MorriganTait
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 705
- Reaction score
- 0
I HAVE SEEN MUCH DEBATE ON THIS FORUM ABOUT EVOLUTION, AND FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN, MANY LACK THE BASIC KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT EVOLUTION ACTUALLY IS, SO WE END UP DEBATING ASSUMPTIONS. I FOUND THIS DOCUMENT AND THOUGHT I WOULD SHARE IT. I BELIEVE ANYONE WHO WOULD CARE TO THOUGHTFULLY DEBATE THE TOPIC (FROM EITHER SIDE) WILL BE INTERESTED IN THIS. ENJOY.
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm
The Evolution Fact FAQ
by Dr. M. R. Leipzig
If one is to surf the web today and try and make some sort of sense of the bewildering array of information (running the Gardnerian gamut of 'good, bad and bogus') so easily available there; one can become quickly mired in the voluminous mainstream scientific and less-than-mainstream pseudoscientific terminology, arguments and contentions. As an attempt to hopefully help 'clear the muddied waters', level the playing field (I speak hopefully, although not terribly optimistically, that this can be accomplished without the use of explosives; verbal or otherwise) and turn some of the intensely emotive partisan friction of the Creation/Evolution issue into light, I offer the following:
What is Evolution? (and, more importantly, what is not evolution.)
Before we proceed, it is essential that we set a few ground rules and delimit exactly to what we are referring when we speak of evolution in the context of the evolution\creation conflict. Thus: by definition, evolution is: (1.) precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. This is the neontological (biological) definition.
Unfortunately, alleles themselves are rarely, if ever, preserved in the rock record as fossils; which are the key data units in the examination of the history of life on Earth. But, the expression of these alleles is preserved in the fossils of populations of organisms, which are readily available for examination. From this, it is readily apparent that (2.) life has developed (not 'progressed') from one or a small set of common ancestors as well as from 'simple' organisms to more 'complex' creatures over the span of geological time. This is one of the paleontological definitions of evolution.
Although already there may be some dissenters bristling over the relative merits of biological 'simplicity' or 'complexity'; I maintain that, in however a general or specific sense, a multicellular organism (say, a human, a blue whale, or a Velociraptor mongoliensis) is relatively more complex (systemically) than a unicellular blue-green alga; although I will concede that complexity is not a measure of a population of organisms success (viz.: bacteria and alga are much more voluminous and have been extant far longer than Homo sapiens), but is used here solely for purposes of differentiation between the neontological and paleontological concept of evolution.
Therefore, with these definitions in mind; evolution:
1. is a fact,
2. is also a number of theories,
3. is Science,
4. is also scientific,
5. is naturalistic and purely mechanistic,
6. is falsifiable,
7. is testable,
8. is predictive,
9. has been observed;
9a. in the field
9b. in the laboratory,
10. has occurred in the past,
11. is still occurring,
12. will continue to occur in the future.
Further, we can also note that evolution:
13. is not atheistic (nor Communistic, Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, etc.),
14. is not evil,
15. is not mandated by law to be taught in US public schools,
16. is not a cosmological theory (i.e., "it don't do origins"),
17. is not a religion nor Religion,
18. is not determined by popular opinion (as can be said of any science),
19. is not a socio-political program or paradigm,
20. is not dependent on the supernatural,
21. does not claim that "Man came from apes",
22. is not progress,
23. has not, will not and cannot be proven (as can be said of any science), 24. Is not random nor relies on 'blind chance',
25. does not violate the second law of thermodynamics,
26. Does not deny (a) God(s), and finally,
27. Falsifying evolution does not prove Creation.
That said, let us examine every claim in turn and in detail that evolution:
1. is a fact,
"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a FACT, not ("only a" - ed.) theory, and that what is at issue within biology are q estions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution.
It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organised multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms.
Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in moulding evolution."
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981).
Just as much as gravitation is a fact, is so evolution. It has been observed, in both the laboratory and the field, and through the evidence of the fossil record. It is not debated in mainstream science that evolution has occurred (and is still occurring); but it is the mode and tempo of evolution that is being debated.
2. is also a number of theories,
Even before the time of it's formal introduction to science by Darwin, there have been many differing and different theories advanced to explain the fact of organic evolution and the diversity of life on Earth. Some are over 100 years old, while others are quite recent innovations. Some have been discarded as erroneous, while others have, literally and figuratively, tons of evidence which support them.
