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

[Gokul43201]

If aliens landed at the White House and explained they traveled a great distance and have been watching our planet and our development for a long time and that their civilization was millions of years old. Then they further described their belief in God based on BELIEF ONLY...no proof...would you question their belief?

I wouldn't question it. I would reject it as claptrap. They can perform technological wonders that amaze me; but it wouldn't change my opinion about their god.

 

[vivesdn]

Would they have an inherent greater level of creditability or would they be asked for proof of their BELIEFS?

The most strange, irrational beliefs can appear on the most lucid brains. Belief is for sure formed on a completely different brain area than that where questions are created and answered. And, of course, this has been enhanced by evolution as beliefs allow a group of people to feel part of it, who, as a group, will have advantage over individuals not belonging to any group.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't need faith to feel an electrical shock. Or are you suggesting that God is manipulating my voltmeter? If God is a trickster, that could be true.

We come up with theories to explain observations. But I don't need a theory to make an observation.

Some people feel better when they pray...or when they silently help someone else.

Radical elements excluded...not talking about extremism of ANY type...don't rebut with an extremist example.

Most religions provide a frame work for good behavior...if they also allow people to feel good and productive and provide benefits to others...I don't think a meter is required to measure that type of "good" either.

 

[WhoWee]

The most strange, irrational beliefs can appear on the most lucid brains. Belief is for sure formed on a completely different brain area than that where questions are created and answered. And, of course, this has been enhanced by evolution as beliefs allow a group of people to feel part of it, who, as a group, will have advantage over individuals not belonging to any group.

Even if the BELIEF was passed on for millions of years? I'll make a note not to debate with you.

 

[WhoWee]

I wouldn't question it. I would reject it as claptrap. They can perform technological wonders that amaze me; but it wouldn't change my opinion about their god.

What kind of proof WOULD you require?

 

[Gokul43201]

What kind of proof WOULD you require?

Anything based on a system that can succeed (at explaining how things work) at least as well as the scientific method we have on earth.

 

[Gokul43201]

Some people feel better when they pray...or when they silently help someone else.

I would go further and say that virtually all people that believe in a god that answers prayers feel better when they pray, and virtually all people that believe in the virtue of helping others (whether that belief arise out of religious acceptance or some form of empirically based reasoning) will feel better after helping someone. This needs no invocation of supernatural phenomena to explain (not saying that you did, either).

What is more interesting is that people that pray regularly appear to be more healthy (will dig for citation upon request) than those who don't. Part of this is explained by the social network provided by religious organizations like churches (many of which participate actively in health issues, provide periodic medical tests, etc.) but a significant part is associated with a placebo-like psychosomatic effect associated directly with accepting ideas of a benevolent god. This portion of the effect is strong enough that believers in a punitive god have been measured with poorer health than believers in a forgiving god (again, will look for citation in spare time, probably over the weekend).

 

[Moridin]

As for evolution, I wouldn't say that it's proven, so it is only a theory right? A theory becomes fact when it's 100% proven. The fact is that evolution is not 100% proven. No one knows where man came from. (Last time I checked, some company in the UK would pay you $250,000 if you found out). There are other oddities in nature that don't make sense either. For it to be banned in a school is a bit extreme though.

A scientific theory is not guesswork. It is precisely defined as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses"[1]. If by "proven", you mean "there exists a massive amount of conclusive evidence for the fact of evolution", then evolution is indeed "proven".

We do know where humans come from, they share a common ancestor with all life on earth[2]. Note that according to religious scientists such as Kenneth Miller, this is entirely compatible with a religious world view[3][4].

[1] http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2
[2] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
[3]
[4]

 

[hokie1]

I would offer that there is a difference between evolution and Dawinism or other evolutionary theory.

Evolution is a fact. It is an observation that all life appears to be related, uses similar mechanisms, ...

Darwinism is a theory to explain these facts. Did evolution happen? Yes. Once there were no fishes in the ocean and today there are. Once there were no mammals or birds and today there are. Where did they come from? Darwin proposed a theory. Lamarck proposed a theory. Gould proposed a theory. Which theory appears to work the best? Most scientists would say Darwin's.

