The end of the debate: Evolution is real

[Swede]

This must be the work of the devil.


snip-

It's over. The whole evolution question — if it ever was one, in living memory — is settled. Done. Time to move on. Evolution works. It's our best way of understanding biology.

Yes, this bicentennial year of Charles Darwin's birth has brought a flurry of letters and speeches and angry calls to radio stations denouncing evolution as a hoax. But we live in a world where scientific theories have to be evaluated by evidence, and with evolution, it's all on one side.

Otto's lab exposes ordinary yeast cells to antibiotics — enough to kill some, but not all, of the cells. The ones that have the best defences against antibiotics survive, produce more yeast cells, and the circle starts again.

"At the beginning of the day they are sensitive to antibiotics; at the end of the day they are not. And that's after dozens of generations of evolution. We can track that down to the genetic level," she says.

"It just then becomes quite silly to talk about evolution as a theory when it's happening right before our very eyes and we can track it."

http://www.leaderpost.com/Technology/debate+Evolution+real/1435535/story.html

[CrispyQ]

1. ...

:rofl:

[rd_kent]

2. I dindt realize that there ever was a "debate" on the issue

Those who choose to ignore the science and facts never have "debated" this issue. They simply try to point out areas that have yet to be studied as "proof" evolution is wrong. Never once has anyone offered evidence of any other idea being true. Never.

[BlooInBloo]

14. There isn't.

[Skittles]

27. you have to have "faith" that it's wrong, rd

:rofl:

[orwell]

3. You mean...

...the earth isn't 6 thousand years old?

Who knew...

[TwilightZone]

4. My usual response to those who deny evolution:

"If there's no evolution, explain how the flu virus mutates every year and how it develops drug resistance."

Magic?

[ColbertWatcher]

16. Oh, they've got an answer for that I'm sure.

Probably what they call "micro-evolution" (or some such shit)

I'm not well versed in their brand of stupid, but that's my guess.

[ulysses]

21. that would indeed be their answer.

The last private school for which I worked featured an anti-evolution science teacher, and she explained for me what "micro-evolution" was all about (this was 03-04). The basic idea (if you can call it that) is that they admit that things will evolve, but only within the "species" bounds that God set forth.

[TwilightZone]

22. How convenient.

The species bounds probably allow evolution in everything except for humans.

[ColbertWatcher]

25. Do you know how they explain new species that are found all the time? n/t

[ulysses]

37. oooh, I don't know...maybe...

SATAN!?!?

[Enthusiast]

32. You are correct

IDiots mischaracterize this as something they call 'micro-evolution'. They use all sort of convoluted arguments to persuade the sheep.

[Beausoleil]

23. Magic?

No, the Devil causes flu viruses to mutate in order to test your faith.

[TwilightZone]

24. Hehe....

Nice.

[timtom]

40. It is my understanding that

whether viruses are living or not is still unsettled.

[tridim]

5. Evolution is inherent in the way DNA works

It's obviously a fact.

The fundies can still complain about humans not evolving from primates if they want.

[Enthusiast]

33. And that argument doesn't work

because we remain primates.

[msongs]

6. umm only the bible is the true science. must be true, my mom said so nt

[tomreedtoon]

7. It's still a theory. (Read before commenting.)

It is still a theory. Science draws a hard line between "theory" and "law."

However, evolution is a theory with a considerable amount of established, observable evidence. It has a large enough body of proof that, when relating it to real-world evidence, it has a track record.

"Creation science" is a theory with practically no observable evidence. I don't know all the arguments the fundies use, but every "proof" they've offered can be disproved. And most of the promotion of creation science is done with insistence that this is what God did, and no evidence of reality can disprove that.

And on a sociological level, that's only from their specific view of God. Would a Muslim, Jew, or Wiccan make the same argument? I know the Catholic Church doesn't buy into it.

So, if it comes to which theory is more likely to approach the truth (as much as we humans can know) evolution is the preferred choice. Creation science must be eighty-second in line or something.

[stopbush]

9. The laws in biology are not as immutable and fundamental

as the laws of Physics or those of Chemistry. In practice, biological theories are the same as biological laws because such laws are considered only to be contingently true, as are biological theories. And - most important - biological laws are by no means necessary - while physical and mathematical laws apply to every planet in our galaxy, for example, life on planets other than Earth wouldn't have to follow the biological laws of Earth.

A law of nature, according to definitions garnered by physics, is something that scientists find to be universal in space and in time that describes something about the world around us. Importantly, we must also have reason to consider it non-accidental, and that can't be said about biology.

The hard line between a scientific law and a scientific theory is not at all hard in the field of biology because it can't be. In effect, there are no laws in biology, at least if you are doing an apples-to-apples comparison with physics or math.

