Is evolution proven science or theory

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Pete

While I come down on the evolution side of things a few things did bug me about it.

Fossil records - for the time periods in question - are very limited. "We found this and then that from a million years later. They look similar so the later one must have evolved from the earlier one."

Hey, anyone come up with how long God's first "day" was since he didn't have night and day yet? I'm comfortable with "I ain't got a clue, could be 4 billion years."

You bring up an important point: the clock.

Life sciences can rage back and forth all they want about this stuff.
Unfortunately, "the clock" is interfering with other areas of science.

Geology, astronomy, cosmology, etc. shouldn't give a rat's ass whether their studies disagree with the timeline needs of life sciences.
Yet lines of thought are constantly abandoned lest they offend evolutionary biology dogma.

Science at large shouldn't be restricted by one theory in one subject area.

[airbornediver]

The clock you speak of is dependent upon which theory you believe.

If its creationism, then question for how to define the clock is dependent upon us knowing that from that first day; the days were 24 hours long, with a certain amount of daylight and nighttime. The time length of daytime and nightime would thusly depend on where the earth was in relation to the sun and where the first man/woman were on the earth to properly identify the season.

If its evolution (ie, big bang), then question for how to define the clock is technically already answered. Since scientists now know what happens (thanks to the Higgs bosun) to certain particles and how long they last after they collide (which is part of the big bang).


There are holes in both, considering that they're both theories (to answer the OP). At this point, to treat any as fact is to ignore the merits of the other. Ignorance is not bliss, it is the tool to which charlatans use to dupe the population.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Pete

While I come down on the evolution side of things a few things did bug me about it.

Fossil records - for the time periods in question - are very limited. "We found this and then that from a million years later. They look similar so the later one must have evolved from the earlier one."

Hey, anyone come up with how long God's first "day" was since he didn't have night and day yet? I'm comfortable with "I ain't got a clue, could be 4 billion years."

Wanted to address some of this when the thread was active, but didn't want to disrupt the flow of the thread at he time.

The long first day theories originated with "The Gap" theory proposed by Thomas Chalmers in 1814.
It relies on some questionable translations of the Bible into English.

Specifically, Genesis 1:2 is retranslated as “the earth became formless and void” rather than “the earth was formless and void.”
The Hebrew word used in that verse is almost always translated "was".

Also, the KJV of Genesis 1:28 reads "replenish the earth" which is sometimes misunderstood to mean "refill".
The root word for replenish is the French verb replenir (to fill) and the Hebrew word translated into replenish here is usually translated into "fill" elsewhere in the Bible.


Regardless of translation, all of this would fall under the category of "theistic evolution".
The "theistic" part addresses the first cause (initial assumptions).

Science is equipped to address cause and effect.
Whether the first cause is theistic or atheistic isn't something science can address.

This is also the problem with intelligent design theory.
ID focuses on the first cause, rather than the cause and effect relationship (as such, it trends away from science).

A creationist theory which focuses on subsequent cause and effect, but ignores the question of first cause (assumes things started fully-formed without attribution of origin) would be science.
Evolution assumes initial starting conditions without attribution of origin and goes on to focus on cause and effect (poorly, IMO, but it is science).

Looking at evolution from this perspective is where I have a problem with it.
Assuming a starting point of disorder and increasing in order over time defies observation and experiment.

Conversely, assuming a starting point of order and increasing in disorder over time is consistent with observation and experiment.
The fact that this view is also consistent with some religious beliefs is why it is so vehemently eschewed.

Whether a theory is consistent or inconsistent with a particular belief system should not matter to science.
All that should matter is whether or not the theory is consistent with the evidence.

We must have the courage to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

[bandaidbrand]

Originally Posted by alelks

Stole this from another site just to kick this off and start some conversation:

/snip


Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.


Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.


/snip

Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

Maybe I'll try to address some of these other "facts" at a later time, but these three I can spitfire some easy replies to. Number 4 is just a misleading statement, the primary mechanism of the evolutionary theory is selection by the environment. Sperm + egg actually reinforce this aspect of evolution. By having a offspring produced from two 'randomly' selected gametes, that were themselves created through meiosis with multiple crossovers between chromosomes creates a massively genetically different group of offspring. The potential for micro-evolution between generations is _increased_ by sexual reproduction, and has been shown in repeated experimentation, as in the fruit fly experiments mentioned earlier in this thread. In the case that the author of these facts was saying the environment can't cause changes in the DNA of eggs inside of a body... consider why you wear a lead vest when you get you get x-rayed.