A general listing of these theories include Darwinism (descent with modification by natural selection; and in and of itself a set of theories; i.e., 'Strict Darwinism', 'General Darwinism', etc.; and an 'umbrella' term sometimes used in other evolutionary theories as a basis, which is then modified), Lamarckianism ("inheritance of acquired characteristics"), saltationalism (evolution proceeding by major leaps or jumps), gradualism (slow, uniform accumulation of modifications), punctuated equilib rium (periods of stasis followed by brief, intense periods of speciation), phyletic gradualism (speciation occurs gradually over a species' entire range), orthogenesis (evolution that follows a single direction or specific trend continuously, "straight- line" evolution, often appearing to be independent of natural selection), creationism (a religious, non-scientific, pseudoscientific preconceived dogmatic construct), etc.
With the exception of creationism ('Scientific', Biblical or otherwise), the remainder are or were scientific theories. Orthogenesis, Lamarckianism, saltationalism (to a certain degree), and creationism have been largely been abandoned or supplanted by other theories or combination of theories. In fact, the union of molecular biology, genetics and natural selection (Darwinism) lead to what is known as the Modern Synthesis. That is, the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals.
One of the most recent, and generally least understood, theories of evolution is Punctuated equilibrium:
Some palaeontologists think evolution is a hierarchical process.
The theory of punctuated equilibria attempts to infer the process of macroevolution from the pattern of species documented in the fossil record. In the fossil record, transition from one species to another is usually abrupt in most geographic locales -- no transitional forms are found. In short, it appears that species remain unchanged for long stretches of time and then are quickly replaced by new species. However, if wide ranges are searched, transitional forms that bridge the gap between the two species are sometime found in small, localised areas.
For example, in Jurassic brachiopods of the genus Kutchithyris, K. acutiplicata appears below another species, K. euryptycha. Both species were common and covered a wide geographical area. They differ enough that some have argued they should be i n a different genera. In just one small locality an approximately 1.25m sedimentary layer with these fossils is found. In the narrow (10 cm) layer that separates the two species, both species are found along with transitional forms. In other localiti es there is a sharp transition.
Gould and Eldredge, the authors of punctuated equilibria, interpret this in light of theories of allopatric speciation. They concluded that isolated populations of organisms will often speciate and then invade the range of their ancestral species. Th us at most locations that fossils are found, transition from one species to another will be abrupt. This abrupt change will reflect replacement by migration however, not evolution. In order to find the transitional fossils, the area of speciation must be found.
They also argue that evolution can proceed quickly in small populations so that the tempo of evolution is not continuous. This has lead to some confusion about the theory. Some popular accounts give the impression that abrupt changes in the fossil record are due to blindingly fast evolution; this is not what the theory of punctuated equilibria says.
Some PE proponents envision the theory as a hierarchical theory of evolution because they see speciation as analogous to mutation and the replacement of one species by another (which they call species selection) as analogous to natural selection. Speciation adds new species to the species pool just as mutation adds new alleles to the gene pool and species selection favours one species over another just as natural selection can favour one allele over another. This is the most controversial part o f the theory. Most biologists agree with the pattern of macroevolution these palaeontologists posit, but many disagree with the mechanism -- species selection. Critics would argue that species selection is not analogous to natural selection and there fore evolution is not hierarchical.
The theory of punctuated equilibrium was designed to replace the theory of phyletic gradualism (here, in and of itself, is a type-section instance of scientific nature of evolution: testing, re-analysis, re- interpretation and self-correction in action). Phyletic gradualists held that a species would slowly transform into another species over its entire range. Phyletic gradualism is often associated with the assumption of a uniform rate of evolution, but this need not be the case.
Although all this fact vs. theory exposition may seem a tad confusing, here's a concise binary clarification courtesy of Harvard's own Stephan Jay Gould:
"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 don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favour). In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent'. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasised the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution."
- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
3. is Science,
By definition, science (apart from being defined by definition) is:
* 1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.
* 1.b. Such activity restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
* 1.c. Such activity applied to any class of phenomena.
* 2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study.
* 3. An activity that requires study and methodological approach.
* 4. Knowledge, esp. knowledge gained through experience.
