The sticker

[Vance]

Exactly, the sticker is bad science. That is my point as well. How can someone wishing to influence someones believe about science use BAD science to accomplish this goal?

 

[TwinCrier]

Exactly, the sticker is bad science. That is my point as well. How can someone wishing to influence someones believe about science use BAD science to accomplish this goal?

Influence what someone believes? I thought science was suposed to pre4sent evidence, not dictate beliefs. I think you may have subconscously admitted to the agenda of evolutionists.

 

[Vance]

Influence what someone believes? I thought science was suposed to pre4sent evidence, not dictate beliefs. I think you may have subconscously admitted to the agenda of evolutionists.

No, you missed what I was saying. Those who are putting on the stickers are obviously trying to influence what the students believe. You are right, this is improper. My point was not only is it improper, it is even worse to use BAD SCIENCE in this endeavor. It is simply dishonest, since I would assume that anybody taking such a dramatic action would NOT do so unless they knew about science. Why would someone presume to speak about a scientific theory if they did not know at least the basics of science? And, since the definitions of theory and fact ARE basic science, those who wrote the sticker must know them, and were thus knowingly mistating scientific principles. Of course, I may be giving them too much credit.

Either way, they were dishonest, though. If they knew that what they said was not correct, they were lying. if they made such statements when they did not know enough about science to know it was not correct, they were STILL dishonest, since it is a form of negligent misrepresentation.

 

[seebs]

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/

 

[Vance]

That is just too funny

 

[TwinCrier]

No, you missed what I was saying. Those who are putting on the stickers are obviously trying to influence what the students believe. You are right, this is improper. My point was not only is it improper, it is even worse to use BAD SCIENCE in this endeavor. It is simply dishonest, since I would assume that anybody taking such a dramatic action would NOT do so unless they knew about science. Why would someone presume to speak about a scientific theory if they did not know at least the basics of science? And, since the definitions of theory and fact ARE basic science, those who wrote the sticker must know them, and were thus knowingly mistating scientific principles. Of course, I may be giving them too much credit.

Either way, they were dishonest, though. If they knew that what they said was not correct, they were lying. if they made such statements when they did not know enough about science to know it was not correct, they were STILL dishonest, since it is a form of negligent misrepresentation.

I don't see it as stating that science is lying. Certainly you agree that science has changed as more evidence in discovered and uncovered. By making mention of this it provides and opening for acceptance of new facts and reevaluation of old evidence.

 

[Micaiah]

The stickers read: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

One of the parents who filed the lawsuit, Jeffrey Selman, said the stickers discredit the science of evolution.

“It’s like saying everything that follows this sticker isn’t true,” he said.

The sticker is a statement of fact. Note the response of the parent who filed the lawsuit. They are either ignorant or trying to put their own spin on the statement. What we hear even from so called experts is that evolution is a fact. That is wrong. This sticker seeks to redress the misinformation spread about evolution in the public school system and by the scientific community.

Twin Crier said it well. If evolution is fact, how come we see so many changes to the the interpretations of the evidence that supposedly supports evolution.

What the evolutionists need is a statement of the basic tenets of the theory they consider to be so well proven scientifically that it can be assumed to be fact. I've yet to see ONE. Darwin acknowledged his biggest problem with the lack of evidence.

 

[gluadys]

The sticker is a statement of fact.

No, Micaiah, it is not. It says, among other things, that evolution is a theory "regarding the origin of living things". That is not a fact.

What we hear even from so called experts is that evolution is a fact. That is wrong.

No, that is right. And to say that evolution is not a fact is not a factual statement.

Twin Crier said it well. If evolution is fact, how come we see so many changes to the the interpretations of the evidence that supposedly supports evolution.

Because we are learning to understand the evidence better.

What the evolutionists need is a statement of the basic tenets of the theory they consider to be so well proven scientifically that it can be assumed to be fact. I've yet to see ONE. Darwin acknowledged his biggest problem with the lack of evidence.

