The Evolution FAQ by PBS - Fine, brief explanation of bio evolution

Full credit goes to berberry. I quote from his message from here:

quote:

---

I don't know how you could make it any simpler than they do at The Evolution FAQ.

---

Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Minnemooseus,
First, what a name!
Second,I can totally dismiss the FAQ in its entirety, because evolution is a bankrupt theory devoid of any link to reality, completely dismissing all of the problems which "many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology" have raised for evolution. It completely ignores holes in the fossil record, biochemical impossibilities, problems with stars, galaxies, planets, moons; it ignores that the missing links are still missing, it ignores every single alternate explanation for the history of the earth, as well as the beautiful wonders of creation. Evolution has been proven wrong so many times that it is not even an issue anymore. Anyone who believes evolution must be nieve and unwilling to accept anything they can't comprehend, the poor little souls.Third, for the record, I wrote the above (including the subtitle) as a hopefully humurous (I used a bunch of creationist cliches in grammatically incorrect sentences to ruffle your feathers) way to show how offensive answer 2 is, which I'll quote here:

quote:

---

2. Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven?

​

In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

---

This dismisses the beliefs of every single creationist out there. I resent that they do not acknowledge that there is even an issue. I believe that evolution is wrong, but I respect that you guys are intelligent people who have good reasons for believing what you do. I am not nearly arrogant enough to think that just because I disagree with you that you must be an idiot. It is an extremely arrogant, offensive piece of blather.Anyway, I agree with you about the rest of it, it clearly presents what evolution is about.P.S. Again for the record, the obnoxiously exaggerated rant about those dumb, stupid, idiot evolutionsts this post with is not meant!!! Please do not quote me on it!!! [This message has been edited by JT, 04-29-2004]

For a second there, my blood's temperature raised by 10 degrees.

---

The Laminator

​

quote:

---

I believe that evolution is wrong

---

This is an odd statement. Who says evolution is wrong? Is that person or supposed deity going to punish all the species that have dared to change over time, or diverge into multiple species?"Wrong" is a poor way to describe any theory. Either it is a useful explanation for facts, or it isn't. If you know and understand the facts, maybe you can tell us why it is or isn't a good explanation.

(stupid slow connection, stupid me clicking 3 times )[This message has been edited by zephyr, 04-29-2004]

Maybe I don't understand your post, but there isn't an issue.Scientists who do science - that is, reach conlusions from evidence - accept evolution because it's a scientific theory supported by evidence, just like the theory of relativity or the germ theory of disease or the kinetic theory of gases.The only people who cleave to creationism are people who are either misinformed about the evidence or so committed to a prior ideology that they simply won't accept the evidence. Idiots? No. But not scientists, either.I'm not sure what part of what you quoted offended you - theories are scientific models supported by evidence. They're only used by scientists as long as they're supported by the evidence. Darwin's theory has been expanded by subsequent thousands of experiments, some of which you can even do yourself. The segment you quoted is a plain statement about a scientific theory, and it's so non-contentious that I simply am boggled that you found something there to be offended by.Did I just not understand your post?

Although I believe that the question should be answered in a more direct way, I disagree with you. #2 merely defines what a theory is. It doesn't attack creationism or defend it, and it has no reason to.I think that it would be better if the FAQ said something more along these lines: Other than that, I think that this FAQ is a good explanation for some of the basics of evolution. It isn't perfect, but it isn't incorrect about anything that I could see.

Apart from understating the strength of the evidence for evolution there doesn't seem to be much difference between your version and the one you object to. Neither version is like your supposedly equivalent introductory statement which is just a typical creationist rant (even the version you object to is true and involves no personal attacks on anyone).[This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-29-2004]

The reason my message 1 was essentially a bare link, was that I intended this to go to the "Links and Information" forum.Oh well, might as well let it run where it is now.D'oh Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

quote:

---

2. Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven?

​

In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct.

---

This far is perfectly fine. It is just a dictionary definition of what a theory is. What I take issue with is the second part, which states an opinion:

quote:

---

Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

---

Evolution can't be disproven, but I think that it has been shown nearly impossible. That is the opinion of many intellegent people (also of some, maybe many, unintellegent people, which is where all the creationist steroetypes come from).If they would have said something like "The vast majority of scientists believe..." or "Consensus among the scientific community is..." I would not have been offended, because most scientists do believe evolution. What offended me is assertion that evolution has "withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it". That is an attack on creation(ists), albiet infinitely more polite than my responseNote: I do not think that the PBS answer was anywhere near as offensive as the first part of my post, I deliberately exaggerated to make a pointRoad Frog said:

quote:

---

The only people who cleave to creationism are people who are either misinformed about the evidence or so committed to a prior ideology that they simply won't accept the evidence. Idiots? No. But not scientists, either.

