Is evolution even a theory?

[philadiddle]

First i'll define what evolution i'm talking about. I'm talking about the theory that man evolved from bacteria over a slow, gradual process. I'm not arguing the FACT that there are slow biological changes over time.


(from wikipedia) A scientific theory...

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,

i can admit the wording of this confuses me, maybe it's too late at night. maybe you can just explain how evolution fits this.

2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,

not really supported by many strands of evidence. ie geology and astronomy are often said to coincide with evolution, but evidence for the age of the earth and universe is not evidence for evolution. the best evidence is the fossil record, which has some holes, and inconsistencies as well.

3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,

like what? in a theory that is supposed to have happened over billions of years what possible way could it be tested?

4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,

the only thing that would falsify evolution, as per a thread i started a while back, is the fossil record not supporting it. the fossil record doesn't outright contradict it, but at the same time there is no STRONG evidence from it (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html)

5. is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and

yes, evolution fits this, at least enough not to argue about it

6. is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Occam's Razor.

i feel we should quote occam's razor:

Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.
For example, a charred tree could be caused by a lightning strike or by someone who used a machine to burn the upper branches of a tree and then replanted the grass leading up to the tree to hide the machine's tracks. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions. (wikipedia)

so creation, a simple idea, is overthrown by the complex, mathmatically improbable, and increasingly complex theory of evolution. hmm...
if i'm wrong on that maybe you could remind me what the chances are of the right changes taking place millions of times in a row to get from pondscum to homosapien.

 

[Dragon02]

Roll 2 6-sided dice. You have a 1 in 36 chance of picking any combination of numbers, yet you WILL come out with some number combination. This is why the probability arguement fails.

Edit: Also, Wikipedia's definition of Occam's Razor is wrong. Occams Razor says to choose the idea that requires less assumptions, not the one that is simpler.

 

[random_guy]

First i'll define what evolution i'm talking about. I'm talking about the theory that man evolved from bacteria over a slow, gradual process. I'm not arguing the FACT that there are slow biological changes over time.

It's definitely a scientific theory, or else they wouldn't be teaching it in biology at the colleges. I'll try to answer the ones I know.

(from wikipedia) A scientific theory...

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,

i can admit the wording of this confuses me, maybe it's too late at night. maybe you can just explain how evolution fits this.

Basically, by bacteria to man, you mean universal common ancestory. Experiments that verify it is examining genetic sequences of animals and compare that with how well it fits our classification system. Other things such as fossils show many different transitional forms in our classification system.

2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,

not really supported by many strands of evidence. ie geology and astronomy are often said to coincide with evolution, but evidence for the age of the earth and universe is not evidence for evolution. the best evidence is the fossil record, which has some holes, and inconsistencies as well.

First, geology and astronomy have nothing to do with evolution and the only reason why people might say it coincides with evolution is because those people are Creationists and they confuse, "Science that contridicts the Bible" with evolution. Again, fossil evidence, genetic evidence, homologous structures, twin nested heirarchy of life all point towards UCD. Perhaps you'd like to explain the holes in the fossil record, as in, what missing forms between families are there (reptile->mammal, reptile->bird, etc), and what would count as a transitional? From what I understand, we have very good forms between families. Between species, it gets harder just because species aren't static.

3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,

like what? in a theory that is supposed to have happened over billions of years what possible way could it be tested?

A rabbit fossil in a pre-Cambrian layer. Animals that don't follow the twin nested heirarchy. There are lots of things that falsify UCD.

4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,

the only thing that would falsify evolution, as per a thread i started a while back, is the fossil record not supporting it. the fossil record doesn't outright contradict it, but at the same time there is no STRONG evidence from it (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html)

Evolution predicts a twin nested heirarchy, or that animals will never stop being what they are. Anything that falls outside of this would falsify evolution.