[ME, knowledge, learning < OFr. < Lat. scientia < sciens, pr.part. of scire, to know.]
By all aspects of the definition, evolution is science.
4. is also scientific,
Let's take a quick look at the scientific method and see just how evolution stacks up:
* * Empirical
They are based on actual experience. Evolution has been observed, in both the laboratory and the field.
1 for 1 so far.
* * Rational
It follows the rules of logic and is consistent with known facts. Evolutionary theories must be logical (or they are disposed of) and are consistent with, and modifiable by, the addition of new information.
2 for 2.
* * Testable
You can verify them by experimentation. It is possible to imagine ways that they prove to be invalid. Yes, indeed. See #'s 6 & 7 for further exposition on this topic.
3 for 3.
* * Parsimonious
They tend not to be complex, to involve fewer assumptions. By application of the Razor of Ockham, the 'principle of parsimony', or the 'KISS' principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid).
4 for 4.
* * General
They work for a relatively wide range of phenomena. Organic evolution unites biology (neontology), molecular biology, zoology, genetics, geology, paleontology, physical chemistry, physics, etc. I'd consider that a 'relatively wide range of phenomena'.
5 for 5.
* * Tentative
You are willing to give them up if they prove wrong. Has been done and continues to be done. Lamarkianism, Creationism (special, 'Scientific', Biblical, Qu'ranic, Talmudic, Vedic, or otherwise), and orthogenesis are examples of unsuccessful attempts to define and describe the diversity of life on Earth.
That's 6 for 6. A perfect score.
Therefore, evolution is addressable and able to be investigated by the scientific method; is internally consistent, physically evidenced, observable (either directly or through the fossil record), is self- testing and self-correcting.
As evolution is both fact and theory; evolution is both science and scientific.
5. is naturalistic and purely mechanistic,
Invokes no God(s) nor supernatural constructs in its explanations. It is constrained by the natural laws of chemistry and physics and does not proceed randomly. Further, evolution and evolutionary theories all contain exactly less than one mi racle and less than one God.
6. is falsifiable,
Evolution is scientific because it is falsifiable. Unlike creationism, where no test, no procedure, no gedankenexperiment, can be postulated to disprove the notion of special creation or a creator; which is a belief system based on faith. Evolution, on the other hand, being based entirely upon facts and evidence, and which makes statements derived from those facts, can be falsified. Viz.: find a fossilized skeleton of Homo sapiens in an undisturbed stratigraphic sequence at the same level as a Tyrannosaur.
Evolutionary theory maintains that: 1. Tyrannosaurs are extinct, 2. They existed in the Cretaceous period of the Mesozoic era and 3. Are never found in rocks younger than approximately 66.6 MY (million years) old. Evolutionary theory also holds that Homo sapiens is a relatively recent addition to the biological sphere (if you look at the history of life on Earth from a geological standpoint), is currently extant and whose remains are never found in sediments greater than approximately 4 MY. Therefore, if one were to be found in an undisturbed section cheek-by-jowl with a T. rex...
7. is testable,
That is, evolutionary theory can be given to 'what-if' scenarios. For instance, if I happen upon an environment (some may think this a frivolous notion; but not at all. In recent years life- bearing environments have been found that were previously thought to be antagonistic to life, i.e., deep-sea vents on the ocean ridges, which were found to be teeming with, admittedly unusual, life), I can propose the test of which organisms I would expect to find there. Conversely, given an organism (extant or extinct) and it's adaptations; I can, through evolutionary theory, deduce the environment to which it is best suited.
For instance, let's look at the fossil record. If I find the remains of an organism, let's say one with wings; I can put it to the test that it was a flying organism. But, if I find that the wings are heavily modified and the theoretically-flying creature's remains are always found with fossil fish fragments and cephalopod pens; and the geology of the depositional environments indicate a cold, polar fringing-marine environment; my test would have failed. Seems they winged creatures are m ore well adapted to a pelagic, nektonic, open marine lifestyle (at least for part of the time). I am forced to develop another hypothesis and test that (this time in favour of organisms that 'fly' through the water). The hallmark of science is it's testability, re-analysis, re-interpretation and self-correcting nature. (BTW, if you haven't already guessed, I was talking about Aptenodytes patigonica.)