We have.

1. Organisms vary and these variations are inherited by their offspring.

2. Organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive.

3. On average, offspring that vary most strongly in directions favoured by the environment will survive and propogate. Favorable variations will therefore accumulate in populations by natural selection.

This is S.J. Gould's summary of Darwin's more wordy presentation of the same thesis. It is found in Ever since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History p. 9

These are the basic tenets. Which would you say there is no evidence for?

Note that nothing other than these tenets is proposed as a basic assumption of the theory of evolution. Everything else associated with the theory (e.g. common descent, mutations, speciation) is a prediction, explanatory mechanism, or consequence of these tenets.

There is much evidence for these as well. But even if this evidence is less than conclusive, the evidence for the basic tenets, together with observed instances of natural selection and speciation is sufficient to declare evolution a fact.

And most scientists agree the evidence for the subsidiary predictions, mechanisms, and consequences is overwhelmingly conclusive as well.

 

[Micaiah]

1. Organisms vary and these variations are inherited by their offspring.

2. Organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive.

3. On average, offspring that vary most strongly in directions favoured by the environment will survive and propogate. Favorable variations will therefore accumulate in populations by natural selection.

1. Not all variations, even genetic variations, are inherited by offsping.

How about:
Organism can pass on genetic variations to their offspring.

2. Not all organisms produce more offspring than die. Some populations die out.

How about:
Organisms in a stable or growing population produce as many or more offspring than die.

3. That is theory. How do you know this principle occurs in all populations.

How about:
Offspring that vary in directions favoured by the environment may have a better chance to survive and propogate. Natural selection can cause these favorable variations to accumulate in populations.

I'd accept the revised statements as fact, even as a YEC. Come on. You got to go a bit further than that. Darwin hypothesised that all living things evolved from simple celled 'germs' as a result of the changes and selection you mentioned. That is theory.

 

[gluadys]

1. Not all variations, even genetic variations, are inherited by offsping.

How about:
Organism can pass on genetic variations to their offspring.

Well, it is true that not all variations are inherited by every child. In sexually reproducing populations, each child receives only half of each parent's genes. But overall, in a population, it would be correct to say that variations are inherited. It would also be obviously correct to say that each individual inherits only part of the variations extant in the population, or even in its parents.

In your version, I would change "can" to "do". Or just eliminate "can". Organisms do not have a choice about passing genetic variations to their offspring. There is no way they can prevent it.

So all in all, I think Gould's original wording is best.

2. Not all organisms produce more offspring than die. Some populations die out.

How about:
Organisms in a stable or growing population produce as many or more offspring than die.

Ah, but you changed the original wording from "survive" to "die". When a population is dying out, it is definitely producing more offspring than survive, since few are surviving. So, we can stay with the original wording again.

3. That is theory. How do you know this principle occurs in all populations.

Are you saying there is no evidence for this?

Does it occur in all populations? Who knows? It appears to occur in all observed populations. If all observed populations are a representative sub-set of all populations, they we can justifiably extrapolate to all populations.

How about:
Offspring that vary in directions favoured by the environment may have a better chance to survive and propogate. Natural selection can cause these favorable variations to accumulate in populations.

Again, I would omit "can". Natural selection is a description of what does happen. There are no criteria to say it can happen sometimes and not happen other times.

I'd accept the revised statements as fact, even as a YEC.

Well, how about the revised, revised version?

Come on. You got to go a bit further than that. Darwin hypothesised that all living things evolved from simple celled 'germs' as a result of the changes and selection you mentioned. That is theory.

No, I don't see any reason why I have to go further than Gould or Darwin did. Darwin did not include his speculation on common ancestors or their possible forms as part of his theory. Common ancestry is an implied conclusion of the theory, not the theory itself.

In principle, we could prove that life was specially created in several dozen complex forms, and the theory of evolution would still hold as Darwin stated it. For these would be ancestral forms of all the descendants which evolved from them. In practice, we hold to universal common ancestry, because it appears to be a better explanation of the evidence.

