NationStates Jolt Archive

Has evolution anything left to assumption, except for abiogenesis which isn't part of the theory anyway?

Not really.

Obviously there are some assumptions, as are there in every scientific theory. But it doesn't contradict reality or the rest of mainstream science.

Has evolution anything left to assumption, except for abiogenesis which isn't part of the theory anyway?
Not really - after all, evolution can be summed up by saying:

1) The structure of a creature depends on its genome
2) Genomes are inherited, but can mutate
3) Things that help a genome survive are more likely to feature in future genomes

(3) seems to be a tautology to me (=things that persist, persist), so only (1) and (2) are left to science, and all the research suggests they are true.

Not really - after all, evolution can be summed up by saying:

1) The structure of a creature depends on its genome
2) Genomes are inherited, but can mutate
3) Things that help a genome survive are more likely to feature in future genomes

(3) seems to be a tautology to me (=things that persist, persist), so only (1) and (2) are left to science, and all the research suggests they are true.

Yup, after 1 and 2, It becomes math.

*sigh* A lot of people seem to be confused about what the word "theory" means. I'm not assuming that the author of the post is one of those people (he/she may simply be curious about people's opinions on the matter), but I feel that while we're on the subject, someone should clear it up. And since nobody has...

Science means using observable evidence to form ideas about how the universe works. A "hypothesis" is a propsed idea of how things work that has yet to be backed up by sufficient evidence. The concept of evolution as the process by which life on Earth reached its current state is a theory, which means that all the observable evidence we have thus far supports it.

Science takes into account the possibility that any of our assumptions about life, the universe and everything can be disproved, and that's why evolution is "theoretical." That does not mean that evolution is just a supposition, or a hypothesis.

A word to the wise: If you want to argue semantics, about the word "theory" or anything else, please do yourself and everyone else a favor and look it up first. Thank you.

Obviously there are some assumptions, as are there in every scientific theory. But it doesn't contradict reality or the rest of mainstream science.


You should bear in mind that "some assumptions" means that the very core of the theory is unproven, they need to find the "missing link" so as to have evidence that the theory is true. And though it´s true that is the most widely accepted theory (due to the fact that has common sense, as we do not know reality or have the authority to say which is the theory that is more in accordance to it), there are other theories as well

You should bear in mind that "some assumptions" means that the very core of the theory is unproven, they need to find the "missing link" so as to have evidence that the theory is true. And though it´s true that is the most widely accepted theory (due to the fact that has common sense, as we do not know reality or have the authority to say which is the theory that is more in accordance to it), there are other theories as well

Are there any theories that fit observable evidence as well as evolution does?

The part we're really not sure about is how life on Earth began in the first place, and that's not exactly part of evolutionary theory: it's just using evolutionary theory and other observable biological phenomena to make conjectures. I think that uncertainty is one of the major factors in getting people riled up in the evolution vs. creation debate.

thanks, am trying but it does not let me acces the page, it did earlier though and as i have slow internet i though the first one was not posted, anyway nice post you seem to be on subject

You should bear in mind that "some assumptions" means that the very core of the theory is unproven, they need to find the "missing link" so as to have evidence that the theory is true. And though it´s true that is the most widely accepted theory (due to the fact that has common sense, as we do not know reality or have the authority to say which is the theory that is more in accordance to it), there are other theories as well

I've got your missing link right here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html).

You should bear in mind that "some assumptions" means that the very core of the theory is unproven, they need to find the "missing link" so as to have evidence that the theory is true. And though it´s true that is the most widely accepted theory (due to the fact that has common sense, as we do not know reality or have the authority to say which is the theory that is more in accordance to it), there are other theories as well

My dear, everything in science is technically unproven. It is always open to being disproven. Once an idea reaches the level of hypothesis, it is essentially held to be true until disproven - and is always open to that possibility.

