|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is not science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
For example, the theory of evolution is not scientifically valid because it cannot be tested in a laboratory. We can, do, and have put evolution to the test in the laboratory setting and, indeed, in any setting you could probably care to name. There's nothing about evolution that makes it unsuitable for laboratory analysis. Indeed, most of the genetic tools and computers we use to tease out evolutionary relationships are too sensitive to be used anywhere else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22389 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Malangyar,
First let's note that you're saying two different things. First you say:
Is it not true that for a theory to be scientific you must be able to test it in extreme conditions? It isn't true that scientific theories only become accepted by testing under extreme conditions, but then you go on to say:
For example, the theory of evolution is not scientifically valid because it cannot be tested in a laboratory. "Testing in a laboratory" isn't equivalent to "testing under extreme conditions." Where possible, laboratories are the preferred venue for experiments because extraneous outside influences can be excluded, there can be tight control over conditions like temperature, pressure, etc, and possible influences can be studied one at a time. Many sciences involve making detailed measurements and observations outside the laboratory, like astronomy, cosmology, geology and biology. One can't study either galaxies or the mating habits of the grizzly bear in the lab. Science begins by noticing a phenomenon, then formulating a hypothetical explanation for it. Tests are created for this hypothesis (in essence, these tests are predictions and conducting the tests are experiments), and if these tests have the expected outcome then the hypothesis is supported. If others successfully replicate the experiments with the same results, then the hypothesis becomes accepted theory. "Testing under extreme conditions" and "testing in the laboratory" aren't what make something science, though of course they can be very appropriate approaches depending upon what one is studying. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4578 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
Malangyar writes: Is it not true that for a theory to be scientific you must be able to test it in extreme conditions? First time that I hear that.
Malangyar writes: For example, the theory of evolution is not scientifically valid because it cannot be tested in a laboratory. You might be able to observe it in nature (Fossil record etc.) but for it to be scientifically valid you must be able to take the theory to extremes (Usually done in a lab) and see if the theory complies with those extremes. This is a necessary in order to thoroughly falsify a theory. Thus, as it is not possible to test the theory of (macro)evolution in a laboratory, it is not a scientific theory but only faith. I hope you then also vehemently reject star formation theories, all types of meteorology, plate tectonics, the theory that smoking causes cancer, etc. etc. etc. Why so selective?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Medis Member (Idle past 3890 days) Posts: 34 Joined: |
@crashfrog
Please give me an example or two of macroevolution testing in a lab. @Percy
Percy writes: It isn't true that scientific theories only become accepted by testing under extreme conditions But then, how can you know a theory to be true? For example, you might have 5 dots arranged in a straight line from nature’s side. But how can you know that the sixth dot doesn't lie above or below the straight line? The only way to know this, is testing the theory in extreme cases, and the place to test a theory in extreme cases is usually a lab.
Percy writes: Where possible, laboratories are the preferred venue for experiments because extraneous outside influences can be excluded, there can be tight control over conditions like temperature, pressure, etc, and possible influences can be studied one at a time.
Exactly, and, as far as I know, this cannot be done with macroevolution.
Percy writes: Tests are created for this hypothesis (in essence, these tests are predictions and conducting the tests are experiments), and if these tests have the expected outcome then the hypothesis is supported. If others successfully replicate the experiments with the same results, then the hypothesis becomes accepted theory. One of the fundamental pillars of macroevolution is the fact that excavations are perceived as "conducting tests". E.g. every time you perform an excavation you're in effect conducting a test of macroevolution. But this is not testing or experimenting. This is observation. And only an observation of nature at that. You cannot go to the lab and perform an "excavation". Thus, as you're only observing nature, and not performing any real experimental testing (Testing the theory in a lab without extraneous outside influences and in (possible) extreme conditions) you'll never be able to get that last sixth "dot", and you'll lose the scientific basis that the dots are connected by a simple straight line. The dots might as well be connected with a "curling" line. @AnnafanI never said I rejected anything. Edited by Malangyar, : Change of quoting...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Please give me an example or two of macroevolution testing in a lab. We covered a really great example in another thread: More Evidence of Evolution - Geomyidae and Geomydoecus But if "macroevolution" is evolution above the species level, then we're testing evolution in the lab every time we do any work in molecular phylogenetics.
Exactly, and, as far as I know, this cannot be done with macroevolution. But you're wrong. Almost all of the work on macroevolution is done in the lab.