As Moridin so properly stated it, "A scientific theory is not guesswork."

 

[w3390]

An excellent book on the subject is Philip Kitcher's Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism.

 

[WhoWee]

I would offer that there is a difference between evolution and Dawinism or other evolutionary theory.

Evolution is a fact. It is an observation that all life appears to be related, uses similar mechanisms, ...

Darwinism is a theory to explain these facts. Did evolution happen? Yes. Once there were no fishes in the ocean and today there are. Once there were no mammals or birds and today there are. Where did they come from? Darwin proposed a theory. Lamarck proposed a theory. Gould proposed a theory. Which theory appears to work the best? Most scientists would say Darwin's.

As Moridin so properly stated it, "A scientific theory is not guesswork."

Again, you can prove life is related, but you can't prove WHERE it came from...the possibility that some "being" "stocked the pond" is not impossible.

 

[Moridin]

Again, you can prove life is related, but you can't prove WHERE it came from...the possibility that some "being" "stocked the pond" is not impossible.

Evolution is about the diversity of life, not about its formation or origin. That is the field of abiogenesis. It could very well be the case that insane space coffee mugs created life, evolution and universal common descent would still stand firm because of its supporting evidence[1].

[1] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Gokul43201]

Again, you can prove life is related, but you can't prove WHERE it came from...

Sounds like you are talking about abiogenesis, rather than evolution. Nevertheless, there is no reason that abiogenesis be fundamentally unprovable (accepting the loose usage whereby other things in science are provable). Nor should "stocked-the-pond-genesis" be.

the possibility that some "being" "stocked the pond" is not impossible.

Nor is it impossible that all things on Earth are being held down by invisible elastic bands fastened by pixies and fairies. But that is not considered a good reason to reject current theories of gravity.

 

[WhoWee]

Sounds like you are talking about abiogenesis, rather than evolution. Nevertheless, there is no reason that abiogenesis be fundamentally unprovable (accepting the loose usage whereby other things in science are provable). Nor should "stocked-the-pond-genesis" be.

Nor is it impossible that all things on Earth are being held down by invisible elastic bands fastened by pixies and fairies. But that is not considered a good reason to reject current theories of gravity.

Have millions of people over a few thousand years passed down stories of invisible elastic bands fastened by pixies and fairies? Is there a best seller on this topic?

It's easy to say "you have no proof" and dismiss something you are uncomfortable with...because you don't have an answer...by making lite of it or the person presenting the argument.

However, millions of people, from multiple religions, have believed in something similar for a long time. Until you can absolutely prove your opinion...keep an open mind...it's less stressful.

I don't have an agenda...all I'm asking is for everyone to be fair and consider all realistically possible explanations...it's very possible that "the elements of life" fell from the sky.

There is no reason to believe that Earth is where all life began.

 

[Moridin]

Ah the classic "lots of people believe in it and have done so through the ages, so it must be true" argument. That statement contains two formal fallacies called "argument from popularity" and "arguments from tradition". A lot of people have believed that witches and demons cause disease, does this mean that bacteria, viruses and parasites do not exist? According to your logic, yes.

There is absolutely no reason to consider positions or hold positions as valid if it cannot be backed up by any theory or research. As always, there is a difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head from which your brain falls out.

 

[WhoWee]

Ah the classic "lots of people believe in it and have done so through the ages, so it must be true" argument. That statement contains two formal fallacies called "argument from popularity" and "arguments from tradition". A lot of people have believed that witches and demons cause disease, does this mean that bacteria, viruses and parasites do not exist? According to your logic, yes.

There is absolutely no reason to consider positions or hold positions as valid if it cannot be backed up by any theory or research. As always, there is a difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head from which your brain falls out.

Why are we looking for life in space?

Are we looking for a cure for brains falling out of holes in heads...or answers to things we can't explain?

 

[Moridin]

Why are we looking for life in space?

Are we looking for a cure for brains falling out of holes in heads...or answers to things we can't explain?

