We have overwhelming evidence supporting that they do. But any causal theory is, ultimately, disprovable. The moment you claim a theory is either nondisprovable or trivially true, you’re outside the realm of science.
If somebody asks, “what if natural selection were wrong?” the correct answer is not, “natural selection is true.” The correct answer is, “that scenario that would disprove natural selection would require new evidence so massive and challenging it is difficult even to hypothesize, and even more difficult to hypothesize the ramifications thereof.”
I don’t want to sound pedantic, but if we’re arguing that science is non-dogmatic and ultimately correct, well, we should be fundamentally non-dogmatic and ultimately correct.
:smack: Yeah, it is funny!
I guess it’s because I see the word “geocentrism” more often than “heliocentrism”.
Anyway, I even know that the universe doesn’t revolve around the Sun.
No.
My question wasn’t about what *somebody * has done, or what I could *theoretically *do. I am not a biologist and I am not going to become one. I am not going to follow populations of fruit flies through 600 generations and study the whole genome of some 250 flies in order to see what kinds of genetic change they undergo. I can (and have) looked through a telescope and seen the Andromeda galaxy. Looked very similar to some of the photos that I have seen of it. That’s why I asked: “Where can I see evolution as clearly as I can see a galaxy?”
If you’re going to argue that we can’t see a galaxy, then we definitely can’t see evolution.
In any case, my point is that I have never *observed *evolution through natural selection, but I rely on the observations and conclusions of experts in the various of fields of study that resulted in the current explanations of how evolution occurs.
Observing evolution is not like observing galaxies, nor is it like this:
I can see, hear, touch, smell, and even taste pigeons. I can’t do that with evolution. (I’m assuming that the comparison was serious.)
A rational acceptance of evolution requires the knowledge and acceptance of ideas from many fields of study. A more common acceptance of evolution relies on faith.
Seeing galaxies is not like seeing pigeons. You need to use complicated equipment and in many cases the data is interpreted before you see the results. It’s similar to seeing the data that illustrates evolution, the difference is simply how far removed from your senses you are willing to go. While there are differences, the basic underlying data is just as firmly established.
Indeed. One would have to argue that differences in traits make no difference whatsoever to reproduction rates, and/or that traits of offspring do not correlate in any way to traits of the parents. This is about as convincing as a woman asserting that a child’s non-resemblance to her husband and strong resemblance to the furnace repairman is just some weird happenstance.
Please tell me about your understanding of the data underlying evolution and explain how you have determined that it was firmly established.
Okay guys, enough with the analogies. Yes, evolution is a fact, but not a fact that is easily confirmed in everyday experience. Evolution, like many advanced scientific concepts, doesn’t make sense at the superficial level. The objections to it are valid, in the absence of additional information. Which is why some people don’t accept it, especially if it contradicts the commonly accepted knowledge of a particular subculture. To just keep saying “It’s a fact” does little to educate someone who doesn’t already accept it.
abele derer, there is going to be a problem if you are only checking in once every five or six days. It makes having a conversation with you very difficult, especially when you don’t announce after starting a thread that you will be disappearing for about a week.
You asked if it could be observed – or at least how / where you could observe it. That experiment seemed to fit the bill, leaving aside the genome studying the basic experiment is really simple. Breed fruit-flies and time generations. Use the early hatchers to breed the next generation. Does the average time to hatch get shorter?
Errmmm… why would it not? I’ve looked at fruit flies and they look just like their photos. I still can’t see their genes.
All I was pointing out was that just as you have not observed evolution so too have you not observed a galaxy. I’ve see Jupiter through a telescope but everything I know (or think I know) about what I saw comes from astronomers, cosmologists, etc.
Fair enough… although if you decided that you wanted to do experiments with fruit flies, (or with pea plants as Mendel did), then you could observe the effects of natural or directed selection.
No, you don’t have to rely on faith. You could go out and collect the evidence and do the experiments yourself if you chose to. Something doesn’t become an unsolvable mystery just because you can’t be bothered to solve it.
Little Nemo, I didn’t say that someone “has to rely on faith”. I’m merely saying that, when it comes to evolution, most people accept it on faith. They don’t really understand it (as evidenced by comments about “moving up the evolutionary ladder”), they’ve never read a primary source of research (let alone done any research themselves) and they have little if any knowledge of the underlying science. And yet, they still accept it as true. How would you describe that type of acceptance?
Are you saying that:
The only way of not relying on faith is by actually collecting the evidence and doing the experiments? Is that how you have gathered all your scientific knowledge?
If someone relies on faith, that means that there is an unsolvable mystery?
If there is an unsolvable mystery, it’s because someone can’t be bothered to solve it?