But this is not testing or experimenting. This is observation. Tests are simply observations that you predict. If someone uses the theory of evolution to predict where a fossil might be found, and roughly how deep in the ground it might be, then that's a successful test of evolution (when they find the fossil.) That's a pretty simplistic case. Another test is the thread I linked to above - given two genera, pocket gophers and their pubic lice, we would expect the pubic lice to experience gene flow only when the pocket gophers did - because the only time pubic lice can come together to mate is when their hosts are mating, as well. The prediction from that scenario is that both the gophers and their lice will have a phylogenetic tree that "looks" the same, because speciation is happening at the same time in both organisms. And that's exactly what we do see; that's another test that confirms evolution.
The dots might as well be connected with a "curling" line. Occam's razor leads us to connect data points with the minimum, simplest line. There's no reason to believe that a line is actually a curve until there is data that indicates that - and if that data is only revealed under extreme, unlikely conditions, how relevant is that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, Malangyar. Welcome to EvC.
Is it not true that for a theory to be scientific you must be able to test it in extreme conditions? No. For a theory to be scientific, one must be able to make testable predictions from it. Basically, one says, "If this theory is accurate, then we should be able to see this particular phenomenon." Then, if that phenomenon is observed, the theory is considered verified, and further predictions are then made to make additional tests. If the phenomenon is not observed, then one must try to figure out why -- if no explanation is forthcoming, then the theory might be modified, or it might be rejected altogether. In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, again, Malangyar.
But this is not testing or experimenting. This is observation. To further explain what science is and how it works, I am going to point you to this thread. In it we discussed a simplified (and somewhat tongue-in-cheek) example of how science tests theories. In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4578 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
Malangyar writes: @AnnafanI never said I rejected anything. But if you're consistent, you SHOULD reject all those things?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But then, how can you know a theory to be true? By comparing theory to observation. The data from an experiment is nothing more than an observation of what happens under artificial circumstances. When we want to know what happened in nature, then an observation of what we can achieve artifically is irrelevant.
For example, you might have 5 dots arranged in a straight line from nature’s side. But how can you know that the sixth dot doesn't lie above or below the straight line? But doing experiments doesn't solve this epistemolological problem, because experiments also give you only a finite number of observations on which to base your conclusion.
The only way to know this, is testing the theory in extreme cases, and the place to test a theory in extreme cases is usually a lab. That depends on what the theory says. If the theory is "Saturn has rings", for example, or "the Roman Empire existed", then the lab is not the best place to test the theory.
One of the fundamental pillars of macroevolution is the fact that excavations are perceived as "conducting tests". E.g. every time you perform an excavation you're in effect conducting a test of macroevolution. But this is not testing or experimenting. This is observation. And only an observation of nature at that. Oh Noes! We only know about nature by observing it! The horror!
Thus, as you're only observing nature, and not performing any real experimental testing (Testing the theory in a lab without extraneous outside influences and in (possible) extreme conditions) you'll never be able to get that last sixth "dot" ... I refer you again to my second set of comments in this post. Why should the sixth dot be the last? And why should a sixth dot drawn from observing an artificial experiment be superior in this respect to a sixth dot drawn from observing nature? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Medis Member (Idle past 3890 days) Posts: 34 Joined: |
crashfrog writes: Almost all of the work on macroevolution is done in the lab. So you're saying the fossil record is in fact NOT the largest body of proof of evolution?
Chiroptera writes: To further explain what science is and how it works, I am going to point you to this thread. In it we discussed a simplified (and somewhat tongue-in-cheek) example of how science tests theories. As far as I understand from your post you're saying science uses inductive logic, not deductive logic, to prove theories. A quick look at wikipedia...:
Wikipedia - Scientific method writes: The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following: Characterizations (observations , definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry) Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject) Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory) Experiments (tests of all of the above) ...and suddenly deductive logic seems to be the way of reasoning.So which is it? Annafan writes: But if you're consistent, you SHOULD reject all those things? I guess it depends on what you believe those theories are based on. If you believe they are based on the same way of reasoning as evolution, and you reject evolution, then, yes, in order to be consistent you'd need to reject those theories.
Dr Adequate writes: When we want to know what happened in nature, then an observation of what we can achieve artifically is irrelevant. But by that logic wouldn't most of, say research into cellular biology be irrelevant as it is done artificially in labs?
Dr Adequate writes: Oh Noes! We only know about nature by observing it! The horror! My point is, in physics or chemistry we might observe something in nature, and then be able to test it in the lab. This doesn't seem to be the case with the observations of macroevolution. I mean you can observe fossils in nature, but you can't bring them into a lab and run numerous tests on them. To take it a step further, physics and chemistry seems to be much more testable than say macroevolution, astronomy or plate tectonics. It just seems to me as if science is very loosely defined.
