Posted on 05/14/2006 4:58:46 PM PDT by celmak
How would you answer my professor? I asked my professor 2 questions:
1) Do you believe that Evolution is a theory or fact?
2) Do you believe there are absolutes?
He wrote back:
1) Do you believe that Evolution is a theory or fact?
2) Do you believe there are absolutes?
He wrote back:
I believe gravity is a theory. We "discover" or "invent" (different philosophies of science view the process differently, I won't try to claim that I know which is correct) the law of gravity - how gravity works - based on our observations. We then use the law to make predictions (cannonballs, buildings, space shuttles, motions of the planets). As more and more of these are in fact shown to be true via more observations, our confidence in our idea grows, and we label it a theory (as opposed to a hypothesis). Sometimes observations come along which may contradict our theory (e.g., light seems to have a constant speed for all viewers), which means that we will need to discard or modify our theory. For example, in spite of the vast number of observations supporting Newton's law of gravity, in a few cases it didn't work: e.g., the orbit of Mercury. People nonetheless believed it was the best description and sooner or later new observations would make the Mercury observations make sense. Einstein's theory of relativity explains what is wrong: Newtonian gravity "works" so long as objects aren't moving too fast or the strength of gravity isn't too high. His corrections are now the reigning theory until new ones come along. Given that quantum particles are "entangled" allowing some kind of faster-than-light interactions, it seems to me that likely that the theory of gravity will need to be modified some more: it's not perfect, but it's pretty darn good, particularly for most people's daily needs.
In terms of the theory of biological evolution, whatever hypothesis or theory you hold to, you have to take it account "the facts," the observations. If you deny those, we cannot even start a conversation. For example, there are fossils, remains of what look like organisms, most of which do not currently exist on the Earth. We find these remains in very specific layers of rocks (composed of sediments, grains of rock that have become stuck or glued together, each layer with its own flora and fauna. Some organisms overlay between layers, and some do not. The "deeper" layers contain only fossilized single-celled organisms, and then as you go "upward" through them you find remains of ocean organisms, and then land organisms. You find amphibians "below" reptiles and mammals, and feathered dinosaurs "below" birds.
The reining interpretation (or "theory") of this evidence is that sediments slide downhill (often carried by running water) to the bottom of valleys and the ocean, something we see happening today (a uniformitarian interpretation = processes today were ongoing in the past). The remains of organisms become a part of them sometimes, and in some rare instances bacteria and other decomposers are unable to get at them, they become mineralized, and are not destroyed by erosion or other natural causes. Sediments lower down would have had to be laid down first, so they represent "older" organisms. Because the flora and fauna fossils in the have changed, some species have gone extinct and new species have come into existence.
The way evolutionary biologists interpret this evidence (their "theory" of these "facts") is to say that species have evolved or in the language of the 18th & 19th centuries, "transmuted." We do find sequences of fossils of a number of organisms (shelled ocean organisms are probably the best examples, because shells are preserved so easily and they are quiet abundant in the ocean, a place were sediments accumulate regularly) which suggest a process of development, something which is also suggested by fish -> lobe fish -> tetra pods -> amphibian sequences, recent finds of ancient whales (progression of the blowhole from nose to top of head, smaller rear legs), etc...Natural selection is one way of explaining this, though "genetic drift" is also acknowledged by most to be an important process in some cases. It has been verified in terms of rapidly growing organisms (e.g., bacteria, fruit flies) in the lab, and even shifts in characteristics consistent with natural selection have been observed in the wild (most famously, in "Darwin's finches" during El Nino conditions). Moreover, that fact that all life uses the same genetic code and that the differences between the genes is consistent with the evolutionary progression derived from the fossil record (e.g., longer time since divergence = larger difference in genes), lends further support to the idea. (If it were discovered that different organisms used a different code, and that the differences were not consistent with the fossil record, which would have been a major blow to the biological theory of evolution.) In various labs, scientists use the principle of natural selection to try and predict the strains of flu that will be out next year, so that they can produce vaccines in time or how to fight bacteria and viruses and insects which are evolving resistance to our drugs (medicines, pesticides, etc...).
My understanding is that ID attempts to interpret many of these facts differently, so I think an argument can be presented that it is an alternative theory. ID's basic principle - correct me if I am wrong - is that living organisms themselves or structures in them are too complex to have evolved, typically because too many "parts" would have to evolved at just the same time in just the right way for it to function and give any kind of advantage necessary for natural selection to work. An evolutionary biologist would say that new genes develop and are preserved in a population even when they don't offer and advatange: it is the change in the environment that helps a gene spread when it now becomes an advantage (e.g., thicker or faster growing fur if a climate becomes colder).