6. is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Occam's Razor.

i feel we should quote occam's razor:

Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.
For example, a charred tree could be caused by a lightning strike or by someone who used a machine to burn the upper branches of a tree and then replanted the grass leading up to the tree to hide the machine's tracks. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions. (wikipedia)

so creation, a simple idea, is overthrown by the complex, mathmatically improbable, and increasingly complex theory of evolution. hmm...
if i'm wrong on that maybe you could remind me what the chances are of the right changes taking place millions of times in a row to get from pondscum to homosapien.

Creation involves a supernatural being, whom we have no evidence exists. It requires in a belief that some dude poofed us into existence but leaves no trace of it.

Evolution is extremely elegant. Once life is here, it evolves over time. Perhaps you'd like to explain why evolution is mathematically improbable because I bet you that it's wrong.

I would like to know why evolution is more unlikely than Creation. I have faith that God exists. However, I have evidence that evolution happened.

 

[MartinM]

i can admit the wording of this confuses me, maybe it's too late at night. maybe you can just explain how evolution fits this.

All it's saying is that there's no existing data which contradicts the theory. If you think you can provide some data to contradict evolution, go right ahead.

not really supported by many strands of evidence. ie geology and astronomy are often said to coincide with evolution, but evidence for the age of the earth and universe is not evidence for evolution. the best evidence is the fossil record, which has some holes, and inconsistencies as well.

Utter nonsense. To the fossil record, you can add ERVs, a vast range of molecular similarities, psuedogenes...the list goes on.

Points 3 and 4 are really the same thing; one is talking about tests which have already been done, and the other about tests which still remain to be done. But they're both just talking about the neccesity of predictive power. Every one of the fields of evidence I mentioned had the potential to falsify evolution.

The fossil record - must be ordered according to a nested hierarchy. No bunnies in the precambrian.

ERVs - must be ordered according to a nested hierarchy. Must show the same pattern of ancestry as the fossil record.

Molecular similarities - organisms which are closely related according to ToE must have a greater degree of similarity than those which are distantly related. Must show the same pattern of similarities as the first two fields of evidence.

Pseudogenes - must be ordered according to a nested hierarchy. Must show the same pattern of ancestry as the first three fields of evidence.



Beginning to get the picture yet? If ERVs were not distributed in the way evolution says they must, or if they painted a picture of common ancestry that was completely different from that in the fossil record, or if there were fossils out of place in the geologic record, evolution would be falsified. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

5. is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be

so creation, a simple idea, is overthrown by the complex, mathmatically improbable, and increasingly complex theory of evolution. hmm...
if i'm wrong on that maybe you could remind me what the chances are of the right changes taking place millions of times in a row to get from pondscum to homosapien.

Similarly, the simple idea that the planets are pushed round in their orbits by angels has been overthrown by Newton's 'spooky action at a distance,' which in turn has been overthrown by Einstein's complex description of gravitation as the curvature of spacetime, which itself is in the process of being overthrown by incredibly complex, near-incomprehensible, utterly incomplete theories of quantum gravity.

Methinks you do not understand the razor. It does not favour the simplest theory, but the most parsimonious. The parsimony of any supernatural 'explanation' is zero.

 

[philadiddle]

A rabbit fossil in a pre-Cambrian layer. Animals that don't follow the twin nested heirarchy. There are lots of things that falsify UCD.

how is this a test? that's like saying finding proof that aliens made us would disprove God, and since we haven't found evidence that aliens made us, God must have. it's not a conclusive argument. what actual TESTS (not observations) could be performed?

 

[MartinM]

how is this a test?

It's really quite simple. Theory makes prediction. Scientists test prediction. Prediction is confirmed. Theory is supported. What's the problem here?

 

[random_guy]

how is this a test? that's like saying finding proof that aliens made us would disprove God, and since we haven't found evidence that aliens made us, God must have. it's not a conclusive argument. what actual TESTS (not observations) could be performed?