Dr Adequate writes: And why should a sixth dot drawn from observing an artificial experiment be superior in this respect to a sixth dot drawn from observing nature? Because you'd be able to test it again and again under all sorts of conditions, thereby being able to observe whether or not the theory holds true in "extreme" conditions. I mean this is done in physics and chemistry, is it not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Is it not true that for a theory to be scientific you must be able to test it in extreme conditions? For example, the theory of evolution is not scientifically valid because it cannot be tested in a laboratory. You might be able to observe it in nature (Fossil record etc.) but for it to be scientifically valid you must be able to take the theory to extremes (Usually done in a lab) and see if the theory complies with those extremes. This is a necessary in order to thoroughly falsify a theory. Thus, as it is not possible to test the theory of (macro)evolution in a laboratory, it is not a scientific theory but only faith. Is it not true that for a theory to be scientific you must be able to test it in extreme conditions? For example, the theory of gravity is not scientifically valid because it cannot be tested in a laboratory. You might be able to observe it in nature (Planetary orbits etc.) but for it to be scientifically valid you must be able to take the theory to extremes (Usually done in a lab) and see if the theory complies with those extremes. This is a necessary in order to thoroughly falsify a theory. Thus, as it is not possible to test the theory of (macro)gravity in a laboratory, it is not a scientific theory but only faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Reply to crashfrog: So you're saying the fossil record is in fact NOT the largest body of proof of evolution? Oh, definitely not! Now, today the fossil record is very, very good evidence for macroevolution, but I think that the evidence in all the other fields of biology make the case even without the fossil record. In fact, remember that Darwin figured out the theory of evolution and the theory of evolution was quickly accepted long before the fossil record yielded clear transitionals indicating the lineages of known taxa. My favorite evidence, in fact, is the nested hierarchical classification of the species. -
Reply to me: As far as I understand from your post you're saying science uses inductive logic, not deductive logic, to prove theories. Well, what I am saying is that inductive logic is used to determine how much confidence we should place in the theories. Deductive logic has a place in the process, but not in the way most people think. So, yeah, that is pretty much what I'm saying. In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But by that logic wouldn't most of, say research into cellular biology be irrelevant as it is done artificially in labs? Irrelevant to what? My point is that there are some things to which experiments in labs are certainly irrelevant, such as whether Saturn has rings, whether the Roman Empire existed, whether birds evolved from reptiles, et cetera.
My point is, in physics or chemistry we might observe something in nature, and then be able to test it in the lab. Or we might not. For example, the proposition that planets orbit in ellipses. But you're not busy telling physicists that Kepler's laws aren't scientific, because you have no axe to grind there.
Because you'd be able to test it again and again under all sorts of conditions, thereby being able to observe whether or not the theory holds true in "extreme" conditions. I mean this is done in physics and chemistry, is it not? I still don't know where you got this "extreme" busines from, or how you think it applies to anything. If chimists want to know, for example, whether sulphuric acid disolves silicon dioxide, what are the "extreme conditions" under which they should test this? Hanging upside down over a tub of live piranhas? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It just seems to me as if science is very loosely defined. Not at all. You take a theory, you calculate what observations you should be able to make if the theory was true (the "predictions" of the theory) and then you go forth and see if those observations obtain. Sometimes the theory will predict the results of experiments that we can perform in a lab, and then we can test these predictions of the theory by carrying out the experiments and seeing if we get the predicted results. But sometimes, as (for example) with the theory of gravity predicting that planets should move in ellipses, we have a prediction that we cannot observe in a lab, but only by observing nature. This is not a problem. It would be a problem if the theory predicted that we could see planets moving in ellipses in a lab, but this is not among its predictions. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Welcome to EvC!
A quick look at wikipedia...and suddenly deductive logic seems to be the way of reasoning. So which is it? I recommend a less quick look at wikipedia, and a more careful look. You'll find the answers you seek right there.
quote: There is more there if you care to peruse it in any more depth.
Because you'd be able to test it again and again under all sorts of conditions, thereby being able to observe whether or not the theory holds true in "extreme" conditions. I mean this is done in physics and chemistry, is it not? I guess I see where you are coming from, you are basically saying that biology should test boundary conditions? In that they do - but like the physicists and chemists they cannot test extreme time conditions, which is what you are probably getting at. When a biologist reduces the population of a bacteria to 1, which is vulnerable to anti-biotics, and allows the population to increase in size before applying anti-biotics they are testing an extreme condition (population size=1 is the smallest population size possible. Biologists frequently test extremes, where it is possible to do so. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024