Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[daveleau]

.

Which part of evolution? Macroevolution or Microevolution?

Speciation (macroevolution) has too many holes to be considered factual, despite the claims of scientists that it is fact.

Minor mutations, migration of characteristics within a species is factual and has been proven. So, yes, I believe microevolution occurs and that this can occur regardless of which Creation theory you believe in (liter 6 day, day-age, gap, flood, theistic evolution, relativity theory, etc.)

I do not believe macroevolution occurred. I have studied evolution while studying for my BS Biology degree. I have studied genetics there and in my research I did after college which is published in several international journals.

A problem arises in that those who argue this either have a minimal understanding of the science or a minimal understanding of theology. We need to rely on full understandings of both sides in this as in all arguments.

 

[daveleau]

Mod hat on>

Moved from GT to Origins Theology forum.

<Mod hat off

 

[random_guy]

Boy, all the no reasons seem to have a lack of scientific understanding in the reasoning.

I'll start here.

I've heard of the law of gravity.

Do you think Law means 100% correct? If so, then you're 100% wrong. The Law of Gravity (or Universal Gravitation) failed to account for the orbit of Mercury. It was later fixed with General Relativity. However, noticed it's still called the Law of Gravity, even though it fails under certain conditions.

All the other people saying that if it's a theory, why hasn't it been promoted to a fact, or it's only a theory and not a fact are also wrong.

Evolution is a fact and a theory, like other people have said. Evolution (change of allele frequencies over time) has been observed, and the theory why it happens is selection+mutations.

Just goes to show that sometimes it's easy to be against something when you don't understand it, like Frankenstein's monster.

 

[Willtor]

Which part of evolution? Macroevolution or Microevolution?

Speciation (macroevolution) has too many holes to be considered factual, despite the claims of scientists that it is fact.

Minor mutations, migration of characteristics within a species is factual and has been proven. So, yes, I believe microevolution occurs and that this can occur regardless of which Creation theory you believe in (liter 6 day, day-age, gap, flood, theistic evolution, relativity theory, etc.)

I do not believe macroevolution occurred. I have studied evolution while studying for my BS Biology degree. I have studied genetics there and in my research I did after college which is published in several international journals.

No doubt, you know more about evolution than I do (I am, here, referring to macro-evolution which spans species). I use, as do others in my department, evolutionary algorithms (or genetic algorithms) to solve NP-Complete problems, or to find adequate solutions, at least. One of my friends wrote his thesis on evolving SQL queries to find ones that ran much faster with minimal loss in accuracy.

I am the first to point out that evolution in computer science is not equivalent to evolution in other scientific fields. However, they do share quite a lot of principles in common (which is why they are called genetic algorithms). That macro-evolution is possible is not really difficult for me to grasp. That it actually occurred, and is occurring, is always a question in my mind. But there are certain sorts of disputes within the evolutionary science community that look very much like the disputes within some of the sciences with which I am more familiar.

These sorts of disputes, which constitute the bulk benefit provided by peer review, lead me to believe that they (the scientists) are working on something legitimate. Not that macro-evolution is necessarily the reality, but that it very well may be. I do not hold that it is a conspiracy to supplant God in America, nor that the scientists who work on it are doing so to support their atheistic ideals. Certainly, if you've ever read Dawkins' work in the Skeptical Enquirer (or Free Inquiry, I forget which), he's pretty raving. But if you read his non-philosophical work, he appears very interested in making his points acceptible to a community which would tear him apart if they weren't well-founded.

As a consequence, I tend to take evolution in the same light as M-Theory. I have read, and seen, information about these things, but I don't really know enough to dispute them. Why should I try? The conclusions that I have heard people draw from evolution, regarding God, have been taken from a sketchy-at-best understanding of what it is thought to be, and are typically flawed, even from a rational standpoint.

Now, Daveleau, I don't mean to suggest that you hold the view that the removal of God from America is the intent of the evolutionary scientific community. Actually, I sincerely doubt (from your tone) that you think it is. But it is a view which I have heard people discuss, and even preach. And I think it's misinformed. Even when I was not a proponent of evolution (in the macro sense), I did my best to distinguish myself from that perspective.

A problem arises in that those who argue this either have a minimal understanding of the science or a minimal understanding of theology. We need to rely on full understandings of both sides in this as in all arguments.

No argument, here, except to stipulate that comments ought to be permissible for those of us who do not possess "full understanding" under the condition that we specify what our knowledge is, and whence it stems. It will allow people with full understanding to criticize our statements more constructively.

 

[gluadys]

Yes.

I see this thread was just switched to this forum today.

Anyway, I've gone through it and seen the usual fallacies from those who doubt the fact and theory of evolution.

