Is evolution proven science or theory

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by 98G

Life threatening and livelihood threatening can pull out some similar hypothalamus responses -- but usually not similar end results. Note -- I said usually... We may need a bloodied emoticon added to the line up.

Been in both environs. Like I said, some days I prefer the military one. At least there I have a kinetic response.

As to the rest of your post - most excellent

[98G]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Been in both environs. Like I said, some days I prefer the military one. At least there I have a kinetic response.

Agreed when an enemy is involved -- fight is a really good response.

Do you think the analogy in business is mostly not with competition but with internal system-driven issues? Doc Illinois example would be a systematic issue akin to a command directive that could negatively affect your unit but is not direct enemy engagement. You may want to fight it, but your options are limited in both environments.

Now I had better go look for that monkey....

[Surf n Turf]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Unless you are working in one of those knowledge gaps. Boy does that get ugly sometimes!

Originally Posted by 98G

That is the gap in the thread and the discussion. Evolution theory isn't faith. It is just our filter theory to sort data until it doesn't work -- then it is altered. We don't have to believe in it. But if a job requires someone to know how or why something mutated, then they see if the theory helps to explain, exploit or affect it. .

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

The lack of falsifiable predictions tends to move evolution away from "theory" and into the realm of "conjecture".
I have no problem with evolution presented as a conjecture (Still confused as to what exactly "evolutionary theory" is...).
Conjecture isn't theory and theory isn't a law of nature nor a fact.
Evolution certainly has broad use in science, but should be presented for what it is.

FANTASTIC AND THOUGHTFUL THREAD !!!!
I am stuck between those believing ID, and the “GAPS” in evolution theory ("conjecture".) i.e. There must have been a beginning; and evidence of inter-specie “evolution”. Not a Catholic, but thought the following comment was interesting:
SnT

QUOTE Comment 3
http://www.catholic.org/national/nat...y.php?id=18524

The problem with scientists making blunt statements regarding evolutionary science is that they shoot themselves in their own foot. When scientists, or writers of science proclaim that 'evolution' is a 'fact' they inadvertently bite the hand that feeds them. Saying a case is closed tends to shut down any funding for further research. Saying "I believe in evolution" discloses that that person knows very little regarding the study of or facts pertaining to the science of evolution as it exists today. When a serious minded person begins the journey of discovery by reading popular writers on evolution; Dawkins, Gould, Hauser, Zimmer....ad nauseum..and read the sections on Evolution in High School textbooks for themselves..they will come away with more questions than answers. In these volumes of text you will be faced with many occurrences of words and phrases like; "somehow", "in some yet unexplained miraculous way" by some unknown mechanism" , etc...etc... Wonderful writers waxing eloquent does not a scientific fact make. There would be no "God of the gaps" if there weren't so many gaps. Robust and large scale scientific discovery is not well funded and we are left with no answers to the logical idea of an original cause for one. You can imagine as many universes as you wish but you always end up facing a beginning. A beginning presupposes a beginner; an uncaused cause; a non-contingent contingency. That is logical. That is thinking scientifically. If you really want to understand evolution to be a fact you have to answer the question of biological 'mechanisms'. How did an early simple chemical become a molecule, or what was the forcer of change. What 'told' the simplest form of life to arrange itself into a complex and robust 'machine' and produce for itself a protective and complex cell 'wall'. What environmental 'sensors' were there to provide feedback to the core decision processor and how did these sensors develop and construct themselves without a set of instructions. Even the most basic of questions such as "what is' the survival 'instinct' and where did or does it reside and what were the mechanisms that created 'it' and how did the simple organism 'learn' and put into effect the mechanics of biological survival. Believing in 'evolution' is a non- sensical statement. Believing that evolutionary science will someday support a knowledge of evolutionary processes that is complete enough and robust enough to call this area of science 'fact' is an act of 'faith' at this point. If we shut down the funding for and interest in finding the answers to the most basic questions, then writers of evolutionary theory will always have to employ words and phrases such as "somehow" and "one possibility might be", etc.. It is a fact that there is mutation. That is fact. It is a fact that lifeforms are extremely complex, and the complexity of a single cell is mind boggling. The ID folks are simply asking the how questions before accepting conjecture as fact. That is the mark of a true scientist.

[98G]

Originally Posted by Surf n Turf

http://www.catholic.org/national/nat...y.php?id=18524
The problem with scientists making blunt statements regarding evolutionary science is etc., etc., etc...

The problem(s) I see in the blogger's opinion is that it mis-represents science and the Catholic Church. You might look at the definition post (#175). As for religion, as Catholics (and I am one), here is the Pope's actual explanation versus the blogger's interpretation.

Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)

1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the academy's refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections.

He asked those whom he called the Church's "senatus scientificus" to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science.

2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance. During this plenary session, you are undertaking a "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium," starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications give rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.

3. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions. In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.

For my part, when I received those taking part in your academy's plenary assembly on October 31, 1992, I had the opportunity with regard to Galileo to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, April 23, 1993, announcing the document on the The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.

4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.

And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

5. The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake". In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created. But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ. It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God. Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.

