunt of scientific opinion is on my side.

[mike_c]

431. I have to go to class, so I'll promise to reply fully...

...in a few hours. I agree with many of your points, but many of them simply don't apply in the current context. One thing I will say now-- you're wrong in your assessment about the "brunt of scientific opinion," at least among biologists. Most of my colleagues agree that evolution is an observable phenomenon, just like gravity. We have theories ABOUT the mechanisms and consequences of evolution, but the phenomenon itself is not in question. We regard it as a fact-- a thing that we can watch, measure, and record. I'm well aware of the distinctions between scientic and lay use of the term theory, but they simply don't apply when we discuss evolution itself-- only when debating the merits of mechanistic explanations or possible outcomes from the process.

Sorry-- GOT to run.

[Liberal Classic]

440. Well, I hate to argue semantics

What do I know, anyway?

[K-W]

432. The fact that you call it evolutionary theory proves it isnt a theory.

If evolution was a theory, evolutionary theory would be quite redudent.

As it stands, it isnt. Evolution is a term for for an observable physical phenomenom. Evolutionary theory is the theories surrounding this phenomenom.

The point is differentiating between the phenomenom and the theories about the phenomenom.

There is nothing in the least bit theoretical about evolution.

[Liberal Classic]

438. That I call it a theory proves it isn't a theory?

?

When I say "evolution" or "evolutionary theory" I am using an abbreviation for the modern systhesis theory of evolution of species based on Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, Gregor Mendel's theory of inheritance, and the theories of molecular evolution that have come about since the discovery of recombinant DNA.

That the theory of evolution is well established and almost universally accepted does not mean it isn't a theory.

[ProfessorPlum]

439. That's what we mean

stop talking that way.

don't say "evolution" when you mean the theory of natural selection. It confuses the issue.

are you being deliberately obtuse here?

[Liberal Classic]

445. No, I am not being deliberately obtuse

When I say "evolution" I mean the modern theory which is a synthesis of Darwin's theory of natural selection, Mendel's theory of inheritance, and the theories of molecular evolution that have appeared since the landmark paper by Watson and Crick which described the structure of the DNA molecule. (A quick web lookup encourages me to include the work of Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin from which Watson and Crick benefitted enormously.)

I guess I'm just a fundie.

[ProfessorPlum]

446. Feel free to muddy the waters of debate by using deliberately

confusing shorthand, then.

The original post was a plea that you don't do that.

But it's a free country, of course.

[Liberal Classic]

460. I am muddying the debate. Sorry.

I maintain that evolution is a theory, like plate tectonics and like relativity. A well-established and nearly universally accepted scientific theory, but a theory nontheless.

The scientific community generally agrees with this view.

The original post argues that commonly accepted practice in the scientific community is wrong.

The original post said:


Stamp this on your forehead, folks: evolution is NOT a theory. Not even in the sense that scientists use the term "theory."


Bold face emphasis is mine.

I am arguing from the status quo.

My position is simply that evolution remains a theory, in contradiction to the author of this thread. I feel relatively confidant that the general scientific community considers evolution a theory, and understands the difference between the scientific definition of the word and the layman's connotation. I have tried to define evolution as the modern theory which combines Darwin's theory of natural selection, Mendel's theory of inheritance, and advances in molecular biology which have come about since the identification of the DNA molecule. It is a scientific theory which like many theories in science rests on the theories which have come before it. I think this is also called neo-darwinism.

Like plate tectonics, like relativity, and like quantum mechanics, evolution serves well enough until something better comes along. When this happens, scientists will revise their theories or throw them out alltogether. That's what the scientific method is all about, something I'm sure you already know.

However, as you and the author of this thread are arguing against the status quo, the burden is upon you to prove me wrong.

I remember reading some years ago about a study involving a variety of minnow with a extremely rapid life cycle. I'm going from memory and I don't remember all the details, but in the end it was claimed that microevolution was directly observed under controlled circumstances. Predictions were made about how a genetic marker might move through the population after a certain number of generations. I found this highly interesting, and this was at least ten years ago or more and I wonder if further studies in this vein have been done.

Nevertheless, it does not change evolution from being a scientific theory. Microevolution is from our standpoint the observable and measurable aspects of evolutionary theory, but the observation of an isolated incident of microevolution does not "promote" the theory of evolution to that of physical law. Evolution remains a theory until it is disproved.