You should bear in mind that "some assumptions" means that the very core of the theory is unproven, they need to find the "missing link" so as to have evidence that the theory is true. And though it´s true that is the most widely accepted theory (due to the fact that has common sense, as we do not know reality or have the authority to say which is the theory that is more in accordance to it), there are other theories as well
Did Khaotik just not explaine this? It is a theory...not a law so we don't have to find the "missing link" to call it thus. It doesn't have to be proven. You need to read Khaotik's explination and you need to look up the definition of theory.

My dear, everything in science is technically unproven. It is always open to being disproven. Once an idea reaches the level of hypothesis, it is essentially held to be true until disproven - and is always open to that possibility.

I'm pretty sure a theory is different from a hypothesis. A hypothesis is something you set out to find observable evidence for (or to "prove," but as you said one can't really prove anything in science). A "theory" has the weight of observable evidence behind it.

Y'know what? I'm going to look it up and come back with the definitions. Hold on.

EDIT: Okay. Here are the Wikipedia definitions of hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis) and theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory).

Do you really believe that you started from a rock or something?? And if so, how was that created...
Although, I guess that the same could go with creation, if god does exist, how did he come to exist?

You should bear in mind that "some assumptions" means that the very core of the theory is unproven, they need to find the "missing link" so as to have evidence that the theory is true.That's not really how science works. You can't prove a general statement true, no matter how much supporting evidence you find. You can only disprove it by finding contradictory evidence.
And there are good reasons why "missing" links should be rare (disregarding that if we found any they wouldn't be missing). You don't find bones for every year our planet was around, you're lucking to find several from within the same million years at different sites.

Are there any theories that fit observable evidence as well as evolution does?

The part we're really not sure about is how life on Earth began in the first place, and that's not exactly part of evolutionary theory: it's just using evolutionary theory and other observable biological phenomena to make conjectures. I think that uncertainty is one of the major factors in getting people riled up in the evolution vs. creation debate.

you have a point there but you must admit that there is a gap in the evolutionary theory, before of that gap you have evidence and after also but you can not link strongly both parts. anyhow observable evidence at the lowest level of the cientific method if is not inserted in a relevant theory an perhaps some of the evidency has been justified by ad hoc hipothesys(not saying they are invalid) but it helps to adjust well to evidence.
evidence can also have different interpretations in different theories

Do you really believe that you started from a rock or something?? And if so, how was that created...
Although, I guess that the same could go with creation, if god does exist, how did he come to exist?

Uh, no, all organisms didn't come from rocks. They came from simple living beings which evolved over time. However, the theory of evolution doesn't say how all things came to be, it just states that they had to have come from one thing.

Do you really believe that you started from a rock or something?? And if so, how was that created...
Although, I guess that the same could go with creation, if god does exist, how did he come to exist?

Two of the current popular hypotheses about the origin of life on Earth are:

1. The "organic soup" hypothesis - Various amino acids and minerals that occured naturally on prehistoric Earth reacted together in such a way that they organized themselves into primitive, unicellular life. Since chemical reactions and mineral formations often tend towards the greater organization (a sort of anti-entropy, if you will) necessary to create a living thing out of organic mass, this theory seems plausible, but nobody's sure how it worked, and I don't think anybody's been able to duplicate the process.

2. The "comet" hypothesis - Early unicellular life was brought to earth on a comet or meteor. The odds against this are great but not unthinkably so. However, that still leaves the question of how those cellular life-forms developed in the first place, so it's not really much better than the first hypothesis.

you have a point there but you must admit that there is a gap in the evolutionary theory, before of that gap you have evidence and after also but you can not link strongly both parts. anyhow observable evidence at the lowest level of the cientific method if is not inserted in a relevant theory an perhaps some of the evidency has been justified by ad hoc hipothesys(not saying they are invalid) but it helps to adjust well to evidence.
evidence can also have different interpretations in different theories

Such as, that God makes it look like the Earth is a lot older than it is, and planted evidence of evolution for His own purposes. I don't like this because:

1. It sounds like a lame excuse. The creationist scheme comes from the bible, which makes no mention of evolution. Making up something from outside the Bible or science in order to explain discrepancies between the two is just...dumb.

