Make me an evolutionist

[Asimov]

All we see are variations, which is NOT macroevolution.

What is macroevolution then?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Something that can be demonstrated in a controlled enviroment; something that can be repeted; something that can be tested; ect

Does that mean that astronomy is not a science? We cannot control distant galaxies or repeat supernovae or observe a single star's entire lifetime.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

If evolution is not a real science, why is it taught in major universities and why is research done in evolution in major universities.

~Sits back and waits for someone to say "show me the universities" (the list is very long).~

 

[Nathan Poe]

Gravity has been TESTED, DEMONSTRATED, AND OBSERVED.

And the distortion of space/time which causes it...?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know laymen definitions were the ones to use when conducting science.

I once had a long debate with a creationist who claimed that scientists did not, would not, and could not study human consciousness - that it was unknown and unknowable. I promply showed him a long list of researchers and institutions conducting research into human consciousness. His response: scientists define conciousness differently then laymen therefore none of it was valid. I kid you not.

 

[maha]

Shadow, since this is your thread, I'd like to make some comments specifically directed toward you.

Instead of trying to convince you that evolution is real and legitimate, why not take another approach to "making you an evolutionist." We could argue anything from opposing sides...anything. I could say the sky is blue, and someone would invariably say, "No, sometimes it's gray when it's overcast." I could say the grass is green, and some one would invariably say, "No, my lawn is brown because I don't water it." So even things we know to be true can be argued and be made to seem falsifiable. It's especially easy to do this on web forums because we can manipulate definitions, facts, and jargon more easily in order to facilitate this technique. Bottomline, why bother discussing evolution at this point? We all know that there is science behind it, just like there is science behind the theory of gravity, the cosmos, and everything else. So why argue what science has already proved?

Instead, let's take a new approach. Obviously, religion is the sole factor which is inhibiting you from believing in evolution. After all, if the bible said that gravity is not real, then Christians would denounce the theory of Gravity--it's a logical conclusion to assume that. So this means that it is religion alone which prevents you from believing in evolution. I would like to delve into that belief and find out why you cling so tightly to the notion of "God" and spiritual salvation. I feel that if we could get to the source of that belief, then we may be able to determine why you are hesitant to believe in evolution. This could ultimately enable you to "be an evolutionist."

 

[einstein314emc2]

And the distortion of space/time which causes it...?

Yes.

 

[einstein314emc2]

Does that mean that astronomy is not a science? We cannot control distant galaxies or repeat supernovae or observe a single star's entire lifetime.

But, we can observe a very large number of stars ones at the beginnig through end of their lifetimes, make and test predictions, run simulations (with more prediction making and testing).
For example, the CMB was predicted to be present if the big bang theory was indeed true. The CMB was then observed, thereby supporting (and essentially proving the big bang).

 

[Gracchus]

Make me an evolutionist

Why would anyone want to do that? Creationists need the numbers and evolutionists wouldn't want you on their side.

 

[Kripost]

Theory: something which seems to be true, but has not undergone enough testing to be proven true.
Law: something which can indelibly be proven true, or has been tested often enough with the same results that, while not conclusive, is generally considered to be fact and thus is agreed to be true.

Evolution is still in "theory" status, and gravity is in "law" status. Granted, there is more than that to gravity, but this is a simplistic view which remain accurate.

So, if there is so much proof for evolution, why is it still a theory? (Yes, I know there are scientist who would like to make it a "law" status, but they are considered zealots even by there evolutionary compatriots.)

By your definition, Charles' Law and Boyles' Law are actually not laws, since no real gas behaves in exactly the same way as described by noth, and also, because of electromagnetic forces between molecules, all real gases are not expected to behave as expected by those two laws.

And Newton's law of gravity is simply this: F=(G x m1 x m2) / d^2. The problem with this law came about when astronomer's observed mercury's orbit, and notice there is a discrepency between the predictions made using Newton's law and the observations.

