Lines of Evidence

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I'm a recovering KJO-YEC

I got very poor marks for Grade 12 Biology (in 1982), but am very keen to learn all I can about these lines of evidence for E V O L U T I O N

Please choose "one" and help me understand it?

I known I could search out the answer, but then this wouldn't be a discussion - it'd be a boring old lecture.

So, let's chat.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

BTW evolution is a fact whether we believe it or not.

Why do I smell religion?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Why do I smell religion?

Perhaps because you don't know what you're talking about?

By the way, I like the phrase 'recovering king james original - young earth creationist'. It draws a parallel with alcoholics and other desperate addicts who like to call their affliction a 'disease', which is why they are 'recovering'.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Perhaps because you don't know what you're talking about?

Fancy123: '....BTW evolution is a fact whether we believe it or not.'

Stephen J. Gould:
'...Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

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. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. ....'

excerpt from "Evolution as Fact and Theory" : Discover, May 1981

By the way, I like the phrase 'recovering king james original - young earth creationist'. It draws a parallel with alcoholics and other desperate addicts who like to call their affliction a 'disease', which is why they are 'recovering'.

Thanks, I thought it was a good start. BTW - the term KJO = King James Only

I started out questioning both those positions, thankfully in that order.

Now to the subject at hand. I'm considering the evidence (sort of a like a homework project -- for old blokes -- I'm 57 in Jan.) for Evolution -- and am well aware that there is a huge pile of that, both historical and still being amassed. Obviously, it would be silly to try and explore it all in one go, so my question in the opening post -- was about exploring one of the lines of evidence (or at most, one facet of one of those)

i.e. Fossil Record, Genetic Code and DNA Homology

I've also done a little light reading in the Berkley Uni. : Welcome to Evolution 101 , as well as engaging in various discussions on a forum (which has since had a server crash - losing all those discussions) -- so, I'm basically trying to start where I left off -- I've got a fairly good understanding of Evolution, but got to where the matter of evidence for Evolution became something I'd like to explore.
I thought it might be fun to do that here, and see if we can find one line (or part of) -- which is worth exploring. I'm leaving that up to the readers here, to decide which one might be worth chatting about.

Thanks for replying.

 

[Nithavela]

BTW evolution is a fact whether we believe it or not.

No it isn't, it's a theory. A fact is something entirely different.

Let's go with ERV for the moment, eh? In simple words: a virus reproduces by inserting his genes into cells, so that they make new viruses.

Sometimes, those pieces of Virus DNA are inserted into a DNA that is used for reproduction. Henceforth, this Virus DNA piece is part of the "normal DNA" and might stay there for a very long time.

So, if we see a piece of ERV DNA in human genes, and we see the same piece of ERV DNA in the genes of other apes, we can tell that we once had a common ancestor. We do see that, so this is an argument for evolution.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Thanks Nithavela

I'm currently reading about this under 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

Will look back, as I have stuff to do.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Fancy123: '....BTW evolution is a fact whether we believe it or not.'

Stephen J. Gould:
'...Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

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. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. ....'

excerpt from "Evolution as Fact and Theory" : Discover, May 1981

Yes, evolution is a fact. Nothing to do with religion. Your quotes say it is a fact. Only you brought religion into it.

Thanks, I thought it was a good start. BTW - the term KJO = King James Only

I started out questioning both those positions, thankfully in that order.

Now to the subject at hand. I'm considering the evidence (sort of a like a homework project -- for old blokes -- I'm 57 in Jan.) for Evolution -- and am well aware that there is a huge pile of that, both historical and still being amassed. Obviously, it would be silly to try and explore it all in one go, so my question in the opening post -- was about exploring one of the lines of evidence (or at most, one facet of one of those)

i.e. Fossil Record, Genetic Code and DNA Homology

I've also done a little light reading in the Berkley Uni. : Welcome to Evolution 101 , as well as engaging in various discussions on a forum (which has since had a server crash - losing all those discussions) -- so, I'm basically trying to start where I left off -- I've got a fairly good understanding of Evolution, but got to where the matter of evidence for Evolution became something I'd like to explore.
I thought it might be fun to do that here, and see if we can find one line (or part of) -- which is worth exploring. I'm leaving that up to the readers here, to decide which one might be worth chatting about.