2. It doesn't accord well with the Ockham's Razor principle ("if it's simpler, it's more likely to be right"). With very few exceptions, Ockham's Razor is always right.

3. I think it gives God too little credit, first because it makes Him seem like a big liar, and secondly because He is perfectly capable of starting the whole universe off from a tiny ball of matter and letting it go from there, thank you very much. I see God and the universe as being analagous to a programmer and a very sophisticated simulation running on some colossal mainframe system. A program with lots of variables thrown in.

That's not really how science works. You can't prove a general statement true, no matter how much supporting evidence you find. You can only disprove it by finding contradictory evidence.
And there are good reasons why "missing" links should be rare (disregarding that if we found any they wouldn't be missing). You don't find bones for every year our planet was around, you're lucking to find several from within the same million years at different sites.

that depend on the ephisthemoligical(sorry for the translating mistakes) current you believe is true. with a statement like that you are aligning with Popper, but there are others that say that one or two cases of contradictory evidence is not enough to disprove a theory, only a "generalizacion empirica"
(spanish speaking person, do not know the technical term)

Are there any theories that fit observable evidence as well as evolution does?

Currently ? No. There were some in the past but they were disproven, and it is quite possible there will be one in the future - possibly even proving evolution wrong.

But currently evolution is the only serious contender.

that depend on the ephisthemoligical(sorry for the translating mistakes) current you believe is true. with a statement like that you are aligning with PopperActually, I align more with Kuhn and Lakatos. But in this respect that doesn't matter much. It is however 'the scientific method' as it it commonly used these days.

but there are others that say that one or two cases of contradictory evidence is not enough to disprove a theory, only a "generalizacion empirica"
(spanish speaking person, do not know the technical term)Yes, Kuhn and Lakatos take a much more pragmatic approach than Popper, but they still don't propose proving a theory by finding examples where it is true, which is what the logical positivist were prone to do. (Which is a logical falacy Popper pointed out)
The strongest theory is the one that stands up to falsification best.
And if it does get damaged, you can usually try to salvage the core 'beliefs' by adapting auxiliory hypothesis.

i never mentioned god

I'm sorry, that was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction on my part. I don't know where you live, but with the evolution/"intelligent design" debate that's been going on here for the past few years, I've started hearing "alternative theories" as "intelligent design," a.k.a. creationism. Proponents of intelligent design are careful not to mention God either, but they aren't fooling anyone except themselves.

I would be willing to consider an alternative to evolutionary theory if there was a lot of observable evidence to back it up, but I don't know of one. I assumed you were talking about intelligent design - but I was just jumping to conclusions, I guess.

Evolution is a theory just as much as gravity is, and the cell theory. Each of those are easily proven true.

The only reason it's still called a theory and not a fact is because we still don't know everything about it.

And well, many Americans don't want to believe it's true.

Actually, I align more with Kuhn and Lakatos. But in this respect that doesn't matter much. It is however 'the scientific method' as it it commonly used these days.

Yes, Kuhn and Lakatos take a much more pragmatic approach than Popper, but they still don't propose proving a theory by finding examples where it is true, which is what the logical positivist were prone to do. (Which is a logical falacy Popper pointed out)
The strongest theory is the one that stands up to falsification best.
And if it does get damaged, you can usually try to salvage the core 'beliefs' by adapting auxiliory hypothesis.

I assume these folks are scientists? I'm afraid I've never heard of them. Where do they make these statements? I'd like to read the entire article(s).

Evolution is a theory just as much as gravity is, and the cell theory. Each of those are easily proven true.

Actually gravity is a heavily debated issue ;) We still don't have that grand unifying theory thingy...

Evolution is a theory just as much as gravity is, and the cell theory. Each of those are easily proven true.

The only reason it's still called a theory and not a fact is because we still don't know everything about it.

And well, many Americans don't want to believe it's true.

If a theory was proven true wouldn't it be a law?