1. Some people don't know what a scientific theory is.

Yes, as long as its is recognised that it is a theory, not a proven fact.
How many years has it been a theory!?
Scientific theory? Yes. Scientific fact? No.
If evolution was a totally proven fact it would not be called a theory.

A theory is never a fact. A theory is an explanation of why certain facts exist as they do. If the theory is consistent with facts, then the facts support the theory and are treated as evidence for the theory. The point of a theory is not to become a fact, but to make sense of the facts by relating them to each other.

2. Some people think the theory of evolution has serious flaws.

I think it's full of holes, but science is full of holes.
About as quickly as I accept Swiss cheese as cheddar. The problem is it's full of holes.
The problem with that is the evolution is not working well when all the evidence is really considered the whole thing does not even make a good hypothis.

This usually indicates lack of knowledge about the theory and the evidence which supports it, and, if the person is open-minded, that problem is easily overcome with adequate information.

In other cases, it is just an unsupported excuse for not accepting the validity of evolution.

3. Some people think evolution is untestable and therefore untested.

But anyway, no. Not a scientific theory, because science is something than can be observed or/and tested. Evolution is neither of these things. Its a theory, but not a scientific one.

In fact, all the elements of evolution have been observed in nature and studied in the field and in experiments. Mutation, variation, natural selection, speciation are all observed facts.

4. Some people have an inadequate concept of evolution.

Here are three instances:

Natural selection works, as long as you realize that it only works in one direction. It removes traits that do not serve to promote survival of the species. However... it does not create anything new. So it is not "natural selection" as much as it is natural rejection.
Which supports not the theory of evolution... rather the theory of devolution.

Yes, natural selection only works in one direction. But it does not remove traits that do no serve to promote survival. Many traits that are indifferent to survival are untouched by natural selection. Natural selection affects only traits which make a difference to survival--spreading those that promote survival and limiting those which reduce the chance of survival. There are many traits which do not fall in either category and natural selection does nothing to remove them even though they do not promote survival.

It is also true that natural selection only selects. It does not create new traits. That is the role of genetic mutation. IOW natural selection is not synonymous with evolution. It is only one of the mechanisms of evolution. To understand evolution fully, one needs to understand all the mechanisms and how they work together.

I'll give you another example of an animal that stumps evolution: the shark. It has been on earth longer than man has, and it never evolved. Why not? Because it was designed that way.

Length of time in existence has nothing to do with how much a species will change over time. There is no rule that it must change by x% over each million years.

Note, that it will experience genetic mutations at much the same rate as other species. But those mutations will not necessarily be accepted. Unless mutations (or rather the variations they produce) are accepted, the species will not change much.

Second, sharks have evolved. "Shark" is not a species. There are many different species of sharks and each one of them had to evolve. There are probably many differences between sharks of today and sharks of ancient times. But we can agree that many characteristics of sharks have not changed over time as well.

And why should they? Are sharks well-adapted to their environment? It would seem so. Has their environment changed significantly in the last 400 million years? I don't think so. If a species is already near a maximum fitness level and in a stable environment, what would bring about a major evolutionary change? Natural selection doesn't tamper with success.

daveleau
Speciation (macroevolution) has too many holes to be considered factual, despite the claims of scientists that it is fact.

This is simply out-of-date information. Speciation has been observed, so it is a fact. Several speciations are described on talkorigins, and I have also saved a list of 50 observed speciations (out of a much longer list) provided by a biologist who used to frequent this board. I will provide it upon request.

Speciation has even been deliberately produced under laboratory conditions.

I actually wouldn't call Evolution-as-the-theory-that-explains-the-beginning-and-development-of-life as science.

Evolution does not attempt to explain the beginning of life. It explains how life became diverse. The theory of evolution pre-supposes that life already exists and does not comment on how life came to be. (Another branch of biology - abiogenesis- does that.)


5. Then there is the "different interpretation" claim.

They are different interpretations of a historical event.

There is a time and place for different interpretations in science. Prior to the discovery of cosmic background radiation, it was possible to explain the expansion of the universe in two different ways. But the steady-state theory was dropped with the discovery of CBR because it could not account for it, while big-bang theory predicted it.

The same goes for the geocentric/heliocentric debate on the structure of the cosmos back in the 16th century. For a time, they could compete as equals. But with the invention of the telescope, new discoveries were made that made the geocentric model obsolete while confirming the heliocentric model.

There is simply too much confirmatory evidence for evolution today--including evidence that was predicted before it was discovered--to accommodate the different interpretation thesis in this case.

6. Then there is the notion that evolution ought to speak about God.

Yes I accept it as a valid scientific theory, the problem is where is God in all this? and more decisive...

Scientific Theories are always changing... how can I put my faith in that? Do I need a new theological theory every time a scientist discovers something new?