I noticed that your reply did not attempt to refute or address any of the arguments I made. Would you be so kind as to address them? Thank you.

 

[Gokul43201]

Have millions of people over a few thousand years passed down stories of invisible elastic bands fastened by pixies and fairies? Is there a best seller on this topic?

I guess I must have also missed the Pond Stocking thriller! Would you like me to base my judgment of Global Climate trends on the box office returns of Al Gore's movie?

It's easy to say "you have no proof" and dismiss something you are uncomfortable with...

It has nothing to do with comfort and everything to with rationale.

because you don't have an answer...by making lite of it or the person presenting the argument.

And when I don't have an answer, I will admit that I don't have the answer rather than seek comfort under the nearest story of refuge.

However, millions of people, from multiple religions, have believed in something similar for a long time.

Millions of people believed that diseases were spontaneously generated and most attributed supernatural causes and remedies to them. That only changed significantly around the mid-to-late 19th century. Heck, millions of people still believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. There are dozens of myths, superstitions and other common but unsubstantiated (or even thoroughly debunked) beliefs that are still held by millions and millions of people.

Until you can absolutely prove your opinion...

In science, you can not "absolutely prove" anything.

keep an open mind...

I do keep an open mind ... to any ideas that can be tested by the scientific method. And if a well established idea fails to support new data, I will be ready to reject its validity within the new regime of relevance. If I were a strictly religious person, however, there is no scope for me to be open minded to the possibility that everything I've been told may turn out to be wrong.

it's less stressful.

I guess it probably is.

I don't have an agenda...all I'm asking is for everyone to be fair and consider all realistically possible explanations...it's very possible that "the elements of life" fell from the sky.

It's not for the layman to go about considering or passing judgments on these things. We leave that to the experts.

There is no reason to believe that Earth is where all life began.

Even the experts do not claim that Earth is where all life began.

PS: I'm slow. I now see that Moridin made similar points a couple of posts ago.

 

[WhoWee]

I noticed that your reply did not attempt to refute or address any of the arguments I made. Would you be so kind as to address them? Thank you.

My response was for GoKul and his pixies. I don't believe that if enough people believe something it must be true.

However, many people think there is other life in the Universe and still more believe in a superior being...not of this planet. I choose not to dismiss them as having holes in their heads.

Until someone can PROVE that God, and aliens and other life in the Universe DOES NOT exist...the discussion will continue...like it or not.

 

[Gokul43201]

My response was for GoKul and his pixies.

But you responded to my pixie argument by arguing on the basis of popularity. Besides, if you took my pixie argument literally as the only possible alternative to gravity, rather than to represent a whole host of "not impossible" options, then let me assure you now that I did not intend the former interpreatation.

Until someone can PROVE that God, and aliens and other life in the Universe DOES NOT exist...

The thread is not about the existence of a god. It is about the theory of evolution. And while they are related, one can easily discuss the latter without any need to address the former. And writing the word 'prove' in caps does not help your argument, especially since the existence of gods or aliens or any other life outside Earth does not invalidate the theory of evolution of life on earth.

 

[WhoWee]

But you responded to my pixie argument by arguing on the basis of popularity. Besides, if you took my pixie argument literally as the only possible alternative to gravity, rather than to represent a whole host of "not impossible" options, then let me assure you now that I did not intend the former interpreatation.

The thread is not about the existence of a god. It is about the theory of evolution. And while they are related, one can easily discuss the latter without any need to address the former. And writing the word 'prove' in caps does not help your argument, especially since the existence of gods or aliens or any other life outside Earth does not invalidate the theory of evolution of life on earth.

Again, we don't know WHERE life came from...just that it's all related. The possibility that life came here from somewhere else can not be ruled out based on the fact now available.

 

[Gokul43201]

Again, we don't know WHERE life came from...just that it's all related. The possibility that life came here from somewhere else can not be ruled out based on the fact now available.

And in fact, that is one of the possibilities considered for the beginnings of life on earth. Still, nothing about it invalidates the theory of evolution. And to repeat this for the n'th time now, you are questioning abiogenesis, not evolution.