And can evolution be easily proven?Is there an experiment that can test evolution theory?

it commonly used these days..
define commonly
(Which is a logical falacy Popper pointed out).
yes i know its a falacy but you must know a conjunction of both methods (modus tollens) and logical falacies is used to test an hipothesys.
you can usually try to salvage the core 'beliefs' by adapting auxiliory hypothesis.
i think i mentioned that before....

must go now have to stop wasting time and start studding

And well, many Americans don't want to believe it's true.

You summed it up nicely. Virtual cookies! ;)

And can evolution be easily proven?Is there an experiment that can test evolution theory?

Test to prove evolution ? Not conclusively, no.
Test to disprove evolution ? Definately - literally thousands of tests are possible. And sofar it passed; though the theories details still get modified.

I assume these folks are scientists? I'm afraid I've never heard of them. Where do they make these statements? I'd like to read the entire article(s).They are rather well-known philosophers of science. Although some of their work is more descriptive rather than normative. (Which explains why it is more pragmatic. High ideals are nice in theory, but nobody lives by them)

"Philosophy of Science" by Bechtel gives a nice overview of different takes on how to do science. If you're interested in a book. (It's the textbook I read for one of the courses I followed on the subject. Although I have forgotten a lot more than I remember, I fear)

define commonlyTaught at universities, expected to be adhered to if you want to get published in a scientific journal. etc

yes i know its a falacy but you must know a conjunction of both methods (modus tollens) and logical falacies is used to test an hipothesys.Euhm, no.. I don't think that's the case. Certainly scientists want some positive eveidence, and they'll find it when failing to falsify their theories. But it never proves their theory true.
Any scientist claiming truth on unsound logic isn't worth his salt. Modus tolens is a sound principle, but falacies aren't. You can prove false things with them

I'm pretty sure a theory is different from a hypothesis.

Of course it is, and I never said otherwise.

A theory is a hypothesis or set of hypotheses with a great deal of supporting evidence gathered.

A hypothesis is something you set out to find observable evidence for (or to "prove," but as you said one can't really prove anything in science).

Not exactly true. Any scientist who sets out to find evidence for a hypothesis is doing it incorrectly. You test a hypothesis. Your test may provide evidence for it, or may disprove it. But you set out to test it, not to find evidence for it. Setting out to find evidence for it would mean you have already assumed it to be true.

http://www.kommy.net/~downtym/images/danielle/flatearthism.bmp

Y'know what? I'm going to look it up and come back with the definitions. Hold on.

EDIT: Okay. Here are the Wikipedia definitions of hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis) and theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory).

Yup, and those fit perfectly with what I have said. What's your point?

Test to prove evolution ? Not conclusively, no.
Test to disprove evolution ? Definately - literally thousands of tests are possible. And sofar it passed; though the theories details still get modified.

Okey dokey.

I thought I remembered something about being able to observe micro-organisms evolving in a petri dish.Maybe I just dreamed it.


Wouldn't be the first time.

If a theory was proven true wouldn't it be a law?

No. Even laws are not proven. They are simply theories that have stood up to so much testing and so much time that we generally assume them to be correct. Even laws can be disproven - as were Newton's laws.

The main thing in science is that everything is open to being disproven. The scientific method cannot prove anything, although it can, as we might say in court, "prove it beyond a reasonable doubt." In science, we never forget that doubt, although it may become so small that we nearly ignore it.

Do you really believe that you started from a rock or something?? And if so, how was that created...
Although, I guess that the same could go with creation, if god does exist, how did he come to exist?

Both the cell theory ("Every cell comes from another cell.") and the theory(I can't refrain from calling it a theory any longer) of evolution mention, explicitly unless I am mistaken, that they are not making any claims as to where the first cell came from. The idea that life as a result of chance chemical reactions between inorganic compounds is called abiogenesis. Abiogenesis has a lot to do with probability and I'd rather not discuss it in this thread for that reason.

Get that? PLEASE KEEP ABIOGENESIS OUT OF THIS.

We see evolution happening with our own eyes.

