Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Evolution is science
AndyB
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 200 (379501)
01-24-2007 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by PaulK
01-24-2007 9:25 AM


Re: Why the issue about Darwin?
PaulK wrote:
"According to dictionary.com "relativity" is "the state or fact of being relative". So it seems that all your points apply to Relativity as much as to Evolution. Does this mean that Relativity is not science ? I think that there are a good many physicists who would disagree with you."
Sorry, I'm sticking by the rules - this thread is on the subject "Is evolution science?" and that's all I'm prepared to discuss.
As far as my previous comments are concerned, I said:
"Evolution is not a science for one very simple reason - the only universally agreed definition of 'evolution' is:
Evolution = Change"
I take my lead here from (amongst others) Douglas Futuyma, author of "Evolutionary Biology", who appears to be held in pretty high regard by his peers. Futuyma writes:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve."
"Evolutionary Biology" (1985, 2nd edition)
He then goes on to say that BIOLOGICAL evolution - which is maybe what you had in mind, but you didn't actually say so:
"is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual."
Another version, from Lawrence Moran, professor of biochemistry at the University of Toronto, is:
"When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population."
Now I'm not suggesting that these two men would disagree with weach other's definitions. And quite possibly most evolutionists would agree with both descriptions. There are, however two problems:
1. (apparently minor) the two descriptions don't in fact quite match up. Moran only specifies a change in gene frequency - no mention of it causing changes to the population. Futuyma's explanation specifies actual changes in the population. In other words, Futuyma expects the genetic changes to take effect; Moran's only calls that they will exist.
2. Futuyma goes on to claim that:
"Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
In a word, though many evolutionists hate the distinction, Futuyma is outlining micro-evolution (slight changes) and macro-evolution (an accumulation of successive alterations).
Of course microevolution used to be openly acknowledged, under the label "adaptation".
Adaptation, I happily agree, is entirely open to scientific investigation. Thousands of experiments (hundreds of thousands?) have demonstrated the reality of adaptation - whether brought about by natural selection or human selection.
But "successive changes", or "accumulated changes"? Where's the science there? It's pure pie in the sky. What experiments we have (such as growing extra bristles on a fruit fly) only show that the accumulation of adaptive changes are limited in their extent.
Of course various explanations have been offered, but no evidence has been produced to demonstrate that these boundaries can be overcome.
So, I say again, some aspects of evolution - and more specifically biological evolution - can be supported by scientific investigation. And some are purely hypothetical. And insisting that something MUST have happened, when there's no evidential support for it, and definite evidence against it, is not "scientific" - it's plain wishful thinking.
Anyone who has read "On the Origin of Species" will know that Darwin himself was well aware of this problem. He reported stories from pigeon breeders who effectively told him that breeding for difference was limited in its possibilities, and that even after such breeding had been successfully achieved, if the offspring were left to their own devices then subsequent generations began to revert, physiologically, to their ancestral type (as did the "hairy" fruit flies in more recent trials).
So has it been "scientific" to ignore the evidence and constantly struggle to show that the Darwinian model - already invalidated before it was first published - must be right?
If that's "science" then the definition seems to have changed quite radically since I did a "minor"in the basics of genetic heredity at university.
Be well
Andy Bradbury

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2007 9:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Modulous, posted 01-24-2007 1:06 PM AndyB has not replied
 Message 156 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2007 1:21 PM AndyB has not replied

  
AndyB
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 200 (379503)
01-24-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by crashfrog
01-24-2007 10:43 AM


Re: Why the issue about Darwin?
Crashfrog wrote:
"I don't know how you determine what definitions are "universally agreed", but the idea that scientists don't have any deeper understanding of evolution except as "change" is ludicrous and betrays a significant lack of research on your part."
That ISN'T what I atually wrote. It IS your interpretation.
I have no intention of getting into a slanging match OR of defending a position I never held in the first place.
Be well
Andy B.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by crashfrog, posted 01-24-2007 10:43 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by crashfrog, posted 01-24-2007 3:25 PM AndyB has not replied

  
AndyB
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 200 (379505)
01-24-2007 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Admin
01-24-2007 9:27 AM


Re: Administrative Request
"I have two choices: doing nothing, or suspending everyone involved. I don't plan on taking the former course of action."
Is it REALLY that difficult to tell who is being abusive to whom?
You don't plan on doing nothing, and I don't have much respect for the latter threat. So please remove me from your list of members.
Bye now
Andy Bradbury