But why should the theory of evolution say any more about God than the heliocentric model of the solar system, the theory of general relativity or the theory of quantum mechanics. Evolution is science, not theology. Science does not make theological statements.

Yes, scientific theories change. But who is asking you to put faith in science? Faith is a theological virtue. It has nothing to do with science which is all based on observed facts and logical inferences. So, no, you do not need a new theological theory every time a scientist discovers something new. But if the new discovery makes your scientific theory obsolete, you do need a new scientific theory. I don't understand this notion that science ought not to change. Scientists recognize that all their theories are partial and contain a margin of error. What is wrong with correcting error when new information comes to light?

7. And finally, we get the evolution=atheism contingent.

Most evolutionists are atheists for a reason.
Most scientists are atheistic evolutionists.
Really I think it just another attempt at trying to remove God from Society

Now if evolution was really atheism, it would not be "most" evolutionists, or "most" scientists. It would be "all". And it is not. Evolution is perfectly consistent with belief in a creator and there are many theists, including many Christians (some of them scientists) who accept both the theology of creation and the science of evolution.

 

[david_x]

Irreducible Complexity now there is somthing to chew on. Bactirial Flagelum are irreducibly complex, they have an out-board moter that is so complex it is impossible that it could have formed from natural selection. It has 30 parts that are completaly unknown to any other part of the organism.

 

[gluadys]

Irreducible Complexity now there is somthing to chew on. Bactirial Flagelum are irreducibly complex, they have an out-board moter that is so complex it is impossible that it could have formed from natural selection. It has 30 parts that are completaly unknown to any other part of the organism.

Better check this out.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Which part of evolution? Macroevolution or Microevolution?

Speciation (macroevolution) has too many holes to be considered factual, despite the claims of scientists that it is fact.

I agree, and I too consider that to be the major flaw in evolutionists theories.

Minor mutations, migration of characteristics within a species is factual and has been proven. So, yes, I believe microevolution occurs and that this can occur regardless of which Creation theory you believe in (liter 6 day, day-age, gap, flood, theistic evolution, relativity theory, etc.)

I agree with the assesment of evolution within a species.

 

[gluadys]

I agree, and I too consider that to be the major flaw in evolutionists theories.
I agree with the assesment of evolution within a species.

What do you think prevents microevolution becoming macroevolution?

 

[david_x]

Better check this out.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/e...n2/article.html

WOW, i love it. "These guys have a bias problem. That is we are bias against there bias." I don't think anyone will ever be able to look at these things unbias because there is no such person that exsists!

Besides a building without a foundation will fall. These theorists can not even explain how protein combined to form all the structures needed for a simple one-cell organism, much less the DNA needed to make them! Unless you have enough faith to believe the lightning strick in a puddle theory.

 

[gluadys]

WOW, i love it. "These guys have a bias problem. That is we are bias against there bias." I don't think anyone will ever be able to look at these things unbias because there is no such person that exsists!

Besides a building without a foundation will fall. These theorists can not even explain how protein combined to form all the structures needed for a simple one-cell organism, much less the DNA needed to make them! Unless you have enough faith to believe the lightning strick in a puddle theory.

But they have shown that the irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum could evolve from a simpler structure. That is the only point the article was speaking to.

As for the formation of proteins and of DNA, that's chemistry leading up to the cell, not the evolution of existing life forms and their organic structures. (Behe is a bio-chemist and focuses on the chemistry of biological processes.) And I think you are wrong anyway. I'm pretty sure scientists do know how protein forms and how DNA forms.

OTOH, biochemistry is very complex. Even the simplest cell is very complex. I think it is pretty hypocritical of ID proponents to keep reminding us of how very complex the simplest cell is and at the same time wonder why scientists haven't figured out yet how DNA and proteins were assembled into living cells. It does take time to figure out complex relationships. And there hasn't been much time in which scientists could concentrate on these things. Only about 30 years since the structure of DNA was discovered.

I realize that seems a long time when it is almost double your lifetime, but its a blink of an eye in the history of scientific discovery. And I bet that by the time you are double 30 years old, a lot of the process will be figured out.

 

[shernren]

Actually, AFAIK the evolution of proteins and DNA is still somewhat unknown to science. What science has achieved so far is showing the natural chance formation of amino acids. There really isn't much to show for the problem of assembling proteins and linking that assembly to a specific DNA sequence (which requires proteins itself - DNA transcription proteins, OTOH), although the problem of racemization (proteins forming almost exclusively from right-handed, not left-handed amino acids) probably isn't as big as it seems. That's why I have a secret little suspicion that God really did directly and supernaturally create life itself.

