Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not science
Medis
Member (Idle past 3891 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 166 of 305 (429048)
10-18-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Dr Adequate
10-18-2007 1:17 PM


Re: Explaining evolution; qualified
Dr Adequate writes:
Look, if you want to call the theory that evolution occurred "the theory that evolution occurred", then I'll be right behind you cheering you on. But if you want to call this "the theory of evolution", then that's just muddying the waters, because that phrase already has a meaning.
Fair enough, call it the theory that evolution occurred. I'm just arguing from the viewpoint of Ian Johnston's proof, which is "A Short Proof of Evolution".
EDIT: And this is a very important point right here, you called it the THEORY that evolution occurred. Still a theory, correct?
Edited by Malangyar, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-18-2007 1:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 10-18-2007 2:26 PM Medis has not replied
 Message 179 by nator, posted 10-18-2007 4:19 PM Medis has not replied
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-18-2007 5:13 PM Medis has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 167 of 305 (429049)
10-18-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Medis
10-18-2007 1:01 PM


Brewers and logicians
Why would you write a proof of a fact?
The title of the essay is silly, since he does not provide any proof. He just points out evidence and the conclusions that the evidence leads to. Those conclusions are so supported we consider it a fact. Proof is the luxury realm of brewers and logicians.
Why would you even need to prove an observation?
An observation isn't a fact. A fact is something which we are very sure is true. We don't observe Henry VIII being King, but we consider it a fact. We don't observe electrons, but we consider them a fact. An observation is an observation. We can use observations/evidence to derive facts.
I don't think it's a fact. I think it's a theory. Of course, I could be wrong. Please correct me.
Doesn't matter. By the definition of fact as used by scientists, evolution is a fact. To quote Gould (on the talk origins page).
quote:
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. .. In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."
I think that is a word that has pragmatic value. It distinguishes itself from 'observation' and 'data' quite nicely.
BTW thanks for being the only guy with a somewhat resonable attitude, I appreciate it.
If you decide to stick around here: I can only hope you learn to adjust to the, shall we say, diversity of style at EvC. It's good to know my efforts to be polite whilst disagreeing with people is appreciated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 1:01 PM Medis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 2:53 PM Modulous has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 168 of 305 (429063)
10-18-2007 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Medis
10-18-2007 6:25 AM


Re: Explaining evolution; qualified
(Notice, I'm not saying natural selection is wrong, I'm just saying you could still argue for evolution even though natural selection WAS wrong)
I get what you're saying, but I think you need to understand the degree to which Darwin's model of random mutation and natural selection has come to be so associated with "evolution". While, in the past, there were alternate, non-Darwinian theories of evolution (Lamark's model being the most famous example), those theories had all been discredited by a century ago.
The term "evolution" has come to be so strongly associated with Darwin's model - at the same time that we've surpassed Darwin by merging his theory with molecular genetics - that, surely, any theory that would hope to refute and replace it would be called something other than "evolution."
So, I'm both agreeing with you and disagreeing with you. In the past, the term "evolution" could have been applied to a number of competing models - Darwin's, Lamark's, even Lysenko's - but, all this time later, the basic Darwinian model has so come to dominate evolutionary thought that the terms are surely inextricable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 6:25 AM Medis has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 169 of 305 (429071)
10-18-2007 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Medis
10-18-2007 1:24 PM


Re: Explaining evolution; qualified
Malangyar writes:
EDIT: And this is a very important point right here, you called it the THEORY that evolution occurred. Still a theory, correct?
Sure, if you like, but most people use the term "fact" to refer to things that are fairly obviously true. However, if you'd like to note that all knowledge is tentative, including what's right before our very eyes, then I not only agree with you, I've argued this here on several occasions. There is nothing that we can absolutely know.
However, as Modulous similarly argues, as a convenience we usually just call things a fact when they're fairly obvious. We could call what I'm doing now "the theory that I'm typing on a keyboard," but we usually just say that it's a fact that I'm typing on a keyboard. Sure it's possible this is just a fake keyboard and the letters are appearing on the screen by coincidence, or that I'm dreaming and this isn't really happening, or some other unlikely possibility, but generally we refer to obviously true things as facts.
If you'd like you can dispute whether the evidence that evolution has occurred is sufficient to qualify it as a fact, which is a common position of creationists, but if you're not disputing this then calling it "the theory that evolution occurred," or more accurately "the extremely well-confirmed theory that evolution occurred," is just an unnecessary mouthful. Within science, that evolution has occurred is accepted as a fact.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 1:24 PM Medis has not replied