 

[FSTDT]

Shadowseldil,

I just have a few comments:

I know all about theories in science, and all sorts of science terms. Do not think me your average simpliton. I have genius-status IQ and was for a time pursuing a career as a doctor. And all the evidence I have seen points to special creation, not evolution.
By-the-by, the "theory" of gravity was elavated to "law" status long ago. Keep up, or get left behind

On IQs (a little pet peeve of mine): having a high IQ doesnt really mean much. Although there is a correlation between IQ and booksmarts, IQ doesnt actually measure how much you know, it measures how fast you can solve problems. I personally have a relatively average IQ (around 115 when it was measured last year), but because I read a lot I have a really impressive set of booksmarts.

On theories (another little pet peeve of mine): you are using the word "theory" in the casual, nonscientific sense. Literally, you are associating "theory" to be a measurement of scientific certainty, which couldnt be further from the truth. If it helps at all, here are the meanings to common scientific terminology:

A hypothesis is a testable, falsifyable statement. A fact is simply a verifyable observation. A law is an observation expressed as a mathematical relationship. A theory is a group of related scientific statements to describe natural phenomena, theories consist of facts and law (this is exactly the definition used when people talk about Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution).

You are simply wrong when you say "gravity was elevated to 'law' status a long time ago", you are misuing terminology. There is a theory of gravitation (several of them actually), they consist of facts and laws such as the inverse square law and Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

Theories dont become laws. If you still think this, then you have a misunderstanding of the terminology as it is used by scientists.

Oh, and one more thing. I need not convincing of microevolution or speciation, or even of natural selection. But those are not proof of macroevolution, or what has been referred to as molecules-to-man evolution.

"Molecules to man" is basically the whole of all evolutionary biology from 3.5 billion years ago to present - dont you think you're asking too much*?

How about a simpler example, such as evolution above the species level. For instance, a lovely friend of mine studied the evolution of cats, whose ancestors trace back to an animal called miacis around 50 million years ago. Modern canines also trace back to the same miacis creature. The common ancestory between cats and canines is a particularly nice example of Family level evolution.

 

[gladiatrix]

PART 1: Basic Scientific Defintions and Methodolgy

Theory: something which seems to be true, but has not undergone enough testing to be proven true.

Law: something which can indelibly be proven true, or has been tested often enough with the same results that, while not conclusive, is generally considered to be fact and thus is agreed to be true.

Evolution is still in "theory" status, and gravity is in "law" status. Granted, there is more than that to gravity, but this is a simplistic view which remain accurate.

So, if there is so much proof for evolution, why is it still a theory? (Yes, I know there are scientist who would like to make it a "law" status, but they are considered zealots even by there evolutionary compatriots.)

For someone who claims such lofty credentials/intellect in a scientific field, your definitions are those one would expect from a layperson or someone who only reads the definitions put about by creationists/IDists.
Since you seem not to have read the links explaining what these terms mean IN SCIENCE, as opposed to the COLLOQUIAL (every day vernacular), here's a brief explanation....

First, a theory in science is NOT a guess or a hunch,the colloquial definition.

FROM FAQs About Evolution and the Nature of Science:
"Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. IOW:

• Evolution is not simply a hypothesis. It is an explanation of what has happened to life AFTER life arose from pre-biotic conditions on Earth.
• This explanation has a lot of evidence to support it. HERE'S just a sample
• Evolution IS NOT concerned with how or when life arose on Earth in the first place, this is covered under another topic, abiogenesis.

For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe WHAT will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain WHY these events occur."

• Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence.
• I really would like to see where you are getting the totally bogus notion that there is some sort of hierarchy in scientific explanation, i.e., theory ==> law.

Rather, theories are the goal of science.To keep it simple here, think of a theory in science as the equivalent of a goal medal in a sporting event. Now I am not "yelling" here with the font size, I just want you to understand just how you appear to the scientists and educated laypersons (both theists and non-believer) when you say things like "Evolution is "just a theory", especially since you have claimed to have studied science and have a high IQ (like you are simply, how shall I say it, waving a "credentials flag" that you don't really have). HERE FROM THE NAS:

From the Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, 1998, p. 5

Ideas are not referred to as 'theories' in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence

The attempt to equate a scientific theory with the colloquial definition is a common creationist/IDist propaganda ploy used against evolution/abiogenesis. Steven J Gould comments on this kind of DECEIT.