 

[Gold Dragon]

3. That is theory. How do you know this principle occurs in all populations.

The same way that before Newton, gravity was described as all objects having a constant downward force exerted on it. This "theory" was true and assumed for all situations until exceptions were discovered and the theory was adjusted to account for those exceptions, leading to our current more general theories of gravity which may continue to change as we discover more about relativity, black holes and the like.

This is science at work. Evolution will also adjust if and when we discover these principles are not happening in all populations. Until then, the theory is our best one that accounts for all available data.

 

[Micaiah]

Give a precise definition of teh theory of gravity please, and its supporting evidence.

 

[Micaiah]

Well, it is true that not all variations are inherited by every child. In sexually reproducing populations, each child receives only half of each parent's genes. But overall, in a population, it would be correct to say that variations are inherited. It would also be obviously correct to say that each individual inherits only part of the variations extant in the population, or even in its parents.

An admission of error.

In your version, I would change "can" to "do". Or just eliminate "can". Organisms do not have a choice about passing genetic variations to their offspring. There is no way they can prevent it.

Only mutations in gametes are transmitted to offspring.

So all in all, I think Gould's original wording is best.

If that was his wording, I think it was sloppy.

Ah, but you changed the original wording from "survive" to "die". When a population is dying out, it is definitely producing more offspring than survive, since few are surviving. So, we can stay with the original wording again.

I said:

Organisms in a stable or growing population produce as many or more offspring than die.

Organisms in a stable or growing population produce as many or more offspring than the number of orbganisms that die. (Birthrate>=deathrate)

Are you saying there is no evidence for this?

Does it occur in all populations? Who knows? It appears to occur in all observed populations. If all observed populations are a representative sub-set of all populations, they we can justifiably extrapolate to all populations.

It is a fact to assert that theory is not fact. It is theory to assert that all good scientific theory can be considered as fact. The theory is evidently wrong, which is why it is a theory not fact.

Again, I would omit "can". Natural selection is a description of what does happen. There are no criteria to say it can happen sometimes and not happen other times.

Not in every case. The survival advantage of a beneficial point mutation is so small it can be pretty well neglected. That very small survival advantage is one reason evolution is so improbable it can be considered impossible, even assuming point mutations can add genetic informnation to the DNA.

Well, how about the revised, revised version?

I stand by my arguments. Yes, I am stubborn.

No, I don't see any reason why I have to go further than Gould or Darwin did. Darwin did not include his speculation on common ancestors or their possible forms as part of his theory. Common ancestry is an implied conclusion of the theory, not the theory itself.

Wrong. Darwin's general theory expounded what I described above, and it is that theory that conflicts with Scripture, as stated so emphatically by the late C. Hodge.

In principle, we could prove that life was specially created in several dozen complex forms, and the theory of evolution would still hold as Darwin stated it. For these would be ancestral forms of all the descendants which evolved from them. In practice, we hold to universal common ancestry, because it appears to be a better explanation of the evidence.

You could do, but then you could not call it THE theory of evolution. It would be called Gluadys' modified theory of evolution. Schools may not readily incorporate this into text books, and would be reluctant to call it fact.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Give a precise definition of teh theory of gravity please, and its supporting evidence.

Which one? Here is an overview of the history of the theory of gravity.

History of Gravity


A) Early Ideas

The very earliest ideas regarding gravity must have been based on every day experience. For example:
• Objects fall unless they are supported.
• "Down" is different from "across".
• Climbing a hill is harder work than walking on a level.

....

B) Ancient Greeks: Aristotle

...

To Aristotle, the cause of falling was heaviness. The heavier the object, the more it falls - a large rock plummets to the earth, a leaf ambles along downward slowly and a dandelion fluff barely falls at all and frequently rises higher into the sky instead. But what was the connection between heavy objects and falling? To understand this, one must have an idea of the Aristotelian worldview.

...

C) Middle Ages

...