I give up.

I'm just a fundie and I'm going to go beat my dog.

edited to correct formatting

Back to beating the dog

[K-W]

450. No, you are just misusing a word.

the odd part is that you refuse to just correct your simple mistake

Evolution is the phenomena, not the theory, this is simple stuff

[Liberal Classic]

462. I disagree because

Observations of microevolution support evolutionary theory. They do not, however, prove evolutionary theory.

[K-W]

442. The theory of evolution is a theory, evolution is not a theory.

Youve now made the destinction yourself, twice, and you still dont see it?

Evolution isnt the theory, it is what a theory of evolution describes.

[Liberal Classic]

452. Here's how I'm defining it

This is what I wrote to another poster:

When I say "evolution" I mean the modern scientific theory which is a synthesis of Darwin's theory of natural selection, Mendel's theory of inheritance, and the theories of molecular evolution that have appeared since the landmark paper by Watson and Crick which described the structure of the DNA molecule.

[K-W]

454. If everyone gets to redefine language

we wont be able to discuss anything.

Your definition is wrong. Sorry, but thats just how it is.

[Liberal Classic]

461. My definition is wrong?

Your definition is wrong. Sorry, but thats just how it is.

Would you care to support this?

The modern synthesis theory combines Darwin's theory of natural selection, Mendel's theory of inheritance, the discovery of recombinant DNA, the emergance of molecular biology, Kimura's theory of molecular evolution and genetic drift, and (with some controversy) Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium.

The modern theory of evolution is the synthesis of modern genetics and classical evolution. The modern theory rests on the theories that came before it. As new observations and discoveries are made, theories are changed or abandoned in favor of better explanations. That's how scientific theories, uh, evolve.

[mike_c]

475. sorry LC, if you were in my class I'd give you a C....

OK, maybe a B, but I'm a soft touch. You've got all the basic concepts correct, and you clearly know the meaning of the terms. But you're stuck on a meme that you seem utterly unwilling to let go of. Your statements about the modern synthesis are correct, and they accurately describes theories ABOUT evolution. But evolution itself is an event. One that happens every day. I don't know any better way to make the difference apparent.

Your statement in an earlier response about my original post ("not even the the sense that scientists use the word theory") badly misinterpreted my words.

I'm sorry, but I'm getting really tired and discouraged over this thread. Responses like yours, from people who are obviously smart and well read are especially discouraging, because you should be particularly able to see the forest instead of theories about the trees.

[Liberal Classic]

498. I do not deny the observability of microevolution

I think I mentioned this in another post. Maybe I didn't emphasize this point when I should have. Microevolution easily observable in the world around us as well as under controlled circumstances in the laboratory. When I call evolution a theory I am not denying examples of microevolution as being observable phenomena. It's relatively easy to observe mutation, but not so for speciation. Microevolution is only part of modern evolutionary theory.

As for not seeing the forest for the trees, I would respond by saying you're engaging in sloppy thinking. I think maybe you mean to say microevolution in this thread. Your argument is much stronger if it is made with respect microevolution. In fact, had you limited your argument to microevolution I would be inclined to agree with you. However, the observability of microevolution does not mean evolution (in the grand sense) is anything other than well established and widely accepted scientific theory.

[mike_c]

500. microevolution = evolution....

The two terms are synonymous. Macroevolution = speciation. Speciation is one particular outcome of evolution.

The accepted definition of evolution is precisely what you mean by "microevolution:" change in allele frequency from one generation to the next.

There are at least two problems with equating speciation and evolution. The first is simply that (micro)evolution is always the cause of speciation-- but speciation is not the inevitable result of evolution. It's certainly not even the USUAL result. Second, while there is a well established standard for measuring the occurrence of (micro)evolution, there is no such yardstick-- either qualitative or quantitative-- for measuring the occurrence of speciation, at least partly because no single concept of "the species" works universally and also because under at least some species concepts, like reproductive isolation, speciation can occur nearly instantaneously (e.g. polyploidy), or it can entail long time periods with uncertain isolation and NEVER really have definite transition events. In those circumstances simply RECOGNIZING speciation is sketchy enough to be a perennial dissertation topic.