PS: We know a lot more than "just that it's all related". What do you mean by that anyway?

 

[WhoWee]

And in fact, that is one of the possibilities considered for the beginnings of life on earth. Still, nothing about it invalidates the theory of evolution. And to repeat this for the n'th time now, you are questioning abiogenesis, not evolution.

PS: We know a lot more than "just that it's all related". What do you mean by that anyway?

Common characteristics...that's all.

Again, I got into this discussion with a silly post...not an agenda:

This discussion only encourages me to write that book I keep threatening..."I Believe, Yet Darwin Was Right".

Basically, God is an alien (not FROM this planet) and man (original aliens) came here from somewhere else (don't know where - far, far away). At some point breeding with monkeys happened (maybe became necessary) and the rest is in our textbooks...starting to sound like a best seller?

This argument allows EVERYONE to be a little bit right and nobody is 100% wrong...again, starting to sound good?

 

[russ_watters]

Part of the divine plan that we aren't supposed to understand.

Yes, which I guess is ok, since the ID/creationism argument reduces to 'god is screwing with us'.

 

[Gokul43201]

Common characteristics...that's all.

Again, it's not clear what you mean by that, but we know a whole lot more than just that A and B shared some common characteristics.

 

[BoomBoom]

Why is there an apparent trend to transition from lower life forms to higher life forms instead of speciation of lower life forms without ever producing a higher life form?

I would love to hear what your definition of "lower" and "higher" life forms is.

Adaptation and speciation that result in a physiological changes occur usually when a species' environmental conditions change. So whatever your definition of "lower" or "higher" life forms is, if a species always trends to be better suited to the environment in which it lives, then isn't that always going to be a trend to a "higher" life form?

So the last part, "speciation of lower life forms without ever producing a higher life form", makes no sense to me.

 

[rcgldr]

I would love to hear what your definition of "lower" and "higher" life forms is.

More cells per individual? More complexity? Intelligience versus simplicity or redudancy or tolerance to a range of environments?

if a species always trends to be better suited to the environment in which it lives, then isn't that always going to be a trend to a "higher" life form?

I would assume "higher" life forms are more sensitive to the environment than "lower" life forms, so it would seem that "lower" life forms would be better suited over a larger range of environments.

So the last part, "speciation of lower life forms without ever producing a higher life form", makes no sense to me.

Increasing the variety of lower life forms without ever creating a higher life form.

 

[Gokul43201]

I would assume "higher" life forms are more sensitive to the environment than "lower" life forms, so it would seem that "lower" life forms would be better suited over a larger range of environments.

Why do you assume that? I know very little about the field, so I ask.

 

[rcgldr]

I would assume "higher" life forms are more sensitive to the environment than "lower" life forms, so it would seem that "lower" life forms would be better suited over a larger range of environments.

Why do you assume that? I know very little about the field, so I ask.

My assumption is based on a few examples, not general knowledge of the suubject. Bacteria can survive in a broader range of enviroments than mammals. Insects can tolerate much more radiation than mammals.

 

[Gokul43201]

But those are the bacteria and insects that have survived till today. Perhaps there have been many more bacteria that died out along the way, giving rise to more sturdy organisms. I would expect those bacteria that have survived the last couple billion or so years to have evolved high resistance to environmental factors.

 

[rcgldr]

But those are the bacteria and insects that have survived till today. Perhaps there have been many more bacteria that died out along the way, giving rise to more sturdy organisms. I would expect those bacteria that have survived the last couple billion or so years to have evolved high resistance to environmental factors.

My point was bacteria or insects versus mammals. It would seem that bacteria and insects have an advantage over mammals in terms of being able to survive over time.

 

[Gokul43201]

My point was bacteria or insects versus mammals.

That is what I was responding to. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. But since I'm only speculating, I would rather not go over it again.

 

[hokie1]

Again, you can prove life is related, but you can't prove WHERE it came from...the possibility that some "being" "stocked the pond" is not impossible.

The point here is that evolution is a fact. Darwinism is the theory.

