Is evolution a theory?

[Loudmouth]

So then, how can something that takes place over millions of years be observed?

The scientific method does not require you to observe the hypothesis. Observations and hypotheses are different things. Hypotheses need to be TESTABLE, not observable. That is a very important difference.

Past events produce evidence that is available to us today. The fossil record and the genomes of living species are direct records of those past events. This allows us to test hypotheses related to the theory of evolution, and those hypotheses continue to pass testing as they have for the last 150 years.

Do you understand how forensic science works? Do you really expect a forensic scientist to reanimate the corpse and observe the defendant killing it again? Or do you expect the forensic scientist to use the evidence available in the present to reconstruct what happened in the past?

Do we have the notes from the scientists who began this study millions of years ago?

Why would we need to? We have evidence in the present.

It's not a requirement of science to be able to observe and replicate?

It is a requirement. The results of experiments need to be replicable. However, the scientific method does not require the hypothesis to be replicable. There is a big difference between experiment and hypothesis.

From a lifelong study of science.

So how is it, after this lifetime of study, that you still don't know how the scientific method works?

 

[Publius]

So how is it, after this lifetime of study, that you still don't know how the scientific method works?

So then, basically, all you have are insults. Good to know before I waste anymore time on you.

 

[Loudmouth]

So then, basically, all you have are insults. Good to know before I waste anymore time on you.

So no one is allowed to point out your errors?

 

[Gracchus]

If the "religious folks" stopped killing Christian scientists, then wouldn't there be more of them, not less of them?

Christianity is not a genetic disorder. And if religious folks stopped killing Christian scientists there would indeed be more Christians and more scientists. If they stopped killing Christian Scientists there would be more Christians but not more scientists.

Actually, that would be the definition of devolution, not evolution.

No, a change in the frequency of alleles in the gene pool of an interbreeding population is evolution, by definition.
Perhaps you can define "devolution"?

No, it's adaptation by removal of tusked elephants from the breeding pool.

Adaptation of species that result from a change in allele frequency is evolution. Some evolution is not adaptive. (e.g. changes to the non-coding DNA) Some adaptation is not evolution: I adapt to hot weather by drinking more water. I adapt to cold weather by putting on more clothing or building a fire.
So, you see, evolution and adaptation are not the same thing. Some evolution is adaptation and some is not. Some adaptation is by means of evolution and some is by other means.

Removing something increases it?

Decreasing one thing can increase another. Removing uncertainty increases information.

So, let's put this on a level your average atheist can understand:

If Johnny has three apples and gives Sue one apple, does Johnny have more apples or fewer apples?

What has this thread to do with atheism, or theism? It is about evolution.

Moreover, information is not measured in the same way as apples. I have explained: A decrease of uncertainty is an increase of information. Information and uncertainty complement each other. To increase one is to decrease the other.

Let's put this on a level even a mentally challenged creationist can understand: If Johnny has three apples and gives Sue one, then Johnny has fewer apples but Sue has more.

Let's put this on a level anyone remotely familiar with genetics can understand: If the expectant mom has blood type B and a genotype BB, and pop has blood type A and a genotype AA, then we can be certain that the child will be type AB and have a genotype AB. If mom has phenotype B but genotype OB then the child might be blood type AB or B. Note that with more alleles involved there is more uncertainty, and so less information. Still don't get it? If mom is OB and pop is OA then the kid might be OO (blood type O), OA (blood type A), OB (blood type B) or AB (blood type AB). If the whole population only has the A, B, and O alleles, then all the progeny of that population will have only one of six genotypes (OO, OA, OB, AA, AB, BB) or four phenotypes (O, A, B, AB). If the B allele were eliminated there would be only three possible genotypes (OO, OA, AA), and two phenotypes blood types O and A. So we see that fewer alleles means less uncertainty, or more information. More alleles, means more uncertainty, and less information. And whether we add or eliminate alleles the frequency of the alleles in the population is changing, and that is evolution.