Medis
Member (Idle past 3891 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 170 of 305 (429084)
10-18-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Modulous
10-18-2007 1:25 PM


Re: Brewers and logicians
I just have a few comments here about the earlier posts you made, Modulous:
Modulous writes:
The title of the essay is silly, since he does not provide any proof. He just points out evidence and the conclusions that the evidence leads to. Those conclusions are so supported we consider it a fact. Proof is the luxury realm of brewers and logicians.
This is, I think, wrong. He does in fact provide scientific proof using the scientific method. I'm looking at Wikipedia atm and he basically goes through the whole scientific method:
1. Observations: Fossils, living creatures from living creatures, creatures are different from each other.
2. Hypotheses: We developed from the organisms existing millions of years ago because living organisms always come from living organisms.
3. Predictions: Every time we do an excavation the fossils will lie in the same pattern, invertebrates before vertebrates, humans at the top etc. etc.
4. Experiments: Excavations show this to be true.
Modulous writes:
An observation isn't a fact. A fact is something which we are very sure is true. We don't observe Henry VIII being King, but we consider it a fact. We don't observe electrons, but we consider them a fact. An observation is an observation. We can use observations/evidence to derive facts.
I don't think I understand this the same way you do. As far as I understand it, a theory that has a large amount of evidence is CONSIDERED a fact but is still, essentially, a theory. Is this correct?
Modulous writes:
I wasn't aware that this was under dispute? However, if you took away natural selection - a great swathe of the theory would be removed and the theory would be very very weak. Whatever new theory emerged, would be quite different from the current one.
I don't think evolution would stand any less firm. I mean you'd still have the fossils and the fact that living creatures always come from living creatures.
Percy writes:
Sure, if you like, but most people use the term "fact" to refer to things that are fairly obviously true. However, if you'd like to note that all knowledge is tentative, including what's right before our very eyes, then I not only agree with you, I've argued this here on several occasions. There is nothing that we can absolutely know.
However, as Modulous similarly argues, as a convenience we usually just call things a fact when they're fairly obvious. We could call what I'm doing now "the theory that I'm typing on a keyboard," but we usually just say that it's a fact that I'm typing on a keyboard. Sure it's possible this is just a fake keyboard and the letters are appearing on the screen by coincidence, or that I'm dreaming and this isn't really happening, or some other unlikely possibility, but generally we refer to obviously true things as facts.
If you'd like you can dispute whether the evidence that evolution has occurred is sufficient to qualify it as a fact, which is a common position of creationists, but if you're not disputing this then calling it "the theory that evolution occurred," or more accurately "the extremely well-confirmed theory that evolution occurred," is just an unnecessary mouthful. Within science, that evolution has occurred is accepted as a fact.
This is great news. Really it is, because it just goes to show that I was in fact not wrong in calling the occurrence of macroevolution a theory.
Now the thing is that while it is true that most people use fact to refer to things that are obvious, it is also true that most people don't find the occurrence of macroevolution obvious!
99% of the scientific community does. You do. I do to some extent. But most people actually don't. Every time they talk about macroevolution, they talk about it as a theory. And this isn't wrong. It is a theory just like gravity and magnetism is a theory!
But the thing is, it’s just as substantiated by observations as gravity. Thus you could consider it fact. At the end of the day though, it is just a theory, and can be backed up by the scientific method just like any other theory.
But I'm happy you admit that the occurrence of macroevolution is a theory, just like any other theory, and that it can be backed up by observations and experiments.
So I can rest assured that the next time somebody walks up to me and says: "I don't believe in macroevolution because natural selection doesn't work", I can respond with: "well natural selection isn't needed to prove evolution".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2007 1:25 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Chiroptera, posted 10-18-2007 2:59 PM Medis has replied
 Message 172 by Percy, posted 10-18-2007 3:09 PM Medis has replied
 Message 174 by Chiroptera, posted 10-18-2007 3:29 PM Medis has replied
 Message 178 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2007 3:46 PM Medis has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 305 (429085)
10-18-2007 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Medis
10-18-2007 2:53 PM