Finally, "evolution (in the grand sense)" is a highly uncertain process whose end points are not even well established, while (micro)evolution in the observable sense is precise and predictable-- that's the real reason that the accepted definition among biologists makes reference only to change in allele frequency.

[Liberal Classic]

502. Perhaps I should be talking about the "theory of speciation" instead?

Spent some time this evening reading the Talk Origins archive, and saw this article relevant to the discussion:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html


There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.

There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."

In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out, means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.


I guess you can call me a nit-picking epistemologist.

:)

[ProfessorPlum]

518. Excellent post n/t

[bloom]

494. Semantics - definition=

#3
"the meanings of words as they are used to achieve an effect; especially, the multiple meanings of words or the multiplicity of words having the same meaning; - used in referring to the confusion that can be caused(intentionally or unintentionally) by multiple meanings"

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/semantics

Just like you said, "You're confusing evolution, as biologists define it, with the mechanisms and consequences of evolution, or with evolution as journalists and other lay persons misdefine it."

Semantics.

[Liberal Classic]

499. Then let's be precise

If the author of this thread had said 'microevolution' I wouldn't have anything to disagree with.

[mike_c]

501. how about: "as biologists RECOGNIZE it...?

Why are we playing this silly game?

[bloom]

521. Why?

You started a conversation about the meaning of a word - the conversation itself is a discussion that deals with the semantics of a specific word - especially by the definition I quoted.

We have all of these people going round and round about the meaning of the word (as well as all of these other people going round and round about whether they believe any meanings of the word - but that is another story) and yet you continue to deny that it is a question of semantics. And you insist that OTHER people are stubborn.

THAT is why.

[Endangered Specie]

413. If you add the total posts counts of the three evolution threads...

you are getting mighty close to 1000.

Im curious if in your teaching there has ever been any trouble in the admin or classroom with students over this.

My relatives are biologists, they have lots of stories.

[mike_c]

417. actually no, but I teach in a biology department, so...

...my colleagues and I are in complete agreement about this. That's one of the things that's so ludicrous about this entire debate-- with almost no exceptions biologists agree on the meaning of "evolution" and also agree that the public is overwhelmingly debating something else entirely. In nearly 15 years of teaching university level biology classes I can count the number of students who have objected to biological evolution-- that made me aware of their objections-- on one hand. The reality of evolution is directly observable, so the only way to object to it is to completely close your eyes. The evidence in support of theories about the mechanisms and consequences of evolution is so overwhelming that few who approach it with a willingness to consider that evidence remain unconvinced, or at least remain willing to present opposing arguments in the face of that evidence. I suspect that most of the willfully blind just keep it to themselves in that situation.

[ProfessorPlum]

418. I think the problem is

that a lot of people want to debate this issue as if that makes them some kind of free thinker or something.

"Everyone should question their assumptions" is a great idea, but eventually science comes to a conclusion and apart from interesting studies on the edges of a phenomenon, it can move on.

The Free Thinkers who believe scientists are brainwashed are about 100 years to late to this party on natural selection. They should be arguing about quantum entanglement at a distance or some other topic that hasn't been firmly resolved yet.

It's like walking into a group of chemists and declaring "I don't think matter is made up of atoms and molecules. You should all question your assumptions! Who's with me?"

[mike_c]

433. now that's REALLY depressing....

Propagating myths and misconceptions as a means of demonstating intellectual honesty!

[K-W]

434. People pick thier science like they pick thier clothes.

They take into account trends, rebellion, and being avant garde.

The truth is rarely trendy.

[aneerkoinos]

483. Free-thinking

and questioning premises is all that scientific approach to truth is about, and that is essential. The two main camps define their goals differently, those saying that evolution is not a theory but "fact", "observable", "phenomenon" or whatever, make a rhetorical distinction wich they think is usefull in the battle agains creationists, and in this discussion they are fighting windmills, because creationists are not present.

The second camp, "freethinking" nitpicker camp says that the definition is just a rhetorical stunt and not in accordance to our best theories about what constitutes scientific approach to truth, what is a scientific theory and what is not. And in this case the rhetorical stunt is misleading about the nature of science, therefore it should be corrected.