Evolution is the fundamental backbone of all life-sciences. If it isn't true, then we've got a lot of re-thinking to do when it comes to biology, medicine, and many other fields.

People, the science behind evolution is about as concrete as you can hope for right now. Right now, there's simply no credible evidence that organisms don't change over time.

Maybe one day we'll come up with another theory that fits better than evolution. Or maybe one day a future scientist will discover something about it that changes our understanding of it.

Until that day comes though, creationists (and I use that term to describe anyone who doesn't believe in evolution, for simplicity) are just deluding themselves.

I thought I remembered something about being able to observe micro-organisms evolving in a petri dish.Maybe I just dreamed it.The theory of evolution claims more though. It says that the diversity of life on earth came to be through evolution.
You can't actually prove something that happened in the past, since you can't repeat it.
And then there is the difference betwene micro and macro evolution. Very roughly, adaption of a species vs a species splitting into two different species.

The proces of evolution certainly works as advertised; it's quite popular in AI and for solving certain engineering problems. But that's not enough to prove it caused the diversification of life.
At best we can prove it can do it, but still not that it did.

*snip*

Get that? PLEASE KEEP ABIOGENESIS OUT OF THIS.

You really thinking people can keep the two mutually exclusive?

I give you credit for your faith.

But you are correct...they are two totally different things.

You can't prove actually something that happened in the past, since you can't repeat it.

Oh yes, we can.

Oh yes, we can.No you can't. Try it. And it can always be countered; "but in fact God created the universe, as is, 5 minutes ago"
Although there's usually less drastic more plausable counters.

No you can't. Try it. And it can always be countered; "but in fact God created the universe, as is, 5 minutes ago"
Although there's usually less drastic more plausable counters.

I hearby claim that, in the past, I was born. In addition, I hearby claim that you were born too.

Oh, and the fossil record does a pretty good job of proving things in the past too.

You can't actually prove something that happened in the past, since you can't repeat it.

So? Science doesn't prove anything anyways. That isn't how the method works. You can, however, compile evidence for something that happened in the past, which is something that science does.

And then there is the difference betwene micro and macro evolution. Very roughly, adaption of a species vs a species splitting into two different species.

There is no logical difference. If I make lots and lots and lots of small changes, they add up into big changes. If you recognize what some people call "microevolution", then you recognize "macroevolution". The process doesn't change with the number of accumulated mutations.

So? Science doesn't prove anything anyways. That isn't how the method works. You can, however, compile evidence for something that happened in the past, which is something that science does.



There is no logical difference. If I make lots and lots and lots of small changes, they add up into big changes. If you recognize what some people call "microevolution", then you recognize "macroevolution". The process doesn't change with the number of accumulated mutations.

It's hopeless, man. Some people have just been thumped with a bible way too hard and for way too long. Others are simply uneducated. Once we put the subjects through a college genetics/biology class, we'll find out which catagory they belong.

No. Even laws are not proven. They are simply theories that have stood up to so much testing and so much time that we generally assume them to be correct. Even laws can be disproven - as were Newton's laws.

The main thing in science is that everything is open to being disproven. The scientific method cannot prove anything, although it can, as we might say in court, "prove it beyond a reasonable doubt." In science, we never forget that doubt, although it may become so small that we nearly ignore it.

Since when have Newton's Three Laws of Motion been disproven?

Link please.

Since when have Newton's Three Laws of Motion been disproven?

Link please.

Are you kidding? Wow, just wow.

Ever heard of Relativity?

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinLegacy.html

Test to prove evolution ? Not conclusively, no.
Test to disprove evolution ? Definately - literally thousands of tests are possible. And sofar it passed; though the theories details still get modified.

That's exactly it.

If some learned man wrote it in a book, a lot of people live by it and it is very good at keeping our fears of the unknown at bay, it doesn't make it true. Be that man a scientist or a saint.

In science nothing is "law" in the sense of "God's Law"; we just use the theories which are still standing.