Re: Brewers and logicians
But I'm happy....
So I can rest assured that....
Well, I, for one, am glad that you're happy. But was there a point to this exchange beyond you practicing the use of sophistry?

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 2:53 PM Medis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 3:25 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 172 of 305 (429089)
10-18-2007 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Medis
10-18-2007 2:53 PM


Re: Brewers and logicians
Malangyar writes:
But I'm happy you admit that the occurrence of macroevolution is a theory, just like any other theory, and that it can be backed up by observations and experiments.
Now you're just playing word games, giving special meanings to terms and then using them in sentences where those special meanings aren't apparent. Needless to say, I didn't say anything like what anyone unaware of your special definitions would think you're saying here.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 2:53 PM Medis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 3:34 PM Percy has not replied

Medis
Member (Idle past 3891 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 173 of 305 (429094)
10-18-2007 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Chiroptera
10-18-2007 2:59 PM


Re: Brewers and logicians
Chiroptera writes:
Well, I, for one, am glad that you're happy. But was there a point to this exchange beyond you practicing the use of sophistry?
Well if you go back to the first couple of posts you'd find that I had an original question about evolution and experiments. This was quickly answered. The discussion then moved in the direction of whether or not evolution was a theory.
This I THINK has also been answered and I've understood that the occurrence of evolution is considered a fact by the scientific community because it has been substantiated by so much evidence. So it's basically a theory with a lot of evidence to support it, thus turning it into a fact.
So a fact can be proved using the scientific method...which is what Ian Johnston does.
Regarding the purported sophistry that you say I used...I don't believe I have. In fact, if anything, some of you should be accused of setting up straw men because you started attributing all sorts of stuff to me that I'd never said.
Anyway if I have used sophistry I apologise and hope that you'll point me in the right direction so that I may correct it. I doubt any of you will offer the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Chiroptera, posted 10-18-2007 2:59 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 10-18-2007 3:36 PM Medis has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 305 (429097)
10-18-2007 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Medis
10-18-2007 2:53 PM


To sum up.
The Theory of Evolution has two main parts:
(1) All known species evolved from a single ancestral species.
(2) The main cause of this evolution is natural selection acting on randomly occurring, heritable variations.
Now, (1) has been substantiated by a wide variety of evidence in a wide variety of different fields. Therefore, we can be as confident as we can be of anything that it is a fact that all known species evolved from a single ancestral species.
(2) The existence of variations in heredity (now known as genetic mutations) has been demonstrated; there are examples where new variations do lead to a reproductive advantage; and it has been seen that in these cases, the new, beneficial traits do end up predominating in the population.
Therefore, natural selection has been shown to be a viable mechanism for evolutionary change; nothing has yet been discovered that would make natural selection an unlikely mechanism; and there are no other known mechanisms that could produce evolutionary change that we know has occurred. Therefore, we can consider it a fact (perhaps not quite as certain as (1), but certain nonetheless) that the cause of the evolutionary change that has occurred is natural selection.
I don't know if that clears anything up; you can try to fit these into your definitions of theory and fact if you can. It doesn't much matter to me; I'm pretty uninterested in word games unless someone is trying to use equivocation to prove a point.
So, there is indeed a theory of evolution that describes what we see in biology as the result of the evolution of modern species from older species, and that also provides an explanation of how this evolution proceeded.
But it is also a fact, as far as we can determine anything to be a fact, that life did evolve from previous life, and that this evolution was due to natural selection.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 2:53 PM Medis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 4:29 PM Chiroptera has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 175 of 305 (429098)
10-18-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Medis
10-18-2007 11:45 AM


