Is Labeling Evolution as Just a Theory in Textbooks a Reasonable Approach?

[Monique]

For the really jaded, we only need to look back a few years and observe how staph has evolved to resist drug after drug. Stress a population of organisms, and watch them evolve to resist the stress. The "advantage" with observing micro-organisms is that you can see many, many generations of them on very short time-scales. Of course, this is the disadvantage, too, if you are trying to kill them off to prevent/cure infections.

To play the devil's advocate, there is a difference between micro- and macro-evolution (I've never seen a bacterium develop an eye ). This is usually an issue, people will acknowledge micro-evolution but can't grip macro-evolution.

 

[tim_lou]

hmm, in fact they should put a disclaimer in all non-physics book saying:

The book discusses things not directly related to physics. The usefulness of such topics is controversial, and most of them are just stamp collecting. These stamps must be considered with an open mind, studied carefully, and used appropriately when mailing a letter

the physics god will be pleased.

 

[The Dagda]

To play the devil's advocate, there is a difference between micro- and macro-evolution (I've never seen a bacterium develop an eye ). This is usually an issue, people will acknowledge micro-evolution but can't grip macro-evolution.

There are believed to be over 100,000 small changes that go into making an eye over millions of years, I'm pretty sure only computer models can really show how unbelievably complicated evolution is. That said even the average high school student can grasp this.

 

[OAQfirst]

Some bacteria are not only resistant now, but they need antibiotics to survive more effectively. Isn't nature wonderfully persistent, blind and directionless but tenacious.

That's interesting. Do you have any sources for this? All I'm finding are articles: "antibiotic resistant."

 

[The Dagda]

That's interesting. Do you have any sources for this? All I'm finding are articles: "antibiotic resistant."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13587-soil-ultrabugs-thrive-on-a-diet-of-antibiotics.html

Soil 'ultra-bugs' thrive on a diet of antibiotics

Call them the "ultra-bugs" - bacteria that are not merely resistant to antibiotics, but feed on them. They lurk in dirt from parks, farms and gardens. While the ultra-bugs don't normally cause disease, researchers are concerned the bacteria might pass drug resistance onto their deadly kin.

Unlike antibiotic-resistant bacteria, such as MRSA and XDR tuberculosis, which grow on other food in the presence of the drugs, the soil bacteria can subsist on a diet of antibiotics alone. The ability is akin to a person thriving on a diet of snake venom.

While hunting for soil bacteria that can turn plant waste to biofuels, a team of microbiologists led by George Church of Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, decided to grow soil samples in pure antibiotics as a control.

"We expected not to find a lot of bacteria that could eat antibiotics for breakfast," says Church. "We were kind of surprised."
Multiple resistance

To make sure the discovery was not a fluke, his team collected more dirt from farms, forests and parks around the northeast United States and Minnesota. All the soil samples contained bacteria that can survive on antibiotics, and many subsisted on multiple drugs, he says.

Not only could the soil bacteria live on older antibiotics that many bacteria have developed resistance to, such as penicillin, but they could digest modern-day silver bullets as well, including ciprofloxacin.

Many of the bacteria were found to be impervious to the bulk of antibiotics, although they often could not grow without alternative food sources. "They are resistant to virtually all antibiotics," says microbiologist Morten Sommer, also at Harvard. Among 75 strains the team tested, half were resistant to clinical doses of 17 of 18 antibiotics.

That trait is particularly worrisome, says Sommer. Though none of the bacteria normally cause human disease, many are close relatives of pathogenic strains...

 

[OAQfirst]

Sadly only those by subscription I'm afraid.

Yeah? Can you tell me what journal or study, please? The issue date? I'd really like to read more about this.

 

[OAQfirst]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13587-soil-ultrabugs-thrive-on-a-diet-of-antibiotics.html

Okay, but I didn't see anything about bacteria needing antibiotics to survive more efficiently, or needing anything really. Did I miss it?

EDIT: "Many of the bacteria were found to be impervious to the bulk of antibiotics, although they often could not grow without alternative food sources"

 

[humanino]

For those of you interested in the evidence we have for evolution, here are http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf", published by Nature

Thanks for this great link !
What is Darwin holding in his left hand on the last page ?

 

[The Dagda]

Okay, but I didn't see anything about bacteria needing antibiotics to survive more efficiently, or needing anything really. Did I miss it?