[ima_sinnic]

11. gravity is also a theory. A "theory" in science simply means that the details

of how it happens have not been fully established. Evolution is a FACT (as is gravity); the details of the process of natural selection, and of how exactly mutations and adaptations occur are not fully known.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. *Bad* example :-)

Currently, we know that all the theories of gravity we have are wrong in important ways.

Evolution is a fact - or, to be semantically correct, "Evolutions happens" is a fact, evolution is a process.

Gravity, on the other hand, is a mystery...

[BlooInBloo]

15. Listening to know-nothings talk about science always makes my face hurt.

[tomreedtoon]

28. How was I a know-nothing, Doctor Clayton Forrester?

The other respondents to my post made statements that largely agreed and amplified what I said. Except for the one that says "Evolution is a FACT." It is still a theory, because as someone said, biology isn't as cut and dried as physics or chemistry.

I believe the difference between theory and law is as follows. A scientist will not declare a theory is a law until God comes down and says it is. The creationists believe God already DID come down and said their theory was law. (Although the Bible doesn't seem to contain much about genetics, outside of Whoosis begat Whatzis begat Shirley, and things like that.)

Scientists seem to be a lot more humble in their assumptions about God and creation than fundamentalists.

[northernlights]

17. comparing theory and law is comparing apples and oranges

a law is simply a phenomena that always happens.

a hypothesis is a tentative explanation for an observed phenomena, with limited supporting evidence.

a theory is a broad explanation of a range of observed phenomena, that is supported by a large body of evidence, and that enables predictions that can be tested. The fewer exceptions there are to the theory, the more completely it is worked out. The more exceptions there are, the more work there is to be done.

If you jump off a building, you'll fall -- that's a law. Gravity is the well-tested theory that explains the law.

Evolution is the well-tested theory. Bacteria, due to their very short doubling time, enable us to see evolution in realtime. Everything we've learned about DNA supports evolution.

On the other hand, so-called "creation science" is not supported by any evidence, is not testable, doesn't explain any phenomena and therefore by definition is not science.

[callous taoboy]

31. Yes, the concept that a true theory must be falsifiable, to me, is the key in this debate:

There is absolutely no way to prove, nor disprove, that life wasn't created by some supreme being, therefore "Intelligent Design theory" is an oxymoron.

Evolution, a theory so sound that it is the cornerstone of biology, is falsifiable. It may one day be found to be false, but up to now the scientific evidence in its favor keeps growing, like the yeast example above.

[Ohio Joe]

18. "creation science" is not a theory

It is religion.

[Random_Australian]

29. No, science doesn't draw a hard line between theory and law at all.

Take half of the spectroscopy 'laws' and try to apply them to dispersed flourescence spectra.

In complete honesty, once upon a time when there were fundamental, handed-down-from-above kinda laws like newtonian motion, there was a hard line, with a law being more fundamental.

The idea that some things were fundamental went out at about the same time as magnetism was shown to be obtainable from coulomb's law & special relativity. (albeit in an incredibly clumsy formalism)

[Lyric]

35. You're wrong. Science does NOT draw a hard line between Theory and Law.

Assuming we are talking about Capital-T Theory and Capital-L Law--they're interchangeable terms, in meaning. Some branches of science tend to use "Law," while others tend to use "Theory." Physical sciences tend toward to word "Law," and Life science toward "Theory." There might be a few exceptions, but I can't think of any. I think the reason for the different use has something to do with the fact that Life science is not as unchangeable as Physical science; it's far more complex, and the different words reflect that differing complexity. Laws tends to describe things passively--the apple falls, for example. They're a kind of discovery science. Theories are more pro-active, and involve a lot of experimentation and testing, lots of hypotheses, and lots of trial and error to arrive at a broad conclusion. That doesn't mean that one is considered "less proven" than the other.

For example--in Biology, Theory is the moniker of choice. Evolutionary Theory is every bit as sound as Cell Theory (the idea that all living things are comprised of cells.) Biologists do not say "100% PROVEN," though--not because there's any actual doubt or conflicting evidence, but ONLY because Scientists are not arrogant enough to claim prescience. Take Cell Theory, for example. Although we have never seen a living thing that WASN'T comprised of cells (either a single cell or multiple ones,) we still cannot say that Cell Theory is 100% proven because we cannot examine the structure of EVERY single, individual living thing that has ever existed anywhere in the universe; we'd have to be able to go back in time, travel the entire universe, have trillions upon trillions of scientists working 24-hours a day, AND be able to defy logic and physics to even attempt to "prove" something like that. We accept Cell Theory as fact, but it is still CALLED a "Theory" because there is no way to 100% utterly PROVE that no living thing has ever existed in the universe with a non-cellular structure.

Evolutionary Theory is the same. We accept it as fact, but because we cannot examine EVERY single living thing that has ever existed anywhere in the universe, we cannot claim that Evolution is officially "Proven." No good scientist would even try. Scientists are not arrogant enough to claim all of the knowledge in the universe.