Still showing confusion.
Actually it does. ”Through various stages” (e.g. reproduction).
Your first sentence is a non-sequitur and ”Through various stages” (involving reproduction or not) is still not evolution per se: a butterfly goes through various quite remarkable stages and becomes a very different creature from their original (as do all fetal development and growth of individuals, including becoming sexually able) -- but it is not evolution. A good definition doesn't have these inconsistencies and confusions, and this is why scientists use the definitions they use and not one like yours.
Let's be clear: if we are talking about evolution then we use the definitions used in the science of evolution, but if we use different definitions then we are not talking about evolution scientifically.
Do you really need to use a different definition when the scientific one is available and is the one used in the science of evolution?
And no there is no direction in the definition, it just says that living organisms will develop into other living organisms not at all like them. There is not “intended direction” in this.
Sorry -- that is still direction from one to another: it implies that organisms must change into something else, and this is false.
The Galapagos finches changed beak size and then changed back -- this is evolution (the change in hereditary traits within populations from one generation to the next), and it does not involve becoming a new form or species.
The cyano-bacteria that show up in the fossil record 3.5 billion years ago are virtually the same as cyano-bacteria that live today, and their evolution has not required that they change into some new form to please your definition.
1. I never said they were.
Actually you did, in Message 149, as I had quoted (which is why I made the point):
Malangyar, msg 149 writes:
It's just a much simplified definition of evolution by its effects and it can in fact be proven as a scientific theory without ever mentioning natural selection.
In fact you save yourself a lot of trouble because you don't have to go into ANOTHER proof, for example a proof of natural selection.
Or were you just being careless, sloppy, confused and possibly dishonest?
3. No, the evidence doesn’t prove evolution by itself. You need to set up a theory for it to prove evolution.
There you go again.
Eh, what’s your point? I was just stating that I’m talking about macroevolution here.
The point is, what you mean by macroevolution. Most creationists and virtually all YEC get this wrong, so we need to know what you are talking about here.
Notice that your desire to change the definition for the theory of evolution (rather than adopt a scientific one already in use) does not bode well for your interpretation of macroevolution having anything to do with the science of evolution as opposed to, say, your personal set of fantasies. We have a thread on this problem (MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?), so feel free to put in your definition.
It's rather disingenuous of creationists to claim that macroevolution never occurs but then not define what they mean by macroevolution (so the point can rationally be argued on level ground), don't you think?
Thank you. So my understanding is that observations of nature that are in accordance with a specific theory can be interpreted as experiments on the same level as lab experiments.
Yes, and many such are published every year in the scientific journals. This is especially true when the field study is done to test a concept, and most especially true when a field study invalidates a hypothesis. It is the same scientific process whether done in a lab or not.
What I’m trying to argue now is that evolution can in fact be proved even without pulling natural selection into the fray, as Ian Johnston does.
And you are confusing the process of evolution with the theory of evolution again. That evolution occurs is a fact, and this is so because it has been observed and documented. This does not, however, prove the theory of evolution.
Let's try a different tack: evolution is the change in hereditary traits within populations from generation to generation; the theory of evolution is that the mechanisms involved in this kind of change are sufficient to explain the diversity of life we see today, in history, and in the fossil record.
See the difference?
Rahvin writes:
N, evolution is a fact. It's observable, just like gravity. The Theory of Evolution is the model describing the mechanism by which evolution happens, and that model is what has been tested
No, evolution is a theory and I provided a link to talk.origin where a teacher explained this. Here it is: The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: November 2005
There are both facts of evolution and theories of evolution. Rahvin made this point, and you missed it because you are still confusing the process of evolution with the theory of evolution.
Your link actually exactly makes Rahvin's point, that there are both facts of evolution (and gravity) and theories of evolution (and gravity). Theories (scientific ones anyway) are based on facts for the formation of the theory that then explains them and provides predictions to test the validity of the theory.
Natural selection is an explanation of how evolution occurs. You can prove the (Simplified) theory of evolution even without natural selection. I’ve already provided proof of it here: Error
Natural selection is only part of the picture. Another major contributor is genetic mutations, but these alone are not evolution or the theory of evolution.
... I never said, in any post, that I was against evolution, ...
Nor should any creationist, YEC or otherwise, be "against" evolution, as their disagreement is about descent from common ancestors, and the number of common ancestors, rather than the method of descent.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 11:45 AM Medis has not replied