Medieval physics (and astronomy) was largely based on the ideas of Aristotle. Since the teachings of Aristotle had been given the seal of approval by the Church, they were taken to be the revealed truth and essentially unquestioned in the Universities. In general, this didn't work too badly: most objects work more or less in the manner described by Aristotle.

...

D) Renaissance: Galileo

...

Galileo began his exploration of how objects fall by comparing the rates at which objects fall. He also tried to figure out how fast they fall. His basic conclusions were the following:
• objects of different weight fall at the same speed,
• falling starting from a complete stop, objects move more and more quickly the longer they have been falling.
• the distance an object falls is proportional to the square of the elapsed time.

...

E) Enlightenment: Newton

...

Newton thus realized that gravity was not something special to the Earth. Gravity also acts in space. This was a profound, even revolutionary idea. According to Aristotle, the laws governing the heavens were considered to be completely different from the laws of physics here on Earth. Now, however, if the moon was affected by gravity, then it made sense that the rest of the Solar System should also be subject to gravity. Newton found that he could explain the entire motion of the Solar System from the planets to the moons to the comets with a single law of Gravity:

All bodies attract all other bodies, and the strength of the attraction is proportional to the masses of the two bodies and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies.

...

F) Post Enlightenment - 1700s,1800s

From the period immediately following Newton's discovery of his Universal Law of Gravitation, to about the turn of the last century (1900), the theory of gravitation stayed essentially unchanged. More sophisticated mathematical tools for understanding the interplay of the planets were developed, but the underlying theory remained stable.

...


G) Twentieth Century: Einstein

...
Einstein realized that one doesn't really need to deal with gravity directly - one can always cancel it out by moving in the right way. If one moves in the right way (falling), then one doesn't feel any gravity - in fact one is weightless. This is called being in an inertial frame. But physicists know all about doing physics in inertial frames: it's what we do best! But the way you have to move is different in different locations (see image). It's not possible to cancel out gravity everywhere by motion, only locally. Einstein's great achievement was to show how to connect, to patch together, the inertial frames in different locations.

In doing so, Einstein showed that space itself is bent by the presence of matter. Objects don't feel a force of gravity, they simply move in straight lines - but the space they move through is bent and so it appears that they move in arcs. An example may help to clarify things. Imagine an ant walking on the surface of a table. Being lazy, it wants to walk straight ahead. If the surface is perfectly flat, then its path will be a line. But what if the table has an inverted bowl in the middle? The ant walking along will reach the bowl and then continue walking along its side. But the side of the bowl is curved so when it reaches the other edge it may not be going in the same direction as before. It looks like a force acted on the ant to change its direction, but in reality the ant continued to walk as straight as it could, and it was the geometry of the table that changed the direction the ant walked. So in the Einsteinian world picture, matter affects space and space affects matter. They are inextricably tied together.

...

H) Future Directions

...

Recently a theory known as "string theory" has gained a lot of support as a candidate TOE. What is different about string theory? Normal Quantum Mechanics treats all particles as points of zero size. This leads to a lot of problems when distances get small or energies get large. String theory says that particles are not points after all, but instead small little loops. The size of these loops are about 10-34 cm-- so very, very small indeed. But not zero! Most of the problems reconciling GR and QM go away when one uses this theory. The full consequences of string theory have not been worked out yet (the mathematics is incredibly complex); but, so far it seems very promising. But we don't know yet, and the final theory of gravity may be something else entirely. Whatever it is, however, we can be certain that the attempts to understand it will have profound consequences for our understanding of the Universe.

 

[Micaiah]

Newtons formulations were laws, not theories. That is about as close as science gets to a fact.

Frames of reference are fact. I jump into a car at 30 km/hr, and another car travels at 50 km/hr. The relative speed of second car to first car is 20km/hr. Relativity is a bit out there, and it seems appropriate to call it a theory. String theory should certainly be called theory.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Newtons formulations were laws, not theories. That is about as close as science gets to a fact.

