NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems to me that the theory of evolution in terms of a method of how animals change and develop over time is reletively sound (there are some issues I have but I wont go into them now as that isn't what this thread is about). However to say that the development from single cellular organisms to man is absolute fact isn't quite the same. Unlike things like say the chemical reaction of burning magnisium in an oxygen cylinder, it is not directly observable. It is more like history in that you gather the evidence and piece together a series of events that make it make sense. When you study evolution as in the past you dont conduct experiments. You analyise evidence. You cant test whether evolution happened or not. You examine evidence. Can people see the logic of where I am comming from.

Astronomy, Paleontology, Geology, and many others are what are termed Historical Sciences. Evolution is also one. Sciences don't have to be directly testable to be science.

So is astronomy history too? I mean, when we look at something a million light years away, we're seeing it as it was a million years ago.

Your argument demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of science and apparantly history as well. Learn something before making stupid assertions like this, please. Also, science doesn't say anything for a fact. It's theory, there's a reason we dont' make laws anymore.

So is astronomy history too? I mean, when we look at something a million light years away, we're seeing it as it was a million years ago.


I think the post directly above mentions astronomy as a historical science, so yeah.

I think the post directly above mentions astronomy as a historical science, so yeah.
And historical science = history now?

Also, I've never heard astronomy described as a historical science and I'm studying it.

Screw logic.

So is astronomy history too? I mean, when we look at something a million light years away, we're seeing it as it was a million years ago.

Your argument demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of science and apparantly history as well. Learn something before making stupid assertions like this, please. Also, science doesn't say anything for a fact. It's theory, there's a reason we dont' make laws anymore.
I agree with your basic opinion that evolution is science and should be taught in science and not history classes, but the argument he's making deals with things that are or are not observable, not things that are or are not happening now.

I agree with your basic opinion that evolution is science and should be taught in science and not history classes, but the argument he's making deals with things that are or are not observable, not things that are or are not happening now.

And we can't observe what put galaxies where they are now, what makes them move (since we can't do controlled experiments on them), etc. It's a Historical Science, just like Evolution.

When you study evolution as in the past you dont conduct experiments. You analyise evidence. You cant test whether evolution happened or not. You examine evidence. Can people see the logic of where I am comming from.


....Hullo? Anything in there?

And historical science = history now?

Also, I've never heard astronomy described as a historical science and I'm studying it.

Astronomy is as historical as Evolution, which sounds like the point you were trying to make...which was somewhat unnecessary, considering the first reply to the topic handled it rather well

Astronomy is as historical as Evolution, which sounds like the point you were trying to make...which was somewhat unnecessary, considering the first reply to the topic handled it rather well
I've never heard astronomy termed a historical science, or evolution for that matter.

I've never heard astronomy termed a historical science, or evolution for that matter.

*shrug* Ever been in a situation where you would? I doubt the terminology usually matters, until points like Adriatica's come up.

I agree with your basic opinion that evolution is science and should be taught in science and not history classes, but the argument he's making deals with things that are or are not observable, not things that are or are not happening now.
Watching something unfold isn't all there is to science, a lot of importance is placed on prediction, whether theory x can predict result y, it doesn't matter if we create result y in a lab or if it's found in nature, it's still science.

*shrug* Ever been in a situation where you would? I doubt the terminology usually matters, until points like Adriatica's come up.
I've taken several astro courses...

I've never heard astronomy termed a historical science, or evolution for that matter.

Guns Germs and Steel, for one, uses those terms, mostly because it tries to outlike what history would be like as a historical science.

I've taken several astro courses...

I'd assume they just called it science, which it is, and probably didn't seem necessary to complicate them matter with a mostly arbitrary term like "Historical Science".

I'd assume they just called it science, which it is, and probably didn't seem necessary to complicate them matter with a mostly arbitrary term like "Historical Science".
Especially if "historical science" is really just science.

Especially if "historical science" is really just science.

Yes it is, that's the point...Made in Vegas-Rex's first post here. "Sciences don't have to be directly testable to be science."

Yes it is, that's the point...Made in Vegas-Rex's first post here. "Sciences don't have to be directly testable to be science."
Then why bother introducing an arbitrary term into the mix?

Also, you didn't have to be a douche about it.