But there are rather simple self-assembling systems (e.g. AATE (can't remember acronym) which assembles itself from precursor molecules), and bilayer lipid membranes do spontaneously form when precursor molecules exist and exhibit some properties of real plasma membranes such as selective permeability and fission. I think that the question is really open w.r.t the "design" or not of life itself. Having said that, though, it isn't very open for many of the other "designed" mechanisms ID proponents put forward.

 

[winsome]

About as quickly as I accept Swiss cheese as cheddar. The problem is it's full of holes.

Love it

 

[racer]

Wrong. A scientific theory is a theory that is supported by scientific facts. Evolution is one of the best fact-supported theories on the block. Creationism is a lie dreamt up to make some evangelists a lot of money.

"Factual support" is not the same as "factual proof." As long as something is still considered a "theory," even if it's a scientific theory, it's not a fact.

And, when you can "scientifically and factually" prove that Creationism is "a lie," then you can continue to spout your unproven bunk.

Oh, and fyi, the theory of creationism came a long way before evangelists began profiting from anything.

It's amazing how "scientific intellectuals" spout such unfounded gossip and expect to be considered more credible than "creationists."

 

[gluadys]

"Factual support" is not the same as "factual proof." As long as something is still considered a "theory," even if it's a scientific theory, it's not a fact.

Theories are not guesses which will someday become facts. What theories do is organize facts into a system so that the facts relate to one another in a consistent way. The theory explains why the facts are what they are. A theory that is well-supported by numerous lines of factual evidence is often treated as fact since the probability that it is fact is very high (like 99.999%) This is the case with the theory of evolution.

btw evolution is also a fact. Species do change and speciation has been observed. The theory of evolution explains these facts. The theory is that mutation and selection are key mechanisms producing species change and speciation. Mutation and selection are also observed facts.

And, when you can "scientifically and factually" prove that Creationism is "a lie," then you can continue to spout your unproven bunk.

Already done.

 

[racer]

Theories are not guesses which will someday become facts. What theories do is organize facts into a system so that the facts relate to one another in a consistent way.

From Merriam Webster dictionary:

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : [size=-1]SPECULATION[/size]
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : [size=-1]CONJECTURE[/size] c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see [size=-1]HYPOTHESIS[/size]

From Merriam Webster thesaurus:

Entry Word: theory
Function: noun
Text: an idea that is the starting point for making a case or conducting an investigation <set out to prove her theory that people can't really taste any difference between colas, so they buy according to the product's image>
Synonyms hypothesis, proposition, supposition
Related Words assumption, concession, premise, presumption, presupposition; generalization, guess, guesswork, inference, speculation, surmise; proffer, proposal, suggestion; feeling, hunch, impression, inkling, notion, suspicion; abstraction, concept, conception
Near Antonyms assurance, certainty, fact, knowledge

As long as an idea is still referred to as a "theory," scientific or otherwise, it's still just a theory.

The theory explains why the facts are what they are.

Excuse me? The theory explains nothing. Facts are used to substantiate a theory. For instance, certain facts are used to explain why the "theory of evolution" is a credible and viable possibility. However, the facts are not substantial enough to make the "scientific theory of evolution" into "scientific fact."

A theory that is well-supported by numerous lines of factual evidence is often treated as fact since the probability that it is fact is very high (like 99.999%) This is the case with the theory of evolution.

Not even close. You can argue this moot point all you like. The fact is as long as the "theory of evolution" is still recognized as only that, "the theory of evolution," that's all it is--a theory.

btw evolution is also a fact. Species do change and speciation has been observed. The theory of evolution explains these facts. The theory is that mutation and selection are key mechanisms producing species change and speciation. Mutation and selection are also observed facts.

Yes, mutation and adaption to species' environments is factual. You can even say that this is so in humans. We adapt to our surroundings; this is seen in our skin color, the slant (non-slant) of our eyes, etc . . . . However, when we talk about this type of adaptation, we usually refer to it as that--"evolution." When we speak of "the theory of evolution," we are generally speaking of "evolution" versus "creationism," and I think that is the point being addressed in this thread.

Now, if you wish to assert that evolution explains why "what ever species" we began as evolved to "humanity," possessing the ability to feel, know right from wrong, to reason, speak and think, please explain why we don't have talking frogs or fish? Where is the real Mr. Ed?

Also, even if evolution was proven regarding the existence of humanity, this alone still would not disprove "creationism" nor the "intelligent design" theory. Evolution fails miserably in explaining the beginning of "existence," living or not.

Already done.

Really? Has the scientific community shared this proof with the rest of the world?

