Evolutionary Biology as a Science

This could be extremely broad, but it's an attempt to redirect the ongoing discussion with Kelly from the "I'm not an Atheist!" thread where the discussion is extremely interesting but also wholly off-topic.I'm going to try to constrain this to a discussion on whether "Creation Science" and "evolution" are actually science. Kelly has claimed that "Creation Science" is in fact scientific, while disparaging evolution as unobservable and unscientific.Let's start with some definitions:ScienceAs it applies to this discussion, the term science refers to any branch of study that follows the scientific method. The scientific method involves making a set of observations, creating a hypothesis explaining those observations, making predictions (or logical deductions) from the hypothesis, and then testing those predictions through experiments or the collection of additional evidence. This is followed by modifying or discarding the hypothesis based on new evidence.This means that unfalsifiable hypotheses are not part of the scientific method - all hypotheses must be testible, and therefore falsifiable if a certain set of conditions are true.This also means that pre-conceived conclusions are not scientific. Science examines the evidence and draws conclusions objectively and with the express purpose of minimizing or eliminating personal bias from any sort of "world view." This is why the scientific method involves rigorous testing as well as the peer review process - theoretical frameworks are judged on the accuracy of their predictions, not based on how they fit in a pre-defined "world view."EvolutionEvolution, simply stated, is change over time. The Theory of Evolution explains the variety of life observed on Earth through the mechanisms of mutation guided by natural selection and genetic drift. Small mutations in each generation are made more or less prevalent in a population due to natural selection, causing the population to change as a whole in response to new selective pressures. When populations are divided geographically, the generational changes occur independantly and in response to different slective pressures, eventually resulting in new species (and in the broader sense and over longer timescales, new families, phyla, genara, etc).The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life itself - evolution is the process of change in populations of already-existing lifeforms over multiple generations, and so cannot possibly apply to the origin of life.The Theory of Evolution does not have anything to do with "morphing," where one species "turns into" another. Evolution occurs to populations, not individuals, and over multiple generations. This is not Pokemon.The Theory of Evolution does predict that all features should not be unique, but should rather be slightly modified versions of already-existing features from other species. This can and does result in additional or less complexity, where redundant systems can evolve in an organism and then change in function compeltely or establish an alternate method for the same purpose. So-called "irreducibly complex" systems are the result of re-purposed features or systems in which redundant steps have been added and part of the original chain removed.Creation ScienceCreation Science, or Creationism, is the process of attempting to prove a literal interpretation of Creation as described in Genesis, where living things do not evolve but are rather Created, whole, as a divine miracle.Is Evolution science?Science requires that we make observations, establish a hypothesis, make predictions from the hypothesis, test those predictions, and modify, keep, or discard the hypothesis based on teh results.The Theory of Evolution began with the observation that various features of populations of birds changed over generations - beaks would become longer or shorter over a few generations, for example. A hypothesis was made: changes in given populations are guided by natural selection. This predicts that, to use the bird example, beak length should be guided by the food source available, where certain food sources favor longer beaks and others favor shorter beaks. This hypothesis was borne out via direct observation - on islands where the same species resided, beak lengths were directly correlated to food source.So far, this meets the requirements of the scientific method. But the Theory of Evolution has...evolved...since Darwin's day.We now have an understanding of genetics and the fossil record, as well as a greater understanding of the form and functions of features in extant living organisms. This has added a tremendous amount of data to be examined to test the predictions of the Theory of Evolution.Evolution predicts that all life on Earth should be related to one or more (but msot likely one) distant ancestor species. We should see less variety in life forms the farther back we look. This is borne out in the fossil record. Evolution predicts that closely related species should be similar also on teh genetic level. This was also verified, but genetics also gives us various markers (typically in the form of genetic damage from viral infections and mitochondrial DNA) that can show us exaxtly when various species branched apart and had their final common ancestor. Further, genetics showed us the specific method by which traits are inherited, and showed us how "information" can be changed, added, or subtracted in each generation - the specific mechanisms behind mutation. In this case, not only was the prediction verified, we obtained more evidence than we expected in support of evolution - in fact, evidence that doesn't make any sense without evolution.These are just a few examples. But as you can see, the Theory of Evolution is a well-tested theoretical framework that adheres to the scientific method - it is science.Is Creation Science...science?Creation Science begins with a literal reading of Genesis - species are specially Created, and do not rise from pre-existing species. It then proceeds to take observations in support of this "hypothesis" - dogs cannot give birth to cats, and each species is its own "kind."But has this hypothesis been tested? Given that