EDIT: "Many of the bacteria were found to be impervious to the bulk of antibiotics, although they often could not grow without alternative food sources"

Given that there are few food sources, antibiotics might be just enough to keep them going. Ok I probably phrased it ambiguously, my bad, but it is interesting that they can make do on antibiotics as well as other food sources.

 

[russ_watters]

To play the devil's advocate, there is a difference between micro- and macro-evolution (I've never seen a bacterium develop an eye ). This is usually an issue, people will acknowledge micro-evolution but can't grip macro-evolution.

Define "macro evolution". If speciation is enough, here are several dozen examples where it was directly observed (even created!): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[Gokul43201]

(to humanino) A sponge?

 

[humanino]

(to humanino) A sponge?

Is it to wash what may fall from the bird on the top of his head ?

Sorry

 

[chemisttree]

The "tree of life" (that shows the relationship between species) is not a theory, it is a graph of observed data.

The "Tree of Life" was originally http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html". It was as important as the tenent of natural selection.

The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened.

Moving from the outer branches of that tree inward toward the trunk implied common ancestry at some time in the past. This view of evolution is changing (evolving?) and is regarded by many in the field as incorrect.

So, the "tree of life" is a theory and it is one that is being discarded as useless by the experts.

Yesterday in Texas the requirement that teachers discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution was removed. This means that in Texas the "theory of evolution", like the theory of AGW, is treated like the "Law of Evolution".

Further discussion is meaningless.

 

[mgb_phys]

interesting that they can make do on antibiotics as well as other food sources.

I think bacteria can thrive on just about anything that has chemical energy in it somewhere - I for one welcome our old bacteria overlords !

 

[Monique]

Define "macro evolution". If speciation is enough, here are several dozen examples where it was directly observed (even created!): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Macro-evolution may be a controversial term. What I mean is the evolution of a complex system: the fact that you need each component for the system to work, so how can such a system be created without every component being in place (the eye as an example).

It is an argument often used by creationists, they acknowledge that genes can mutate and be selected, but refute that mutations will lead to complex machinery. In fact, it is something that amazes me on a daily basis. It is definitely not something to be taken for granted.

 

[Monique]

Thanks for this great link !
What is Darwin holding in his left hand on the last page ?

As Gokul said, it is indeed a sea sponge (likely the first multicellular animal that evolved).

 

[LowlyPion]

Are they going to put a sticker for

a^2 + b^2 = c^2? "It's only a theorem."

But LaTex is working when I put a return before the passage.

 

[PhysicsILike]

Only in america

 

[NeoDevin]

Macro-evolution may be a controversial term.

Macro-evolution was a term coined by creationists to deceive people into thinking there was more of a difference between large and small changes than time/scale. By coining the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution", they managed to convince large numbers of people that there are fundamental differences between "micro-evolution" (which is harder to refute, because there is simply so much evidence, and so many observed instances), and "macro-evolution" (which there is also lots of evidence and observations showing, but which lay-people have not necessarily heard of), when the only difference is that what they call "macro-evolution" is accumulations of what they call "micro-evolution". It is only controversial because it was invented to deceive people.

the fact that you need each component for the system to work, so how can such a system be created without every component being in place (the eye as an example).

Irreducible complexity (a given system is irreducibly complex if the rest of the system is completely useless without anyone of it's components) has never been shown to exist in nature. The eye is easy to reduce, here's an example of how it could have evolved (I'm no biologist, so I don't know off hand how it actually happened, this is off the top of my head)

1. Light sensitive cells evolve at various locations on the organism.
2. These cells cluster in 2 locations, allowing limited stereoscopic vision (2 is the minimum required for stereoscopic vision, and is probably more efficient than 3+), the ability to distinguish distances.
3. A clear protective cover forms, which protects these cells from damage.
4. Fluid fills the space between the clear cover and the light-sensitive cells, allowing better focusing.
5. The cover thickens forming a lens.
6. An iris forms, controlling the amount of light let in, to allow vision in variable light conditions.

4, 5, and 6 could probably happen in any order, or simultaneously, or 6 could even happen before 3. Instead of 1 and 2, the light sensitive cells could have initially formed in a single spot and then split.

In fact, about the only part of an eye which you cannot "remove" and still have something better than no eye, is the retina (the light sensitive cells). I put "remove" in quotes, because obviously if you remove any of the parts of an eye as it exists today, the organism will be blinded (co-dependence from evolution), what I mean is not the physical removal from an eye, but a more primitive eye, lacking one or more of the parts of the "modern" eye.