Frames of reference are fact. I jump into a car at 30 km/hr, and another car travels at 50 km/hr. The relative speed of second car to first car is 20km/hr. Relativity is a bit out there, and it seems appropriate to call it a theory. String theory should certainly be called theory.

I hope you understand that Scientific Laws are simply Scientific Theories that are simple and have existed for a long time in an unchanged state without contradictory evidence. There is nothing magical about them that says that we will never find anything that contradicts them. When we do, the science needs to change to account for those exceptions

Wikipedia - Physical Law
...

Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories have many of the same properties as laws, but are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to change as the body of availabe experimental data and analysis develops.

...

Laws as Approximations

...

Well-established laws have indeed been invalidated in some special cases, but the new formulations created to explain the discrepancies can be said to generalize upon, rather than overthrow, the originals. That is, the invalidated laws have been found to be only close approximations, to which other terms or factors must be added to cover previously unaccounted-for conditions, e.g., very large or very small scales of time or space, enormous speeds or masses, etc. Thus, rather than unchanging knowledge, physical laws are actually better viewed as a series of improving approximations.

A well-known example is that of Newton's law of gravity: while it describes the world accurately for most pertinent observations, such as of the movements of astronomical objects in the solar system, it was found to be inaccurate when applied to extremely large masses or velocities. Einstein's theory of general relativity, however, accurately handles gravitational interactions at those extreme conditions, in addition to the range covered by Newton's law. Newton's formula for gravity is still used in most circumstances, as an easier-to-calculate approximation of gravitational law.

Wikipedia's gravity entry will help you understand where Newtons Laws were inadequate and where Relativity helped to shape a better view of gravity.

Wikipedia : Gravity

Newton's formulation of gravity is quite accurate for most practical purposes. There are a few problems with it though:

1. It assumes that gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously by a posited method, "action at a distance". However, even Newton felt action at a distance to be unsatisfactory.
2. Newton's model of absolute space and time was eventually contradicted by Einstein's theory of special relativity in the twentieth century. Einstein's theory of special relativity was successfully built on the backbone of the experimentally supported assumption that there exists some velocity at which signals can be transmitted, the speed of light in vacuum.
3. It does not explain the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of the planet Mercury. This precession is small; the unexplained portion is on the order of one angular second per century (an arc-second per century).
4. It predicts that light is deflected by gravity. However, this predicted deflection is only half as much as observations of this deflection, which were made after General Relativity was developed in 1915.
5. The observed fact that gravitation and inertial mass are the same (or at least proportional) for all bodies is unexplained within Newton's system. See equivalence principle.

Einstein developed a new theory called general relativity which includes a theory of gravity, published in 1915. The gravitational aspect of this theory says that the presence of matter "warps" the spacetime. Objects in free fall in the universe take geodesics in spacetime. A geodesic is the counterpart of a straight line in Euclidean geometry.

In the same way, evolution will likely change as we discover more about populations and exceptions to natural selection and genetic shifting. Any new theories will have to account for all the evidence that our current theories explain.

 

[Micaiah]

Good posts. Thanks for the information you have provided.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Good posts. Thanks for the information you have provided.

No problem.

 

[gluadys]

An admission of error.

Thank you.

Only mutations in gametes are transmitted to offspring.

If that was his wording, I think it was sloppy.

Ah, I see the source of the error now and apologize for inadvertently strengthening it by the discussion of genes.

The original statement was "Organisms vary and these variations are inherited by their offspring."

You have equated "variations" with "mutations" and I should have corrected that in my last post.

By choosing "variations" rather than "mutations" Gould is following Darwin who knew nothing of modern genetics, not even that genes exist or that they change. So Darwin knew nothing of the cause of variations. But he still observed correctly that characteristics vary.

You are quite right in saying that not all mutations are inherited, since mutations outside of germ cells are excluded. Not all mutations cause variations either, even when they do occur in the germ cells.

