Is Evolution Really Science-Based?

Phil_CostaMesa · September 2, 2013, 1:37am

I’m asking because I came across this statement:

The spontaneous creation of new genetic information required for Darwinian evolution has not been observed, and is therefore not scientifically credible.

Can anyone confirm or disprove the statement? Is the logic correct?

It’s basically from this article link:

running_coach · September 2, 2013, 1:42am

Observed in what way? Certainly evolution happens, it’s just not observable in real time.
Reported for forum change.

running_coach · September 2, 2013, 1:44am

Looked at the link. What they claim is subject to providing proof. Which they can’t and won’t do.
It just comes down to “God did it”.

IvoryTowerDenizen · September 2, 2013, 1:46am

Pretty fast in a test tube:

These studies use RNA, which is form of genetic material used as a carrier of genetic info from the DNA to the protein making machinery. It is a copy of an individual gene, to be expressed by the cell.

It is believed that RNA came first as the genetic material and DNA evolved later.

running_coach · September 2, 2013, 1:49am

That’s microscopic. The crackpots won’t accept something they can’t see/understand. I was think more of seeing a change in a puppy compared to the parents and using that as proof.

IvoryTowerDenizen · September 2, 2013, 1:52am

Oh, I do understand! However, on the off chance this poster is really looking for answers, it’s pretty amazing that it can be seen almost in front of your eyes!

twickster · September 2, 2013, 2:13am

Welcome to the SDMB, Phil_CostaMesa.

We have different forums for different kinds of discussions; I’ve move this to Great Debates (from ATMB) for you.

twickster, for the SDMB

GIGObuster · September 2, 2013, 2:33am

Never forget to check Talkorigins.org OP.

Back to evolution. It becomes clear why the simple-minded parroting, even by scientists, that if it can’t be falsified it isn’t science, is not sufficient to rule out a theory. What science actually is, is a matter for extreme debate. The rediscovery post-Merton of the social nature of science has thrown eternal Scientific Methods out the window, but that doesn’t mean that science is no longer distinguishable from non-science. It just isn’t as easy as one would like in an ideal world. Last I looked, it wasn’t an ideal world, anyway.

However, on the ordinary understanding of falsification, Darwinian evolution can be falsified. What’s more, it can be verified in a non-deductive sort of way. Whewell was right in the sense that you can show the relative validity of a theory if it pans out enough, and Popper had a similar notion, called ‘verisimilitude’. What scientists do, or even what they say they do, is in the end very little affected by a priori philosophical prescriptions. Darwin was right to take the approach he did.

**It is significant that, although it is often claimed that Darwinism is unfalsifiable, many of the things Darwin said have in fact been falsified. Many of his assertions of fact have been revised or denied, many of his mechanisms rejected or modified even by his strongest supporters (e.g., by Mayr, Gould, Lewontin, and Dawkins), and he would find it hard to recognize some versions of modern selection theory as his natural selection theory. This is exactly what a student of the history of science would expect. Science moves on, and if a theory doesn’t, that is strong prima facie evidence it actually is a metaphysical belief. [note 4]
**
A final quote from Hull [1988: 7] is instructive:
Yet another ambiguity constantly crops up in our discussions of scientific theories. Are they hypotheses or facts? Can they be "proved"? Do scientists have the right to say that they "know" anything? While interviewing the scientists engaged in the controversies under investigation, I asked, "Do you think that science is provisional, that scientists have to be willing to reexamine any view that they hold if necessary?" All the scientists whom I interviewed responded affirmatively. Later, I asked, "Could evolutionary theory be false?" To this question I received three different answers. Most responded quite promptly that, no, it could not be false. Several opponents of the consensus then current responded that not only could it be false but also it was false. A very few smiled and asked me to clarify my question. "Yes, any scientific theory could be false in the abstract, but given the current state of knowledge, the basic axioms of evolutionary theory are likely to continue to stand up to investigation."
Philosophers tend to object to such conceptual plasticity. So do scientists -- when this plasticity works against them. Otherwise, they do not mind it at all. In fact, they get irritated when some pedant points it out.
Most scientists are not philosophically inclined and will make use of whatever is a help in their work, but not in the way Feyerabend thought. Reflective scientists know that it’s all how you ask the question that counts. Most physicists would not immediately think that atomic theory could be false, either. They are answering the question “is it likely to be dropped later on?” not the philosophical “could it in theory be dropped?” which is a different issue. Philosophers do conceptual tidying up, among other things, but scientists are the ones making all the sawdust in the workshop, and they need not be so tidy. And no cleaner should tell any professional (other than cleaners) how it ought to be done. Creationists who say, “evolution is not like what Popper said science should be, so it isn’t science” are like the janitor who says that teachers don’t keep their classrooms clean enough, so they aren’t teachers.