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Admin, posted 01-24-2007 9:27 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Admin, posted 01-24-2007 1:16 PM AndyB has not replied

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


Message 154 of 200 (379509)
01-24-2007 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by AndyB
01-24-2007 12:35 PM


Re: Why the issue about Darwin?
You missed out an important part of Larry's posting:- He posts Futuyuma's quote and basically agrees with it. He goes on to say that a minimal definition of evolution is:
quote:
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
he also quotes this as a good definition:
quote:
In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
They both agree that the pertinent thing that changes in evolution is the gene pool of the population.
He then goes on to say that BIOLOGICAL evolution
biological evolution was the focus of the OP. Are you conceding that evolution in our context, is more than simply 'change'?
But "successive changes", or "accumulated changes"? Where's the science there? It's pure pie in the sky. What experiments we have (such as growing extra bristles on a fruit fly) only show that the accumulation of adaptive changes are limited in their extent.
Of course various explanations have been offered, but no evidence has been produced to demonstrate that these boundaries can be overcome.
The evidence is that most if not all living beings share common ancestry - thus the 'boundaries' have been 'broken' already - we need an explanation for this. Whilst incomplete, the ToE helps us investigate how these boundaries broke. That we don't yet have all the answers does not imply that the answers do not exist. The science in evolution - is trying to discover how the natural world got to where it is.
The evidence incidentally, can be found in many threads and throughout the internet. Multiple lines converging to one conclusion. Nested hierearchies derived from genetic and morphological studies being very closely alligned is a wonderful pile of evidence for example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by AndyB, posted 01-24-2007 12:35 PM AndyB has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 155 of 200 (379513)
01-24-2007 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by AndyB
01-24-2007 12:49 PM


Re: Administrative Request
AndyB writes:
So please remove me from your list of members.
Request granted.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by AndyB, posted 01-24-2007 12:49 PM AndyB has not replied

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


Message 156 of 200 (379514)
01-24-2007 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by AndyB
01-24-2007 12:35 PM


Re: Why the issue about Darwin?
quote:
Sorry, I'm sticking by the rules - this thread is on the subject "Is evolution science?" and that's all I'm prepared to discuss.
The fact that your argument applies equally well to Relativity is relevant to that subject.
quote:
He then goes on to say that BIOLOGICAL evolution - which is maybe what you had in mind, but you didn't actually say so:
It's also what the originator of the thread had in mind. Read the first post.
quote:
Another version, from Lawrence Moran, professor of biochemistry at the University of Toronto, is:
"When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population."
You take this from What is Evolution however if you read it in context you can see that it is not intended as a definition. Rather it is intended to support the claim that this definition:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
...conveys the essence of what evolution really is.
Moran's own definition is
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
quote:
But "successive changes", or "accumulated changes"? Where's the science there? It's pure pie in the sky. What experiments we have (such as growing extra bristles on a fruit fly) only show that the accumulation of adaptive changes are limited in their extent.
Of course various explanations have been offered, but no evidence has been produced to demonstrate that these boundaries can be overcome.
What about the evidence that it has happened ? Why do you rule that out ? Darwin collected adequate evidence to convince the scientists of his day. Todays scientists have far more evidence. You could look at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution for a sampling of the evidence that you deny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by AndyB, posted 01-24-2007 12:35 PM AndyB has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 157 of 200 (379544)
01-24-2007 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by AndyB
01-24-2007 12:41 PM


Re: Why the issue about Darwin?
That ISN'T what I atually wrote.
In fact, I quoted what you actually wrote, which pretty much makes your charge of misrepresentation a falsehood.
We do know how to read around here, despite the assertions of science's enemies to the contrary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by AndyB, posted 01-24-2007 12:41 PM AndyB has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 158 of 200 (379598)
01-24-2007 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by AndyB
01-24-2007 9:13 AM