But to tell you the truth, I'm glad ID is being taught. It'll be fun to see USA's government sink under the weight of their own lies and that's such a ridiculous one, it'll be the first to be (or has it already been?) exposed.

So? Science doesn't prove anything anyways. That isn't how the method works. Yes, that's the point..

There is no logical difference. If I make lots and lots and lots of small changes, they add up into big changes.But not necessarily evry kind of big change. Not necessarily speciation to be more to the point.
I think it's possible, likely even; but that's not the point. The opposite is possible too.

Are you kidding? Wow, just wow.

Ever heard of Relativity?

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinLegacy.html
And to add on, Relativity AND Newtonian physics falls all to peices when taken to a quantum level.

Not to mention that some of the theories about what happens past the event horizon of a black hole pretty much tosses everything out the window.

Yes, that's the point.

If that is the point, then why do people expect evolutionary theory to somehow be "proven" in order to be taught, when they don't expect that same thing of any other theory (ie. gravity)?

But not necessarily evry kind of big change. Not necessarily speciation to be more to the point.

So? There is evidence that speciation has occurred, and we have no evidence that it hasn't or couldn't have. Thus, the theory remains valid. As soon as someone finds evidence to the contrary, the theory will either be changed or discarded. That's how it works.

I think it's possible, likely even; but that's not the point. The opposite is possible too.

And as soon as you find evidence for "the opposite", you can advance a theory that posits it....

And to add on, Relativity AND Newtonian physics falls all to peices when taken to a quantum level.

Really? I haven't read anything they have done that is inconsistent with the theory of relativity and quantum physics (which are rather intricately bound). Do you have a link?

And to add on, Relativity AND Newtonian physics falls all to peices when taken to a quantum level.

Not to mention that some of the theories about what happens past the event horizon of a black hole pretty much tosses everything out the window.

I would say you can take both Relativity and Newtonian physics to a quantum level :p. You usually start with classical (or relativistic) equations and 'translate' them (allthough you might have to add something like spin.)

"Quantum mechanics is a fundamental physical theory that replaces Newtonian mechanics and classical electromagnetism at the atomic and subatomic levels and is the underlying framework of many fields of physics and chemistry, including condensed matter physics, quantum chemistry, and particle physics. Often, it is the answer to questions when general relativity fails."

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_physics

This is getting a little offtopic, but we're discussing knowledge, so it can't be too bad.

Really? I haven't read anything they have done that is inconsistent with the theory of relativity and quantum physics (which are rather intricately bound). Do you have a link?
*Cheerfully* Nope! But I do have a nice quote and explination in a book. However, said book, being a book, is currently residing on my bookshelf (where books are want to go after use), so you'll have to wait for me to get back home and find it. I promise to give a full citation though.

But from what I remember (and understand, I am in no way a physist so I have to rely on general explinations instead of the presice and beautiful language of math), the problems come in with relativity unable to account for some of the particulars of quantum particles, such as knowing spin or vector, but not both (If memory serves, if not, please correct). The text went on to state that this did not disprove relativity, any more than relativity disproved Newton, you just have to add or change the rules when at that level.

But I will find that quote for you.

I would say you can take both Relativity and Newtonian physics to a quantum level :p. You usually start with classical (or relativistic) equations and 'translate' them (allthough you might have to add something like spin.)

Supporting my claim (i can't find my notes on the subject, so i had to google).
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/qm.html

The Postulates of Quantum Mechanics

1. Associated with any particle moving in a conservative field of force is a wave function which determines everything that can be known about the system.
2. With every physical observable q there is associated an operator Q, which when operating upon the wavefunction associated with a definite value of that observable will yield that value times the wavefunction.
3. Any operator Q associated with a physically measurable property q will be Hermitian.
4. The set of eigenfunctions of operator Q will form a complete set of linearly independent functions.
5. For a system described by a given wavefunction, the expectation value of any property q can be found by performing the expectation value integral with respect to that wavefunction.
6. The time evolution of the wavefunction is given by the time dependent Schrodinger equation.

also see: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/schr.html#c1