Also, why did you introduce the idea of “unsolvable mystery”? It seems that you are debating someone else by mistake.
And, who is the “you” that you refer to in your sentences? Are you referring to me or to the general “you”?
Ah, one more point: I have asked eight questions in this post. They are genuine questions that can actually be answered. Some of them are yes/no questions. I would appreciate answers to my questions, even if the answer to some of them is just “yes” or “no”. Thanks.
We agree on the basic idea that our scientific knowledge is based on the research and conclusion of experts in various fields. Good.
But, that’s a purely theoretical “if”. I am not going to do the experiments. How can I? I don’t have the necessary expertise. Or are you suggesting that I quit my job and become an expert? And, when it comes to evolution, why stop with experiments on fruit flies? Shouldn’t I also confirm the fossil record, and the science underlying radiometric dating? That’s it: next week I’ll become a biologist, geneticist, geologist, paleontologist, and physicist. Shouldn’t take too long. Maybe I’ll even dust off my copy of On the Origin of Species and read it from cover to cover just like everyone else who accepts evolution.
It’s true that most people aren’t going to choose to repeat all of the experiments that would confirm a scientific theory. But the fact remains that they could. That possibility is what keeps science grounded in reality.
Based on evidence. You don’t have to repeat the experiment. You just have to have the possibility of repeating the experiment open to you.
As I said above, no.
Still no.
Not necessarily. Some people choose to have faith over issues that could be resolved.
No. We don’t always have the means or knowledge to solve something.
Because I thought it was relevant.
I’m combining these two. I used the pronoun you to refer to people in general and to respond to what I thought you were saying in your post.
We are constantly being presented testimony from a variety of conflicting ‘experts’. We have to evaluate each of them as to credibility and choose which to believe and which to discount.
I personally find the evolution experts have more credibility than the intelligent design experts.
Yep. Now… how much rigorously reviewed scientific research has been done by proponents of ID? Anyone?.. Anyone?.. Bueller?
ID proponent Behe has stated that “You can’t prove intelligent design by experiment”.
Not entirely the point. The point is that you could repeat the experiment. The scientific method is about things being observable, measurable, and repeatable.
OK, put it another way… other researchers could replicate the fruit fly research. And they’d get similar results, or they’d get dissimilar results and then we’d have to explain why.
Personal religious revelation is a different kettle of fish.
So if I have “faith” in anything it is in the scientific method (rather than specific experiments), and the idea that observable, measurable, and repeatable renders more credible evidence than methods that do not.
I would call it trust. I trust that honest and thoughtful scientists have reviewed the available data and have overwhelmingly deemed Evolution as the correct conclusion. I trust that repeatable experiments and observations have been made to support the conclusion.
It’s kind of a fine point, but to me, faith implies belief in spite of a lack of data. Not just a personal lacking, but a universal lack of data. People who have faith in God are not missing data because they haven’t had a chance to review the documents or perform the experiments, it’s because the data doesn’t exist.
I suggest that it is “trust” if someone has *some * knowledge of the underlying science and of scientific methodology, but it is “faith” if someone has little or no knowledge of current science. I’m pretty sure that most people who say “I accept evolution as being true” (or, more likely, “I believe in evolution”) don’t understand it and can’t explain the basic underlying principles. Their trust is practically blind.
It is a fine point.
I suggest that there’s always *some * data for any faith-based belief. The disagreements are about the relevance, validity and interpretation of the data.
Actually, I think the point is that the scientific method is irrelevant to most people’s acceptance of evolution. They don’t know what it is and they don’t care. What they know is that a bunch experts are saying that evolution is true. And it sort of makes sense. Okay, sounds good.
But, if scientists can demonstrate evolution in a lab, then why haven’t I seen speciation in my lifetime? Huh, huh!!?? And, if I have, then why haven’t people observed thousands of new species emerging throughout the history of human civilization? What’s all this crap about evolution taking millions or even billions of years? And, what’s a billion anyway, 100 million?
Point is that one experiment, on its own, doesn’t prove or even support evolution. There are quite a few pieces to the puzzle, and if some pieces are missing, evolution (in the broader context of all living organisms) doesn’t make sense.
But, the “scientific method” is not a specific thing, right? You can’t point to it, touch it. It is not physical. And, do you have a definition of “scientific method” that is universally accepted and that can be (and actually is) applied to every scientific endeavor?
Anyway, I don’t mean to put you on the spot. We are both on the same side. We know that there is uncertainty in life, that most things are not merely black and white, and that there are various facts and opinions. Often we can agree, and that agreement leads to something fruitful. That’s good.
I still can’t see their genes.