Medis
Member (Idle past 3891 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 176 of 305 (429101)
10-18-2007 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Percy
10-18-2007 3:09 PM


Re: Brewers and logicians
Percy writes:
Now you're just playing word games, giving special meanings to terms and then using them in sentences where those special meanings aren't apparent. Needless to say, I didn't say anything like what anyone unaware of your special definitions would think you're saying here.
I'm not deliberately trying to turn this into a word game. By all means if I have said something wrong then respond. Again, as far as I've understood:
The occurence of macroevolution is a theory that is backed up by so much evidence that it is considered a fact by the scientific community. Just like gravity. Essentially though, it is still a theory, and can be proved just like any other theory.
This seems to be correct according to Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Percy, posted 10-18-2007 3:09 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 177 of 305 (429102)
10-18-2007 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Medis
10-18-2007 3:25 PM


Re: Brewers and logicians
Malangyar writes:
Anyway if I have used sophistry I apologise and hope that you'll point me in the right direction so that I may correct it. I doubt any of you will offer the same.
This is sophistry:
This I THINK has also been answered and I've understood that the occurrence of evolution is considered a fact by the scientific community because it has been substantiated by so much evidence. So it's basically a theory with a lot of evidence to support it, thus turning it into a fact.
It's sophistry because this is *not* the way the scientific community looks at it, and this is not an accurate conclusion from what anyone's been saying. That evolution above the species level has occurred is a rather obvious conclusion from the evidence, not a theory. As I said, calling everything we know a theory is an unnecessary mouthful, and the scientific community does not do this.
I said I agree with you that there is nothing we can know absolutely, and I meant that. That doesn't mean everything is a theory, it just means that ultimately all knowledge is tentative. The word "theory" has its own definition, and if I can offer one, it is a framework of understanding within which evidence can be interpreted and predictions be made.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 3:25 PM Medis has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 178 of 305 (429110)
10-18-2007 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Medis
10-18-2007 2:53 PM


Re: Brewers and logicians
He does in fact provide scientific proof using the scientific method.
As I said, I don't like the term because it introduces confusion. The wiki page you reference barely talks about proof and mostly in the context of mathematics. He certainly demonstrates that the evidence leads to the conclusion that evolution happened.
I don't think I understand this the same way you do. As far as I understand it, a theory that has a large amount of evidence is CONSIDERED a fact but is still, essentially, a theory. Is this correct?
A strongly supported theory is still considered a theory. See: Quantum Theory, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Evolution. One might proceed as though the theories did indeed correctly explain a phenomena, and indeed, scientists often do - that's how predictions are formed (Assuming the theory is true, we should see...). Now - some theories are now referred to as facts: Such as germ theory. Most people would be happy to say that germs can cause disease is a fact.
Such things are generally strongly supported hypothesis, whereas the more modern concept of a theory is of a suite of hypothesis used to build up an explanatory framework.
I don't think evolution would stand any less firm. I mean you'd still have the fossils and the fact that living creatures always come from living creatures.
I agree. Evolution, the fact, would still be evolution the fact. Evolution, the theory would be pretty much swept away. Evolution the theory is the explanation of evolution the fact. The explanation includes random mutations in the genome, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, as well as natural selection. Natural selection is the chief architect of adaptation, without it, the theory of evolution is flaccid. That's all.
I was in fact not wrong in calling the occurrence of macroevolution a theory.
Call it what you will, but 'macroevolution' isn't a theory in the 'explanatory framework' context. It's a theory in the historical hypothesis sense of the word. Using it in the context of scientific theories would put you in danger of equivocation, and it's best to avoid that.
Now the thing is that while it is true that most people use fact to refer to things that are obvious, it is also true that most people don't find the occurrence of macroevolution obvious!
Public opinion doesn't decide facts. If there was a guy found dead, he was 80 years old and he seemed to have had a heart attack, most people might find it obvious that the old guy's heart just clapped out (natural causes). Most people don't have the time to investigate all the evidence, nor the training to understand it. Further evidence shows arsenic in the old fella's veins.
Now I'd say it was a fact that this guy was poisoned which led to organ failure.
Is it a fact that he died of natural causes because most people think it was? No.
Once you know all the evidence for common ancestry, and have the skills to analyse the evidence, it would be perverse to deny macroevolution has occurred: Thus it is a fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 2:53 PM Medis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 4:41 PM Modulous has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 179 of 305 (429124)
10-18-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Medis
10-18-2007 1:24 PM