As I understand it, the majority of ID people (at least the intellectuals who lead the movement: I don't think they make this very clear to their followers, at least in my experience with the followers) have no problem with life changing over a vast period of time. They explain this change as owing to a "designer" interfering periodically on the Earth, and claim that this is a better explanation because life is too complex to have developed on its own. Most believe in "microevolution" (small changes can occur within species - it's hard to deny the evolution we've observed happening on human timescales), but think the "big jumps" (macroevolution) are too implausible. Some allow far more evolution than you might think. For example, my understanding is that Michael Behe (a biochemist and author of "Darwin's Black Box," one of the best pieces of scientific ID that I've read) has allowed in speeches that all you really need is a "first cell" and everything evolved from that point on. (Ironically, this is not much different than Darwin's "god breathed life in to one form or a few and from these..." at the conclusion of the "Origin of Species.") I was floored when William Dembski was recently reported to have said that maybe designer put the "seeds" of everything in organisms from the beginning so that they'd unfold (This is what St. Augustine suggest in the 4th century.), and then developed from that point. (Is he merely arguing, then, that we need a deterministic theory of evolution, and then ID folks would be satisfied? I'm mystified about what the argument is over if this is what they are proposing.)
Philosophically, I have a problem with the "god in the gaps" argument that life is so complex, we could never figure out how it developed naturally (thank God Galileo, Kepler, Isaac Newton, and the rest didn't do that when were trying to figure out how the world works), but ID folk do have a good point that all things might not be explicable naturalistically. However, when it comes to what I consider to be science, I don't want physicists to be able to say "Mercury has that orbit because God made mercury behave that way" or "Mercury's orbit is too complex to understand" and then move on to other issues. I'd rather say, we don't completely understand it yet, but here is our current naturalistic interpretation of the observations ("facts").
Philosophically, I am also skeptical of "relativistic" claims. (As I noted in my discussion of relativity, it is really the principle of the invariance of the laws of physics even though people may see things differently. At the heart of things, there are absolutes according to the theory of relativity.) However, students are welcome to articulate relativist arguments: they just have to support them well!
Hope this helps (an anonymous scince professor)
I have my own answers, but I'm curious about Freeper's. Try to make your answersto at least 30, no more than 500, words. Links are alwaays appreciated.
be back @ 6-6:30 PST
1. Theory
2. Absolutely
Wise guy.
= )
Evolution is a term used to describe both a fact and a theory.
The observed fact is that species can evolve into new species over time.
The theory (and of course I mean theory in the scientific sense, not in the common English sense) is why and how this process occurs.
These definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread) may help clarify things:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
[Last revised 2/23/06]
Evolution has a lot of catching up to do to be fully credible. Have your professor come back and show that he has attempted to understand how principles of quantum mechanics, Big Bang cosmology (and a 15 billion year old universe), and Shannon information theory apply to the origin and development of life on this planet.
ID theory is really an attempt to understand how intelligence and information fit into the scheme of evolution. Your professor parrots the Dawkins dogma that holds that it is unscientific to consider such things. The decision to do so is arbitrary and completely illogical.
I think he was very respectful of the issue. You asked for his beliefs and explained them and why he held those beliefs.
I believe your professor is a blooming idiot.
IMO, his response is a well thought and cogent opinion and since it very closely resembles my own, I give him an A for his explanation.
I give him A+ for the fact that he bothered to respond.
My comment & question is: Your case is for a slow, gradual transition, not made for quick changes. Slow and fast reproducing animals are found in the Cambrian period, even vertebrates. In 1977, Professor Stephen Jay Gould wrote, ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. … to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” Gould, S.J., Evolution's erratic pace.Natural History 86(5):14, 1977 In 1980 Gould said, ‘The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119–130 (p.127), 1980 So what do you think of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) negating gradualism?
Agreed. A reasoned and thoughtful response on his behalf to a debate where both sides are often curt, strident and just trying to shout each other down.
What do you mean?
Pride versus pride. The battle royal carefully and fully observed by one Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, Professor of Logic. And here, I suspect may be his commentary upon that Day That Changed History (for awhile at least.)
The Bellman himself they all praised to the skies--
Such a carriage, such ease and such grace!
Such solemnity, too! One could see he was wise,
The moment one looked in his face!
He had bought a large map representing the sea,
Without the least vestige of land:
And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be
A map they could all understand.