Let's suppose that I now claim that 'pop' the world came into existence and that everything that happened before you read 'pop' was a memory that was implanted by a pond stocking being to create a working universe. So all of the fossils and everything else is a fake memory as are your memories of your life since nothing existed before the 'pop'.

Well it's not impossible. It could have happened and I claim it did.

I don't have to prove WHERE it came from. Evolution is CHANGE.

 

[Moridin]

The terms "lower" and "higher" lifeforms are invalid and rests of the outdated, disproven and religious notion of the Great Chain of Being. Life is not a great chain of being, but a tree of life.

 

[Moridin]

Again, it's not clear what you mean by that, but we know a whole lot more than just that A and B shared some common characteristics.

Indeed, the same-genes-same-designer argument ultimately fails because it is not just the case that there are superficial similarities, but that converging lines of evidence from genetics, biochemistry, paleontology, embryology, comparative anatomy and so on, show that fundamental similarities and difference exists in such a way that it can only be explained by common descent.

 

[vivesdn]

Someone in this thread said that evolution is a fact. And it was already a fact when Darwin was born 200 years ago. 150 years ago, Darwin published its own theory to explain that fact, and he was not the only one to reach to such a conclusion.
Nowdays, an slightly modified version of that theory is already a fact. Because new species appear in front of our eyes, in the wild as well as in the lab. And we now know that DNA is, by far, more labile, more mobile than thought on that time.

 

[baywax]

The terms "lower" and "higher" lifeforms are invalid and rests of the outdated, disproven and religious notion of the Great Chain of Being. Life is not a great chain of being, but a tree of life.

So, its the old ball and tree?

 

[baywax]

And we now know that DNA is, by far, more labile, more mobile than thought on that time.

What's your point?

Are you saying that all evolution could have taken place in 6000 years?

I hope not!

 

[NeoDevin]

Are you saying that all evolution could have taken place in 6000 years?

6000 years isn't even enough time to account for the genetic diversity within the human population, never mind all life on Earth.

 

[vivesdn]

The point is not that 6000 years is enough or not. The point is that mechanisms of change are far more powerful than Darwin expected. Of course there are punctual mutations, but there are also genes and chromosomes that can be moved, duplicated, rearranged...

One of the arguments against Darwinist speciation is the vision (or other complete and complex structures, for the case). It is hard to imagine how is it possible to accumulate enough point mutations for an eye to be created. The answer is simple: it is not a matter of accumulating point mutations, but mixing already existing genes.

 

[baywax]

It is hard to imagine how is it possible to accumulate enough point mutations for an eye to be created. The answer is simple: it is not a matter of accumulating point mutations, but mixing already existing genes.

Do you have reference for this?

 

[Mr. Paradox]

What I have been wondering is, if humans "evolved" in a way that didn't affect us noticably but it was classified to be evolution would we cease to be human and instead become a different species. For example such as the change from neanderthal to human.

 

[BoomBoom]

My assumption is based on a few examples, not general knowledge of the suubject. Bacteria can survive in a broader range of enviroments than mammals. Insects can tolerate much more radiation than mammals.

Is that so? I can easily kill bacteria with a spritz of ethanol or a diluted bleach solution. I don't think that would kill a mammal.

It's somewhat mis-representative of the process of evolution when it is characterized in such a way as having some things "more evolved" than others. An insect is adapted to be well suited for it's environment (based on heredity), just as a whale is to its environment. Is a whale "higher" evolved because it is larger? It's not "higher", but just different...along a different hereditary path in a different environment.

It seems by your criteria, the blue whale would be the highest evolved form of life on our planet right?

 

[LowlyPion]

It seems by your criteria, the blue whale would be the highest evolved form of life on our planet right?

If you were a blue whale, then you'd agree with that.

 

[vivesdn]

Do you have reference for this?

I was pretty sure to have read about that in Scientific American, but I do not find it now. But I can offer you another reference that analyzes the origin of larvae, an even more complex case than appearance of specific organs:
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/zij/education/ocn201/willamson_vickers.pdf

 

[WhoWee]

Is that so? I can easily kill bacteria with a spritz of ethanol or a diluted bleach solution. I don't think that would kill a mammal.