scientists have directly observed the formation of new species both in the lab and in the wild, the Creation hypothesis should have been at the least modified, if not outright discarded.Creation Science does not begin with observations, it begins with a conclusion. It then seeks to "interpret" evidence in support of the pre-established conclusion. Contradictory evidence is ignored, or "re-interpreted" to support the conclusion anyway. Instead of modifying the hypothesis based on new information, the "interpretation" of non-supporting evidence is modified.Clearly, this is not in line with the scientific method. This is apologetics - a form of rationalization used to justify a belief in the face of contradictory evidence.It would seem that while the Theory of Evolution is valid science, "Creation Science" is not scientific at all.But now let's go over some of Kelly's specific claims in the previous thread, since they detail some of the claims of Creation "Science": Traits do nto alter due to stimulus. Traits alter randomly - mutation obeys the constraints of chemistry, but is otherwise nothing more than the result of copying errors in the DNA replication process.The spread of the trait throughout the population is dictated by the stimulus - the selective pressure. Irrelevant changes will go mostly unnoticed; mutations that give a benefit in a given environment will tend to be more common in each generation as the more successful individuals out-reproduce their cousins; mutations that are detrimental in a given environment will tend to die out. Whether a given trait is positive, negative, or neutral is dictated by the environment - the amount of competition, the source and availablitiy of food, temperature, etc. When the environment changes, the traits expressed in a population tend to adapt over several generations as those with beneficial small changes outcompete those without such changes.But the most egregious error in Kelly's claim is that "no new information is added to the DNA."This is false.Mutations are copy errors in the DNA replication process. DNA is comprised of four basic interchangeable building blocks - abbreviated with A, T, G, and C. Let's say we have a small part of a DNA molecule:TGCCTAGCWhen this 8-letter gentic "word" is transcribed, a mutation may occur. The offspring of this organism could have any of the following "words" instead:TGCCTAGCC
TGCCTAG
TGCGCTAGC
TGCATAGCMutations can result in teh addition, subtraction, or simple change of genetic information from one generation to the next. They are also extremely common - it is estimated that human beings each posess several hundred small mutations, genetic information that was not inherited from their parents and is instead the result of copying errors during reproduction.We can observe direct evidence of this in the lab, and in fact it's the cause of the so-called "superbugs" that occasionally go around the news outlets.Bacteria reproduce asexually - they simply divide. Each is a clone of its parent. Without new genetic information, no new traits could ever evolve.And yet something curious happens in an experiment replicated frequently around the world:Begin with a single bacterium - one cell. Allow it to reproduce in a petri dish until a sizeable colony is established. All of the organisms should now be descendants of the original bacterium.Now introduce a selective pressure - an antibiotic.The vast majority of the popualtion will die - but invariably some will remain. These few will thrive in the petri dish where they simply survived before; with less competition, the antibiotic-resistant trait will flourish and become nearly universal.Where did this resistance come from? If each individual is a clone of its parent, how did this new trait arise?The answer is simple: a copying error during replication resulted in a slight change that, while irrelevant at first, became a positive adaptation when the enviroment changed with new selective pressures.Obviously, new "information" can be and is added to DNA all the time. Kelly's claim is directly refuted by commonly-observed evidence and the simple mechanisms by which genetic replication work. Curiously, this is not what any biologist will tell you. Neither will any paleontologist or geneticist or zoologist agree with your claims regarding their particular fields of study.As I said to you in the other thread, we have directly observed new species arising from populations of previously existing species. We have seen it both in nature and in the laboratory. Direct observation contradicts your claim that nature provides no examples of species changing through evolution. You cannot get a more clear falsification than that, Kelly. Examples of transitional fossils abound in the fossil record. Would you like to see some? Here are just a few of the transitional species relating to hominids - us. Here are some transitional fossils relating to the evolution of jawbones.There are more - many more. Technically, every species is transitional, existing partway between its ancestor species and its descendant species. But even those examples you're looking for, where we see the direct transition from one type of organism to another (single-celled to mutlicellular, invertibrate to vertibrate, dinosaur to bird) are plentiful. All you need to do is look. The resources are available online - I found the above images in moments. Many changes are dysfunctional; occasionally a dysfunctional change can become a beneficial one when the environment provides a new set of selective pressures. False, as detailed above. DNA can be added to, subtracted from, or simply change in any given mutation, allowing for a net increase in diversity over time - which is exactly what we see in nature.ConclusionIt would seem, Kelly, that your claims stem from ignorance and reliance on sources whose claims are outright falsehoods. Creation "Science" is no such thing, and the Theory of Evolution is a valid branch of scientific study."Is it science?" please. I understand that this is extremely long and broad, but the Kelly debate needs to have its own thread, and I think Kelly's claims deserve being addressed.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