Nope, by definition science never "comes to conclusion" in the final sense you give, because scientific truth is process, not a matter of belief. Science came near to "conclusion" before Einstein and QM, there were just couple interesting things left on the edges, that's what majority of the scientific community believed at that time. So, if unlike last time now we really truly are near the conclusion and have the Life, Universe and Everything bit pretty much figured out, what SCIENTIFIC proof you can offer to convince the freethinkers that this time the Current Paradigm is The Real Thing, while last time it so obviously wasn't?

And FIY quite obviously matter is not "made up" of ONLY atoms and molecules, like any guy working with those quantum entanglments and such could tell you, or the group of chemists you presume such ignorance and hubris for. By now we got good empirical data on "wierd" quantum effects even on big bad lumps of matter like molecules, and we are just beginning to breach up the vast dark zone between classical and quantum domains. When there are such teeny weeny problems left to solve like mind and matter, for example, I cannot but wonder the hubris of those claiming that this science thing is now pretty much in package.

Yep, I will proudly yell:
YOU SHOULD ALL ALLWAYS QUESTION YOUR ASSUMPTIONS! WHO'S WITH ME?

[ProfessorPlum]

484. Whatever peels your banana, dude

But at some point, constantly trying to pick holes in a theory that has held up for a long time gets boring and unproductive, because the reason it has held up is that thousands upon thousands of people who are smarter than you already thought of that (whatever you are thinking of) and failed to poke a hole in the succesful theory years ago.

Not that I'm completely discounting the very low probability that you have stumbled upon the heretofore unknown Achilles' heel of established theory . . . I'm just saying, the odds are pretty low, ya know?

[aneerkoinos]

490. Sure

There is allways question about what lines of questioning offer promise of advancing and which ones lead to dead end. Problem is, there is no way for knowing for sure.

I'm not claiming to be smarter than most, but it seems that I've read works of people who are at least lot smarter than you.

I don't know what Achilles' heel you refer to, but the "established theory" even in physics is full of holes, perhaps this is really news to you, but Einstein and QM are inconsistent, which is one pretty wide gaping hole, I'd say.

Edit to add: also, the constancy of "Constants" of Nature seems to have been exaggerated, I'd say here too we are facing one pretty big question mark about the ultimate nature of Reality.

[dummy-du1]

420. People don't know the difference between fact and theory

I think most people don't know what a fact is, they think statements that are true are a fact. But from a realistic point of view at least, the totality of facts is the world. We can make statements about facts and we would require a lot of them (think of infinite many) to describe those facts. Theories compress an infinite subset of those statements in only a few statements.

That way it's possible to infer a single statement from a theory and try to find out if it corresponds to a fact in the world. If yes, we could corroborate the theory, if no, we falsified it. (But usually we just made a stupid error, so do not prematurely start spending that Nobel price money.) In a sense it's equally difficult to falsify a theory like it is to verify it (Quine-Duhem thesis).

I think all theories are hypothetical or hypotheses, that is they are probably all wrong. But also a wrong theory can be used to deduce true statements about the world: Newtons Theory of Gravity is wrong, especially for high velocities and in the microcosm. If the theory of evolution is wrong, I am sure there will be an alternative that is very similar to the current theory of evolution. In the logic sense the current theory and Darwin's theory are already different. One could of course also argue it is just an extension to Darwin's theory.

It's funny that many so called "creation scientists" think that if they find a flaw in the theory of evolution, it would mean that everyone now would have to accept the biblical creation myth. Of course it is more likely that a better version of the theory of evolution would take the place of the old one. Because "creation scientists" aren't real scientists, it's unlikely that they will find such a flaw. It's not as unlikely as an amateur genius constructing a perpetuum mobile, but it's close.

[robcon]

448. Evolutionn is a theory, just like Quantum Mechanics

It explains phenomena, and predicts other phenomena. That makes it a well-established theory.

[K-W]

455. You are mistaken.

evolution is a phenomenom, not a theory

there are theories that deal with evolution

[dummy-du1]

456. I agree if

you meant "The Theory of Evolution" (that is the current incarnation) is a theory. Not "just" a theory like QM, because nobody with any clue about mathematics would say that about either QM or ET.

[Czolgosz]

451. Leaving aside the confusion about the definitions of evolution and theory

who (if anyone) is contending that public school children should be taught as part of their science curriculum that the species were created by an intelligent guiding force?

Having read as much as I can stand of these numerous evolution threads, please help me believe that we have a near unanimous consensus that creationism (or intelligent design) ought not be part of a public school child's science curriculum. Who here has said otherwise?

