Not all science has the luxury of the concreteness and opportinuty for experiment that the hard sciences (such as physics and chemistry) have. I would say that the three criterion given by joemill might define a “hard science”.
About all evolution theories can do in terms of repetition and prediction is to do experiments on creatures like fruit flies. Of course this doesn’t really prove evolution, it just lends credibility to some of the natural selection principles.
Here’s EB’s def of science:
Thru the mutations of bacteria and virus we have demonstrated this. (they are the few livable things that reproduce fast enuff to observe in our life time)
It is repeatable. The ablitly to fly has evolved in Pterodactyls (Sp?), Birds and Mammals. None of which came directly from each other
Science dispute is not with evolution it is with DARWIN’S theory of how it came about.
Ok, I will take the offensive here for those of us who understand evolution:
No one has claimed the reasoning you ascribe to evolution. The theory of evolution in descriptive. If we look at any point in the distant past, there are forms of life that are no longer on the planet. There are also forms of life now that did not exist at various points in the distant past. It does not take a very higher level of logic to realize that if things are not now as they used to be, something must have changed. There are lots of plausible explanations for how to explain this change:
The fossil evidence of past life was put there by a Supreme Being, and really life doesn’t ever change.
All scientists are lying because they have something against religion.
Some natural process must have caused a change such that life today does not look like it used to.
So we are left really with 3… Things must have changed through a natural process. Now here’s your question: Evolution is nothing more than accepting that the planet is not now as it used to be, WRT the life forms on it. Any uncertainty on the causes of this change have NOTHING to do with the fact that in fact, life on this planet has changed.
Let me disposess you of your notion of what science should or shouldn’t be: An experiment needs to be observable, demonstratable, and repeatable. Not all science is experimental. There is a lot of science which is descriptive science: Astrophysics is one example. Merely because we cannot create a star does not invalidate all of our observations of all stars.
Jason R Remy
“No amount of legislation can solve America’s problems.”
– Jimmy Carter (1980)
“We clearly have evolved. That has been observed. Thru the mutations of bacteria and virus we have demonstrated this. (they are the few livable things that reproduce fast enuff to observe in our life time)”
The “mutations” that you describe only make use of existing dna. If a virus, bacteria, bird, dog, or whatever “mutates”, it is only an expression of recessive genes coming to surface. While inheritants of those recessive genes may prove to be better equipped in the arena of life and live on to pass their genes to the next generation, they are totally and in all ways the same creature. A mutated dog is always a mutated dog; it never becomes a cat.
More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form if life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates.
*Strickberger, p. 44; Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man
True evolution has not been observed.
“It is repeatable. The ablitly to fly has evolved in Pterodactyls (Sp?), Birds and Mammals. None of which came directly from each other”
Did you see this happen? (Not observed) Can you make another creature develop wings and fly? (Not repeatable)
“Science dispute is not with evolution it is with DARWIN’S theory of how it came about.”
This isn’t science! This is putting the cart before the horse. Science says, "Here is the evidence, what does it tell us, let’s make a hypothesis and prove it. Evotution says: Here’s a theory, lets try to find some evidence to prove it.
sorry, but it is you who are mistaken. Science does not occur in simple cause-effect relationships, and neither does it go “here’s some random bit of evidence, lets make a hypothesis and test it” That is classroom science, which is a poor example of how science happend. Here’s how the theory of evolution evolved:
Scientist #1: " Wow, look at all of these fossils. There’s a bunch of bones that I’ve never seen before."
Scientist #2: “Hey, I’ve been digging up all of these fossils, but I haven’t found a lot of life that’s on the planet now.”
Scientist #3: “Hm, we have life now that wasn’t here in the past, and we have life in the past that no longer exists. Something changed.”
Scientists #1, #2, #3: “Well, let’s go dig up some more bones and see what else we find.”
The name for change is evolution. The fact is that some scientific discoveries occur because someone found some confusing data and then comes up with an explanation (inductive science). Other scientific discoveries occur because someone comes up with a novel explanation, and then hunts up some data (deductive science) to support it. The problem is, that these are both valid methods of discovery, and that NO scientific pursuit is 100% inductive or deductive. All science moves back and forth between gathering evidence and organizing that evidence. Evolution theory is no different in this respect from atomic theory, or heliocentric theory, or any other long standing and generally accepted theory.
Jason R Remy
“No amount of legislation can solve America’s problems.”
– Jimmy Carter (1980)
“If we look at any point in the distant past, there are forms of life that are no longer on the planet. There are also forms of life now that did not exist at various points in the distant past.”
