PROBLEM: Evolution is only a theory

PaulK writes:

quote:

---

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.

---

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!

Spawn writes:

quote:

---

But evolution is not a law, it is in the past.

---

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 responds to me:

quote:

---

Well that's my point. Thermodynamics is (still) a theory. The laws of thermodynamics are part of that theory.

---

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!

Spawn responds to me:

quote:

---

all I mean is that it is not really a 'law' that it MUST happen.

---

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!