 

[gluadys]

From Merriam Webster dictionary:

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : [size=-1]SPECULATION[/size]
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : [size=-1]CONJECTURE[/size] c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see [size=-1]HYPOTHESIS[/size]

From Merriam Webster thesaurus:

Entry Word: theory
Function: noun
Text: an idea that is the starting point for making a case or conducting an investigation <set out to prove her theory that people can't really taste any difference between colas, so they buy according to the product's image>
Synonyms hypothesis, proposition, supposition
Related Words assumption, concession, premise, presumption, presupposition; generalization, guess, guesswork, inference, speculation, surmise; proffer, proposal, suggestion; feeling, hunch, impression, inkling, notion, suspicion; abstraction, concept, conception
Near Antonyms assurance, certainty, fact, knowledge

A dictionary gives all of the meanings of a word. But not every meaning of a word is appropriate in every context. From the Merriam-Webster dictionary only meanings 1 and 5 describe a scientific theory. From the thesaurus, the last three synonyms (abstraction, concept, conception) could be applied to a scientific theory. In science a concept is not usually referred to as a theory until there is substantial evidence in its favour. When it is still highly debatable it is usually referred to as a hypothesis.

Here are some descriptions of "theory" and "theory of evolution" from scientists themselves.

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. ...

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 suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15 (bolding added)

As long as an idea is still referred to as a "theory," scientific or otherwise, it's still just a theory.

The business of science is to discover facts and construct theories which link facts together in a web of cause and effect, showing how the facts arise from prior causes. "Just" a theory is a misnomer. Theory is as good as it gets. A really good theory i.e. one that ties together many facts, explaining them all on the basis of a few principles, and holds up through multiple tests against multiple tests and new observations, is considered "fact" in the sense Gould describes above: "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

The theory of evolution is such a theory.

Excuse me? The theory explains nothing. Facts are used to substantiate a theory. For instance, certain facts are used to explain why the "theory of evolution" is a credible and viable possibility. However, the facts are not substantial enough to make the "scientific theory of evolution" into "scientific fact."

Nothing makes a theory into a fact, because they are different sorts of things. To quote Gould again: "Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. ..."

An example of this in connection with evolution is the nested taxonomic hierarchy. The basic core of taxonomic classification of species was worked out by observation a century prior to Darwin by Linneaus and others. But no botanist or zoologist of that time could tell you by what principle species fell into this arrangement. The theory of evolution explains that the nested hierarchy is a natural consequence of heredity with modification.

Furthermore, once it was discovered that DNA is the medium which passes on heritable traits, and that it can be modified by mutations, it followed logically that an analysis of DNA across species should lead to the same nested hierarchy as a study of morphological traits. This is a scientific prediction and had it failed, the theory of evolution would have to be re-thought. However, it has not failed. Time and again, taxonomies built on DNA evidence not only yield nested hierarchies--they yield the same basic nested hierarchy as the morphological one. So it is common today to refer to the "twin-nested hierarchy" as a significant piece of supporting evidence for the theory of evolution.

Not even close. You can argue this moot point all you like. The fact is as long as the "theory of evolution" is still recognized as only that, "the theory of evolution," that's all it is--a theory.

That is what I am saying. The theory of evolution is a theory. And theories are not facts and don't change into facts. They explain, interpret and sometimes predict facts.

But the theory of evolution is not about whether or not evolution happens. That evolution happens is a fact. The theory is about how evolution happens. Futuyma explains the difference well. Look at the bolded section in the citation from his textbook and the sentence immediately following.

Yes, mutation and adaption to species' environments is factual. You can even say that this is so in humans. We adapt to our surroundings; this is seen in our skin color, the slant (non-slant) of our eyes, etc . . . . However, when we talk about this type of adaptation, we usually refer to it as that--"evolution."

Because it is evolution. I am glad to see you recognize this. There are a few ignoramuses around who think that adaptation happens without evolution.

When we speak of "the theory of evolution," we are generally speaking of "evolution" versus "creationism," and I think that is the point being addressed in this thread.

That may be what you intend when you use the term "theory of evolution". When scientists use the term "theory of evolution" they are not making any reference to creationism. They are referring to the mechanisms of evolution: what are the events which make evolution happen. See citations above.

Now, if you wish to assert that evolution explains why "what ever species" we began as evolved to "humanity," possessing the ability to feel, know right from wrong, to reason, speak and think, please explain why we don't have talking frogs or fish? Where is the real Mr. Ed?

Your question assumes that evolution is teleological i.e. that it aims to produce certain species. Evolution--the process--is not teleological. It never had the intention of producing humans.

Assuming, as theistic evolutionists do, that God intended the existence of humans, we can ascribe the outcome of a certain evolutionary pathway to the purpose of God. The process of evolution on its own would not necessarily produce humanity.

Also, even if evolution was proven regarding the existence of humanity, this alone still would not disprove "creationism" nor the "intelligent design" theory. Evolution fails miserably in explaining the beginning of "existence," living or not.