Thanks for replying.

They have all been explored here in countless threads over and over again so you may find people want to know exactly what problem you have with some aspect of the reams of evidence before they engage you. If you read enough threads here you'll see what I mean. Best of luck.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

No it isn't, it's a theory.

The theory of evolution gives an explanation the fact of evolution. Just like the theory of gravity gives an explanation for the fact of gravity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No it isn't, it's a theory. A fact is something entirely different.

Let's go with ERV for the moment, eh? In simple words: a virus reproduces by inserting his genes into cells, so that they make new viruses.

Sometimes, those pieces of Virus DNA are inserted into a DNA that is used for reproduction. Henceforth, this Virus DNA piece is part of the "normal DNA" and might stay there for a very long time.

So, if we see a piece of ERV DNA in human genes, and we see the same piece of ERV DNA in the genes of other apes, we can tell that we once had a common ancestor. We do see that, so this is an argument for evolution.

I'ld like to add to that, that we can do such a thing for just about any "genetic marker". What you'll find is that the closer related the species, the more "genetic markers" they have in common. ERV's are just one such example.

And, we can also do the exact same for more macroscopic features... The way the eye works for example. There are quite a lot of different types of eye out there... What you'll find is that these eyes too follow the hierarchical pattern that we expect.

We can de the same with other anatomical structures. You can take a bone of the human body and trace it in other species. The more closely related, the more the bone will have roughly the same shape and location. Go look up where the mammalian earbone finds itself in reptiles for example.

The hierarchical patterns in living systems are all over the place. We find them in DNA, in anatomy,... we even find them in the fossil record and the distribution of species.

Coming from all these different angles (comparative anatomy, distribution of species, the fossil record, the genetic record,...) we can draw a hierarchical tree of life for every single one of these fields of study.

The outcome is always the same type of tree. It fits like a glove.

That, for me, is the best piece of evidence: the total convergence of different, independent, lines of evidence.

Evolution is such a strong theory because it makes predictions that cross over into a wide variety of fields of study. They aren't limited to just a small scope. It's not for nothing that it is called sometimes "the unified field theory of the biological sciences".

 

[essentialsaltes]

Please choose "one" and help me understand it?

But I can't choose just one! I will try a little mix of transitional forms and experimentation.

If land creatures evolved from sea creatures (as evolutionary history and the fossil record (nuts, that's three) suggest) then there must have been transitional forms... something between a fish with fins and a 'tetrapod' with four legs. Some sort of a fishapod.

An evolutionary biologist decided to create an experiment. Based on the hypothesis of the existence of a fishpond, he used evolutionary theory to make a prediction about where it might be found, and it what age of rocks it might be found, and what characteristics it would have to be a transitional fossil.

Then the experiment was to go out and look for it.

And the experiment was successful, when they discovered Tiktaalik.

When a theory makes predictions that are later confirmed, this gives us greater confidence that the theory is correct. These are crucial tests of a theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

As for anatomical vestiges . . .

Creationists try to argue against vestigial organs by claiming that they have some sort of function. This misses the boat on 2 fronts:

1. Vestigial does not mean that it has no function. Vestigial means that the organ does not serve the same function as it does in other species. For example, if you stuck a piece of dynamite in a TV and blew it to smithereens, you could probably still find a chunk of the TV that could serve as a paperweight. If part of the TV could still be used as a paperweight, does that mean that the TV is still functional?

2. Vestigial features fall into the predicted nested hierarchy. For example, we don't find whales with vestigial feathers, or birds with vestigial mammary glands. All of the vestigial features are consistent with the proposed evolutionary history of that species.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Yes, evolution is a fact. Nothing to do with religion. Your quotes say it is a fact. Only you brought religion into it.

I am referring to the second part of the initial statement by Fancy123: '....whether we believe it or not.' -- which certainly smells of religion.