 

[mgb_phys]

The other point about the evolution of the eye is that it's a crap design.
The wiring to the retina is in front of the sensitive surface and has to go back through it to get to the brain.
If it was designed by God then it must have been on the same day that she did testicles.

 

[NeoDevin]

The other point about the evolution of the eye is that it's a crap design.
The wiring to the retina is in front of the sensitive surface and has to go back through it to get to the brain.
If it was designed by God then it must have been on the same day that she did testicles.

There is that, if someone claims that god designed the eye, and that (s)he couldn't have come up with a better design, then they seem to be claiming that god is an incompetent designer.

 

[tribdog]

I think trilobite eyes were simply light sensitive calcite rods. In case anyone wants a starting point for eye evolution.

 

[lurflurf]

There is that, if someone claims that god designed the eye, and that (s)he couldn't have come up with a better design, then they seem to be claiming that god is an incompetent designer.

Someone has been sleeping in their creationist meetings and reading their king james bible wrong. The correct way to read the bible is to ignore most everything, except for th most crazy parts and the parts about dragons and unicorns. Next read some parts to mean what they clearly do not mean. Upon doing so and witsome added praying one arrives at a correct creationist solution. G*d with his ghost helper self and son self created the eye to be the best eye that could possibly be 6k years ago. Unfortunately free will is somewhat important (though not important enough to get evangilist to leave you alone early in the morning) so people (with the help of the devil) do bad thing. Doing bad things causes you eyes (and other parts) to deteriorate. In the 6k years since creation our ancestors caused our eyes to worsen from perfect to their current sorry state, also our life has been shortened from infinity to a thosand years to a hundred years. Before long we will be blind with a life of 2 years.

 

[The Dagda]

I think bacteria can thrive on just about anything that has chemical energy in it somewhere - I for one welcome our old bacteria overlords !

From superbug to supreme rulers of Earth, it seemed inevitable really. Now all they have to do is develop a functioning governmental structure and they are in. Well they probably couldn't mess it up worse than Bush. Hail Streptocochius Maximus Emperor of the World!

Ironically the eye issue, now some 200 years old was cleared up in the mid part of the 20th century if not sooner. But then Creationists do live in the past. Those cutting edge creationists now have moved onto the flagellum of some few celled organisms, which was explained about 5 years ago.

Here's a diagram for the educationally challenged creationist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg

In creationism and intelligent design

The eye is often used by creationists as an example of an organ which is irreducibly complex and so must have been created by a divine creator.[26][27]

The concept of irreducible complexity has been criticised as being an argument from ignorance.[28] If a particular author cannot imagine a way in which the eye evolved, this does not have any bearing upon whether or not the eye actually did evolve.

The available scientific evidence, both fossil and genetic, demonstrates that the complex eyes seen in modern species evolved from much simpler forms over millions of years. Furthermore, since eyes spanning the full range of complexity are found in species alive today, this erodes the notion of irreducible complexity as it applies to the eye.[20]

 

[phyzmatix]

To play the devil's advocate, there is a difference between micro- and macro-evolution (I've never seen a bacterium develop an eye ). This is usually an issue, people will acknowledge micro-evolution but can't grip macro-evolution.

Define "macro evolution". If speciation is enough, here are several dozen examples where it was directly observed (even created!): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Macro-evolution may be a controversial term. What I mean is the evolution of a complex system: the fact that you need each component for the system to work, so how can such a system be created without every component being in place (the eye as an example).

It is an argument often used by creationists, they acknowledge that genes can mutate and be selected, but refute that mutations will lead to complex machinery. In fact, it is something that amazes me on a daily basis. It is definitely not something to be taken for granted.

I know someone (fervent Christian) with a Master's degree in Zoology who doesn't believe in evolution as a theory applicable to the whole, but only in the bits they wish to accept as possible. So basically they're willing to accept that evolution exists, just not that it affects EVERYTHING including the human species. A favourite quote of theirs (it is truly cringeworthy) is along the following lines:

"My great, great, great, great, great-grandfather definitely wasn't a bowl of soup."

You can apply as much logic and reason in the arguments against such ridiculous beliefs as you wish, but the very nature of the argument you are refuting is also the reason why you'll almost always fail to convince the other party that their idea is preposterous. It is a "belief argument". Based on nothing other than the believer's personal intent to have it be so no matter what. Logic and reason has nothing to do with it.