Evolution does not fail to explain the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life, because it has never attempted to do so. You can only fail at something if you attempt it. Evolution is about the origins and relationships of species, about the bio-diversity of life. There are other fields of science (physics, cosmology, chemistry, bio-chemistry and molecular biology) that deal with such matters as the origin of the universe, the solar system, earth and life on earth. They are a matter of indifference to evolution which is focused on what happens to species from generation to generation as they are affected by genetic and environmental changes.

Really? Has the scientific community shared this proof with the rest of the world?

Yes. That is why you do not find a study of creationism in biology textbooks. As a scientific hypothesis, creationism has been falsified.

Of course, this does not mean the theological doctrine of creation has been falsified. That is not a scientific proposal, so science does not have an opinion about creation.

 

[racer]

A dictionary gives all of the meanings of a word. But not every meaning of a word is appropriate in every context. From the Merriam-Webster dictionary only meanings 1 and 5 describe a scientific theory. From the thesaurus, the last three synonyms (abstraction, concept, conception) could be applied to a scientific theory. In science a concept is not usually referred to as a theory until there is substantial evidence in its favour. When it is still highly debatable it is usually referred to as a hypothesis.

Yes, but note what is listed as near antonyms:

Near Antonyms: assurance, certainty, fact, knowledge

The business of science is to discover facts and construct theories which link facts together in a web of cause and effect, showing how the facts arise from prior causes. "Just" a theory is a misnomer.

Okay, some theories are more substantiated than others are, but they’re still theories. There is still much information needed to substantiate the "theory of evolution" in regards to humans.

Theory is as good as it gets. A really good theory i.e. one that ties together many facts, explaining them all on the basis of a few principles, and holds up through multiple tests against multiple tests and new observations, is considered "fact" in the sense Gould describes above: "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

The theory of evolution is such a theory.

I disagree. I think in certain instances, such as environmental adaptation, it is fairly factual. However, regarding the existence of humanity, there is way too much missing to declare it as anything but a theory.

Nothing makes a theory into a fact, because they are different sorts of things. To quote Gould again: "Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. ..."

I think that is backwards. Facts explain, uphold, validate, or substantiate theories.

An example of this in connection with evolution is the nested taxonomic hierarchy. The basic core of taxonomic classification of species was worked out by observation a century prior to Darwin by Linneaus and others. But no botanist or zoologist of that time could tell you by what principle species fell into this arrangement. The theory of evolution explains that the nested hierarchy is a natural consequence of heredity with modification.

I vaguely recognize Linnaeus’ name from College Biology I, a general requirement. However, I think we are talking in circles here. I think we agree to a certain extent and disagree to a certain extent. To disprove that "man" was created by God and prove that he has evolved from some primate, science is going to have to show from what primate we evolved. I know they have some generalized lineage attempting to show this evolution, but have they discovered the missing link? If so, I guess I missed out on that bit of information.

Furthermore, once it was discovered that DNA is the medium which passes on heritable traits, and that it can be modified by mutations, it followed logically that an analysis of DNA across species should lead to the same nested hierarchy as a study of morphological traits. This is a scientific prediction and had it failed, the theory of evolution would have to be re-thought. However, it has not failed. Time and again, taxonomies built on DNA evidence not only yield nested hierarchies--they yield the same basic nested hierarchy as the morphological one. So it is common today to refer to the "twin-nested hierarchy" as a significant piece of supporting evidence for the theory of evolution.

OH-kayyyy, you’re way over my head here.

But the theory of evolution is not about whether or not evolution happens. That evolution happens is a fact. The theory is about how evolution happens. Futuyma explains the difference well. Look at the bolded section in the citation from his textbook and the sentence immediately following.

UHM, I still think we are not addressing the same issue. Yes, mutation and adaptations are fact. However, mutating and adapting to such an extent that the final outcome resembles not the original object has yet to be proved. Theorized with substantial evidence—in some instances—maybe, but not proven.

Because it is evolution. I am glad to see you recognize this. There are a few ignoramuses around who think that adaptation happens without evolution.

Well, I can only speak regarding my own understandings.

That may be what you intend when you use the term "theory of evolution". When scientists use the term "theory of evolution" they are not making any reference to creationism. They are referring to the mechanisms of evolution: what are the events which make evolution happen. See citations above.

Yes, but when it is being discussed in a Christian forum, usually the evolution vs. creation is the discussion. I think that is the issue here.

Your question assumes that evolution is teleological i.e. that it aims to produce certain species. Evolution--the process--is not teleological. It never had the intention of producing humans.

So, it’s all just the result of a "freak" accident? From chaos reigns order and morality?

Assuming, as theistic evolutionists do, that God intended the existence of humans, we can ascribe the outcome of a certain evolutionary pathway to the purpose of God. The process of evolution on its own would not necessarily produce humanity.

Why would certain species evolve to intellectual superiority and others stop evolving never developing intellectually?

