Posted on 11/21/2012 12:48:35 PM PST by unlearner
By now you've heard the outrageous quote from Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., on his doubts about the origins of planet Earth. When asked to give its age, he replied: "I'm not a scientist, man. … Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries."
...
I've no doubt that these critiques of Rubio are sound. But I'm hesitant to let the crown prince of the Tea Party be singled out for blame. His shameless dodge and pander on the matter of the Earth's creation don't mark him as a radical, nor even as a soldier in the war on science. They mark him only as a mainstream politician.
Beware, for thou that judgest doest the same things: Members of both parties have had to squiggle through elections by appealing to a hazy sense of geo-history. In fact, the Antichrist himself—Barack Obama—has had a tendency to get a little soft with science. Let's compare Rubio's offending quote to one that came out of Obama's mouth four years ago, when he first campaigned for president.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
My first post on this thread****************
A theory explains facts and predicts facts.
The fact is that DNA is mutable and is absolutely incapable of staying the same generation to generation - thus evolution is a fact.
The theory of evolution through natural selection explains the fact of evolution, in that there is variation within populations (because of the fact that DNA cannot stay the same), and that some variations lead to greater reproductive success than other variations based upon the environment the population is currently experiencing.
Lamark had a theory that attempted to explain the facts of evolution as well, it wasn't a successful explanation.
Darwin's theory of evolution; i.e. natural selection IS very successful at explaining the facts of biological evolution.
************
I said nothing about universal common descent. And I think I clarified by meaning quite well. Although perhaps above your level of understanding. So what then is your complaint? Nothing I posted about evolution being a fact was intentionally misleading.
It is you who is conflating the theory (natural selection of genetic variation) with the fact that it helps to explain and predict (descent with modification - i.e. evolution). Sorry that pointing out your basic and fundamental mistake made you so upset.
It doesn’t make me upset. Weary maybe, but not upset. I like debating when the objective is to actually, honestly find the truth. Otherwise it is a waste of time. I am more than willing to admit when I am mistaken and have done so over the years on this and other subjects. Debating has made me research and learn more to either justify or change my positions.
In post 69 you stated that evolution is NOT a theory:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2961949/posts?page=69#69
Was that a typo?
I see that your first post did call it a theory. I did overlook this. So, if post 69 was unintentional, then one of my main points of contention is moot.
Further, if you can find a definitive source that defines evolution as merely biological change and thus a fact in a pre-1960 statement from a reliable scientific source, I will concede the point regarding calling evolution a fact being disingenuous and the politicization of science. Otherwise, I still think it is playing a semantic shell game to distract from the weakness of the central tenet of the theory (universal common descent). OK. It is arbitrary for me to pick 1960, but that is before I was born and well-before I learned anything about the subject. So the further back in time this position has been put forward, the more credible I would consider it. But honestly I did not hear anyone trying to call evolution a fact until recent years.
This seems to be a relatively new tactic by the evolution lobby, but perhaps I am unread. If this has been part of the discourse for many years then I will concede that point. But I need some evidence.
The theory Darwin postulated was to explain the observation of evolution. The theory is natural selection, the observation is evolution - defined as descent with modification. That populations change in DNA from generation to generation is a fact. The theory of natural selection helps to explain and predict that fact.
Read Darwin’s introduction to The Origin of Species. He outlines many facts that he thought his theory of natural selection best explained. Natural selection is the theory that helps to explain the facts he mentioned. That pre 1960 enough for you?
I handed you a win on a silver plate, but you wont take it. I guess you like to debate for the sake of the debate, rather than to reach an actual resolution.
You did not confirm which contradictory statement you made earlier represents your true view. You said evolution is a theory. Then you said evolution is NOT a theory. Then you refuse to clarify whether one was a typo or if you just woke up one day and decided to take the opposite position for a while.
As to pre-1960 pro-evolution argument, I think I made myself perfectly clear that my contention is about the use or misuse of terminology. My contention is the pro-evolution argument of saying “evolution is a fact” is a recent game of semantics designed as a slight of hand parlor trick to get everyone’s eyes off the ball. The creation vs. evolution debate has always been about theoretical and hypothetical suppositions that contradict some people’s understanding of revealed truth in the Bible. The contradiction between evolution and the Genesis account centers on how long ago life began and whether all life evolved from a common ancestor. Neither of these things are observations.
I said I would concede the point on the semantics of the phrase “evolution is a fact” if you could show a not-so-recent instance where your specific argument was made by someone arguing evolution vs. creation. You simply tell me to read Darwin’s book.
The evolution vs. creation debate has been going on for many years. If your argument is not a recent ploy it should be very easy for you to cite many sources contradicting my assertion. If you can show me one, just one, you win. If not, then I will not recant my position that such statements are just a childish stunt by those who, when not winning, just take their marbles and refuse to play the game.