"What's the good of Mercator's North Poles and Equators,
Tropics, Zones, and Meridian Lines?"
So the Bellman would cry: and the crew would reply
"They are merely conventional signs!
"Other maps are such shapes, with their islands and capes!
But we've got our brave Captain to thank:
(So the crew would protest) "that he's bought us the best--
A perfect and absolute blank!"
This was charming, no doubt; but they shortly found out
That the Captain they trusted so well
Had only one notion for crossing the ocean,
And that was to tingle his bell.
He was thoughtful and grave--but the orders he gave
Were enough to bewilder a crew.
When he cried "Steer to starboard, but keep her head larboard!"
What on earth was the helmsman to do?
Then the bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes:
A thing, as the Bellman remarked,
That frequently happens in tropical climes,
When a vessel is, so to speak, "snarked."
But the principal failing occurred in the sailing,
And the Bellman, perplexed and distressed,
Said he had hoped, at least, when the wind blew due East,
That the ship would not travel due West!
But the danger was past--they had landed at last,
With their boxes, portmanteaus, and bags:
Yet at first sight the crew were not pleased with the view,
Which consisted to chasms and crags.
The Bellman perceived that their spirits were low,
And repeated in musical tone
Some jokes he had kept for a season of woe--
But the crew would do nothing but groan.
He served out some grog with a liberal hand,
And bade them sit down on the beach:
And they could not but own that their Captain looked grand,
As he stood and delivered his speech.
"Friends, Romans, and countrymen, lend me your ears!"
(They were all of them fond of quotations:
So they drank to his health, and they gave him three cheers,
While he served out additional rations).
"We have sailed many months, we have sailed many weeks,
(Four weeks to the month you may mark),
But never as yet ('tis your Captain who speaks)
Have we caught the least glimpse of a Snark!
"We have sailed many weeks, we have sailed many days,
(Seven days to the week I allow),
But a Snark, on the which we might lovingly gaze,
We have never beheld till now!
"Come, listen, my men, while I tell you again
The five unmistakable marks
By which you may know, wheresoever you go,
The warranted genuine Snarks.
"Let us take them in order. The first is the taste,
Which is meager and hollow, but crisp:
Like a coat that is rather too tight in the waist,
With a flavor of Will-o-the-wisp.
"Its habit of getting up late you'll agree
That it carries too far, when I say
That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea,
And dines on the following day.
"The third is its slowness in taking a jest.
Should you happen to venture on one,
It will sigh like a thing that is deeply distressed:
And it always looks grave at a pun.
"The fourth is its fondness for bathing-machines,
Which is constantly carries about,
And believes that they add to the beauty of scenes--
A sentiment open to doubt.
"The fifth is ambition. It next will be right
To describe each particular batch:
Distinguishing those that have feathers, and bite,
And those that have whiskers, and scratch.
"For, although common Snarks do no manner of harm,
Yet, I feel it my duty to say,
Some are Boojums--" The Bellman broke off in alarm,
For the Baker had fainted away.
Anyway I just came across a England-only Penquin paperback edition of that work, but the binding glue has given way. If any could reccommend a way to rebind which is on accessible to a wage-slaves budget, let me know.
I would say the observed fact is that different organisms exist in different strata. That those in a higher strata have evolved from those in a lower strata is one idea of how that came to be. A rather slim idea, since between those strata there are not even more partially completed transitional forms.
try this term on him:
"irreducible complexity"
As i understand it, irreducible complexity asserts that even the simplest organisms contain astonishingly complex designs and functions that could NEVER be explained by random selection. Think microscopic motors, rotors, electrical systems...entire mini factories operating with such precision that they make our most advanced automated systems look like sixth grade science projects.
And they just "appeared"? Evolved?
By the way, "Darwin's finches" had only very minor beak changes -- suggesting, at best, an element of natural selection, but in no way supporting wholesale changes from one species to another.
Read "Dawin's Black Box.
And Genesis 1:1...
Blessings,
Transitionals? Actually there are a lot of transitionals, include many in our own recent ancestry.
Check the chart below: note the position of Homo ergaster (about the center).
Then, scroll to the bottom for a closer look at this handsome specimen. This is pretty close to midway between ape and modern human.
I'd call that a transitional, myself.
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33
What I mean is that speciation has been directly observed in both the laboratory and the wild for a variety of plants, animals, and bacteria. Therefore, it is an observable fact that a population can evolve and speciate over a number of generations.
The theory aspect comes along while claiming that common descent, natural selection, genetic drift, etc account for the creation of all the species we see around us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.