Evolution does not fail to explain the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life, because it has never attempted to do so. You can only fail at something if you attempt it.

Then let me rephrase. Those who attempt to disprove "creationism" based upon the "theory of evolution" fail to do so.

Evolution is about the origins and relationships of species, about the bio-diversity of life. There are other fields of science (physics, cosmology, chemistry, bio-chemistry and molecular biology) that deal with such matters as the origin of the universe, the solar system, earth and life on earth. They are a matter of indifference to evolution which is focused on what happens to species from generation to generation as they are affected by genetic and environmental changes.

So, what kind of distinguishable mutations/adaptations have humans experienced over the last six-thousand years?

Yes. That is why you do not find a study of creationism in biology textbooks. As a scientific hypothesis, creationism has been falsified.

I disagree again. "Creationism" is not found in biology textbooks because it can not be scientifically or factually proven, not because it has been disproved. How could science ever disprove the existence of God? It can not. We have to face one thing, if there is no God, we’ll never know. The only way any of this will be proven, is when we die and meet the Lord—or the other person. That would really bother me if I didn’t believe in God.

Of course, this does not mean the theological doctrine of creation has been falsified. That is not a scientific proposal, so science does not have an opinion about creation.

Like I said, creationism has yet to be disproved. Therefore, the person who claims it is a lie created so that evangelists can make money has absolutely no factual basis for such an absurd claim.

 

[Dracil]

Yes, for the same reason I accept Gravity.

 

[gluadys]

Yes, but note what is listed as near antonyms:

Near Antonyms: assurance, certainty, fact, knowledge

True, but this is for the whole range of meaning of theory, not just that used in science.

Okay, some theories are more substantiated than others are, but they’re still theories.

All theories are still theories no matter how well substantiated they are. Atomic theory, for example, is still atomic theory. What you need to unlearn is the fallacious idea that theories ever become facts. Even when we are as certain of a theory as that the sun will rise tomorrow, it is still a theory.

So treating a theory as if it has some "growing" to do before being taken seriously just shows that you do not grasp what a theory is and why it is distinguished from fact.

There is still much information needed to substantiate the "theory of evolution" in regards to humans.

Not really. That we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees is well-evidenced.

I disagree. I think in certain instances, such as environmental adaptation, it is fairly factual. However, regarding the existence of humanity, there is way too much missing to declare it as anything but a theory.

Actually both involve both fact and theory. That species are adapted to their environment is a fact. That they became adapted through the mechanisms of evolution is theory. That humans have an evolutionary history is a fact. The precise details of that history is complex and will likely take many more discoveries before we can nail down the pathway that links us back to the ancestor we share with chimpanzees.

I think that is backwards. Facts explain, uphold, validate, or substantiate theories.

Facts do uphold, validate and substantiate theories, but they don't explain them. An apple falling from a tree does not explain gravity. Gravity explains why the apple falls from the tree to the ground instead of flying to the moon.

I vaguely recognize Linnaeus’ name from College Biology I, a general requirement.

To refresh your memory

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_05

However, I think we are talking in circles here. I think we agree to a certain extent and disagree to a certain extent. To disprove that "man" was created by God and prove that he has evolved from some primate, science is going to have to show from what primate we evolved. I know they have some generalized lineage attempting to show this evolution, but have they discovered the missing link? If so, I guess I missed out on that bit of information.

Science does not disprove or prove creation. The evolution of humanity is not a denial of God as creator. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive because evolution is a mechanism, a process. It is generally accepted by TEs that this is the process by which God brought all but the first living species into existence. Creationism generally asserts that God used a magical process instead of natural processes. So among Christians, the debate is not over whether God created us, but about how God created us.

btw missing links are for chains. In the article on Linnaeus you will see reference to the "Great Chain of Being" proposed by Aristotle. It was a very influential concept for two millennia, and it is not surprising that some people super-imposed it onto evolution. But evolution is not a chain or ladder. It is more like a branching tree (or even better a bush). This cartoon illustrates the incorrect and correct concepts.

OH-kayyyy, you’re way over my head here.

Sorry. The point is, if you get the same answer from two or more different procedures or methods that operate independently of each other, the probability that the answer is correct goes up. It is like having one person's testimony backed up by another's. The more independent witnesses agree on what happened, the more likely it is that it happened.

In the case of genetic evidence, we actually have hundreds of independant witnesses since each gene and each protein produced by a gene has evolved more or less independently of each other. So when they all tend to point to the same genetic lineage, it is likely correct. And that lineage is also the one suggested by the examination of visible traits like the arrangement of bones and nerves and muscles in living animals (and to some extent in fossil specimens).