Thank you Rahvin. This is an excellent OP.The concern is that we might overload Kelly. The other is I don't want this to be a duplicate of "People Don't Know What Creation Science Is"I will promote this but I'd like you to reply immediately clarifying that we are not mentioning "Creation Science" here. That is for the other thread.ABE In fact I'd like a quick topic title change to something like
"Evolutionary Biology is a Science" leaving out the mention of creationism please.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Science means *knowledge*, not speculative philosophy or naturalism. The essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation, repeatability. Falsifiability is the necessary criterion of genuine science. A hypothesis must--at least in principle--be testable and capable of being refuted, if it is truly scientific.Neither model of macroevolution or creation with regards to origins is scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested because we cannot repeat the history of origins.However, the results of origins can be observed and tested regardless of what we believe about how they came about. Whether we are a creationist or an evolutionist, we can each test and observe the scientific data, the evidence of life.We can define two models of origins and then make comparative predictions as to what our observations should find if macroevolution is true, and conversely, what we should find if creation is true. The model that enables us to best predict the things we should then find to be true on observation is the model most likely to be true even if we cannot prove it by actual scientific repetition.According to the evolution model, the origin and development of all things can be explained in terms of continuing natural laws and processes operating in a self-contained universe. The basis of the creation model is that at least some things must be attributed to completed supernatural processes in an open universe.In this form the creation model is completely independent of the biblical record, and can be evaluated solely in terms of the scientific data. See "What is Creation Science?" Morris/Parker

Do you accept that the discovery of new evidence as a direct and indisputable result of predictions made by evolutionary theory is strong and objective evidence in favour of evolutionary theory? Off topic line hidden.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

This thread is NOT about creation science!
I will hide any remarks about that.I am also going to change the topic title without waiting for Rahvin.

It seems to me that this topic is absolutely a question about what is creation science? In fact, the thread begins with this:"I'm going to try to constrain this to a discussion on whether "Creation Science" and "evolution" are actually science. Kelly has claimed that "Creation Science" is in fact scientific, while disparaging evolution as unobservable and unscientific."Of course, this poster has completely misrepresented what I have said, but never-the-less, he is asking the questions are creation and evolution theories really science?He has also misrepresented just what creation science is in this remark:"Creation Science begins with a literal reading of Genesis - species are specially Created, and do not rise from pre-existing species."

Hey Nosy, The OP as written contains a lot that addresses Creationism, but I'm happy to continue with the limitations you mentioned - the other thread was posted while I wrote this one.I'll try to edit out the Creationism references and make the OP reflect the newly-defined topic.

As noted in the reply following yours. The creation 'science' issue will be restricted to the other thread.This one will be required to support the contention that biology is a science. You might do well to follow it as you reply on the thread supporting creation 'science' as a science too.