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

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.

And from Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

[A] theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations. ...Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.

Now I am going to respond to yet another bogus definition with regard to science, posted by charlesseamanj, because I think it is also germaine to this topic:

So this is my laymens deffinition of science.
ie: Something that can be demonstrated in a controlled enviroment; something that can be repeted; something that can be tested; ect

Not all of science is done by "men in white coats" in gleaming laboratories (you really do need to pay less attention to the Frankensteinian/creationist/ Hollywood "version" of what a scientist is and does).

Your basic mistake here is to believe that all scientific propostions are studied/verified using just one particular scenario/method, e. g., "the men in white coats". Here is a short explanation of what experimentation means in science, noting that the methods of experimentation differ, depending on the discipline. Here is an excerpt:

FROM:What is the Scientific Method-Its Different Forms
A confusing aspect of science is that not all fields of science arrive at conclusions in the same way.

• 1. The physical sciences, like physics and chemistry, use experimental forms of the "scientific method. "The physical sciences do experiments to gather numerical data from which relationships are derived, and conclusions are made.
• 2. The more descriptive sciences, like zoology and anthropology, may use a form of the method that involves gathering of information by visual observation or interviewing.

What is common among all sciences, however, is:

• 1. the making of hypothesis to explain observations, the gathering of data
• 2. based on this data, the drawing of conclusions that confirm or deny the original hypothesis.

The difference is in what is considered data, and how data is gathered and processed. Excerpt reformatted for clarity. NOTE: Please feel free to read the rest of this SHORT article.

Another common mistake is the confusion of methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism, but I will post that in PART 2:

 

[gladiatrix]

Continued from PART 1. . . .
PART 2: Methodological Naturalism vs Philosophical Naturalism

Charlesseamanj also seems to want to confuse methodological naturalism (the scientific method) with philosophical naturalism, as exemplified with this post (also has demonstrated that he has no idea what is mean by "theory" in science either):

The problem is, scientists have tryed for years to do that and have not been able to.

That is why the THEORY of evolution is a philosophy, not science.

This is also wrong. Why it's wrong:

Science can only study physical, natural phenomena, get over it. What you are doing is trying to confuse METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM (the scientific method which can ONLY consider physical evidence) with PHILOSOPHICAL NATURALISM.

1. Now as a scientist can I say that evolution disproves God? NO, I cannot because methodological naturalism (science) is not equipped to study/consider anything outside the realm of the physical (natural). God, by theistic definition, DOES NOT fall into the natural/physical realm.

2. IF I should claim that evolution is actually evidence that God does not exists, then I have just over-stepped the bound of science. Never in any scientific text or class has there been ANY claim that evolution is a disproof of any god(s?). Why?

• Because discussions about God are NOT the perview of science.
• QUESTION: Will there be those who conclude that scientific theories like evolution (gravity, the Big Bang, etc.) make the CONCEPT of a god(s?) simply unnecessary? ANSWER: YES, but that is a philosophical position, NOT a scientific one. Such concepts can't be investigated using the tools of science and are therefore irrelevant to THAT discussion. When I say "irrelevant" I don't mean that such a discussion is unimportant or without merit, it just isn't the perview of science, but of philosophy.

3. As a philosophical naturalist, could I disregard all supernatural explanations? YES, I can. What I STILL would not have here is any scientific evidence for rejecting theistic explanations. What I can say is that, so far, nature seems be adequately explained by natural laws. God is simply a superfluous concept that can be disposed of with another tool, Occam's Razor.