However, the statement is not about mutations. It is about variations. That is to say, it is about the phenotypic, not genotypic, differences in organisms of the same species.

Genetics explains the source and mechanism of variation, but the existence and inheritabilty of variation is known by observation independently of genetics.

With that explanation, can we stick with statement 1 in its original wording?

I said:
Organisms in a stable or growing population produce as many or more offspring than the number of orbganisms that die. (Birthrate>=deathrate)

And the original statement was: 2. Organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive.


The problem with your re-wording is that it no longer applies to all populations, but only to a sub-set of populations. What we want is a statement that applies to populations that are shrinking as well as stable or growing. Using "survive" instead of "die" makes statement 2 universal. Ok?

It is a fact to assert that theory is not fact. It is theory to assert that all good scientific theory can be considered as fact. The theory is evidently wrong, which is why it is a theory not fact.

Statement 3 was Darwin's hypothesis. .

3. On average, offspring that vary most strongly in directions favoured by the environment will survive and propogate. Favorable variations will therefore accumulate in populations by natural selection.

Now let me remind you first that your original statement was this:

What the evolutionists need is a statement of the basic tenets of the theory they consider to be so well proven scientifically that it can be assumed to be fact.

I believe it is fair to say that statement 3 qualifies for this description. Indeed, earlier, you implied that it did. For your original rewording of this statement was:

Offspring that vary in directions favoured by the environment may have a better chance to survive and propogate. Natural selection can cause these favorable variations to accumulate in populations.

The only quibble I had with that was the word "can" in the second sentence. But now that I realize you were equating "variations" with "mutations" I see why you inserted it.

So, going back to actual variations, not mutations which may or may not be expressed as variations, consider the hypothesis of statement 3 again.

Gould's version (part a):
On average, offspring that vary most strongly in directions favoured by the environment will survive and propogate.

Your version (part a):
Offspring that vary in directions favoured by the environment may have a better chance to survive and propogate.

Your version changes "will" to "may", but Gould is implying the same thing when he specifies "On average".

Gould's version (part b)
Favorable variations will therefore accumulate in populations by natural selection.

Your version (part b)
Natural selection can cause these favorable variations to accumulate in populations.

Again, the key difference is "can" instead of "will". But now that it has been clarified that "variations" are not "all mutations" but only those actually expressed in selectable phenotypic variation, is this change necessary?

Actually, part a) is the essential hypothesis. If it is valid, and you seem to agree that it is, then part b) is a necessary consequence. If variation most favored by the environment has the best chance of being preserved and propagated, how would it be possible for favorable variations not to accumulate?

I stand by my arguments. Yes, I am stubborn.

Me too, but not so stubborn, I hope, to refuse to admit a mistake, as you graciously did at the beginning of your post.

Wrong. Darwin's general theory expounded what I described above,

But as premise or as implication? Certainly, Darwin saw where his theory was heading. That is part of being a good scientist--to draw out implications for further exploration.

and it is that theory that conflicts with Scripture, as stated so emphatically by the late C. Hodge.

Go back over those citations from Hodge. They are not focused on common descent. They are focused on the apparent (Hodge would say "real") denial of purpose and design in nature. That is what he judged to conflict with scripture.

Note, too, that the younger Hodge (and modern TEs) do not disagree with the elder Hodge's premise. What the younger Hodge concluded is that the denial of purpose and design is only apparent, not real.

You could do, but then you could not call it THE theory of evolution. It would be called Gluadys' modified theory of evolution. Schools may not readily incorporate this into text books, and would be reluctant to call it fact.

Gluadys' modified theory of evolution would find its way into textbooks if she could provide evidential support for it. That is the point: that universal common descent has been incorporated because it is the thesis that, to date, best fits the evidence.

 

[TwinCrier]

No, Micaiah, it is not. It says, among other things, that evolution is a theory "regarding the origin of living things". That is not a fact.

If evolution is not a theory "regarding the origin of living things" then I suggest we strike all reference to it from now onin this particular forum as this is origins theology.