iiandyiiii · September 2, 2013, 2:35am

This is incorrect, there are numerous observed examples of genetic mutations that added information.

To answer the subject question, yes, evolution is “science-based”. Creationism, on the other hand, is not science (or science-based) in the least.

sisu · September 2, 2013, 2:36am

Join date September 2013, why do people constantly acknowledge these obvious drive bys?

iiandyiiii · September 2, 2013, 2:37am

First, it’s usually very easy, and second, some of us believe that it’s important to challenge misinformation. Also, some of us enjoy it

Razncain · September 2, 2013, 2:39am

Phil_CostaMesa, of course evolution is science based. Another poster beat me to it, but yes, spend time talking to real scientists at talkorigins, and not getting your information from pseudo-scientists and theologians, then you’ll find out why evolution is testable and falsifiable and has all the ingredients of what any good scientific theory would have.

Have you spent any time at all on the site you gave us? Paul Taylor is a full blown creationist, who takes a literal account of Genesis, complete with the days meaning 24 hour periods. I’d agree with him that is the way I read it as well, only major difference being, I don’t believe it, but evidently he does. Do you?

Razncain · September 2, 2013, 2:40am

Yeah, just looking at the title, I guessed this thread was going to be a newbie without even opening it.

Siam_Sam · September 2, 2013, 2:41am

I’m sure a website called creationtoday.org would not put out unbiased information or have its own agenda. Would they?

Phil_CostaMesa · September 2, 2013, 3:46am

I just wanted to post a ‘Thank You’ to those who recommended the ‘talkorigins’ site. For me, it’s very helpful.

dropzone · September 2, 2013, 4:12am

Phil, I’m glad you’re interested. Science can be fun (or a total bore) and theology can be fun (or a total bore). The key is to keep them separated because they don’t have much in common, and remember that many people who believe that evolution is science-based are also good Christians, so you don’t need to leave your beliefs at the door. Keep having learning because you will soon realize that God’s Creation is more magnificent–and bizarre–than you ever imagined. It can leave you gasping. Or, sometimes, snoozing.

DrFidelius · September 2, 2013, 1:44pm

And there isn’t actually much need for “new genetic information.” Most of what we’ve been doing since we learned to process oxygen has been just reshuffling, duplication of existing genes and changes in relative growth rates of body parts.

Mangetout · September 2, 2013, 2:23pm

I’m sure creationism itself has a really bad handle on its own definition of what ‘information’ means and how it works, but aren’t you really talking something analogous to the alphabet/vocabulary of genetic information.

Whereas the specific pattern in which that basic information is shuffled/arranged/expressed could probably also legitimately be called ‘information’ - because it has different results depending on how it is done, and can be done with some measure of consistency.

ETA: none of the above, of course, implies that ‘new information’ can’t be created by evolution.

Smeghead · September 2, 2013, 2:58pm

This seems to be a relatively new argument from the creationist camp, and I’ve seen it all over the place lately. It’s kind of bizarre, because it’s even more divorced from reality than their other arguments. I mean, just about all of their claims are based on strawmen and misrepresentation and twisting of facts, but this one is just a blatant lie, like saying that the sky has never ever been observed to be blue. Any good college biology textbook will list a good dozen or so well understood, fully documented methods by which the amount of genetic “information” (and, yes, I agree that that term is very carefully never actually defined) can and does increase in an organism.

Napier · September 2, 2013, 6:34pm

In further answer to the OP, of course the theory of evolution is science based (evolution itself is a natural phenomenon that vastly predates the human development of science). Moreover, there’s no great debate about this among scientists or people who specialize in the theory of evolution.

Examples of areas of theory or study that could be science based but debatably aren’t, or debatably vary, would include psychic phenomena and UFOs.