[Endangered Specie]

463. I did a poll in GD a little whilke back

I think fewer than 10% voted to have some form of creationism in the science classroom (either as alongside or creation+all others or creation only) and I think about half or more voted against creationism in any form in any class.

[Czolgosz]

465. I will sleep better tonight (although even 10% seems spooky). Thanks.

[jsw_81]

467. This thread is disturbing

I'd expect this kind of creationist nonsense at FR, but not here.

The candle flickers.

[xerox]

471. One man's theory

is another mans law.

[WestMichRad]

477. Mike, did you really want to expose the ignorance of so many?

At least you may be able to conclude from this exchange that the population of DUers is not significantly different from that of the general public in their understanding of basic scientific principles.

As Mike stated at the outset, that evolution occurs is a FACT, not a theory. Experiments can be (and have been) conducted that show that environmental pressures can and will cause genetic drift, act as a basis for natural selection, etc. and result in the change in the genetic characteristic of the species. Evolution does occur - proven fact.

Where I think many get tangled up is showing in hindsight that in fact that a species alive at a point in time (let's say Homo sapiens) evolved from another ape species, or some mammal predecessor, or whatever. We can never know for certainty that this occurred, we can only find evidence and draw a conclusion of the probability that our forefathers lived in a jungle and preferred bannanas to falafel. (Hey, I am NOT evolutionarily connected to O'Reilly, am I? ARRGH!) So it is only a theory that H. sapiens evolved from some earlier ape species, and thus it will always be, unless we run a million year experiment and control billions of variables. BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION A THEORY!

And it isn't semantics, either, so please give up that feeble argument.

Creationism, "intelligent design", or whatever moniker they slap on it in the future will always be based on a wish that it were so. It is equally likely that an invisible enigma ran in and sprinkled pixie dust on the plant, and VIOLA! Humans arose and started to fuck things up. Either (intelligent designer or invisible enigma with pixie dust) is unprovable with scientific experiment - and always will be - but most people prefer the idea of an intelligent designer. And that pixie dust is probably rather hard to come by....

[mike_c]

479. you get an A+....

Correctomundo on all counts.

[datasuspect]

482. what i can't figure out

is why so many people have an almost genetic committment to protecting the idiocy they mistake as truth?

no wonder george bush won.

also makes me wonder if the mods she be more ruthless in ferreting out disruptors.

[aneerkoinos]

478. Stupid word games

Greek word 'theorizein' means 'looking at', so theory is 'way to look at'. Thus any observable, any act of observation always requires a theory. Only when you go totally mystical, beyond language and concepts, there is no theory. IIRC e.g. in the experience seeing or observation 80% of the stimuli comes from the brain, 20% from neurons linked to eyes; so we "see" what our brains have been conditioned to see, conditioned by... no better word, theories.

Now there's special requirement, according to Popper, for what can be considered a valid scientific theory: falsifiability. Is evolution scientific theory, can it be falsified? Most certainly, logically we could go as far as to say that it requires e.g. the assumption of unique, single direction time, which is extremely well established theory about this universe (ie "fact"), but can be theoretically falsified if conflicting evidence appears. Far-fetched, yes, but purpose was only to show that evolution is scientific theory, not something that is "not even a theory".

Again, for the Nth time, rhetorics about 'theories' vs. 'facts/observables' are just plain silly and ignorant of philosophy of sciense. For a scientist, facts are theories, only well enough establised ones.

[mike_c]

480. ok, but splitting Popperian hairs aside...

...evolution is an event. Not simply an idea in any semantic form, but a discernible, measurable, event.

[aneerkoinos]

486. You just don't get it?

Repeating yourself is not an argument, btw. But one more give:

There is nothing measurable before you got the "idea" or "semantic form" about what to measure. Measurables are build on theories that are build on measurebles etc., in a chain that is most likely infinite. The premises that allow us to conseptualize, objectivize etc. any measurable events ARE theories, either scientific, open to scrutiny, or unscientific and often even unconsciouss presuppositions which do not have to stay that way but with scientific progress can and do open up to scientific scrutiny. Simply put, "discernible", "measurable", "event" are all "ideas in semantic forms", in this discussion so far badly if at all defined, but of course we both know or should know that there's thousands of years of philosophical and scientific questioning and theorizing behind even those "ideas in semantic forms", theorizing that now talks through you and me.