The first part of your statement is correct, there are many forms of life that are extinct. I disagree with the second part, however. How do you know that there are forms of life now that did not exist in the past?
" It does not take a very higher level of logic to realize that if things are not now as they used to be, something must have changed. There are lots of plausible explanations for how to explain this change:
The fossil evidence of past life was put there by a Supreme Being, and really life doesn’t ever change."
I don’t believe that the fossil evidence was put there by God when the earth was formed. I believe that the fossil record is actually proof against evolution. The fact that there is a fossil record in the first place should amaze people! It’s not easy to make fossils on the scale that’s been demonstrated around the world. Fossils have to be buried quickly in order to form. A corpse left unburied will quickly decompose. Perhaps a world-wide flood buried living things under a layer of mud quickly.
“2) All scientists are lying because they have something against religion.”
I don’t believe that. I do believe that a majority don’t want to believe what the evidence is telling them. If they had to prove evolution in a court of law, they would fail miserably.
“3) Some natural process must have caused a change such that life today does not look like it used to.
So we are left really with 3… Things must have changed through a natural process.”
I agree with you. I believe that the flood did this, and also left the fossil record.
"Quote:
How can you say that evolution is a science. I was always taught that science has to be:
Observable
Demonstratable
Repeatable
None of these apply to the evolutionary theory.
Let me disposess you of your notion of what science should or shouldn’t be: An experiment needs to be observable, demonstratable, and repeatable. Not all science is experimental. There is a lot of science which is descriptive science: Astrophysics is one example. Merely because we cannot create a star does not invalidate all of our observations of all stars."
Ah, but astrophysics can be observed.
It can also be demonstrated by various experiments and observations. And, with alot of luck, time, and observation it can be proven repeatable if certain phenomena can be oberved/studied/measured more than once.
Actually, the number of fossils we have of any species compared to the number of that species that actually lived is a ratio that is damn near close to zero: We have like a dozen or so pieces of fossil evidence of, for instance, any one species of dinosaur, but there must have been millions upon millions of that type of dinosaur that lived. If 1 or 2 out of every 10,000,000 happened to die in such a way that they preserved fossil evidence, it is not that amazing.
Also, WRT species now not being around before, its pretty simple: We are obliged to explain things in simplest terms based on the evidence we have. If we have, say, 500 examples in the fossil evidence of say, a horse that is 100,000 years old, and 500 of a horse that is 200,000 years old, and 500 of a horse that is 300,000 years old, and then none of a horse that is 1,000,000 years old, but at the same point we have 500 examples of this animal, let;s call it a “snipe” that is 1,000,000 years old, but there are no snipes alive now, the most sound explanation is that horses didn’t exist 100,000 years ago. We have ample proof that 100,000 years ago there were animals being preserved in fossils, and we have records of horses existing for quite a while back, but then we just don’t see’em any more. The most simple explanation is that there weren’t any horse back then. And if it were only horses and snipes that left this pattern of evidence, I would be inclined to buy the “just haven’t discovered it” yet theory. But there are thousands of species that simply fade from the fossil record as you go back in time, and there are thousands of others that simply fade from the record as you move forward in time. There is no evidence that biodiversity is steadily decreasing on the planet, rather it seems to fluctuate up and down over time.
Jason R Remy
“No amount of legislation can solve America’s problems.”
– Jimmy Carter (1980)
That’s not true. Both pure speciation into a reproductively isolated species, and instances of improved viability from various environmental stresses have been observed and even caused in the laboratory.
Reference #1: Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
Reference #2: Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
There have been many others, but both those observed a biologically new species, reproductively isolated where they didn’t used to be. There have been many cases as well where improvements resulting in increased survivability in the face of an artifically induced stimulus have been observed (e.g. Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.).
Ahh, Bantmof, precisely the references I was hoping someone would provide.
Folks, let’s not go off the deep end here. There simply is no way to prove which occurred: evolution of man through natural selection or divine creation of man. One is left with belief as to which is what occurred.
As for evolution being a backward science, the way to deal with that is simple: it isn’t a science, it is a theory describing how known evidence occurred. That is part of the science of biology, the study of living things. There is nothing inherently wrong about deducing what has happened after the fact; indeed, as pointed out, we do it quite often (e.g. astronomy/cosmology). The trick is figuring out if we got it right.
Quote:
“There have been many others, but both those observed a biologically new species, reproductively isolated where they didn’t used to be.”
I know that feelings are very strong on both sides of this issue; and I’d like to keep the discussion light and friendly. I don’t mean to be a smart-alec, but the question has to be asked: what are these new species? (turning a fly that’s black into a fly that’s brown doesn’t count)
Quote:
“Folks, let’s not go off the deep end here. There simply is no way to prove which occurred: evolution of man through natural selection or divine creation of man. One is left with belief as to which is what occurred.”