Re: Explaining evolution; qualified
quote:
you called it the THEORY that evolution occurred. Still a theory, correct?
Yeah.
Like the THEORY that the Holocaust happened, or the THEORY that the Earth is in an eliptical orbit around the sun, or the THEORY that matter is made up of atoms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 1:24 PM Medis has not replied

Medis
Member (Idle past 3891 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 180 of 305 (429128)
10-18-2007 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Chiroptera
10-18-2007 3:29 PM


Re: To sum up.
Chiroptera writes:
The Theory of Evolution has two main parts:
(1) All known species evolved from a single ancestral species.
(2) The main cause of this evolution is natural selection acting on randomly occurring, heritable variations.
Now, (1) has been substantiated by a wide variety of evidence in a wide variety of different fields. Therefore, we can be as confident as we can be of anything that it is a fact that all known species evolved from a single ancestral species.
(2) The existence of variations in heredity (now known as genetic mutations) has been demonstrated; there are examples where new variations do lead to a reproductive advantage; and it has been seen that in these cases, the new, beneficial traits do end up predominating in the population.
Therefore, natural selection has been shown to be a viable mechanism for evolutionary change; nothing has yet been discovered that would make natural selection an unlikely mechanism; and there are no other known mechanisms that could produce evolutionary change that we know has occurred. Therefore, we can consider it a fact (perhaps not quite as certain as (1), but certain nonetheless) that the cause of the evolutionary change that has occurred is natural selection.
I don't know if that clears anything up; you can try to fit these into your definitions of theory and fact if you can. It doesn't much matter to me; I'm pretty uninterested in word games unless someone is trying to use equivocation to prove a point.
So, there is indeed a theory of evolution that describes what we see in biology as the result of the evolution of modern species from older species, and that also provides an explanation of how this evolution proceeded.
But it is also a fact, as far as we can determine anything to be a fact, that life did evolve from previous life, and that this evolution was due to natural selection.
Yeah I think I get it. (1) is basically considered a fact in the scientific community and (2) is on the verge between fact and theory. But is it not true that (1) can be substantiated in the same way as a theory? (That is, using the scientific method)
My point is, a lot of YEC seem to be complaining about (2) while they don't even agree with (1). Ian Johnston's proof seem to be handling (1) and can thus be used to explain the occurrence of macroevolution without going into (2).
RAZD writes:
Your first sentence is a non-sequitur and ”Through various stages” (involving reproduction or not) is still not evolution per se: a butterfly goes through various quite remarkable stages and becomes a very different creature from their original (as do all fetal development and growth of individuals, including becoming sexually able) -- but it is not evolution. A good definition doesn't have these inconsistencies and confusions, and this is why scientists use the definitions they use and not one like yours.
Let's be clear: if we are talking about evolution then we use the definitions used in the science of evolution, but if we use different definitions then we are not talking about evolution scientifically.
Do you really need to use a different definition when the scientific one is available and is the one used in the science of evolution?
My definition was trying to define (1) located in Chiropteras post above. (1) can exist, and be proven on its own even without (2). I'm trying to understand if this is correct. Especially as Ian Johnston's proof of the occurrence of macroevolution seems to be substantiating (1).
RAZD writes:
Sorry -- that is still direction from one to another: it implies that organisms must change into something else, and this is false.
The Galapagos finches changed beak size and then changed back -- this is evolution (the change in hereditary traits within populations from one generation to the next), and it does not involve becoming a new form or species.