Re: Why the issue about Darwin?
For the record, seeing as you are deserting the field with hardly any argument or substantiations ...
Message 153 ... and I don't have much respect for the latter threat. So please remove me from your list of members.
Message 155 Request granted.
... this is just to clarify things for other readers.
1. I have no idea why you would imagine that all "creationists" (a hopelessly vague generalisation)
I wasn't referring to ALL creationists, but to ones that "seem to need to discredit Darwin as if that would make evolution go away" - people like you that post a big website all about what is wrong with Darwin's books and the ideas in them.
The bottom line, as I state quite clearly, is NOT to discredit Darwin as such, but to clarify and document the true level of his scientific knowledge and skill.
So you wrote it all elevate him instead? Please don't play word games, people - generally - know better.
Part of your problem is your own understanding it appears:
Evolution is not a science for one very simple reason - the only universally agreed definition of "evolution" is:
Evolution = Change
And that's it! Once you go beyond that simple definition things start to get fuzzy.
Every definition that I run across for evolution has change over time from generation to generation. There are many forms that this "change in species over time" takes, and some are noted in other responses, but they all involve more than just change.
This is another typical creationist (or anyone with poor understanding) type of comment: when you are talking about a science you either use the definitions in use withing the science or you are NOT talking about the science but some straw man fantasy you have about the science.
Even the source you quoted gave a more complete definition that you omitted in order to present your straw man version as being of a sound source: this is the essence of "quote mining" -- another common fallacy, this one of appearing to use an authority for substantiation, when the source does not in fact substantiate your position but refutes it.
Your doing this shows that you are not really interested in the truth.
Change in species over time has been observed, recorded, documented. These are facts. The theories that build on these observations are the science trying to piece the larger picture together - sorting the reality from the fuzziness: a picture that shows the same kinds of change in species over time since a beginning of life sometime before 3.5 billion years ago.
I hope this answers your questions adequately. If not I respectfully suggest that you try reading the whole thing without prejudging the nature of what you are reading.
It answers my questions about your motives and your reasons for writing your piece, whether you try to dissemble here or not.
It answers my questions about your ability to understand the real issue of evolution, and hence why you may think Blythe is important to the science of evolution instead of a footnote. Like Wallace and others. Even Darwin.
I read enough of you site to know that more would be a waste of time. Peppered moths ... really. That old PRATT.
Seeing as I don't expect a reply, enjoy your refuge on your site where you can remain un-obscured by reality.
For the rest:
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 144 by AndyB, posted 01-24-2007 9:13 AM AndyB has not replied

  
Oliver
Junior Member (Idle past 5159 days)
Posts: 16
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Joined: 02-04-2007


Message 159 of 200 (382362)
02-04-2007 1:10 PM


Macro-Evo not Science
I think that Evolution is 'crack' science because it does not satisfy the requirements for scientific study in the first place. Science demands that that which is studied be testable, demonstrable and observable of which Evolution doesn't qualify. We certainly can observe speciation and adaptation which falls under micro-evolution but we cannot observe or test physiological changes which occur that result in a totally different creature. That is assumed and based on inference. If it is claimed that Evolution occured over millions of years, then how can we observe it? I believe that Evolution be taught as a religion and not as part of science.

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2007 1:24 PM Oliver has replied
 Message 161 by Chiroptera, posted 02-04-2007 1:30 PM Oliver has not replied
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 02-04-2007 1:37 PM Oliver has replied
 Message 165 by Jon, posted 02-04-2007 1:45 PM Oliver has replied

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


Message 160 of 200 (382368)
02-04-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Oliver
02-04-2007 1:10 PM


Re: Macro-Evo not Science
quote:
I think that Evolution is 'crack' science because it does not satisfy the requirements for scientific study in the first place. Science demands that that which is studied be testable, demonstrable and observable of which Evolution doesn't qualify.
I think you will find that your list of requirements aren't the same as those used by science. Science certainly doesn't demand direct observation, for instance. Evolution certainly is testable and has passed many tests.
quote:
.We certainly can observe speciation and adaptation which falls under micro-evolution...
Speciation falls under macro-evolution. Therefore macro-evolution is observable.
quote:
...but we cannot observe or test physiological changes which occur that result in a totally different creature. That is assumed and based on inference.
It was never simply assumed - it is an inference based on very strong evidence.
quote:
If it is claimed that Evolution occured over millions of years, then how can we observe it?
Why should we have to ? Why can't we extrapolate from observed processes and infer from the evidence we do have ? It seems that the issue is simply that you are using unreasonable criteria - which are not those of science. Don't forget that the vast majority of working scientists disagree with you. Why do you think that you understand the boundary between science and non-science better than they do ? If so, why ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Oliver, posted 02-04-2007 1:10 PM Oliver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Oliver, posted 02-04-2007 1:34 PM PaulK has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 200 (382371)
02-04-2007 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Oliver
02-04-2007 1:10 PM