So you're saying that since every single time we've dropped an object to the ground, and we find that the object falls towards the ground, it doesn't count as a test? Evolution predicts all life will have a certain set of parameters, and every single life with found has it, so far. If UCD is correct, we would expect all of life to follow a certain pattern, and from what we've seen, it has. It only takes one form to end the same theory.

You analogy doesn't even compare evolution. Finding aliens making us doesn't disprove God. Not finding aliens isn't proof of God, either. It's not mutually exclusive.

EDIT:

One more thing. After more thinking, your analogy is absolutely horrible. For some reason, you think that you have A or B, and disproving B means A is true. It's like the Creationists that think disproving evolution would prove Creationism.

 

[random_guy]

Roll 2 6-sided dice. You have a 1 in 36 chance of picking any combination of numbers, yet you WILL come out with some number combination. This is why the probability arguement fails.

Edit: Also, Wikipedia's definition of Occam's Razor is wrong. Occams Razor says to choose the idea that requires less assumptions, not the one that is simpler.

Well, phil also wrong that Creation is more simplier. Creation would require God to hand design every single animal, from the hook worms to the zombie fungus. I always find it amazing that people think Creationism is simplier than evolution when Creationism requires God to blueprint up every single species on Earth. Maybe that's why life contains so many flaws, God subcontracted to Vishnu, thus starting the trend to outsource jobs to India.

 

[wiske]

Roll 2 6-sided dice. You have a 1 in 36 chance of picking any combination of numbers, yet you WILL come out with some number combination.

No, there are only 21 combinations of two numbers, and the chance of throwing a 2 and a 3, say, is 1 in 18.

This is why the probability arguement fails.

LOL.

 

[MartinM]

No, there are only 21 combinations of two numbers, and the chance of throwing a 2 and a 3, say, is 1 in 18.

You're assuming that the dice are indistinguishable, such that their order doesn't matter, which isn't implied in anything Dragon said. If you're going to be pedantic, make sure you're actually right.

 

[wiske]

You're assuming that the dice are indistinguishable, such that their order doesn't matter, which isn't implied in anything Dragon said. If you're going to be pedantic, make sure you're actually right.

Please don't insult! Dragon02 wrote:
"You have a 1 in 36 chance of picking any combination of numbers", which is just plain wrong; this has nothing to do with being pedantic.

Your remark indicates that you don't understand what is meant by the word "combination". Please look it up.

 

[Elduran]

Please don't insult! Dragon02 wrote:
"You have a 1 in 36 chance of picking any combination of numbers", which is just plain wrong; this has nothing to do with being pedantic.

Your remark indicates that you don't understand what is meant by the word "combination". Please look it up.

If you distinguish between the two dice, then there are 36 combinations to choose from. If you don't distinguish between the two, then there are 21 (I believe... 6 doubles and half of the remaining possible rolls, i.e. 15). If you're just after a score total, then there are 11 possible results.

It all depends on how well the problem is worded.

 

[MartinM]

Your remark indicates that you don't understand what is meant by the word "combination". Please look it up.

I know precisely what it means. I think you're missing my point - which is itself rather pedantic, I'll admit.

You're looking at the problem as a case of selecting two elements from a set of six possible outcomes; in other words, you're treating the events 'roll a 1 on the first die' and 'roll a 1 on the second die' as identical. This isn't necessarily correct. Indeed, the indistinguishability of quantum particles leads to measurably different behaviour than that of classical particles, which can always (in principle) be identified.

If we treat the dice as distinguishable, then it's not a case of selecting two elements from six outcomes, but of selecting one element from 36 outcomes.

 

[wiske]

If you distinguish between the two dice, then there are 36 combinations to choose from. If you don't distinguish between the two, then there are 21 (I believe... 6 doubles and half of the remaining possible rolls, i.e. 15). If you're just after a score total, then there are 11 possible results.