[ProfessorPlum]

488. Wittgenstein?

I'm just guessing, really. These games are fun to play in philosophy class. They really are, I love thinking about all this stuff.

But if you allow that we aren't all just crazies trapped inside our own personal subjective hallucinatory trips, then there is actually a lot of power in cutting the crap and getting down to what we can all agree on.

[aneerkoinos]

493. Which Wittgenstein?

But nope, not my top guru, early or late. David Bohm is, if that is what you wan't to know.

So why don't you just cut the crap and agree with me (and Bohm)? ;)

[dummy-du1]

511. He doesn't

His most convincing "arguments" were repeated appeals to authority, his own and that of his colleagues. He doesn't seem to have an idea of the history or philosophy of science. If mike_c wants to argue with a fundamentalist preacher on that basis, he will get handed his ass by him in no time. I am sure creationist can make much better appeals to authority and is more adept in the usage of rhetorical devices than he will ever be. It has happened before!

If that is all that scientists can mount for a counterattack, we're surely headed for another dark ages...

[FubarFly]

513. Now that's funny.

His most convincing arguments were the ones supported by facts.

His appeals to authority only occurred after willfully ignorant posters conveniently ignored those facts.

The history of philosophy in science, while interesting, is mostly irrelevant to this discussion.

The only rhetorical device a scientist should ever need is the truth. There has been no shortage of facts and carefully reasoned, logical arguments in this thread. If the truth it isn't enough for your theoretical creationist preacher, then the problem really isn't with the scientist.

IOW, Scientists aren't leading us to the dark ages. Lame provocateurs and semantic, hair splitting rhetoricians on the other hand...

[dummy-du1]

514. His arguments sucked

His appeals to authority only occurred after willfully ignorant posters conveniently ignored those facts.


That's not true. He started this thread and he appealed to authority right there. You can look it up.


The history of philosophy in science, while interesting, is mostly irrelevant to this discussion.


No, it's quite important, because it shows that science is a human endeavor that is fundamentally different from religion. The fact that scientific theories and concepts change over time because truth is revealed by tentative search and not handed down from god by some holy scripture is vital. I agree that science education often fails to make that difference clear enough: so for students there can be the impression that science is also handed down from some authority in the sky. If you are very religious and science and religious views differ on the issues, you probably rather believe the preacher with his winning personality than the secular scientist, that will surely burn in hell for eternity.


The only rhetorical device a scientist should ever need is the truth. There has been no shortage of facts and carefully reasoned, logical arguments in this thread. If the truth it isn't enough for your theoretical creationist preacher, then the problem really isn't with the scientist.


Well, I guess there is no preacher on earth, that will admit he is telling lies to you. Were do you see the difference if scientists argue like preachers do? And the facts are in question here, just saying this and that are facts isn't convincing, if you don't know how they were extracted from nature.


IOW, Scientists aren't leading us to the dark ages. Lame provocateurs and semantic, hair splitting rhetoricians on the other hand...


Well, it's quite obvious that scientist aren't convincing enough. People voted a guy as president, because he said "evolution is just a theory" and "the jury is still out". mike_c started this thread to wonder why people are too stupid to believe him. But quite frankly his arguments sucked and he has common misconceptions about the nature of science that many scientists share, and people can smell these weaknesses.

These are severe problems in science education, Henry H. Bauer wrote a book about this: "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method". It's a good starting point if one wants to find out what's wrong with science education. But don't bother and keep on to discredit the message by attacking the messenger.

[aneerkoinos]

516. I see

where the confusion began, with objecting to Bush, who said "only a theory". The problem with that is not the word "theory" but the word "only", evolution is well-developed theory, supported by the vast majority of scientific community.

Theories are all that science produces, and there is a scale to scientific theories, from hypothesis to "law". If it's not a theory, it's not science.

[FubarFly]

522. OK, your axe against science obviously

extends beyond the scope of this thread.

Exactly what facts do you believe are in question?

Are you suggesting that the changes in allele frequency from one generation to the next is not an observable event?

Are you suggesting that natural selection is not a well supported theory?

Evolution is a fact in the sense that any observable phenomenon is a fact.