Re: Macro-Evo not Science
Hello, Oliver. Welcome to EvC.
quote:
Science demands that that which is studied be testable, demonstrable and observable of which Evolution doesn't qualify.
Actually, the theory of evolution is testable, demonstrable, and observable according to the meanings those words have in science. Dr. Douglas Theobald has written a wonderful essay describing how evolution is not only testable, but it has passed the tests that have been put to it.
Just so I am "arguing by internet link", let me briefly point out my favorite evidence for evolution: the nested hierarchical classification of the species.
The test: If common descent were true, that is, if all known species are descended from a very small number of ancestral species, we should be able arrange the species in a hierarchical pattern based on their physical characteristics. If this nested hierarchical classification were not true, then this would be a falsification of the theory of common descent.
The observation: Such a nested hierarchical pattern is observed; furthermore, it is not spurious: different people using different characteristics in their classification produce essentially the same nested hierarchies.
This, along with other such tests, constitutes the demonstration of the theory of evolution.

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Oliver, posted 02-04-2007 1:10 PM Oliver has not replied

  
Oliver
Junior Member (Idle past 5159 days)
Posts: 16
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Joined: 02-04-2007


Message 162 of 200 (382375)
02-04-2007 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by PaulK
02-04-2007 1:24 PM


Re: Macro-Evo not Science
Yes, we observe speciation but I don't agree that it falls under macro-evo. There are many different species of birds but they're still birds, they're just different variations and have adapted. That sounds like micro-evolution to me. Now, if you can, give me an ovserved case of macro-Evoltion, that is a creature completely changing into something esle?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2007 1:24 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2007 1:44 PM Oliver has not replied
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2007 1:59 PM Oliver has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 163 of 200 (382377)
02-04-2007 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Oliver
02-04-2007 1:10 PM


Re: Macro-Evo not Science
We certainly can observe speciation and adaptation which falls under micro-evolution but we cannot observe or test physiological changes which occur that result in a totally different creature.
What's most interesting is that there aren't any "totally different creatures"; all living things on Earth share, at some level, similarities with even the most utterly different organisms you can imagine. Plants and animals have similarities. Vertebrates and invertebrates. Multicellular and unicellular.
However you want to draw the boundaries, there are similarities. The great thing about evolution is that it both explains why this is true, and explains why some organisms are more similar than others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Oliver, posted 02-04-2007 1:10 PM Oliver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Oliver, posted 02-04-2007 1:59 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 164 of 200 (382381)
02-04-2007 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Oliver
02-04-2007 1:34 PM


Re: Macro-Evo not Science
quote:
Yes, we observe speciation but I don't agree that it falls under macro-evo.
In biology macro-evolution is defined at evolution at or above the species level. If you're using some other definition then you should be very clear what it is and where it comes from.
quote:
There are many different species of birds but they're still birds, they're just different variations and have adapted. That sounds like micro-evolution to me.
That is quite definitely macro-evolution by any normal definition. I think that even creationists would call it macro-evolution by THEIR definitions.
quote:
Now, if you can, give me an ovserved case of macro-Evoltion, that is a creature completely changing into something esle?
Did you actually read my post ? You know the one that points out that science is quite happy to accept conclusions based on extrapolation and inference (where the evidence is good enough) and DOESN'T demand direct observation ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Oliver, posted 02-04-2007 1:34 PM Oliver has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 200 (382382)
02-04-2007 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Oliver
02-04-2007 1:10 PM


Re: Macro-Evo not Science
If it is claimed that Evolution occured over millions of years, then how can we observe it?
Well, how can we know that the Egyptians built the pyramids? Certainly we cannot go back in time and watch them hoist the stones into place. Yet, we know. So, first tell me how we know the Egyptians built the pyramids (as opposed to invading Medieval Arabs, for example), and then I can tell you how we know evolution occurred.
J0N
Edited by Jon, : TAKE THAT CREO BOY!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Oliver, posted 02-04-2007 1:10 PM Oliver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Oliver, posted 02-04-2007 2:18 PM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024