It's somewhat mis-representative of the process of evolution when it is characterized in such a way as having some things "more evolved" than others. An insect is adapted to be well suited for it's environment (based on heredity), just as a whale is to its environment. Is a whale "higher" evolved because it is larger? It's not "higher", but just different...along a different hereditary path in a different environment.

It seems by your criteria, the blue whale would be the highest evolved form of life on our planet right?

They certainly have the "biggest mouths"...

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/whales/species/bluewhale/Loudest.shtml

 

[rcgldr]

My assumption is based on a few examples, not general knowledge of the subject. Bacteria can survive in a broader range of enviroments than mammals. Insects can tolerate much more radiation than mammals.

Is that so? I can easily kill bacteria with a spritz of ethanol or a diluted bleach solution. I don't think that would kill a mammal.

With the same ratio of ethanol or bleach solution to mass, either would drown.

It's somewhat mis-representative of the process of evolution when it is characterized in such a way as having some things "more evolved" than others.

I never claimed "more evolved", just "higher" versus "lower". From what I read the claim is "higher" life forms evolved from "lower" life forms. Why wouldn't evolution involve cycling back and forth between higher and lower along a branch of a "tree"?

Also why assume that there is just a single "tree" and not multiple "trees" due to multiple instances of the creation of life? A one time event seem unlikely to be the case. I would assume many events that failed, and some that suceeded during abiogenesis.

 

[NeoDevin]

I never claimed "more evolved", just "higher" versus "lower". From what I read the claim is "higher" life forms evolved from "lower" life forms. Why wouldn't evolution involve cycling back and forth between higher and lower along a branch of a "tree"?

But mammals didn't evolve from modern bacteria, they have both evolved from some earlier single celled organism.

Also why assume that there is just a single "tree" and not multiple "trees" due to multiple instances of the creation of life? A one time event seem unlikely to be the case. I would assume many events that failed, and some that suceeded during abiogenesis.

Given the difficulty of creating life in the lab, the assumption is that it is an unlikely incident. So it is more likely that it was successful only once. Add to this the fact that it appears all life on the planet is related, and it is almost certain there was only one abiogenesis event (if there were more than one, we should see 2 or more `groups' of life with no relationship to each other at all).

 

[BoomBoom]

...it is almost certain there was only one abiogenesis event (if there were more than one, we should see 2 or more `groups' of life with no relationship to each other at all).

I don't know about that. "Certain" is a strong word here.

While all life on Earth show strong similarities between many genes of basic function, I'm not sure I'd call it undeniable proof of one abiogenesis event. We see evidence of merger events that happened early in the history of evolution on Earth that resulted in very different life forms (plants and animals for example), and if such events were common, then it is possible different abiogenesis events could have merged and exchanged genetic information over a long period of time to appear to all be related.

The ocean sequencing project being conducted by Craig Ventor is discovering millions of new genes and proteins we never knew existed. http://http://www.jcvi.org/cms/press/press-releases/full-text/article/more-than-six-million-new-genes-thousands-of-new-protein-families-and-incredible-degree-of-microbi/?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=67&cHash=79c14dbd09"
For all we know abiogenesis could be an ongoing process that has never ceased.

If it was just a freak one time accident that life appeared on this planet, then it is probably very unlikely that life on other planets will ever be found...but that's another subject.

 

[vivesdn]

Also why assume that there is just a single "tree" and not multiple "trees" due to multiple instances of the creation of life? A one time event seem unlikely to be the case. I would assume many events that failed, and some that suceeded during abiogenesis.

Given the difficulty of creating life in the lab, the assumption is that it is an unlikely incident. So it is more likely that it was successful only once.

In the lab, we have spent a ridiculous amount of time, while life had eons to try. But as one event was successful, it is less likely that other events could have succeeded after that, as the environment is already full of the first attempt. Of course, this argument is not absolute, it is just that once there are some living beings currently fitted for the existing environment, the result of new events will have to fight for the resources against already established life.