UHM, I still think we are not addressing the same issue. Yes, mutation and adaptations are fact. However, mutating and adapting to such an extent that the final outcome resembles not the original object has yet to be proved. Theorized with substantial evidence—in some instances—maybe, but not proven.

Theories are never "proven" beyond doubt, though they may be substantiated to the point that it is perverse to refuse them provisional acceptance. That is because biological science is not based on pure mathematics but on observation and evidence. No one claims we have gathered all possible evidence or made every possible observation

So a theory is the concept which best accounts for all the observations--both natural and experimental--which we have made. Scientific procedure does not so much try to prove a theory, but to disprove or falsify it. Because science is based on observation and inductive reasoning, you never know when an exception to the rule will show up. But you can show that some hypotheses are not possible. A theory stays alive as long as it has never been falsified. And the more evidence behind it, the less likely it is to be falsified. Since evolution is one of the best substantiated theories in science, the probability that it will be falsified are quite slim.

Yes, but when it is being discussed in a Christian forum, usually the evolution vs. creation is the discussion. I think that is the issue here.

Yes, but we shouldn't assume that is also the scientific issue. It's not. In fact even here, the issue is not creation vs. evolution, as there is no conflict between these ideas. The issue is creationism vs. evolution. In a Christians Only forum like this one, everyone agrees that God created. So the issue is not creation. The issue is the mechanism of creation. Not "Did God create?" for we will all answer "yes" to that. But "How did God create?" In the way creationists say or in the way TEs say?

So, it’s all just the result of a "freak" accident? From chaos reigns order and morality?

With God all things are possible.

Why would certain species evolve to intellectual superiority and others stop evolving never developing intellectually?

Because evolution is not a ladder of progress. It is not as if every species were on the same railway track heading for the same destination. They may all come from the same station, but they peel off on thousands of different branch lines.

Then let me rephrase. Those who attempt to disprove "creationism" based upon the "theory of evolution" fail to do so.

It is the evidence which upholds evolution that falsifies creationism. But before we get too deep into this section of the discussion, we should define creationism. Some of the things you associate with creationism will be theological concepts which science cannot disprove e.g. the existence of God. Other aspects of creationism deal with the history of earth and life on earth. These can be investigated scientifically, and when they have been, they have been falsified.

So, what kind of distinguishable mutations/adaptations have humans experienced over the last six-thousand years?

I don't know how many adaptations have been timed yet. Many, no doubt, go back more than 6,000 years. I would expect differences in skin colour which are related to UV rays and Vitamin D absorption, are more than 6,000 years old. But I don't know if data is available on that.

On the other hand, some adaptations are quite recent. You may be aware that a certain type of difference in a hemoglobin produces a defect in red blood cells called sickle-cell. People who inherit this trait from both parents suffer anemia. Those who inherit if from only one parent, however, have heightened resistance to malaria. So in spite of the detrimental effects of the double inheritance, this particular gene is relatively common in areas where malaria is common.

Recently, a new mutation showed up in Burkina Faso. Like the Hemoglobin-S described above, this Hemoglobin-C confers resistance to malaria. Unlike Hemoglobin-S, the new Hemoglobin-C appears to have no detrimental side-effects, like causing sickle-cell anemia. So while it is somewhat desirable, in spite of the risks, to have Hemoglobin-S if one is likely to be exposed to malaria, it is even better to have Hemoglobin-C, because the benefit is not accompanied by any serious risk.

Scientists are predicting that within 50 years, Hemoglobin-C will replace Hemoglobin-S in Burkino Faso. That would be an instance of adaptive evolution occurring in humans in less than a century.

For a good overview of adaptive evolution, a great book is "The Beak of the Finch" by Jonathan Weiner. Not about human evolution of course, but it gives a very good description of how adaptive evolution works in finches and other species.

I disagree again. "Creationism" is not found in biology textbooks because it can not be scientifically or factually proven, not because it has been disproved. How could science ever disprove the existence of God?

Ah, but the existence of God is not what creationism is about. The existence of God is not scientifically testable. And evolution is compatible with the existence of God. So that is not the point of the debate. The point is, Does evolution describe how God created bio-diversity over the history of life on earth? and "Is humanity included in the process of evolution or were humans created independently from other life forms?"

A theistic evolution would say "yes" to the first question and agree that humans are included in the evolutionary process. A creationist may or may not agree with the first, but usually excludes humanity from the evolutionary process.

But both agree that God exists and that God created all things, including all forms of life.

Like I said, creationism has yet to be disproved.

If by creationism you mean simply that God exists, and God created, that cannot be disproved by science, since these are not testable scientific statements. But I don't call that creationism. I call that the doctrine of creation, which all of us here uphold.

By creationism I mean additional statements such as "God created all life forms 6,000 years ago." The addition of 6,000 years ago is a scientifically testable statement and has been falsified.