For people like ourselves, it is an exercise in futility and I believe a waste of breath to challenge these archaic minds in debate.

 

[russ_watters]

Irreducible complexity (a given system is irreducibly complex if the rest of the system is completely useless without anyone of it's components) has never been shown to exist in nature. The eye is easy to reduce, here's an example of how it could have evolved (I'm no biologist, so I don't know off hand how it actually happened, this is off the top of my head)

I've read "Darwin's Black Box" and perhaps the funniest thing about it is after the author goes through the trouble of explaining irreducable complexity, he goes on to describe in some detail how the eye actually did evolve (similar to your description), easily refuting his own argument. It was very odd.

 

[hokie1]

The challenge in evolution is to understand the sequence of changes. Knowing the transitions leads to the answers of questions such as:

1. What good is a partial wing that won't fly?
2. What good is a limb that won't support a body?

The answers to these questions suggest that a wing may not have started out as a means of flying. The evolution of life has not been done with purposeful design. That was the notion of Lamark.

Claims of Irreducible complexity suppose that evolution has proceeded to produce a limb from no limb or an eye from no eye. It is unlikely that the evolutionary path was direct. It certainly is not purposeful.

 

[Gokul43201]

So they've given up on the bacterial flagellar motor, have they?

 

[NeoDevin]

So they've given up on the bacterial flagellar motor, have they?

It was shown that missing a few pieces it is a secretion system some bacteria use to inject toxins into cells.

Edit: Interesting, I just read on wikipedia that the secretion system likely evolved from the flagellum...

 

[Gokul43201]

It was shown that missing a few pieces it is a secretion system some bacteria use to inject toxins into cells.

Edit: Interesting, I just read on wikipedia that the secretion system likely evolved from the flagellum...

Wait, that doesn't sound right - from the little bit that I've read/seen the flagellar motor looks way more complex than the poison shooter.

 

[NeoDevin]

Wait, that doesn't sound right - from the little bit that I've read/seen the flagellar motor looks way more complex than the poison shooter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella#The_bacterial_flagellum

I'm not saying it's true, just that I read it on wiki.

 

[Gokul43201]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella#The_bacterial_flagellum

I'm not saying it's true, just that I read it on wiki.

Hmmm. So that somewhat weakens the case for the flagellar motor having evolved from a more primitive organelle. Interesting.

 

[LowlyPion]

I think trilobite eyes were simply light sensitive calcite rods. In case anyone wants a starting point for eye evolution.

I recall a show about jellyfish that have primitive receptor areas around their skirt and no apparent primitive brain to coordinate them all, but manages still to learn to navigate to and among the mangrove roots to seek out its meals.

Here is an article that a quick search pulls up:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17913669/

 

[mgb_phys]

The eye is that it shows up a common mistake, that evolution was aiming at us.
People ask what use is a half-formed eye - you have got a half formed eye!
It can't zoom, it's crap at night, it doesn't do UV or IR, can't detect polarisation.
But it's still worth opening them occasionally.

 

[hokie1]

The flagellum has been presented in an inaccurate manner by Creationists to further their cause.

"In fact the images that Behe, Dembski, and their ID colleagues show are often not pictures of real flagella. Some of them are just products of an artist’s imagination (Figure 1); others are computer-generated images of imaginary machine-like contraptions. The schematics like that in Figure 2, while reflecting many actual features of flagella, are products of a modeling approximation which likewise can’t pretend to reflect adequately the actual structure of a tiny organelle."

The often shown photo of the flagellum is in fact not a single photograph, but the superposition of multiple photographs. It represents an ideal and not an actual flagellum. In fact, the structure is misleading due to the relatively low resolution the image. Better resolution images of many flagellum show that the structure is not machine like, is not a piece of engineering, but a typical biological structure of faults and twisted together proteins.

 

[vivesdn]

Evolution is not just a theory. I've played with it on a petri dish.
You let grow some bacteria on a petri dish, where the only source of nutrients is whatever you want. With some time and help on mutagenic agents you'll get one cell that manages to survive. The key point is increase the pressure (limit standard nutrients, increase non-natural nutrient) smoothly.
Lot of products, including antibiotics and vitamin C are produced by bacterial strains obtained using the evolution.

Of course, on bigger living organisms it takes longer, but a classical experiment was performed with snails to show it.

There is a strong molecular biology basis for evolution.