Then why bother introducing an arbitrary term into the mix?

Also, you didn't have to be a douche about it.

Because of people like Adriatica.

Also, this topic didn't need to go beyond post #2. But of course, this is General, so I sorta expected this. I'm lazy, so needless exertion may get me douche-y.

Because of people like Adriatica.
Calling something a historical science rather than just science, as evolution is science above all else, just gives him an extra word he can take out of context and use to claim "So-and-so agrees that evolution is history!" because he thinks that's what is meant by historical science.

Also, this topic didn't need to go beyond post #2. But of course, this is General, so I sorta expected this. I'm lazy, so needless exertion may get me douche-y.
Also, you could you know, not bother responding if it was unnecessary.

Calling something a historical science rather than just science, as evolution is science above all else, just gives him an extra word he can take out of context and use to claim "So-and-so agrees that evolution is history!" because he thinks that's what is meant by historical science.

Well, what exactly do you consider history?

Also, you could you know, not bother responding if it was unnecessary.
But you can't?

Well, what exactly do you consider history?
More along the lines of the study of human society throughout the ages.

But you can't?
My computer was being retardedly slow, the post wasn't there before I tried to post. And besides, you were the one complaining about how you had to post an unnecessary response, not me.

More along the lines of the study of human society throughout the ages.

Is that all then? Okay, I guess you wouldn't consider them historical sciences, don't call them that and you should be fine.


My computer was being retardedly slow, the post wasn't there before I tried to post.

Eh, okay. *shrug*

Is that all then? Okay, I guess you wouldn't consider them historical sciences, don't call them that and you should be fine.
I wasn't planning on calling them historical sciences. There are already enough people complaining about the balkanization of science without adding a new division into the mix.

I wasn't planning on calling them historical sciences. There are already enough people complaining about the balkanization of science without adding a new division into the mix.

Hardly a division, more what you throw at people who say "you only look at the past, can't recreate it in the lab, so it's not science" Technically, given about 4.5 billion years, we could recreate it....but we're to be engulfed by our sun at about a billion, so meh.

It seems to me that the theory of evolution in terms of a method of how animals change and develop over time is reletively sound (there are some issues I have but I wont go into them now as that isn't what this thread is about). However to say that the development from single cellular organisms to man is absolute fact isn't quite the same. Unlike things like say the chemical reaction of burning magnisium in an oxygen cylinder, it is not directly observable. It is more like history in that you gather the evidence and piece together a series of events that make it make sense. When you study evolution as in the past you dont conduct experiments. You analyise evidence. You cant test whether evolution happened or not. You examine evidence. Can people see the logic of where I am comming from.
Evolution draws from a multitude of disciplines, most of which are hard science. Plus genetics is becoming more and more important to the study of evolution, and that's most assuredly hard science. I think evolution should remain in the hard science category.

Hardly a division, more what you throw at people who say "you only look at the past, can't recreate it in the lab, so it's not science" Technically, given about 4.5 billion years, we could recreate it....but we're to be engulfed by our sun at about a billion, so meh.
Not all of astronomy deals with the past though... there is a lot of work to be done involving events and objects that can be directly studied and observed.

Actaully, same goes with evolution. It's not like evolution is something that stopped, it's still going...

Not all of astronomy deals with the past though... there is a lot of work to be done involving events and objects that can be directly studied and observed.

Actaully, same goes with evolution. It's not like evolution is something that stopped, it's still going...

Yeah, it's a bad point to make, but you aren't about to make a supernova in the lab are you? Besides, I don't think history has stopped either.

Yeah, it's a bad point to make, but you aren't about to make a supernova in the lab are you? Besides, I don't think history has stopped either.
They might be making some black holes in a lab soon... well, in a supercollider, but still under controlled settings...
And that is true. But again, science doesn't have to happen in a lab.

They might be making some black holes in a lab soon... well, in a supercollider, but still under controlled settings...
And that is true. But again, science doesn't have to happen in a lab.

...Yeah...it doesn't...that's what we said isn't it? Are we still disagreeing?