---

What I think is that the only people who cleave to evolutionism are people who are either misinformed about the evidence or so committed to a prior ideology that they simply won't accept the evidence.Hmmm, looks like we have are in disagreement . But I don't think you are cleaving to evolution, or misinformed,or anything, I just that you're wrong. I can accept that you think I'm wrong, just as long as you acknowledge that I am possibly an informed, intellegent person.I respect you (though you are wrong), you respect me(though you only think I'm wrong). Thanks

Well, obviously I realize that you think that. That's why we all meet here to have the debate. We put each other's arguments and evidence to the test, and see who can best defend their position.But when the article says that evolution has never been disproven, they're saying that because no creationist argument has ever been supported - they're all either fallacious or contradicted by evidence. If you're a creationist, then one of several things must be true:1) You're misinformed, potentially on a number of things, like the evidence in favor of evolution, or what exactly evolution entails, etc.2) You've purposefully ignored the evidence in favor of evolution because of a commitment to ideology or a rejection of the evolutionary conclusion.3) You don't understand what it means for something to be supported by evidence or what constitutes evidence.4) You're a liar. You know that evolution is a scientifically accurate explanation of the history of life on Earth but you continue to say that you believe otherwise.The reason you must be one of these things is because evolution is an accurate model of life on Earth, according to any reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Anyone who says otherwise must be doing so for one of the above reasons.Again, I don't expect you to just agree with that on my say-so. But I'll make you a bet. I'm willing to stake my acceptance of evolution as accurate on the evidence. Then I will present that evidence to you and respond to your rebuttals and questions. If the evidence doesn't in fact support evolution, I will discontinue my support of it.But you have to be willing to do the same - put your support of creationism on the line and submit to what the evidence points to. Do we have a deal? I have to warn you - no creationist has ever supported the theory in the face of the scientific evidence. Every one of them has either ignored it, not been able to understand it, or simply turned tail and bolted in the face of it. Are you going to be the first to defend a scientific model of creationism?

Road Frog,
We have a deal. I promise to not turn tail and run, or ignore you. If you beat me in a debate I will accept defeat. And if (more likely when)I display misunderstandings of evolution, I will gladly accept correction. I look forward to debating you, and the other evolutionists on this forum.

quote:

---

I don't expect you to just agree with that on my say-so.

---

You hit the nail right on the head

JT writes:

quote:

---

Evolution can't be disproven

---

Of course it can. It has to be able to be disproven or it cannot be a theory.Here are a few ways you could disprove evolution:1) Find a fossilized rabbit in Precambrian strata.
2) Show that all organisms are equidistant from each other genetically.
3) Show an ostrich hatching from an alligator egg.Ask a dozen evolutionary biologists and you'll get thirteen examples of experiments that you could do that, should the results turn out a certain way, would be a significant problem for evolutionary theory.The fact that nobody has managed to do so is indicative of the strength of the theory, not the inability to disprove it. Science can never have a certainty because science is an observational process. Since it is impossible to observe everything, we have to settle for accuracy.Of course evolution can be disproven. Every time a biologist runs an experiment, every time a paleontologist goes into the field, every time a taxonomist observes remains, evolution is at risk of being disproven.Now for the other side:What would it take for you to admit that creationism is wrong? I've given you three things that you could that would make me question the accuracy of evolution. What would you need to see in order to admit that you could be wrong?

quote:

---

What offended me is assertion that evolution has "withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it".

---

Why? It's the truth. Evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments. Nothing has disproved it. That's why it's still the dominant paradigm of biology. As Dobzhansky put it, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost much and you can get the materials from any reputable 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.Therefore, we can watch evolution happen right before our eyes.

quote:

---

That is an attack on creation(ists)

---

It may be, but who said reality was polite? Since when did science become a popularity contest? What do self-esteem and the desire not to hurt anybody's feelings have to do with experimental results?Some answers are simply wrong. And, it is a great disservice to all involved not to point them out for fear of making somebody feel bad. That deconstructionist/post-modern crap is worthless when it comes to finding out how things actually work.Robert Frost said it well:A man said to the universe, "Sir, I exist.""However," replied the universe, "that fact does not create in me a sense of obligation."Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. That doesn't mean your opinion is of any value nor does it mean it is to be given the same respect as other opinions.You don't go to your tax attorney for advice on your heart operation. You don't go to your cardiologist for advice on how to cure the Dutch Elm Disease in your backyard tree. You don't go to your horticulturist for advice on how to fix your leaky roof. You don't go to your contractor for advice on how to set up a living trust. It isn't that these people are stupid. It's simply that their areas of expertise are quite different and it would be inappropriate for them to speak outside those areas.This doesn't mean that only a cardiologist can speak about coronary disease or that they can never be wrong. It does mean that a cardiologist is much more likely to have something useful to say on the subject.And here's the thing: Anybody can become a cardiologist. You just have to put in the work. While there is no royal road to knowledge, the only toll is time and effort.If you want others to respect your opinion, you have to show why it is worthy.

quote:

---

I respect you (though you are wrong), you respect me(though you only think I'm wrong).

---

You do realize you just showed a great deal of disrespect, yes?You're right and everybody else merely thinks they are?See, I only think I'm right. I'm not sure. I could be wrong. I've shown you quite a few ways you could show me. I respect you enough to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you're right and I'm wrong.Where's the reciprocity? Where's the respect for you to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you're wrong and I'm right?If you cannot consider the possibility of being wrong, then you don't have respect for others. Surely you aren't saying you know everything, are you?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Wow, welcome back Rrhain. Long time no see.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"