Provide evidence to the contrary if you have it.

Or is your problem simply related to "definitions"?


Well, it's quite obvious that scientist aren't convincing enough. People voted a guy as president, because he said "evolution is just a theory" and "the jury is still out". mike_c started this thread to wonder why people are too stupid to believe him. But quite frankly his arguments sucked and he has common misconceptions about the nature of science that many scientists share, and people can smell these weaknesses.


Furthermore why do you think the job description of a scientist should include politician? Scientists are not proselytizers. We do not send them into the field to enlighten the ignorant masses. Nor should they be spending their time sharpening their rhetorical skills for debates against pseudo-intellectual creationists.

Since we can not recreate lab conditions on the internet, appeals to authority are not surprising. However, as much as you'd like to believe that mike_c's arguments "sucked", he did provide links to to backup his defintions.

These are severe problems in science education, Henry H. Bauer wrote a book about this: "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method". It's a good starting point if one wants to find out what's wrong with science education. But don't bother and keep on to discredit the message by attacking the messenger.

If you have a problem with science education, by all means start a new thread about it.

[Guaranteed]

485. LOL no wonder so many philosophers can't stand scientists.

Facts are DIRECTLY observable- as in I'M LOOKING AT IT RIGHT NOW, this monitor exists, there are stars in the sky- or they are knowable a priori- 2 + 2 = 4, or all x's = x.

Evolution is nowhere near either of those things. You can not observe evolution as you speak of it. You can observe the extinction of species (supposedly- of course, you can't prove a negative, but you can observe the effective extinction of a species), and you can do experiments where you can watch phenotypes change as the result of very controlled, or THEORIZED, causes. But you can't observe this phenomenon in the way that you're stating it, particularly in the way that scientists seem to want to branch it out.

You just can't say for SURE- as a ***FACT***- what happened a million years ago. It's impossible.

Unless you've got a videotape, of course.

On edit: That's not to say that I don't believe in evolution- I do, for sure. I just don't believe in it in the same way that I believe the sky is blue. It's not a fact.

[ProfessorPlum]

487. You can put bacteria in a flask and observe evolution there

You can introduce antibiotics into a population and observe evolution there.

You can introduce a new pesticide into an ecosystem and observe evolution there.

And fish have been observed to speciate in real time.

You don't have to rely on anything older than a couple of decades to observe the phenomenon of evolution.

You don't know what you are talking about.

[Guaranteed]

491. You're not observing what you say you're observing.

Evolution theorizes as to CAUSE- *not simply change*. You can't just look at changes felt by an organism or ecosystem when something else is introduced and call it "evolution." Further, the effects of evolution are all intermittent. Bacteria won't change their phenotypes every time you subject them to antibiotics. Pesticides affect ecosystems- the SAME pesticides- affect ecosystems in different ways, if at all.

Yes, things change. But to determine causation is a much different, if not impossible, task.

Especially for a million years ago. And isn't that the point? You're trying to generalize from bacteria today to apes and humans a million years ago.

You just don't know what happened. There's evidence, but we weren't there to be able to observe it and call it a fact.

[ProfessorPlum]

517. your just getting your terminology jumbled up

you are making good points - all this thread about is trying to establish a consistent terminology, to clear up some of the confusion that has attended this subject in the past. It is more important than ever that we all know what we are talking about as we take on creationists in public schools.

By saying "Evolution theorizes as to CAUSE" you are implying that "Evolution" has something to say about the cause of change. It doesn't. The term "evolution", properly applied, just applies to the change itself. If you look out the window and the number of robins with orange beaks is increasing, you are witnessing evolution. What the author of the thread is saying is when you use the word "evolution" do not use it to imply anything about causes or consequences about that change, or the origin of life, or anything else.

Do you agree that life changes over time? Then you recognize the phenomenon of evolution.

Theories about what causes evolution to happen, or what evolution was doing exactly a million years ago, are better lumped under the title "natural selection". There are a million pieces and subtleties to natural selection, some of which are better fleshed out than others.

See? I'm not saying we know exactly what happened a million years ago.

I AM saying that we know that life changes, that the proper word to describe that phenomenon is "evolution", and asking you to use that word in the same way. It's proper, and will clear up confusion.

[ProfessorPlum]

489. You know what? It's late, and my response was way too harsh

and not well thought out. My apologies.