 

[Elendur]

Let's put this on a level anyone remotely familiar with genetics can understand: If the expectant mom has blood type B and a genotype BB, and pop has blood type A and a genotype AA, then we can be certain that the child will be type AB and have a genotype AB. If mom has phenotype B but genotype OB then the child might be blood type AB or B. Note that with more alleles involved there is more uncertainty, and so less information. Still don't get it? If mom is OB and pop is OA then the kid might be OO (blood type O), OA (blood type A), OB (blood type B) or AB (blood type AB). If the whole population only has the A, B, and O alleles, then all the progeny of that population will have only one of six genotypes (OO, OA, OB, AA, AB, BB) or four phenotypes (O, A, B, AB). If the B allele were eliminated there would be only three possible genotypes (OO, OA, AA), and two phenotypes blood types O and A. So we see that fewer alleles means less uncertainty, or more information. More alleles, means more uncertainty, and less information. And whether we add or eliminate alleles the frequency of the alleles in the population is changing, and that is evolution.

A good explanation thank you for the information.

 

[Smidlee]

Selection, whether caused by man or otherwise, is a factor in evolution.

Usually when someone is referring to evolution it excludes man's selection. Man's selection involves a lot of stuff including the value of ivory, value of stocks, value of land, etc. Most would not use the wiener dog as an example of evolution.

 

[sfs]

Usually when someone is referring to evolution it excludes man's selection. Man's selection involves a lot of stuff including the value of ivory, value of stocks, value of land, etc. Most would not use the wiener dog as an example of evolution.

Biologists treat human-directed selection just like any other kind of selection.

 

[Smidlee]

Biologists treat human-directed selection just like any other kind of selection.

Biologists doesn't know the difference between man's selection and natural selection? Now man's selection does reveals the limitation of natural selection.

 

[sfs]

Biologists doesn't know the difference between man's selection and natural selection?

Where did you get that idea? I said they treat them the same; I didn't say they couldn't tell the difference. They treat them the same because the process is the same, regardless of whether someone intends the selection or not.

Now man's selection does reveals the limitation of natural selection.

I don't know what this means.

 

[Gracchus]

Biologists doesn't know the difference between man's selection and natural selection?

Where did you get that idea? I said they treat them the same; I didn't say they couldn't tell the difference. They treat them the same because the process is the same, regardless of whether someone intends the selection or not.

For a creationist, truth must be pruned until it is the required shape. And words must be re-defined so that inconvenient realities can be obscured in gobbledegook.

Now man's selection does reveals the limitation of natural selection.

I don't know what this means.

He seems to be saying that man is somehow superior to nature. He will probably deny this, but it is how most creationists feel. Humans are small on the Earth, tiny in the galaxy, and infinitesmal in the universe, and that scares them, so they puff themselves up with arrogance and braggadocio.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

I know that some people think there is a soul, and some believe there is a spirit, and some believe they are the same thing and some believe they are different. (The Egyptians, so I have read, associated five or sometimes seven incorporeal entities with each human being.)

The body, which can be perceived and measured, is ruled by something(s) that cannot be perceived or measured or otherwise demonstrated? If a brain injury can turn a saint into a monster, what role do soul or spirit play? And anyone who is familiar with degenerative diseases knows that the body is not under the control of some operator disassociated from biochemical processes.

The body does what the body does. There is no evidence that it is "ruled" by anything other than the laws of chemistry and physics.

Decide to turn out the light, and light a candle. Or paint the room a different color. Your neat pat little laws of chemistry and physics don't account for that.

 

[Gracchus]

Decide to turn out the light, and light a candle. Or paint the room a different color. Your neat pat little laws of chemistry and physics don't account for that.

Well you say that, but they do indeed. At he physical or chemical level, it would be very complicated, but since you don't have to understand your own chemistry to do those things, they can be done.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

Well you say that, but they do indeed. At he physical or chemical level, it would be very complicated, but since you don't have to understand your own chemistry to do those things, they can be done.