Creationists do not argue against “descent with modification”. If you said descent with modification is a fact, non one would argue the point. So is semantics your entire argument? I see you’ve gone around on other posts saying creation is useless, but scientific observation does not contradict creation. Descent with modification does not contradict creation.
Pasteur was guided by his belief in creation and the Biblical account. His test to debunk the popular idea of his day - spontaneous generation (which came from scorners who mocked creation like yourself) - is still considered a model of scientific inquiry. His beliefs led him toward pasteurization and vaccinations for rabies. Microbiology began with him. His beliefs guided his scientific inquiry and methods and led to saving the silk industry from financial ruin and the saving of many lives with immunizations. As a contemporary of Darwin, he rejected Darwin’s propositions of universal common descent.
Darwin’s influence has not been as positive. Whether his ideas were misused or not, Pasteur was in an entirely different league. Creation is useful as it informs a philosophy of science with the perspective that the universe is meaningful, comprehensible, and even designed so we can learn about it. These are presuppositions of science. Without the Causeless Cause science becomes nihilistic and meaningless with only observations and generalizations and without explanatory power and beauty.
Where did I say evolution was the theory rather than the observation that the theory of evolution THROUGH natural selection of genetic variation explains?
There are theories OF evolution, just as there are theories OF gravity. That doesn't make either evolution or gravity a theory itself - it makes it the observed fact that the theory explains.
One might use the term “theory of evolution” as a convenient shorthand - but it isn't evolution that is the theory - it is a theory that EXPLAINS the observation of evolution.
Looking through my posts I said....
“The theory of evolution through natural selection” and “Darwin's theory of evolution; i.e. natural selection” post 21
“Natural selection is the theory that explains the fact of what you want to call adaptation, but is more accurately defined in biology as evolution.” post 44
“Evolution, as defined by biology, is a fact. The theory that explains this fact is natural selection of genetic variation.” post 60
“Biological evolution simply means change (in DNA) in populations. That is an easily observable fact that is best explained by the theory of natural selection of genetic variation.” post 65
“Not all change in the DNA of a population is adaptive. But all change in the DNA of a population is, by definition, evolution. Adaptation implies the change is a useful change. Evolution just means it changed.” post 66
“Theories explain and predict facts. Biological evolution is not a theory - the theory that explains the fact of biological evolution is natural selection of genetic variation.” post 69
“Evolution, ie change, is the observed fact. The theory of natural selection helps to explain and predict this fact.” post 72
Natural selection of genetic variation is a theory of evolution. Lamark also had a theory of evolution. Both theories attempted to explain the fact that living populations change.
“One theory successfully explained and predicted the observed fact of change in living things, and the other did not. That is why Darwin's theory of natural selection (we now know, as he did not, that what is being selected is DNA variations) is useful to science and Lamarkian evolution is not.” post 73
“Darwin's theory of evolution (the observation) through the action of natural selection of genetic variation (the theoretical mechanism)” post 75
“Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification.” Descent with modification is an inescapable FACT, due to the inability of DNA to be replicated with 100% fidelity or to remain free from changes. Once again for those of you in Rio Linda - evolution is descent with modification and that is a fact. The theory of natural selection helps to explain and predict this fact.” post 76
“Evolution, defined as descent with modification, is a fact. The theory that best explains and predicts this observation is natural selection of genetic variation. Just as gravitation is an observed fact, and the theory of universal attraction of mass is a good explanation for that observed fact.” post 78
How does “adaptation” happen do you suppose? Is it through natural selection of genetic variation?
Adaptation through the natural selection of genetic variations is well supported. Some adaptation is certainly the result of artificial selection, aka breeding; albeit this probably represents a very small portion of the adaptation that can be observed or inferred. We may not know for certain if wolves and domesticated dogs became separate species first by natural selection or breeding. Perhaps it does not matter.
As far as the “theories of evolution” point you made, I think I need to ruminate on that a bit. I will admit after reviewing your summary of your collective posts, you have actually made a pretty good case for your use of terminology. But in bits and pieces it comes across as intentionally trying to talk over the head of whom (me, in this case) you are debating. But I will give it some serious consideration as well as do some further reading.
I think it is strange that you have no problem with the word “adaptation” being used in lieu of “evolution” because to you the word “evolution” is a loaded term while “adaptation” is not.
To me “evolution” just means change (etymology ‘unrolling’). In context of biological evolution it means change in living things - descent with modification. It is not nearly as loaded a term (to me) as “adaptation” which implies a useful change.
As I said before - not all evolution is useful change - and much of the non-adaptive evolution we observe is very useful in terms of tracking common descent - even within a species. How do we know that Native Americans are more closely related to East Asians than Polynesians or Europeans? From the non-adaptive evolution of the parts of their genome that doesn’t actually do anything and is thus “free” to change without consequence.
Anyway I found the difference in opinion about which was the loaded term illustrative and amusing.
“I am sorry I have not maintained a more cordial tone.”
No offense taken. Thanks for the discussion.
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.