8. is predictive,
Logical outcome of item 7. Organisms can be used to predict their environment and environments can be used to predict the type of organism that could best exploit that portion of ecological hyperspace.
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm
The Evolution Fact FAQ
by Dr. M. R. Leipzig
If one is to surf the web today and try and make some sort of sense of the bewildering array of information (running the Gardnerian gamut of 'good, bad and bogus') so easily available there; one can become quickly mired in the voluminous mainstream scientific and less-than-mainstream pseudoscientific terminology, arguments and contentions. As an attempt to hopefully help 'clear the muddied waters', level the playing field (I speak hopefully, although not terribly optimistically, that this can be accomplished without the use of explosives; verbal or otherwise) and turn some of the intensely emotive partisan friction of the Creation/Evolution issue into light, I offer the following:
What is Evolution? (and, more importantly, what is not evolution.)
Before we proceed, it is essential that we set a few ground rules and delimit exactly to what we are referring when we speak of evolution in the context of the evolution\creation conflict. Thus: by definition, evolution is: (1.) precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. This is the neontological (biological) definition.
Unfortunately, alleles themselves are rarely, if ever, preserved in the rock record as fossils; which are the key data units in the examination of the history of life on Earth. But, the expression of these alleles is preserved in the fossils of populations of organisms, which are readily available for examination. From this, it is readily apparent that (2.) life has developed (not 'progressed') from one or a small set of common ancestors as well as from 'simple' organisms to more 'complex' creatures over the span of geological time. This is one of the paleontological definitions of evolution.
Although already there may be some dissenters bristling over the relative merits of biological 'simplicity' or 'complexity'; I maintain that, in however a general or specific sense, a multicellular organism (say, a human, a blue whale, or a Velociraptor mongoliensis) is relatively more complex (systemically) than a unicellular blue-green alga; although I will concede that complexity is not a measure of a population of organisms success (viz.: bacteria and alga are much more voluminous and have been extant far longer than Homo sapiens), but is used here solely for purposes of differentiation between the neontological and paleontological concept of evolution.
Therefore, with these definitions in mind; evolution:
1. is a fact,
2. is also a number of theories,
3. is Science,
4. is also scientific,
5. is naturalistic and purely mechanistic,
6. is falsifiable,
7. is testable,
8. is predictive,
9. has been observed;
9a. in the field
9b. in the laboratory,
10. has occurred in the past,
11. is still occurring,
12. will continue to occur in the future.
Further, we can also note that evolution:
13. is not atheistic (nor Communistic, Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, etc.),
14. is not evil,
15. is not mandated by law to be taught in US public schools,
16. is not a cosmological theory (i.e., "it don't do origins"),
17. is not a religion nor Religion,
18. is not determined by popular opinion (as can be said of any science),
19. is not a socio-political program or paradigm,
20. is not dependent on the supernatural,
21. does not claim that "Man came from apes",
22. is not progress,
23. has not, will not and cannot be proven (as can be said of any science), 24. Is not random nor relies on 'blind chance',
25. does not violate the second law of thermodynamics,
26. Does not deny (a) God(s), and finally,
27. Falsifying evolution does not prove Creation.
That said, let us examine every claim in turn and in detail that evolution:
1. is a fact,
"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a FACT, not ("only a" - ed.) theory, and that what is at issue within biology are q estions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution.
It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organised multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms.
Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in moulding evolution."
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981).
Just as much as gravitation is a fact, is so evolution. It has been observed, in both the laboratory and the field, and through the evidence of the fossil record. It is not debated in mainstream science that evolution has occurred (and is still occurring); but it is the mode and tempo of evolution that is being debated.
2. is also a number of theories,
Even before the time of it's formal introduction to science by Darwin, there have been many differing and different theories advanced to explain the fact of organic evolution and the diversity of life on Earth. Some are over 100 years old, while others are quite recent innovations. Some have been discarded as erroneous, while others have, literally and figuratively, tons of evidence which support them.