The cyano-bacteria that show up in the fossil record 3.5 billion years ago are virtually the same as cyano-bacteria that live today, and their evolution has not required that they change into some new form to please your definition.
Fair enough, they CAN change into something else.
RAZD writes:
Or were you just being careless, sloppy, confused and possibly dishonest?
Sloppy and careless, I'm sure. When I said proof I meant it had been substantiated using the scientific method.
That said I concede that I was wrong in formulating it in that way.
RAZD writes:
There you go again.
Yes, I concede I made another mistake. What I meant to say was, you need to set up a theory for the observations to provide evidence of the occurrence of macroevolution.
RAZD writes:
The point is, what you mean by macroevolution. Most creationists and virtually all YEC get this wrong, so we need to know what you are talking about here.
Notice that your desire to change the definition for the theory of evolution (rather than adopt a scientific one already in use) does not bode well for your interpretation of macroevolution having anything to do with the science of evolution as opposed to, say, your personal set of fantasies. We have a thread on this problem (MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?), so feel free to put in your definition.
It's rather disingenuous of creationists to claim that macroevolution never occurs but then not define what they mean by macroevolution (so the point can rationally be argued on level ground), don't you think?
That one species can evolve into another.
RAZD writes:
And you are confusing the process of evolution with the theory of evolution again. That evolution occurs is a fact, and this is so because it has been observed and documented. This does not, however, prove the theory of evolution.
Let's try a different tack: evolution is the change in hereditary traits within populations from generation to generation; the theory of evolution is that the mechanisms involved in this kind of change are sufficient to explain the diversity of life we see today, in history, and in the fossil record.
See the difference?
Well I think I understand what you're saying. But let me go all the way back to "the occurence of evolution is a fact". I'm talking about macroevolution here, as defined above.
Is it not true, that the occurrence of macroevolution is essentially a theory, BUT it has been substantiated by such an amount of observations and experiments (Say, fossils from excavations) that it is now considered a fact by the scientific community?
Is it true to say that theories can turn into facts?
Percy writes:
It's sophistry because this is *not* the way the scientific community looks at it, and this is not an accurate conclusion from what anyone's been saying. That evolution above the species level has occurred is a rather obvious conclusion from the evidence, not a theory. As I said, calling everything we know a theory is an unnecessary mouthful, and the scientific community does not do this.
First of all it would be sophistry if I was deliberately trying to deceive somebody. I'm not. I'm simply trying to understand the definition of fact and theory. What I did above was lay out my understanding of it, and you can then say it is wrong if you want. But don't call it sophistry.
Now you say this: "That evolution above the species level has occurred is a rather obvious conclusion from the evidence, not a theory.". Okay I'm really trying to get to the bottom of this. How would you CONFIRM a fact? Wouldn't you confirm a fact using the scientific method?
One of the reasons I'm confused is because of this: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
"Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."
Now it says here that Darwin "established" the fact of evolution. How did he establish it? Didn't he first set up a theory of the occurrence of macroevolution and then support it with masses of evidence and experimentation?
Edited by Malangyar, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Chiroptera, posted 10-18-2007 3:29 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Chiroptera, posted 10-18-2007 4:40 PM Medis has not replied
 Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-18-2007 5:24 PM Medis has replied
 Message 197 by RAZD, posted 10-18-2007 10:55 PM Medis has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024