• One refuge for theists seems to be to sequester their God(s?) in the gaps in knowledge. If there is no current explanation, then there never will be one, therefore, God-did-it A famous example of this concept is the idea that "DNA is too complex (what does that mean?) and can could never have arisen naturally, therefore God must have "poofed" it into existence. What is wrong with this kind of approach should become apparent momentarily.
• At this point in time, I can't disprove the notion that God-did-it (created DNA by "poof").
  • QUESTION: Does that prove the theists case? ANSWER. NO, it doesn't.
• The dangerous thing for this god-of-gaps strategy is that when scientists DO find out just how DNA arose on early Earth, then that WILL call the concept of God into question.
  
  • QUESTION: Why? ANSWER: Because theists have very stupidly tied their belief in God to a natural concept that science can study.
  • QUESTION: If science can understand the formation of DNA does that really mean that God does not exists? ANSWER: NO, it doesn't because God is NOT a phenomenon open to scientific investigation.

4. Now what advantages does MN supply? Consider it this way:When was the last time you saw a religion change a dogma, doctrine, position to conform to known facts? Self-correction is extremely unlikely to happen when one is required to accept this or that proposition based on faith alone because some "Authority" (usually some very conveniently invisible supernatural entity that can't be called "on the carpet" to give an accounting) said so. To question this "Authority" is NOT allowed. There are usually all kinds of sanctions against those who do dare to question this "Authority" (usually administered out by those who allege the Authority exists and further allege that they are the designated temporal agents of that Authority). Here is a nice summary of the problem by Vegan Charity:

The naturalism that science adopts is methodological naturalism. It does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have. Supernaturalism (whatever that is) is not ruled out a priori; it is left out because it has never been reliably observed. There are many scientists who use naturalism but who believe in more than nature.


The very same form of naturalism is used by everyone, including creationists, in their day-to-day life. People literally could not survive without making naturalistic assumptions. Creationism itself is based on the naturalistic assumption that the Bible hasn't changed since the last time you read it.

It works. By assuming methodological naturalism, we have made tremendous advances in industry, medicine, agriculture, and many other fields. Supernaturalism has never led anywhere. Newton, for example, wrote far more on theology than he did on physics, but his theological work is largely forgotten because there has been no reason to remember it other than historical curiosity.

Supernaturalism is contentious. Scientific findings are based on hard evidence, and scientists can point at the evidence to resolve disputes. People tend to have different and incompatible ideas of what form supernatural influences take, and unfortunately the most common way they have found for reaching a consensus is killing each other.

Give me the scientific method and logical thinking anytime. It has a proven track record for getting results. Is it perfect, no. That doesn't bother me because at least with science, the continual scrutiny of one's peers usually results in the uncovering of error. IOW, nothing can make a scientific reputation faster than uncovering someone else's mistakes. Furthermore, even the mistakes are often surrendipitiously instructive and actually can be used as signpost pointing out the correct way to go.

4. A CAUTIONARY TALE:
The problem is with theists who stupidly marry their beliefs in their God to natural concepts (the formation of the geological column, the change in life over time, etc.). As science progressively closes each gap in knowledge that theists have claimed can only be explained by their God concept, that does nothing but damage the credibility of that particular epistemology (a "theory of knowledge") as a basis for knowledge. The argument over God's existence should remain a philosophical/religious one. IMO, one most dangerous things a theist can do is to go the god-of-gaps route. Every time science closes such a gap (tied to some god concept), the credibility of religion as an theory of knowledge takes a hit.

The bottom-line here is that it is quite dishonest to pretend that MN and PN are equivalent because they aren't.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I know all about theories in science, and all sorts of science terms.

I find this very hard to believe when you speak of “proof” when you mean “evidence” and when you don’t know the difference between Law, theory and hypothesis.

By-the-by, the "theory" of gravity was elavated to "law" status long ago. Keep up, or get left behind .

Theories are never elevated to laws. Theories and laws are entirely different things. Laws are simple statements of observation. If X occurs then Y results. Theories are the explanatory frameworks that tell us WHY Y results when X occurs. the one can not be elevated into the other.

And you claim there is more proof for evolution than gravity? Whence the proof?

Again, in both instances (gravity and evolution) you are speaking of evidence, proof is for mathematics. This is one of the first things you learn as a scientist so your grand claim to have a firm grasp on scientific terminology is once again shown to be untrue.