"Fact" number 5 is just a joke. Yes, there are DNA repair mechanisms, but they hardly repair every error in DNA synthesis in replication. A very common example in this is how a common drug such as insulin is made. Human DNA is put into a plasmid and inserted into live bacteria through a process called transformation. There is either chemical transformation which involves calcium ions, or electroporation which involves a targeted current that disrupts the cell membrane, but basically some of this human DNA gets incorporated into the bacterial DNA. How do scientists keep these bacterial cells from getting rid of this foreign DNA while it's being incorporated by the cells? Raising the temperature to 42C serves other purposes in making the cell membrane 'leaky', but it also inhibits DNA repair, specifically the DNA excision pathway. 42C is 107F, the heat index here in Houston today was 106. DNA repair mechanisms also can actually assist in evolution. I'll try to link some articles on it later. All of these topics are at least brushed upon in a freshman biology book in college.

Fact 7 is also just blatantly wrong. Do a search for polyploidy in plants, or DNA disjunction in mitosis or meiosis. Chromosome numbers do change, they are not fixed, and some resulting organisms CAN mate depending on the nature of the polyploidy.

All that being said, I still think there's a lot of deep questions about the origin of life that are not answered by science at this point. I'm not naive enough to think we have all the answers, or that all our answers our right (the world was flat according to scientists once right?), but I think discounting the incredible amount of evidence that supports evolution is the mistake of someone that isn't willing to really challenge their belief structure. I think you can learn about the incredible complexity of science and still come to the conclusion that there's something truly divine about how it all works.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by bandaidbrand

All that being said, I still think there's a lot of deep questions about the origin of life that are not answered by science at this point. I'm not naive enough to think we have all the answers, or that all our answers our right (the world was flat according to scientists once right?), but I think discounting the incredible amount of evidence that supports evolution is the mistake of someone that isn't willing to really challenge their belief structure.

"Discounting the evidence" is a false dichotomy.
Support for a theory increases or decreases with new evidence.

Unobserved, unrepeatable events can neither be proven nor disproven.
It is unfair to hold scientific theories to a "prove it" standard (this can only be done in math).

But, scientific theories can and should make falsifiable predictions.
What are some of the falsifiable predictions of evolutionary theory?

[bandaidbrand]

I agree that it's not a "prove it" scenario, and as you say, the events are unrepeatable. Most of the evidence for evolution has been based on falsifiable hypotheticals.

An example from my previous post could be:
"E. coli can spontaneously incorporate foreign DNA from a plasmid."

Looking at the fossil record can be informative, but I think there's a lot of room for [incorrect] interpretation there. The actual mechanisms that could have allowed for evolution are the testable and the real science.

[PRB]

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

[Trapper John]

Refreshing myself with the comments in this thread a couple of things have jumped out me:

(1) A clear bias towards one POV or the other and the attempt to select facts with a misinterpretation of the underlying principle is evident. As a case in point I cite GC's comment (I don't mean to be picking on you, GC, just using this as an example).

Looking at evolution from this perspective is where I have a problem with it. Assuming a starting point of disorder and increasing in order over time defies observation and experiment.

The problem here is that entropy is selected out to make the case that the theory of evolution is flawed, i.e violates the third law of thermodynamics. The argument you are making here is specious.

What should be applied here is Gibbs free energy (a relation that incorporates both entropy and enthalpy) and simply states that a system will establish the lowest energy state.

To illustrate this point, and the fallacy in your argument, I would like you to do a little experiment. Half-fill a soda bottle with water, add about 50 ml of vegetable oil. Shake vigorously (after replacing the top of course ) and observe. You will see the initial conditions of micro droplets of oil randomly dispersed in the water. Disorder - right? After a few minutes you will see the oil aggregate on top and water and oil separated into a two phase system. More ordered -right?

This "apparent" violation of the third law is in fact a representation of a system seeking the lowest free-energy steady state. Entropy is not dominating this process, enthalpy is. Hence, your argument does not conflict with the theory of evolution - it is consistent with it. (Notice that I did not use the word "prove". As I have said before nothing can be proven to be only not be).

