Is Evolution good science?

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Evolution gd science? - Sci Method?

Let's see how much of my reaction to that is personal which I'll get to later.

Yes to the scientific method. I have a feel for it but wasn't being careful in what I said about it. I certainly like step 3. Doesn't one get a kick when after trying step 3 a lot, step 2 tends to stick? My intuition says evolution succeeds partly because of repeated step 3's for filling in patterns also. Lab experiments are good, but the fundamentalist will stay out of the lab I assume. Telling a lay fundamentalist about pattern fill-in may throw them into a tizzy because maybe they can understand that.

Anyway here's the personal reaction: I'm a weirdo INTP. As soon as I saw you say, "they're fundamentalists. They're either deceived by other fundamentalists who are lying, or they're the ones who are lying", I thought, "That's his step 2." I don't haul with that. I'm embarrassed this deviates from the subject of this thread a little, but I want to speculate that evolution is for thinking people types. Fundamentalists may be a different personality type: Feeling. What if fundamentalists find believing God laid it down in one swoop is far more appealing than some lab experiments that keep God at a distance? That's a different theory than calling them "liars." Not only is it different, but it relates truth to personality type ... a theory for which I presently have no words.

The truth doesn't change just because something different from the truth appeals to you more than the real truth. Either the fundamentalist is ignorant of the truth, or they're aware of it. If they're aware of it, they must lie in order to propagate the lies which fundamentalists are found proclaiming, and we know at least a few are liars as they've been corrected and have not altered their spiel. And, yes, what they feel or intuit obviously appeals to them more than what the thinking way has revealed, but they're still liars and irrational.

The fundamentalists who are simply ignorant of the pertinent facts are simply ignorant. They may be cured with education, but fundamentalism tends to make them a tad biased, so it's a difficult road for them, and they may become one of the liars themselves.

 

[Kevin Stratocaster]

Re: Evolution good science?

I cannot believe this discussion. The theory of evolution is not only good science, but is one of the best examples of a robust and reliable scientific theory out there. Whether or not evolution happened is not something anybody taken seriously in science actually argues about. The kind of research currently going on in biology is way beyond this nieve contention. Nobody is wasting their time looking for evidence of evolution, and people who deny it are typically seen as being unaware of the facts, or insane.

Stephen Jay Gould replies to the argument that it is 'just a theory' so well I would like to share it:

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
-Evolution as Fact and Theory

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Evolution good science?

I cannot believe this discussion.

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
-Evolution as Fact and Theory

So is Newton's theory of universal gravitation a theory or a fact?

 

[Vrecknidj]

Re: Evolution good science?

So is Newton's theory of universal gravitation a theory or a fact?

Off-the cuff answer here.

Gravity = fact.
Newton's theory about it = theory.

(Then again, other theories about gravity are Relativity and Quantum Gravity and others.)

Dave

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Evolution good science?

Off-the cuff answer here.

Gravity = fact.
Newton's theory about it = theory.

(Then again, other theories about gravity are Relativity and Quantum Gravity and others.)

Dave

I could have phrased that question better: Is Newton's theory of universal gravitation a theory AND a fact? I ask that because
Stephen Jay Gould says,
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact."

 

[Cogwulf]

Re: Evolution good science?

I could have phrased that question better: Is Newton's theory of universal gravitation a theory AND a fact? I ask that because
Stephen Jay Gould says,
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact."

Newtons theory of gravity is a fact within a certain set of circumstances.

I think the problem with describing evolution as both fact and theory is problematic because evolution has a wide range of meaning.
It has been proven as a fact that it can happen, but as a theory it states it has always happened and will continue to happen.

 

[Agent Intellect]

For evolution, a fact might be something like: all mammals have homologous skeletons (self evident).

A theory would be that this is because they evolved from the same common ancestor.

This theory explains this fact (evolution explains a lot of other facts, as well, but I'm keeping it simple for the sake of explanation).

