|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: PROBLEM: Evolution is only a theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||
MannyB Inactive Member |
Why don't biologists do what us physicists do when a theory becomes almost universally accepted due to the vast weight of evidence and start calling the previous theory a law. Examples in physics are numerous; The second law of thermodynamics and The law of gravity etc. Technically neither are really laws, just theorems (in the narrowly defined sense understood by scientists).
So come on all you biologists - start calling it the Law of Evolution and the Law of Nartural Selection and avoid all the tedious discussions with YECs on how Evolution is only a "theory".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Are you sure that physicists automatically promote theories to laws ?
Relativity hasn't been promoted to a law. And so far as I know, Thermodynamics is still a theory while none of the "laws" you refer to ever was a theory in the sense of the word that applies to evolution or thermodynamics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
grass monkey Inactive Member |
But evolution is not a law, it is in the past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
quote: Well, we still refer to them as the "laws" of thermodynamics. The problem is that many people who do not understand science don't know what a "law" is. It isn't that a law is "better than" a theory. A law is part of a theory that can usually be pithily expressed, especially if it can be summed up in an equation. There are laws in evolutionary theory, too. For example, Dollo's Law which states that once a lineage has lost a genetic trait, it cannot gain it back. But then, we have to realize that most of the things we call "laws" were developed during the Enlightenment of the Neo-Classicists and the clockwork universe was the dominant paradigm. Thus, everything was called a law. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Spawn writes:
quote: Are you saying that it doesn't happen anymore? Of course it does. Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost very much and the materials can be acquired from any decent biological supply house. Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage. What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too. But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage. How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it. But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died. Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage. But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage. What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form. But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they should all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on. Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear. So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity. There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again. You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation. So if we can see evolution happen right before our eyes, by what justification is there to imply that it doesn't happen right now? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Well that's my point. Thermodynamics is (still) a theory. The laws of thermodynamics are part of that theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK responds to me:
quote: I didn't mean to sound like I was contradicting you. My apologies for being unclear. And let's not forget that we still call things "laws" and even use them, even when we know they're wrong. Newton's Second Law of motion, F = ma, is simply wrong. In every single instance, the answer it gives is off. But, we still call it a law (a few hundred years of calling it "Newton's Second Law" will do that) and we still use it. For most everyday uses, the discrepancy between the Newtonian answer and the relativistic answer (where F = dp/dt) is so small that you'd never notice it without extremely sensitive equipment...not to mention that it's more difficult to do the more accurate calculation. I think we're both saying that the claim of, "It's just a theory...if it were really true, it'd be a 'law,'" is a specious argument. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stipes Inactive Member |
I was taught that the single thing that seperates a theory into a law is expeiremental evidence. That person was my physics teacher in fact, and I trust him.
My understanding of this definition means that evolution can never be considered a law, or it could but it would take a very long time. Because well an experiment needs to be done following the scientific method in order for the Theory of Evolution to be considered the Law of Evolution. I am assuming Evolution in the whole big picture, new species. And well that will take billions and billions of years according to the theory. As for the thermodynamics law and theory statements made before.....I believe it is actually a law. You can measure the heat of formation of a reaction, and you can measure the entropy of a reaction. All chemical reactions tend to travel to lower enthalpy and higher entropy. I did a couple experiments my self in my chem lab this year with thermodynamics. Is this the same dynamics you guys are talking about? Because if it is there are plenty of experimental evidence to make it a law. But I am kinda confused so I may be talking about something completely different. Later guys.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
The label of "law" is only that, a label, which was applied to a few scientific theories that have remained intact through the centuries. However, "law" is a bit of a misnomer, since they are still theories that could be overturned if experimental evidence was discovered that conflicted with such laws. The same is true for all scientific theories. The usage of the term "law" seems more akin to tradition related to certain well estabilished theories. I think it would be better to rid the lexicon of the term law all together and just use the term theory, as would be appropriate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5280 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Rrhain writes: Newton's Second Law of motion, F = ma, is simply wrong. In every single instance, the answer it gives is off. But, we still call it a law (a few hundred years of calling it "Newton's Second Law" will do that) and we still use it. For most everyday uses, the discrepancy between the Newtonian answer and the relativistic answer (where F = dp/dt) is so small that you'd never notice it without extremely sensitive equipment...not to mention that it's more difficult to do the more accurate calculation. As a minor aside; Newton's original expression of the second law is arguably F = dp/dt, which is correct even in relativity. From a translation on-line:
-- Isaac Newton Newton's assumptions of flat space and absolute time do mean that Newtonian physics gives different answers to relativistic physics; but the expression of the second law is still correct. In the context of this chapter, Newton's use of "motion" appears to refer to what we call "momentum". Comment from people who can read Newton's work (in Latin) are welcome. However, the main point remains true; this "law" is expressed as a single mathematical equation, in contrast with evolutionary biology. The main point being made here is quite true. Use of the word "law" has more to do with the character of expression of some model, rather than how accurate or reliable it might be.
I think we're both saying that the claim of, "It's just a theory...if it were really true, it'd be a 'law,'" is a specious argument. And I agree with this also. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
grass monkey Inactive Member |
Sorry, I failed to understand your message, I don't know it things. But when I say evolution is 'in the past', all I mean is that it is not really a 'law' that it MUST happen. All I mean is there are things like normalized selection and so evolution doesn't have to happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rrhain,
Couldn't have put it better myself. I used to think that there was a heirarchy involved, with hypothesis giving way to theory, which in turn became a law. The term "law" is almost an anachronism when it comes to science today. The term theory as it is currently understood in science today far better fits the bill. I see the "laws" simply as a terms that are equal to "theories". In the days of yesteryear there was an almost fanatical push to discover the "rules", as it were. Once discovered, they were termed laws, a moniker they retain even if they are subsequently found not to be entirely true. Mark "Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Spawn responds to me:
quote: But, indeed, it must. No chemical reaction is perfect. Since life replicates chemically, it necessarily is the case that life replicates imperfectly. It then exists in an environment where not all genetic traits are equal. Some result in being more likely to reproduce than others. Therefore, evolution has to occur. There is no way to get around it. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
i do believe evolution, being observable is indeed a fact. the theory is the construct or model for the past events.
it is however based on the LAWS of genetics. we cannot call evolution a law, per se, because it produces many different results, and is not always predictable in a strict sense. the end results, combinatorially, are too many, and the out comes to varied. it's possible for it to essentially stop (like with the great white shark), make erratic jumps, dead end with extinction, etc. there's just too many factors.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024