A general listing of these theories include Darwinism (descent with modification by natural selection; and in and of itself a set of theories; i.e., 'Strict Darwinism', 'General Darwinism', etc.; and an 'umbrella' term sometimes used in other evolutionary theories as a basis, which is then modified), Lamarckianism ("inheritance of acquired characteristics"), saltationalism (evolution proceeding by major leaps or jumps), gradualism (slow, uniform accumulation of modifications), punctuated equilib rium (periods of stasis followed by brief, intense periods of speciation), phyletic gradualism (speciation occurs gradually over a species' entire range), orthogenesis (evolution that follows a single direction or specific trend continuously, "straight- line" evolution, often appearing to be independent of natural selection), creationism (a religious, non-scientific, pseudoscientific preconceived dogmatic construct), etc.
With the exception of creationism ('Scientific', Biblical or otherwise), the remainder are or were scientific theories. Orthogenesis, Lamarckianism, saltationalism (to a certain degree), and creationism have been largely been abandoned or supplanted by other theories or combination of theories. In fact, the union of molecular biology, genetics and natural selection (Darwinism) lead to what is known as the Modern Synthesis. That is, the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals.
One of the most recent, and generally least understood, theories of evolution is Punctuated equilibrium:
Some palaeontologists think evolution is a hierarchical process.
The theory of punctuated equilibria attempts to infer the process of macroevolution from the pattern of species documented in the fossil record. In the fossil record, transition from one species to another is usually abrupt in most geographic locales -- no transitional forms are found. In short, it appears that species remain unchanged for long stretches of time and then are quickly replaced by new species. However, if wide ranges are searched, transitional forms that bridge the gap between the two species are sometime found in small, localised areas.
For example, in Jurassic brachiopods of the genus Kutchithyris, K. acutiplicata appears below another species, K. euryptycha. Both species were common and covered a wide geographical area. They differ enough that some have argued they should be i n a different genera. In just one small locality an approximately 1.25m sedimentary layer with these fossils is found. In the narrow (10 cm) layer that separates the two species, both species are found along with transitional forms. In other localiti es there is a sharp transition.
Gould and Eldredge, the authors of punctuated equilibria, interpret this in light of theories of allopatric speciation. They concluded that isolated populations of organisms will often speciate and then invade the range of their ancestral species. Th us at most locations that fossils are found, transition from one species to another will be abrupt. This abrupt change will reflect replacement by migration however, not evolution. In order to find the transitional fossils, the area of speciation must be found.
They also argue that evolution can proceed quickly in small populations so that the tempo of evolution is not continuous. This has lead to some confusion about the theory. Some popular accounts give the impression that abrupt changes in the fossil record are due to blindingly fast evolution; this is not what the theory of punctuated equilibria says.
Some PE proponents envision the theory as a hierarchical theory of evolution because they see speciation as analogous to mutation and the replacement of one species by another (which they call species selection) as analogous to natural selection. Speciation adds new species to the species pool just as mutation adds new alleles to the gene pool and species selection favours one species over another just as natural selection can favour one allele over another. This is the most controversial part o f the theory. Most biologists agree with the pattern of macroevolution these palaeontologists posit, but many disagree with the mechanism -- species selection. Critics would argue that species selection is not analogous to natural selection and there fore evolution is not hierarchical.
The theory of punctuated equilibrium was designed to replace the theory of phyletic gradualism (here, in and of itself, is a type-section instance of scientific nature of evolution: testing, re-analysis, re- interpretation and self-correction in action). Phyletic gradualists held that a species would slowly transform into another species over its entire range. Phyletic gradualism is often associated with the assumption of a uniform rate of evolution, but this need not be the case.
Although all this fact vs. theory exposition may seem a tad confusing, here's a concise binary clarification courtesy of Harvard's own Stephan Jay Gould:
"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 don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favour). In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent'. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasised the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution."
- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
3. is Science,
By definition, science (apart from being defined by definition) is:
* 1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.
* 1.b. Such activity restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
* 1.c. Such activity applied to any class of phenomena.
* 2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study.
* 3. An activity that requires study and methodological approach.
* 4. Knowledge, esp. knowledge gained through experience.
[ME, knowledge, learning < OFr. < Lat. scientia < sciens, pr.part. of scire, to know.]
By all aspects of the definition, evolution is science.
4. is also scientific,
Let's take a quick look at the scientific method and see just how evolution stacks up:
* * Empirical
They are based on actual experience. Evolution has been observed, in both the laboratory and the field.
1 for 1 so far.
* * Rational
It follows the rules of logic and is consistent with known facts. Evolutionary theories must be logical (or they are disposed of) and are consistent with, and modifiable by, the addition of new information.