Definition of combination:

"In combinatorial mathematics, a combination of members of a set is a subset. A k-combination is a subset of S with k elements. The order of listing the elements is not important in combinations: two lists with the same elements in different orders are considered to be the same combination. The number of k-combinations or k-subsets of set with n elements is the binomial coefficient "n choose k", written as nCk [...]"
[From Wikipedia]

It all depends on how well the problem is worded.

It all depends on whether one uses words in the way they are defined and commonly understood, or not.

 

[Elduran]

Definition of combination:

"In combinatorial mathematics, a combination of members of a set is a subset. A k-combination is a subset of S with k elements. The order of listing the elements is not important in combinations: two lists with the same elements in different orders are considered to be the same combination. The number of k-combinations or k-subsets of set with n elements is the binomial coefficient "n choose k", written as nCk [...]"
[From Wikipedia]



It all depends on whether one uses words in the way they are defined and commonly understood, or not.

Well, you've applied the term "combination" (as opposed to permutation) to an incorrect problem. A Combination from a set of numbers assumes that no replacement is possible, so in the 1-6 example, rolling a 1 on the first die would leave only 2-5 remaining. Clearly this is an incorrect use of the concept in this instance, so a more colloquial use of the word "Combination" must be assumed. In this case it is more like the term "combination lock" where only the correct order of the correct numbers will open the lock rather than just requiring the correct numbers in any order.

 

[wiske]

I know precisely what it means. I think you're missing my point - which is itself rather pedantic, I'll admit.

You're looking at the problem as a case of selecting two elements from a set of six possible outcomes;

Yes, combinations, that's what the man said. There's no other way to look at it, when it says "combinations".

in other words, you're treating the events 'roll a 1 on the first die' and 'roll a 1 on the second die' as identical. This isn't necessarily correct.

I'm treating a "Roll [of] 2 6-sided dice" as a single event, not as two events.

Indeed, the indistinguishability of quantum particles leads to measurably different behaviour than that of classical particles, which can always (in principle) be identified.

Dice aren't quantum particles.

 

[Tomk80]

Yes, combinations, that's what the man said. There's no other way to look at it, when it says "combinations".



I'm treating a "Roll [of] 2 6-sided dice" as a single event, not as two events.

[pedantry]
But he never identified the kind of dice. There are many sorts of 6-sided dice. [/pedantry]

 

[MartinM]

"In combinatorial mathematics, a combination of members of a set is a subset. A k-combination is a subset of S with k elements. The order of listing the elements is not important in combinations: two lists with the same elements in different orders are considered to be the same combination. The number of k-combinations or k-subsets of set with n elements is the binomial coefficient "n choose k", written as nCk [...]"
[From Wikipedia]

Your emphasis is only relevant if '1 on first die' and '1 on second die' are the same element. If not, then there are 36 possible outcomes; each element of the set represents an ordered pair of numbers. You're confusing this ordering with an order of selection. There is no order of selection, since only one element is selected.

Of course, if '1 on first die' and '1 on second die' are the same element, then you have the problem Elduran points out; 6 choose 2 is 15, not 21.

Yes, combinations, that's what the man said. There's no other way to look at it, when it says "combinations".

What is 36 choose 1?

 

[USincognito]

The chance tangent, while interesting, is diverting from whether the theory of evolution (which assumes extant life) is a scientific theory (which it is) or not. Most importantly because we're discussing a historical issue and the outcome of possible histories - while studying actual history - is 1 out of 1.

In this case, the devil isn't in the sematical details (like probability), it's in the evidentiary.

 

[ChrisPelletier]

how is this a test? that's like saying finding proof that aliens made us would disprove God, and since we haven't found evidence that aliens made us, God must have. it's not a conclusive argument. what actual TESTS (not observations) could be performed?

Well to bring the thread back to topic, you want a test right? Why don't you look at ribosomal mutation rates in different species. Look for highly conserved structures who's DNA mutated at an extremly slow rate.