Total failure of logic. That we can witness chemical changes in response to our decisions, does NOT mean that our decisions are a result of said chemical changes.

 

[renewed21]

shake your rumpah!

 

[Gracchus]

Total failure of logic. That we can witness chemical changes in response to our decisions, does NOT mean that our decisions are a result of said chemical changes.

But we can, with MRI technology, trace the changes from input to output. We can watch, before, during, and after the "decisions". We can trace the arc from perception to reaction. The chemistry explains it all. The control room is completely automated. No operator required. There is an observer, but the observer is not aware of most of what is going on, and gets a good part it wrong.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

But we can, with MRI technology, trace the changes from input to output. We can watch, before, during, and after the "decisions".

No, we do NOT know the "input," as you so callously state it. We know what we observe, not everything you're claiming here. (In the same way almost every statistical study can be found to be full of holes)

Your findings do not indicate what you would like them to. They are good for determining the chemical processes that do take place. Extrapolating beyond that, is sheer guesswork. Our decisions are not based on, nor caused by, chemical changes we are at the mercy of, just waiting for them to happen.

IOW, there is still an unknown factor here. Or two. Or three. Or more.

 

[Davian]

No, we do NOT know the "input," as you so callously state it. We know what we observe, not everything you're claiming here. (In the same way almost every statistical study can be found to be full of holes)

Your findings do not indicate what you would like them to. They are good for determining the chemical processes that do take place. Extrapolating beyond that, is sheer guesswork. Our decisions are not based on, nor caused by, chemical changes we are at the mercy of, just waiting for them to happen.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate, Raze.

The awareness of a decision following the physical actions of the brain were demonstrated in this experiment:

Neuroscience of free will - Timing intentions compared to actions

IOW, there is still an unknown factor here. Or two. Or three. Or more.

Of course there are gaps in our understanding of how the brain works. Are you are proposing a god-of-the-gaps argument here?

 

[Gracchus]

No, we do NOT know the "input," as you so callously state it. We know what we observe, not everything you're claiming here.

Well, we know what observations were presented to the brain. and that is the input. When we input the same observations, the same areas of the brain light up.

(In the same way almost every statistical study can be found to be full of holes)

You wish to believe that. In fact, the statistics used in quantum mechanics has made predictions that are accurate to the diameter of a hair divided bye the distance from New York to Los Angeles.
I know you don't like it. It shakes your simple comforting fairy tales.

Your findings do not indicate what you would like them to.

Actually, they don't indicate what you would like them to. I try not to filter the findings through of filter of what I want. I try to check my conclusions against the real world. It is the religios person who filter their conclusions through what they want to be true. They call this preferential discrimination "faith".

They are good for determining the chemical processes that do take place. Extrapolating beyond that, is sheer guesswork.

I maintain that the chemical processes are sufficient. There is not need to extrapolate. There is no reason to guess. There is no reason to throw non-demonstrable and unnecessary factors into the mix. By the way, there is damned little mercy in chemistry. One shouldn't expect it.

Our decisions are not based on, nor caused by, chemical changes we are at the mercy of, just waiting for them to happen.

That is what you have not demonstrated. You just keep asserting it.

IOW, there is still an unknown factor here. Or two. Or three. Or more.

There are always unknown factors. But even without being omniscient, we can do a lot of useful stuff.

 

[Trogool]

No, we do NOT know the "input," as you so callously state it. We know what we observe, not everything you're claiming here. (In the same way almost every statistical study can be found to be full of holes)

Yes, we literally can. It's called voltage clamping and fluorescence labeling, you can use those techniques to trace inputs and outputs and observe decision making at a chemical level. Done it myself. Rather entertaining, though it can be... finicky.

 

[The Engineer]

I believe that evolution is a theory. Well, officially, it is one, too.

It's important to remember that a theory is not just an educated guess, though. Scientific theories have been tested thousands of times, they have never been falsified and you can not only explain phenomenons with them, but also make predictions based on them.