2 for 2.
* * Testable
You can verify them by experimentation. It is possible to imagine ways that they prove to be invalid. Yes, indeed. See #'s 6 & 7 for further exposition on this topic.
3 for 3.
* * Parsimonious
They tend not to be complex, to involve fewer assumptions. By application of the Razor of Ockham, the 'principle of parsimony', or the 'KISS' principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid).
4 for 4.
* * General
They work for a relatively wide range of phenomena. Organic evolution unites biology (neontology), molecular biology, zoology, genetics, geology, paleontology, physical chemistry, physics, etc. I'd consider that a 'relatively wide range of phenomena'.
5 for 5.
* * Tentative
You are willing to give them up if they prove wrong. Has been done and continues to be done. Lamarkianism, Creationism (special, 'Scientific', Biblical, Qu'ranic, Talmudic, Vedic, or otherwise), and orthogenesis are examples of unsuccessful attempts to define and describe the diversity of life on Earth.
That's 6 for 6. A perfect score.
Therefore, evolution is addressable and able to be investigated by the scientific method; is internally consistent, physically evidenced, observable (either directly or through the fossil record), is self- testing and self-correcting.
As evolution is both fact and theory; evolution is both science and scientific.
5. is naturalistic and purely mechanistic,
Invokes no God(s) nor supernatural constructs in its explanations. It is constrained by the natural laws of chemistry and physics and does not proceed randomly. Further, evolution and evolutionary theories all contain exactly less than one mi racle and less than one God.
6. is falsifiable,
Evolution is scientific because it is falsifiable. Unlike creationism, where no test, no procedure, no gedankenexperiment, can be postulated to disprove the notion of special creation or a creator; which is a belief system based on faith. Evolution, on the other hand, being based entirely upon facts and evidence, and which makes statements derived from those facts, can be falsified. Viz.: find a fossilized skeleton of Homo sapiens in an undisturbed stratigraphic sequence at the same level as a Tyrannosaur.
Evolutionary theory maintains that: 1. Tyrannosaurs are extinct, 2. They existed in the Cretaceous period of the Mesozoic era and 3. Are never found in rocks younger than approximately 66.6 MY (million years) old. Evolutionary theory also holds that Homo sapiens is a relatively recent addition to the biological sphere (if you look at the history of life on Earth from a geological standpoint), is currently extant and whose remains are never found in sediments greater than approximately 4 MY. Therefore, if one were to be found in an undisturbed section cheek-by-jowl with a T. rex...
7. is testable,
That is, evolutionary theory can be given to 'what-if' scenarios. For instance, if I happen upon an environment (some may think this a frivolous notion; but not at all. In recent years life- bearing environments have been found that were previously thought to be antagonistic to life, i.e., deep-sea vents on the ocean ridges, which were found to be teeming with, admittedly unusual, life), I can propose the test of which organisms I would expect to find there. Conversely, given an organism (extant or extinct) and it's adaptations; I can, through evolutionary theory, deduce the environment to which it is best suited.
For instance, let's look at the fossil record. If I find the remains of an organism, let's say one with wings; I can put it to the test that it was a flying organism. But, if I find that the wings are heavily modified and the theoretically-flying creature's remains are always found with fossil fish fragments and cephalopod pens; and the geology of the depositional environments indicate a cold, polar fringing-marine environment; my test would have failed. Seems they winged creatures are m ore well adapted to a pelagic, nektonic, open marine lifestyle (at least for part of the time). I am forced to develop another hypothesis and test that (this time in favour of organisms that 'fly' through the water). The hallmark of science is it's testability, re-analysis, re-interpretation and self-correcting nature. (BTW, if you haven't already guessed, I was talking about Aptenodytes patigonica.)
8. is predictive,
Logical outcome of item 7. Organisms can be used to predict their environment and environments can be used to predict the type of organism that could best exploit that portion of ecological hyperspace.
MT & RI !!!
You’re obviously forgetting the most fundamental axiom of modern mainstream Christianity: ‘if I can’t face reality, then it can’t possibly be true. Furthermore, if you present me with irrefutable evidence that it is true, I will fly into a state of hysterical denial. And if you persist in this threatening behavior after being repeatedly warned to stop, then that confers upon me the right to try to harm you’.