Another question is if there is a god that instead of creating species, it created an environment and is looking how his experiment evolves.

 

[NeoDevin]

hokie1, Please cite the sources of your quotes: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-08-20.html

 

[hokie1]

I did not know the URL. Should have written it.

 

[baywax]

The eye is that it shows up a common mistake that evolution was aiming at us.
People ask what use is a half-formed eye, you have got a half formed eye!
It can't zoom, it's crap at night, it doesn't do UV or IR, can't detect polarisation.
But it's still worth opening them occasionally.

The human eye has evolved to become 50% reproductive organ. (Like you said same day as testicles).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You can apply as much logic and reason in the arguments against such ridiculous beliefs as you wish, but the very nature of the argument you are refuting is also the reason why you'll almost always fail to convince the other party that their idea is preposterous. It is a "belief argument". Based on nothing other than the believer's personal intent to have it be so no matter what. Logic and reason has nothing to do with it.

What's more, the accepted definitions of God allow that all of science could be a cosmic hoax. If one accepts the notion of omnipotence, the rest is a no-brainer [pun intended].

However, to be fair, I am a bit perplexed by the number of educated people who can't seem to grasp that notion. The definitions of God effectively exclude loss of the argument through logic. But what really confuses me are religious people who try to argue against the science. In many ways they betray their own beliefs - that God is capable of fooling everyone, or that he allows Satan to do so.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The other motivation for ignoring the science is the idea that life is a test of faith. Many religions teach that our very reason for existing is so that each of us can make a choice. Evolution theory and science in general can be viewed as just another part of the test. So yes, it is pointless to argue these issues with someone who has based their life on faith and who takes the bible literally. You will only be seen as another part of the test. Ironically, you may even strengthen their faith by trying to argue the point - make one mistake and it will be seen as proof that you are wrong. And even if you never make a mistake, without a common frame of reference, your arguments will not be seen as compelling. They will be taken as nothing but a bunch of double-talk and mumbo jumbo.

Of course, many [most?] believers do accept the validity of science.

 

[wolram]

This may be a naive question, but do we actually see evolution on a cellular scale, i mean do we see cells with advantageous adaptions, is radiation a factor.

 

[mgb_phys]

The other motivation for ignoring the science is the idea that life is a test of faith. Many religions teach that our very reason for existing is so that each of us can make a choice. Evolution theory and science in general can be viewed as just another part of the test. So yes, it is pointless to argue these issues with someone who has based their life on faith and who takes the bible literally. You will only be seen as another part of the test.

And don't mention the Babel Fish to them

 

[mgb_phys]

This may be a naive question, but do we actually see evolution on a cellular scale, i mean do we see cells with advantageous adaptions, is radiation a factor.

Yes - just go to a hospital and you will meet lots of bacteria cells that have evolved recently

 

[wolram]

I should have asked , do we see individual cells clumping together to form a better organism,
what is the simplest multi cellular organism, do we see adventagous adaptations?

 

[Hurkyl]

The other motivation for ignoring the science is the idea that life is a test of faith.

I'm not really convinced that's the actual motiviation, as opposed to simply being an symptom of some other motiviation (e.g. peer pressure, or a desire to rationalize something) It would be interesting to know if these examples really are different than other examples of anti-intellectualism, though I suppose that would be beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[The Dagda]

The motivations are complex, on one hand they are looking at something with fear and animosity that attacks, as they see it, their faith in the inerrancy of The Bible. And on the other there is a need to evangelise their position. There is in some a genuine concern that if you do not accept their version of the faith you are going to hell; when motivated by such considerations, those who genuinely believe are certain that you are wrong, and will only come to a rational conclusion by themselves when exposed to rational concerns. There are of course social pressures as well, many people are exposed to little in the way of education, or are told that that education is false. When most everyone around you in your social community is sure science is wrong, and that's all you've ever been exposed to, it can be really difficult to get out of what is a form of brainwashing.

 

[Monique]

I've had to supervise a student who by religion did not accept evolution, it was a strange experience. In developmental biology you are using model organisms and continually are looking at the conservation of proteins and their functions. According to the student we would all go to hell, because we did not believe in a god. A colleague commented, I rather go to hell than to heaven, at least I'll know all my friends will be there

 

[The Dagda]

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.

Mark Twain.

 

[tim_lou]

Hell is awesome! all the intense heat and energy... the ideal place to study high energy physics (or plasma physics)! you don't even need an accelerator!