The strength of this theory is it's ability to make predictions. A prediction might be: if the skeleton of a new species of mammal is discovered, it will also have a homologous skeletal structure.

-------

For Newton's theory of gravity, we might say:

Fact: objects with mass are attracted to one another (self evident).

Theory: having mass causes objects to "fall" toward each other in a predictable way given by the equation F=G(M*m)/r^2

Prediction: if I drop an object with the mass M on a planet with mass m from a distance of r (given the experimentally calculated constant G) then I will observe a gravitational force F as predicted by the formula above. By the scientific method of falsification, empirical studies will suggest (a favorite word in scientific papers) that the theory is correct.

 

[gcomeau]

For Newton's theory of gravity, we might say:

Fact: objects with mass are attracted to one another (self evident).

Theory: having mass causes objects to "fall" toward each other in a predictable way given by the equation F=G(M*m)/r^2

Prediction: if I drop an object with the mass M on a planet with mass m from a distance of r (given the experimentally calculated constant G) then I will observe a gravitational force F as predicted by the formula above. By the scientific method of falsification, empirical studies will suggest (a favorite word in scientific papers) that the theory is correct.

Not quite.

You are describing Newton's Law of gravitation. It is a simple mathematical description of observed behavior which is always seen to hold true. A theory of gravitation would have to explain WHY objects with mass were attracted to each other that way.

There never really was a proper Newton's "theory" of gravity... it gets called that sometimes but it's not much more a real theory than V=IR can be called Ohm's "theory of electricity". Neither an equation nor the assertion that the equation will always hold true (which is what basically ALL scientific laws are) are properly a theory.

We didn't get anything approximating a real theory of gravitation until general relativity, which postulated that objects with mass distorted space around them and that is what caused gravitational attraction between massive bodies... a related prediction of that theory was that light, which has no mass and is thus not subject to gravitational attraction according to Newton's law, would still gets it's path deflected when it passes a massive object. Which it does.


(And yes, addressing the original question, gravity is both theory and fact. Attraction between massive objects fact, explanation for how it happens theory... just like evolution is both.)

 

[24hoursplumber]

I believe that evolution is a hypothesis quite respectable, and there is something true. Maybe not in the photo way Darwin, but the performance was achieved in all sorts of things like bacteria and viruses in human technology. We also know that natural selection is a fact. His instinct from all walks of life on planet earth.

 

[Jackooboy]

Evolutions is a good theory. Not so sure it's proven before single celled organisms appeared. The whole spinning ball of goo + spontaneous generation has little to no evidence I've seen.
Life could have come to our planet in the form of endospores via intergalactic rocks from somewhere else...

 

[SpaceYeti]

Evolutions is a good theory. Not so sure it's proven before single celled organisms appeared. The whole spinning ball of goo + spontaneous generation has little to no evidence I've seen.
Life could have come to our planet in the form of endospores via intergalactic rocks from somewhere else...

Panspermia still doesn't explain the actual origin of life, it only adds a step. That's beside the point, though: Evolution has nothing to do with how life began. That's a whole different theory called "Abiogenesis". Evolution simply doesn't apply to anything before life actually appeared.

Abiogenesis is supported by the experiments showing that basic organic compounds can be made naturally. If it can happen neutrally, there's no need to presume it happened any other way, as all other claimed manners of life's origin are based on premises we have no reason to presume are true, yet we know things happen naturally all the time.

 

[jdnel99]

Panspermia still doesn't explain the actual origin of life, it only adds a step. That's beside the point, though: Evolution has nothing to do with how life began. That's a whole different theory called "Abiogenesis". Evolution simply doesn't apply to anything before life actually appeared.

Abiogenesis is supported by the experiments showing that basic organic compounds can be made naturally. If it can happen neutrally, there's no need to presume it happened any other way, as all other claimed manners of life's origin are based on premises we have no reason to presume are true, yet we know things happen naturally all the time.

Thank you for beating me to the punch.