Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PROBLEM: Evolution is only a theory
MannyB
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 32 (106818)
05-09-2004 5:18 PM


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".

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2004 6:45 PM MannyB has not replied
 Message 4 by grass monkey, posted 05-09-2004 7:25 PM MannyB has not replied
 Message 32 by Brad McFall, posted 06-02-2004 7:33 PM MannyB has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 32 (106831)
05-09-2004 6:33 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 3 of 32 (106834)
05-09-2004 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MannyB
05-09-2004 5:18 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MannyB, posted 05-09-2004 5:18 PM MannyB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2004 7:44 PM PaulK has replied

  
grass monkey
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 32 (106847)
05-09-2004 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MannyB
05-09-2004 5:18 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MannyB, posted 05-09-2004 5:18 PM MannyB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2004 7:48 PM grass monkey has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 5 of 32 (106855)
05-09-2004 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
05-09-2004 6:45 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2004 6:45 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2004 7:55 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 13 by mark24, posted 05-09-2004 9:21 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 6 of 32 (106859)
05-09-2004 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by grass monkey
05-09-2004 7:25 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by grass monkey, posted 05-09-2004 7:25 PM grass monkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by grass monkey, posted 05-09-2004 9:01 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 19 by Syrus, posted 05-29-2004 12:56 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 32 (106860)
05-09-2004 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rrhain
05-09-2004 7:44 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2004 7:44 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2004 8:08 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 8 of 32 (106864)
05-09-2004 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
05-09-2004 7:55 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2004 7:55 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Sylas, posted 05-09-2004 8:54 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Stipes
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 32 (106873)
05-09-2004 8:19 PM


What I was taught
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Darwin Storm, posted 05-09-2004 8:43 PM Stipes has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 32 (106883)
05-09-2004 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Stipes
05-09-2004 8:19 PM


Re: What I was taught
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Stipes, posted 05-09-2004 8:19 PM Stipes has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 11 of 32 (106889)
05-09-2004 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Rrhain
05-09-2004 8:08 PM


Newton's second law as an example of
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:
Law II
The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.
-- 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2004 8:08 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
grass monkey
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 32 (106895)
05-09-2004 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Rrhain
05-09-2004 7:48 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2004 7:48 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Rrhain, posted 05-11-2004 8:53 AM grass monkey has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 13 of 32 (106902)
05-09-2004 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rrhain
05-09-2004 7:44 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2004 7:44 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 14 of 32 (107388)
05-11-2004 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by grass monkey
05-09-2004 9:01 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by grass monkey, posted 05-09-2004 9:01 PM grass monkey has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 15 of 32 (109963)
05-23-2004 5:50 AM


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.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024