It seems to me that the theory of evolution in terms of a method of how animals change and develop over time is reletively sound (there are some issues I have but I wont go into them now as that isn't what this thread is about). However to say that the development from single cellular organisms to man is absolute fact isn't quite the same. Unlike things like say the chemical reaction of burning magnisium in an oxygen cylinder, it is not directly observable. It is more like history in that you gather the evidence and piece together a series of events that make it make sense. When you study evolution as in the past you dont conduct experiments. You analyise evidence. You cant test whether evolution happened or not. You examine evidence. Can people see the logic of where I am comming from.

This assertion is incorrect. In the past five years or so a new field called evolutionary developmental biology has emerged. This branch of biology studies specific changes at the genetic level that result in morphological or functional changes at the organism (usually animal) level. With the increasing number of animal genome projects racing towards completion, the modern evolutionary biologist has a wealth of sequence information to work with.

With these informatics tools and other experimental tools, biologists can make sequence modifications that can make some features of modern animals resemble their ancestors, or other related species. Currently much work has been done on insects, usually flies and butterflies partly because of their distinct wing patterns.

The discovery of Hox genes and other master regulators of body shape formation in the 1980s is a success story that tells us that only a few hundred genes is responsible for most changes in body shape, out of a total of tens of thousands in an animal genome. In addition, the responses of these genes may be linked together via a regulatory network, that allows minor sequence changes to result in significant shape or functional differences.

So while evolutionary biology continues to draw extensively from historical sciences such as paleontology, it has also progressed into experimental genome science, like many other branches of modern biology.:)

And historical science = history now?

Also, I've never heard astronomy described as a historical science and I'm studying it.
are you studying radio astronomy?

are you studying radio astronomy?
I used a radio telescope to measure the galactic rotation curve... other than that, radio astronomy comes up now and then in class.

This assertion is incorrect. In the past five years or so a new field called evolutionary developmental biology has emerged. This branch of biology studies specific changes at the genetic level that result in morphological or functional changes at the organism (usually animal) level. With the increasing number of animal genome projects racing towards completion, the modern evolutionary biologist has a wealth of sequence information to work with.

With these informatics tools and other experimental tools, biologists can make sequence modifications that can make some features of modern animals resemble their ancestors, or other related species. Currently much work has been done on insects, usually flies and butterflies partly because of their distinct wing patterns.

The discovery of Hox genes and other master regulators of body shape formation in the 1980s is a success story that tells us that only a few hundred genes is responsible for most changes in body shape, out of a total of tens of thousands in an animal genome. In addition, the responses of these genes may be linked together via a regulatory network, that allows minor sequence changes to result in significant shape or functional differences.

So while evolutionary biology continues to draw extensively from historical sciences such as paleontology, it has also progressed into experimental genome science, like many other branches of modern biology.:)


Most critics of evolutionary science tend to concentrate on science that is 50 years out of date, so your post here flies right past them.

The concepts in evolution are directly related to studies that are done today. Sure, some aspects of it can be treated historically, but direct links to genealogy, etc. are used and need a reference.

Most critics of evolutionary science tend to concentrate on science that is 50 years out of date, so your post here flies right past them.

Agreed. However, if these critics has kept up with current research literature they may be astounded, indeed terrified at the headway that evolutionary biology is making. Patterns of wing gene expression transferred from one fly species to another. Teeth produced in chicken (by genetic means, not transplants!) resembling teeth of crocodiles. Select features of some animals are already transferable. There may even come a day when we understand how to turn one species to another on the basis of DNA sequence changes - some kind of evolutionary technology. The potential power of this knowledge is immense, both for good and bad.

Probably better for them to stay in the past arguing forever about "irreducible complexity".;)

Can people see the logic of where I am coming from.
Yes I do but I don't think we should take it completely out of science all together. I think it should be like palientology with I don't beleive it mutually exclusive to science or history. (please excuse any bad spelling. I'm really not sure how to spell and there is no spell checker.)

Let me just go ahead and continue this:

We call evolution history because some of the evidence for it comes from the past. Since history cannot be observed, we call it storytelling.

Therefore evolution=storytelling.

Let me just go ahead and continue this:

We call evolution history because some of the evidence for it comes from the past. Since history cannot be observed, we call it storytelling.

Therefore evolution=storytelling.
The history they use in evolution CAN and IS observed therefor it isn't story telling. :headbang: (unless that was just sarcasm... Ignore if it was...)