The null hypothesis is "The theory of evolution is false". All subsequent experiments should be designed to disprove that null hypothesis. No credible evidence has been advanced so far. Ergo the theory stands until such evidence is presented.

(2) And that brings me to the second point that has been made, i.e. that in order for the theory of evolution to be correct (an incorrect null hypothesis from the outset by the way), new DNA must be created and that has never been observed. Well, that is not correct either, and bandaid cited an example with bacterial incorporation of DNA plasmids - a fact well established in nature and used extensively in biotechnology. In fact the human insulin that diabetics take was produced by E. coli expressing the human insulin gene. I grant you that is an artificial system, not a natural one.

However, there are naturally occurring examples and the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria is a good example. Antibiotics select for bacteria expressing resistant genes and the these bacteria survive. What is more, they transfer that gene to other bacterial species through plasmids and new species of antibiotic resistant bacteria emerge.

Another example in humans: Morbid obesity is known to run in families. There has been some evidence for an obesity gene. These patients can consume a mere fraction of calories that normal people do and still gain weight. Now I would like you to do a mental experiment. Imagine a global crisis event that wiped out a large percentage of humans and destroyed society as we know it. Food would be in very scarce supply. Humans carrying the "obesity gene" would have a survival advantage and would be able to procreate and pass on the "obesity gene". I realize that is an example of micro-evolution and does not prove evolution theory. But as I said, we cannot prove evolution theory - only disprove it. This is an example in support of that theory, nonetheless.

In the end, bandaid hit the nail on the head, IMO (added a small change in italics to your comment).

I think you can learn about the incredible complexity of science [nature] and still come to the conclusion that there's something truly divine about how it all works.

In my view, it doesn't matter whether you start from an ID or Darwinian view, we end up at the same point. Nature/God are one in the same and we are all children of Nature/God.

Act accordingly!

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by PRB

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

As always CSM, you ask the most poigniant and IMO relevant questions. Up until recently humans were thought to be the only species with abstract consciousness, and by that I assume you mean a sense of self identity and a sense of future (time).

I read somewhere that dolphins are now known to have a sense of self and possibly a sense of time, elephants I think do as well. However, conscious abstract thought is most advanced in humans and it is that quality that burdens us with a "caretaker" responsibility both individually and as a species. So far we are barely passing (D+) that test IMO.

I feel myself diverging off on a Ayn Rand philosophical line of thinking and that is just a bit off topic so I'll stop now.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

But as I said, we cannot prove evolution theory - only disprove it.

Still not sure what exactly "evolution theory" is.
Seems to be a moving target.

Does it demonstrate predictive power?
What falsifiable predictions does it make?

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

I'll pick up that ball, Trapper.

I began asking same thing in undergrad, eventually posing the question to a Harvard educated Logic prof. His answer was that symbolic behavior, the evolutionary root of abstraction, began to appear somewhere between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods. This lays it out in short form:

http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/?quid=1132



He then recommended this literature:

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/vie...-9780198503248

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Cogn...sness+macphail

Exactly when, biologically, did our brains begin to develop the machinery for abstract thought? I haven't located a definitive answer to that; at least, not in the early 2000s when investigating it.

Thanks Doc. Good posts, got my brain in the game. I agree the development of language must have been the first evidence of human abstract thinking.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Refreshing myself with the comments in this thread a couple of things have jumped out me:

(1) A clear bias towards one POV or the other and the attempt to select facts with a misinterpretation of the underlying principle is evident. As a case in point I cite GC's comment (I don't mean to be picking on you, GC, just using this as an example).

The problem here is that entropy is selected out to make the case that the theory of evolution is flawed, i.e violates the third law of thermodynamics. The argument you are making here is specious.

What should be applied here is Gibbs free energy (a relation that incorporates both entropy and enthalpy) and simply states that a system will establish the lowest energy state.

To illustrate this point, and the fallacy in your argument, I would like you to do a little experiment. Half-fill a soda bottle with water, add about 50 ml of vegetable oil. Shake vigorously (after replacing the top of course ) and observe. You will see the initial conditions of micro droplets of oil randomly dispersed in the water. Disorder - right? After a few minutes you will see the oil aggregate on top and water and oil separated into a two phase system. More ordered -right?