Of course, that's all philosophical and ethical discourse. When it comes to what we have seen on Earth, this is the practical reality: we have never found a living thing that came about by a process other than evolution, and we have never found a living thing that had a non-cellular structure. We take that to be practical "proof" enough to use those "Theories" as facts of standard for scientific research. If the day ever comes that we DO find evidence that these Theories are not wholly correct, then we will experiment more and revise. However, after centuries of hard science and technological advancement, let's just say that nobody really expects to find anything else at this point. Evolution and Cell Theory are both considered to be as close to "proven" as it's possible for human science to be.

[stopbush]

8. The answer to those who deny evolution is: "you're a fucking idiot."

For some reason, they'll think you're being mean or disrespectful when you say that, but you're only being blatantly honest.

After they berate you for not respecting their religious fantasies, er, beliefs, they walk into their doctor's office and get shots of drugs that couldn't have been developed and wouldn't work if evolution wasn't true.

They're asshats.

[old mark]

10. I thought this was over in the late 19th century - I guess I massed the

"Debate". Must have been watching old movies on TV or something important...

Yes, science is real and right and has been all along.
(You realize this means the earth is older than 5,000 years.....)

No more Jesus on a dinosaur, either...time to grow up now.
Jerks.
mark:crazy:

[moggie]

12. Like Bill Hicks said

"You ever notice how people who believe in creationism look really unevolved?"

[Crunchy Frog]

13. Yes, but they're still yeast cells. They haven't turned into elephants.

So that disproves evolution right there. (Real creationist arguement.)

[stopbush]

20. Yes, as if evolutionary theory proposes that there's but a single step in the process from

yeast cell to elephant.

[Ghost in the Machine]

26. So, does that mean that we're the end of the evolutionary line?

Hey! Maybe that explains why some people disappear without a trace.. they suddenly evolved into a bird or bug or something and just flew/crawled away....

[Egnever]

39. No it implies there is no end of the line.

[stopbush]

41. Actually, homo sapiens are diversifying in their evolution.

It's mostly a reaction to climate and diet. We're not becoming more alike...we're becoming more unalke.

Selection Spurred Recent Evolution, Researchers Say

By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: December 11, 2007
Researchers analyzing variation in the human genome have concluded that human evolution accelerated enormously in the last 40,000 years under the force of natural selection.

The finding contradicts a widely held assumption that human evolution came to a halt 10,000 years ago or even 50,000 years ago. Some evolutionary psychologists, for example, assume that the mind has not evolved since the Ice Age ended 10,000 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/science/11gene.html?ex=1355029200&en=5bc9729b3673ebd1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[callous taoboy]

30. Which also fits right into the egoistic young-earth crap:

It is hard to wrap your brain around the concept of a million years, let alone billions of years. The dimwit I.D. crowd can't, nor will they attempt to fathom that kind of time span. Therefore, enlisting the "yeast hasn't turned into an elephant" illogic they fail to recognize that the only life on earth for millions of years were simple, single-celled organisms.

[Enthusiast]

34. K&R

Every new discovery appears to bolster the TOE. If IDiots could only point to a single example of how the evidence does not support evolution. But since they cannot do this they use all sorts of convoluted arguments to control their followers. And this is really what they are about. It is all about the purse strings. Once again, follow the money. Big Christianity is an industry.

[cpompilo]

36. I cannot wait for the Age of Superstition to be over

Give me Science any day over made up fairy tales to explain evolution. How do you suppose a creationist would explain this recent bit of news?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121123041.htm

[stopbush]

42. Funny how the religionists miss the mystery and awe of revealed science,

preferring to stick with the ignorance of religion and its godditit answers.

The religious often take me to task for calling their beliefs "fantasies." But it IS a fantasy to cling to an explanation that has been proven to be false. There's a difference between "imaging" what might be and being willfully ignorant of what is. The religious accuse rationalists of not being able to imagine, or of being closed minded, but that's the lie of an idiot.

Let me put it this way: once upon a time, man wondered what it would be like to fly. He watched the birds, and his imagination soared. He spent centuries thinking about it, and eventually, he devised his first crude attempts of mechanisms to help him fly. Those that were based on observing birds flapping their wings failed, even though one woulda thought that was the most-obvious way to achieve flight. In due time, man devised fixed-wing aircraft to make glider. Then, he added a motor and created the airplane. Man has now spent a century in flight - he knows how to do it, and anyone else can learn how to do it if they care to learn.

The religionist, however, clings to his fantasy that to achieve flight, man must imitate "god's creation" and flap his arms as do the birds. It doesn't matter that that fantasy has been disproved - the religionist feels it is his right to believe whatever he wants IN SPITE OF the science.

And so it goes with creationism/ID v evolution.

[GreenPartyVoter]

38. Aw, dang!

I saw this too late to rec it. :(