Hi Kelly.As you can see above, AdminNosy as redefined the bounds of this thread a bit from what I stated in my opening post - this was done to make a more concise debate possible, particularly in light of the other, similar thread that was posted while this one was being written. Sorry for the confusion - overly broad topics are usually discouraged here to promote a debate that is less likely to veer off onto tangential discussions.I'll do my best to address your post in light of the new topic title. Inaccurate. Science does not mean "knowledge." Science is a specific methodology of study - the scientific method. You are correct in that science is not "speculative philosophy" or even necessarily naturalism, but science is not "knowledge."Science does not make many absolute statements - it attempts to provide explanatory models for observed evidence to the greatest degree of accuracy possible. While we "know" how gravity works, that "knowledge" is tentative - new evidence can force us to modify or discard our existing theoretical framework at any time. In fact, this has already happened with regards to gravity - Newtonian gravity was supplanted by Einstein, though the Newtonian model is still accurate enough for application on the human scale. This is true. False.Testing does not require direct observation of events; we can know that George Washington existed without having lived at the same time, and we can determine guilt in a murder trial without having observed or even repeating the events.Testing requires making predictions (or logical extrapolations) that are then borne out or falsified by experiment or additional evidence.Further, "macroevolution" as defined as the rise of new species from extant species has been directly observed, as I've pointed out.Even if the evolution of new species had not been directly observed, we are surrounded by mountains of evidence that invariably leads only to the conclusion that new species arise from extant species through a gradual process of mutation guided by natural selection. As I stated in my OP, the fossil record, genetics, vestigial organs, and direct observation of extant species all lead to the conclusion that all life on Earth is related, sharing a common ancestor. Indeed we can; it is curious, then, that you have already ignored evidence as presented in my OP and by others in this and other threads regarding evolution. This is a false dilemma; if evolution is false, creation is not necessarily true. By the same token, if creation is false, evolution is not necessarily true. You cannot prove one by disproving the other - a third, as yet undetermined mechanism could be behind the observed variety of life on Earth.However, to constrain this to a discussion on evolution as AdminNosy has required, let's stick to talking about the predictions and evidence for or against the Theory of Evolution, and whether it is or is not science. The Theory of Evolution makes no statements with regard to the Universe, self-contained or otherwise. That's the purview of cosmology, an entirely different branch of study than biology.The Theory of Evolution deals only with living things, and the rise of new varieties of living things from already-existing varieties. I'm afraid I'll have to disregard this as off-topic, since we're restricting ourselves to a discussion on whether the Theory of Evolution is or is not scientific.But now, I need to ask why you chose to post a reply to me without actually addressing anything in my opening post? You didn't quote me once - I understand not yet knowing how to use quote tags for the easy-to-read boxes this board is capable of, but you didn't even manually quote a single sentence from my OP.I've taken the time to address each of your points specifically and in detail, and so far you have taken the time to write replies that do not address my claims and in fact outright ignore large segments of what I've said.If I can have the courtesy to reply to your statements, can you give me the same courtesy? Otherwise, we aren't having a conversation, we're simply talking at each other. That is not productive.

I think you should simply look up the definition of science: In its broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge or practice.I am not really interested in discussing evolution per sey, but rather, I like to compare the sciences of evolution and creation to determine which model better fits the evidence. If we can't say the word creation in this thread, I am not going to post here. In fact, I am leaving this forum for now. I posted my reason here in the "Best Approaches to deal with Fundamentalism" thread:http://EvC Forum: Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism -->EvC Forum: Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism

Creationists at their finest. Since we won't blindly believe his assertions and mumbo-jumbo we are the ones that are not open minded.Kelly,
If you come back and this(which I am sure you will), I would like to ask one question.
Why have you never addressed any of the requests for evidence for your argument or tried to counter the arguments against you?You refuse to even consider any solid evidence presented to you, but expect us to fall hook, line and sinker for your arguments based on lies, half truths and logical fallacies.Evidently, you have no idea how a scientific forum or a debate works. You really need to spend your time in creationist forums where evidence is not expected, but in reality discouraged.Edited by Theodoric, : added signature

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

It would be a waste of my time to even try to have any kind of debate here. We would continually fall back on that old, "Creation Science is religion"..."No it isn't"..."Yes it is" nonsense. I would like to get past that. But if you aren't willing to look at the book I recommend, no problem. You can wallow in your ignorance as to what Creation Science is with all your friends here who are as blind about it as you. I hope you all have fun preaching to the choir. I find that boring whether it is done here or at a Creationists' website. Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

If you look around this site you will find many with a scientific bent of mind (RAZD being prime example) who have the patience to attempt to help others understand things.They do not simply point to a book and say "Read that!". They bring the facts and logic here in their own words. They adjust what they say to try to match the level of knowledge of those they are discussing with.On the other had we frequently find those on your side of the debate who, when asked to supply facts and reasoning and explain themselves and support their assertions, running away.It is a poor argument you offer when you don't bother offering any at all. Is the kitchen a bit too hot?

Hi Kelly,If everyone here is so ignorant of creation science, why run? Educate us. Explain the methodologies. Discuss the ongoing research. Give us some of the findings and how they were found. Telling us to read a book is NOT debating. This is a debate forum. We have been asking creationists for this ever since I can remember. If creation science IS science..then tell us some of it.You have a whole thread to discuss this. People Don't Know What Creation Science IsDo what others have claimed but never followed through with. Give us the science. I would ask that you also do it without mentioning evolution. In the past all we have gotten from most creationists is how evolution is wrong...NOT how creation science is correct.