This "apparent" violation of the third law is in fact a representation of a system seeking the lowest free-energy steady state. Entropy is not dominating this process, enthalpy is. Hence, your argument does not conflict with the theory of evolution - it is consistent with it. (Notice that I did not use the word "prove". As I have said before nothing can be proven to be only not be).

Are you asserting that molecules assembled in such a way as to produce life is the lowest available energy state for those molecules?

(FWIW, the separation due to density provided in your example is an excellent illustration of why plate tectonics is flawed theory)


Here is my illustrative example:

Around the southwest, and especially in Canyonlands National Park, there are these naturally occurring piles of rocks called "cairns".
Typically, there are about 4-6 somewhat flat rocks common to the area neatly balanced in a vertical stack.

Park rangers say that over millions of years, weathering and erosion removed surrounding rock and soil and these rocks "fell" into these neatly ordered stacks.
As luck would have it, they precisely mark trail routes.

The explanation is completely consistent with the laws of physics, and given the explanation, the rocks are at the lowest available energy state.
How many people believe my story?

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Still not sure what exactly "evolution theory" is.
Seems to be a moving target.

Does it demonstrate predictive power?
What falsifiable predictions does it make?

So GC, if you are not sure what evolution theory is how is it possible to opine about it?

That being said, I think we are talking about this definition: "Evolution is the organic change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." Often this is extended to be more inclusive and to attempt to explain the Origin of Life, a viewpoint I share.

As to the second part of your post, I assume that you are referring to the properties of a good hypothesis (theory) - (1) Consistent with the observed known and (2) Predictive with predictions that are experimentally testable.

I contend, as do the vast majority of scientists, that Darwin's theory is consistent with the observable known (e.g. fossil record, structure and function of species genome, etc.). That's condition 1.

As to condition #2, (predictive with predictions that are experimentally testable), that is more problematic for evolution of species because of the time required to test the most obvious prediction. I'll have to get back to you, in say 1 million years or so on that one.

However, there is ample evidence for micro-evolution and co-evolution as has been cited elsewhere in this thread. In fact it was co-evolution that gave rise to the divergence of the plant and animal kingdoms (see discussion re: Lynn Margulis).

But before you jump on the difficulty surrounding condition #2 as a reason to discount a the Theory of Evolution, consider the same difficulty (for different reasons) with the General Relativity Theory and the Standard Model of the Universe. These theories meet condition #1 and still we have not tested all of their fundamental predictions largely because the technology to do so is still in development. This does not, by any stretch of the imagination, invalidate the value in either. Nor does it invalidate the Theory of Evolution.

So far, as I said in my earlier post, no credible evidence has established proof that the null hypothesis (the Theory of Evolution is not correct) has come to light. Until that time comes, then it must stand as the best explanation of what is known, i.e there is no reason in logic to replace it with an alternative theory.

But let's do the mental experiment and say that some evidence does come forward that the Theory of Evolution cannot explain. Let's also attempt to replace it with ID and let's apply these same conditions to ID and ask (1) is ID consistent with the observed known and (2) what predictions are made from ID that can be experimentally tested? In our mental experiment let's assume condition #1 is met (Personally, I don't believe it can be given the preponderance of evidence so far, but in the mental experiment I am suspending my disbelief).

Now the question is, what predictions are made from ID that can be experimentally tested? I think the answer to that question is none. I think you will see the conundrum and therefore a logical impasse is reached.

My point is that any attempt to apply logic to ID is folly. ID is a matter of Faith and as I said in the earlier post, when you look at the origin of life, whether it's through the lens of science or Faith, we ultimately come to the same point.

We are all children of Nature/God - so Act accordingly.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Are you asserting that molecules assembled in such a way as to produce life is the lowest available energy state for those molecules?

(FWIW, the separation due to density provided in your example is an excellent illustration of why plate tectonics is flawed theory)

In reverse order: (1) We are not discussing plate tectonics in this thread. And (2) I was only highlighting the specious nature of your argument regarding the importance entropy. I am not going to get into a discussion of thermodynamics in this thread (or on this BB for that matter) but the short answer is - I said no such thing.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

(FWIW, the separation due to density provided in your example is an excellent illustration of why plate tectonics is flawed theory)

No need to be making personal attacks about Trappers hairline.

Originally Posted by Trapper John

So GC, if you are not sure what evolution theory is how is it possible to opine about it?

No need to introduce logic.

You two play nice.