Excellent point. You have to have just as much faith to beleive in evolution as you do in devine creation.
You can say that as much as you want. You can even believe it to be true. Unfortunately, you’re just plain 100% wrong. The scientific evidence supports evolution. No scientific evidence supports creationism. The only thing that supports creationism is a religious book – one that needs faith to believe in.
A famous political commentator in the late 19th century stated that evolutionary theory was disproved by the line of American presidents, beginning with George Washington and ending with Ulysses Grant. I don’t think subsequent history would make him change his mind.
NOTE: ITS A JOKE!
SoxFan59
“Its fiction, but all the facts are true!”
Well, except that there is quite a lot of evidence for the evolution of man, and none whatsoever that man was divinely created.
[quote]
Excellent point. You have to have just as much faith to beleive in evolution as you do in devine creation.
[/quote
No - the evolution of a biologically new species has been observed in the laboratory (see the references I supplied in an earlier post), and there is quite a lot of other indirect evidence for it as well. It does not require much “faith” at all. Literal creationism require pure faith, as there is no evidence for it, a considerable amount of evidence against it, and it, and many competing religions with mutually incompatible origin theories. Saying they are the same does not make them the same. Once is science, albeit an imperfect one at best, and the other is religion.
One of them is alive and well in california, as I understand it. Reading the referenced papers might be insightful.
The HIV virus has evolved to the point where it is no longer the same virus as the original. In fact that what makes it so difficult to defeat.
There are different types of HIV and there will be more.
Fossil evidence shows birds, mammals and pterydactals all developed the ability to fly seperatly from each other. So it is observable and repeatable.
Remeber evolution doesn’t benefit individuals it benefits systems. If 99 of 100 individuals in a system were killed and one thrived consistently evolution would continue. (tho’ that isn’t a likely case) Evolution does what works not what is best. Again look at the human body and see all the ways we could’ve better been put together. But we work and are quite sucessful at reproducing. Thus evolution will continue to let us thrive even if certain elements of our construction are poor.
Also many religions (including Catholics) accept evolution. BUT they see God as they person who is guiding it.
People fail to understand things don’t evolve into other things they become better things. For instance an Ape will NEVER evolve into an Human. Why? Because they do just fine as apes. In fact studies have shown if anything they are becoming better at being apes. Evolution states simply if something works it will thrive. If it doesn’t it’s yesterday’s news.
But then also realize we humans have learned how to tamper with evolution. For instance during the 40’s my mother was the head nurse in a pediatric ward. Back then if a baby had a deformity they would let it die. Now of course they save it. Thus the baby has a chance to pass on genes that caused that deformity.
Both theories are correct if you ascribe to the “Instant-Distant” theory. God did make the earth and universe 10,000 years ago, but he made it look a lot older.
Maybe we are looking at this evolution thing from the wrong end. Thoreau said “Simplify, simplify” (why did he say this twice?), so the simplest forms of life are the most developed…they have rid themselves of this earthly shell, exist in all the cracks and crevices of the universe, are single celled, have no worries except multiplying and dividing. And they are really warm and fuzzy. I vote for bacteria being the highest form. Going down the evolutionary ladder, we hit cockroaches and mosquitoes. Finally, the least adaptive, man.
This has quickly become just what I said, a big argument. I should have known… Hey, wait, I did know. But what can you do.
What is this bit about man being the least adaptive? I hope this is a joke, in the spirit of the smart-alek tone the rest of the post seems to have. Take a one-cell-er and put it in space and see how well it solves the problem of supplying its biological needs. Man is the only animal capable of reasoning out his needs and meeting them in new ways that he invents. At least this is true for the most part (no vitriolic posts about the intelligence of chimps, etc.).
This all reminds me of “Darwin’s Black Box,” in which Michael Behe trys to argue that no one has proposed any mechanisms for the evolution of actually biological molecular processes, and finally leaks his view that God has been alongside, continually nudging evolution along when it needed a new ability (light sensing organs of some sort, for instance). Interesting thought.
I think my original point has been made, though, that anthropomorphizing evolution is a mistake. God is seen as a person with intentions, but evolution in any sort of classical sense should not.
Two things:
First, that’s not really true. A species needs to live long enough to ensure the survival and reproductive viability of its progeny. Just popping out a baby and keeling over wouldn’t do it.
Lifespans as high as 80 were rare until recent years. Our advanced knowledge of health goes above and beyond the expectations of our genes.