They have all been explored here in countless threads over and over again so you may find people want to know exactly what problem you have with some aspect of the reams of evidence before they engage you. If you read enough threads here you'll see what I mean. Best of luck.

I don't have problems, yet. -- if I do, I shall start a special thread addressing them.

Posts 6, 10, 11 and 12 -- have given me more than enough to read/think about for now.

Thanks.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

It won't be much of a chat if you are too lazy to find out for yourself will it?
It's your problem so you solve it, go to a site that explains evolution for children.

BTW evolution is a fact whether we believe it or not.

How do you think scientists would rank the terms fact, hypothesis, law, and theory?

 

[Shemjaza]

How do you think scientists would rank the terms fact, hypothesis, law, and theory?

A fact is data.
If the data forms a mathematically predictable pattern it is labelled a law.
A hypothesis is an idea proposed to explain the data.
A theory is a hypothesis that has been confirmed by evidence.

 

[Nithavela]

How do you think scientists would rank the terms fact, hypothesis, law, and theory?

There is no ranking. They each mean a seperate thing. It's like ranking different apples, bananas, tables and cats.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

How do you think scientists would rank the terms fact, hypothesis, law, and theory?

'....'You may be surprised that scientists rearrange this list, as follows:

Most important
Theories
Laws
Hypotheses
Facts
Least important

Why is there this difference? Clearly, scientists must have different definitions of these terms compared to how we use them “on the street." ....' ... '....Many high school (and even, unfortunately, some college) textbooks describe theories as tested hypotheses, as if a hypothesis that is confirmed is somehow promoted to a theory, and a really, really good theory gets crowned as a law. Unfortunately, this is not how scientists use these terms, but most people are not scientists and scientists have not done a very good job of communicating the meanings of these terms to students and the general public....' - Eugenie Scott, a former university professor, served as the executive director of NCSE from 1987 to 2014; she now serves as the chair of NCSE's Advisory Council.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Thank you DogmaHunter,
This summary statement has been very helpful, and I shall keep it in mind -- as I study further.

Evolution is such a strong theory because it makes predictions that cross over into a wide variety of fields of study. They aren't limited to just a small scope. It's not for nothing that it is called sometimes "the unified field theory of the biological sciences".

 

[Herman Hedning]

'....'You may be surprised that scientists rearrange this list, as follows:

Most important
Theories
Laws
Hypotheses
Facts
Least important

It would have been helpful if you had stated in what context scientists rank these concepts thusly. Or, indeed, which scientists you have questioned.

As it stands, I could imagine some scientists agreeing to that ranking purely based on their research interests - putting theories first because that is what research is about, and facts last because "facts are facts" and, so, not of that much interest in primary research except, of course, as the base of theories.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

It would have been helpful if you had stated in what context scientists rank these concepts thusly. Or, indeed, which scientists you have questioned.

As it stands, I could imagine some scientists agreeing to that ranking purely based on their research interests - putting theories first because that is what research is about, and facts last because "facts are facts" and, so, not of that much interest in primary research except, of course, as the base of theories.

Yes, I should have made that a bit clearer. Have I stepped outside the scope of this thread?

As I'm not a regular here, I cannot say for certain if the people contributing here are school goers, university graduates or professional scientists.

As '... "theory" is perhaps the most misunderstood word in science ....'*, I thought it might be worthwhile to establish why Fancy123 (refer to an earlier post here) was so determined to state that Evolution is a fact whether one believes it or not.

*E.Scott - Evolution vs Creationism

It seems to me, from reading Dawkins' book 'The Greatest Show On Earth : The Evidence For Evolution' -- that there is often great confusion of these terms ( i.e. theories, facts, hypotheses and laws ) in this regard.

'This book is my personal summary of the evidence that the 'theory' of evolution is actually a fact – as incontrovertible a fact as any in science.' Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, p. vii

"Evolution is not just a theory, it is a triumphant theory!" Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

 

[Strathos]

It's tough being a theistic evolutionist here, you get crap from both the atheists and the creationists.