7. In conclusion, I would like to call to mind a Gospel truth which can shed a higher light on the horizon of your research into the origins and unfolding of living matter. The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life. It gives us a wise vision of life inasmuch as it describes the loftiest forms of existence. This vision guided me in the encyclical which I dedicated to respect for human life, and which I called precisely "Evangelium Vitae."

[GratefulCitizen]

Saw this about a year and a half ago.
Neat representation of DNA.

Gets pretty cool around the 3 minute mark.

http://youtu.be/WFCvkkDSfIU

Like the comment "left out error correction and a bunch of other things" around the 4:30 mark.

[ironyoshi]

Originally Posted by 98G

The problem(s) I see in the blogger's opinion is that it mis-represents science and the Catholic Church. You might look at the definition post (#175). As for religion, as Catholics (and I am one), here is the Pope's actual explanation versus the blogger's interpretation.

You must be referring to the article Surf n Turf linked (instead of the comment excerpted), but I don't see the conflict between Father Coyne's summarized remarks and the full text of the Pope's address.

Certainly the Pope specified that " theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man," so Coyne's remarks are lacking some context, but I don't see a conflict.

[98G]

Originally Posted by ironyoshi

You must be referring to the article Surf n Turf linked (instead of the comment excerpted), but I don't see the conflict between Father Coyne's summarized remarks and the full text of the Pope's address.

Certainly the Pope specified that " theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man," so Coyne's remarks are lacking some context, but I don't see a conflict.

Thanks -- sorry if that was unclear. Yes Surf and Turf quoted a blogger who disagreed with Father Coyne. (if you scroll below the article you will find it.) Coyne's views are completely in line with the Pope's address.

The blogger took a very broad brush to science and theology to fit his view.

[The Reaper]

Is it not possible that our planet was seeded at some intervals by a "Creator?"

In the big picture, our knowledge is laughable and our recorded history but an instant.

Just looking at alternatives.

TR

[ironyoshi]

Originally Posted by 98G

Thanks -- sorry if that was unclear. Yes Surf and Turf quoted a blogger who disagreed with Father Coyne. (if you scroll below the article you will find it.) Coyne's views are completely in line with the Pope's address.

The blogger took a very broad brush to science and theology to fit his view.

I did see that comment but it didn't seem he was interpreting the Pope's remarks - I think I see what you're getting at now.

He did overreach in calling IDs the only true scientists, but I think there is value to the idea that persons who support evolution ontologically have faith just as a creationist does.

edit: to wit, I read your post about the idea of "accepting" as opposed to believing, but someone who tends to distrust evolutionary history, such as myself, can also 'accept' the paleontological and geological support of evolution without believing, whereas most scientists would both accept and believe.

[98G]

Originally Posted by ironyoshi

edit: to wit, I read your post about the idea of "accepting" as opposed to believing, but someone who tends to distrust evolutionary history, such as myself, can also 'accept' the paleontological and geological support of evolution without believing, whereas most scientists would both accept and believe.

I come back to science is competitive. If someone would test evolution and the theory would not hold up (or as in the last 100 years -- adapt) it would be a major breakthrough. So far, that has not happened. So for now the paleontological and geological support of billions of years is not a bad start.

[GratefulCitizen]

Musings about DNA...
Don't know if this is true, but it's what I've come to understand about DNA.

DNA replicates within cells and sometimes makes errors.
Cellular machinery includes mechanisms which repair these errors, but not quite perfectly.

Over time, the accumulated errors add up and the cell quits functioning properly.
Enough malfunctioning cells result in the death of the organism.

In the case of humans, some DNA is is drawn from each parent and the new combination of DNA is used to construct a new human.
But wouldn't the DNA from each parent have at least some accumulated damage?

Logically, this would result in a gradual increase of accumulated DNA damage over generations.
Would that damage result in an increase or decrease in fitness?

Is this idea testable?

*************
*************

Also, what are the effects of carbon 14 (and other) decay on the proteins and DNA within cells?
Carbon randomly turning into nitrogen certainly can't be a good thing for chemical message systems.

Is this testable?

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by PRB

Just for fun...
In this evolutionary process when did abstract consciousness arrive on the scene?

Humans are unique in having communication which has both vocabulary and grammar.
The divide between humans and other forms of life is immense in this area.

Also, is their any evidence that language has evolved?
How complex are modern languages compared to ancient ones?

(English, Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Akkadian, etc.)

[98G]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Humans are unique in having communication which has both vocabulary and grammar.
The divide between humans and other forms of life is immense in this area.

Also, is their any evidence that language has evolved?
How complex are modern languages compared to ancient ones?

(English, Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Akkadian, etc.)

You asked...

http://http://www.historian.net/hxwrite.htm

The link between beer and early language development.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by 98G

You asked...

http://http://www.historian.net/hxwrite.htm

The link between beer and early language development.

Hmmm...
An experiment that would link beer with language ability...

I think a personal experiment is necessary.


<edit>
Seems like beer results in devolving communication.
http://youtu.be/JJmqCKtJnxM

[Trapper John]

Not sure if this is evolution or devolution? But, it is an interesting video presentation at any rate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=MrqqD_Tsy4Q