What I meant to say is that all evolution says is that the fossil record indicates the makeup of life on this planet has changed over time. That is as much of an observation as any other thing which can be observed, measured, quantified.

We apply the theory of natural selection to explain that change over pre-historical time, and you are right, NATURAL SELECTION is a theory. (Some call it the "theory of evolution", but that is a confusing term.)

All we are asking is that you use the term natural selection, not "evolution" to describe what we think happened a million years ago.

[Guaranteed]

492. Fair enough- there is a distinction,

and I recognize it.

[mike_c]

496. of course you can observe evolution as you speak of it....

Evolution can only occur across multiple generations-- at minimum two, so if you want to see it happen rapidly you need organisms with short generations, i.e. bacteria. For example, I have colleagues in my department who have cultured bacteria in the presence of napthalene and developed a population-- originally derived of a miniscule fraction of the population that produces a gene for napthalene dehydrogenase-- that not only survives in the presence of napthalene but which uses napthalene as a carbon source-- as food. In this case the presence of napthalene acts as a natural selection agent and evolution occurs quite rapidly-- within a relatively few generations the population is quite adept at degrading napthalene. That's evolution in action.

It often takes more time to observe in organisms with longer generations, but in at least one case it happens instantaneously, in a single generation-- polyploidism, or a (usually) doubling of the number of parent chromosomes in offspring. A significant proportion of plant species diversity is the result of polyploidism. Plants can be induced to undergo polyploidism-- in essence to undergo evolution and speciation-- in the laboratory. This is done routinely. If you grow houseplants there is a good chance that you have a polyploid species produced this way in your collection-- polyploids tend to have larger flowers, so are often more desirable for commercial exploitation.

In any event, evolution is observed routinely in nature and in the laboratory.

[Endangered Specie]

495. A heartbeat away from 500 POSTS!

[mike_c]

497. self deleted

[m berst]

503. thank you

Thank you so much mike_c for your extraordinarily valuable work on this thread.

It is disturbing and somewhat frightening to read many of the responses here, because it reminds me nothing so much as the Nazi assaults on education in Germany in the 30's. The net result of that was the total destruction of education and the onset of mindless barbarism and mass hysteria.

[frustrated_lefty]

504. This is the stupidest argument I've seen.

You have a "hypothesis."

You test it.

It becomes a theory.

You test the "theory."

VERY rarely do you consider a theory to be a LAW. You examine that sunuvabitch until the cows come hone. A "law" is considered irrefutable. A "theory" is a best guess.

I've avoided this nonsense, but JFC, you folks are being very annoying.

Fuck, read John Casti's "Paradigm's Lost."

[FubarFly]

509. What are you talking about?

No one here ever said evolution was a LAW, merely an observable event.

[ProfessorPlum]

519. It must seem stupid because you don't get it

Where do "observations" come into your scheme?

[usregimechange]

505. I agree with microevolution but macro is still a theory. nt

[mike_c]

506. in the scientific sense of the term theory, yes....

That is, a working hypothesis that is so overwhelmingly consistent with so much observed data as to be considered axiomatic. But you won't find a dozen biologists world wide who doubt it, and brother, as a group we are serious skeptics.

[Swamp Rat]

512. I can't believe we're having a Scopes-Monkey Trial II in the 21st Century!

You ROCK mike_c!!!

:yourock:

Great thread!!!

I'm going to nominate it for the homepage!

[Cronus Protagonist]

523. What do you mean? It's just like the theory of gravity, isn't it?

/ignorant freeper

:)




http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[PATRICK]

524. National Geo is very enlightening

on the whole issue. of course a rigorous scientific theory is not understood by the populace. It easily interprets the word popularly as someone's guess, especially with massive misinformation by religious boxed minds.

Most interesting is their survey of attitudes, unchanged for decades that show an almost even split in the population over ACCEPTANCE of evolution thanks in good part to lousy education and popular disinformation or lack of any good re-education on the term. It explains a chunk of Bush's mandate of the ignorant. This is the same country that flunks geography of the world it would dominate is lousy in math and science and doesn't spell too well either. This is the biggest country of religious nuts in the world, vastly over presented despite a dominance in high tech!

Something has to give IMHO and it certainly won't be turning the whole country into a bunch of ignorant savage wackos.