However, on to your primary topic. You say you are already convinced of speciation. Then what are you asking us to prove? Speciation IS what creationists call “Macroevolution”. The point at which a life form can no longer be considered the same species as a life form that is one of its ancestors.

Since you already accept all of the core points of evolution (change in allele frequencies, speciation and natural selection) you don’t seem to need us to “make you an evolutionist” you already are one.

Perhaps you could explain what it is you think the ToE states that you don’t actually agree with and then perhaps we should explain where you are confused about what the ToE is.

Ghost

 

[Self Improvement]

What is macroevolution then?

When an elephant turns into a peanut.

 

[Praxiteles]

Wow.

Shadowseldil asked for a litre of water and got a tsunami.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

volution is still in "theory" status, and gravity is in "law" status.

First of all, there is not heirarchy of theory then law. Theories are explanations for a number of observations, laws are standardized observations.

Secondly, evolution is a more thoroughly defined theory then gravity. In reality, scientists still do not know what gravity really is. THey can explain it's effects, but only some of them.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Wow.

Shadowseldil asked for a litre of water and got a tsunami.

And he didn't bring his swim trunks.

 

[Jet Black]

I have genius-status IQ

lesson 1: don't say thing like this and then follow it up with things like this

....all the evidence I have seen points to special creation, not evolution.

(see if you are going to say things like that, you need to back it up)

or this

By-the-by, the "theory" of gravity was elavated to "law" status long ago.

(no, gravity is not a law at all, it is still a theory - you know, the theory of relativity, but I digress)
or this

Oh, and one more thing. I need not convincing of microevolution or speciation, or even of natural selection. But those are not proof of macroevolution, or what has been referred to as molecules-to-man evolution.

(the only people who really refer to it in that manner are the derisory nay sayers. your definition of macroevolution is absolutely wrong again, you are not backing anything you say up, and are just frittering the forum with tired old creationist clichés)

or this

Theory: something which seems to be true, but has not undergone enough testing to be proven true.

(see this is completely wrong. that is not the definition of a scientific theory at all. If you really want to be a doctor or anything like that, you are going to have to relearn about science I am afraid)

or this

Law: something which can indelibly be proven true, or has been tested often enough with the same results that, while not conclusive, is generally considered to be fact and thus is agreed to be true.

(again, utterly wrong, that is not the scientific definition of a law)

or this

Evolution is still in "theory" status, and gravity is in "law" status. Granted, there is more than that to gravity, but this is a simplistic view which remain accurate.

(see again, this is wrong, based on your poor understanding of science In science a theory is as good as it gets.)

or this

So, if there is so much proof for evolution, why is it still a theory? (Yes, I know there are scientist who would like to make it a "law" status, but they are considered zealots even by there evolutionary compatriots.)

again, your lack of understanding of science lets you down.

In fact come to think of it, not a single thing you have said about science or evoution is even remotely correct. now mentioning your genius level IQ and then following it with a whole bunch of things that are utterly wrong, is basically just asking to be mocked. you won't do yourself any favours at all.

Now what makes it worse is this, we have seen all these claims before, and we know where they come from. They come from unintelligent/uneducated/dishonest creationists like Kent Hovind et al, occasionally covered with a veneer of AIG. We know that all these sites provide is bad science and misinformation, and they have been repeatedly exposed for doing so, and yet they persist. The arguments are replete with obfuscation, dishonesty, incredulity and ignorance. I am afraid if you really want to learn about evolution, your science edication is going to have to start from scratch.

are you up for it?

 

[random_guy]

One last bump to see how honest the OP is. He states that

I know all about theories in science, and all sorts of science terms. Do not think me your average simpliton. I have genius-status IQ and was for a time pursuing a career as a doctor. And all the evidence I have seen points to special creation, not evolution.
By-the-by, the "theory" of gravity was elavated to "law" status long ago. Keep up, or get left behind .

and yet after being shown that he doesn't understand the definition of an observation, theory, law, hypothesis, and the scientific method he hasn't replied.