Charles Darwin

This is the kind of equivocation I'm talking about. Evolutionists such as Gould are not merely talking about the observed, small-scale, genetic changes in populations when they argue evolution is a fact. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to write at length about it.

Duvenoy

Just remembered another echolocater, of sorts; the electric eel (these are not really eels, but one of the South American knifefishs)

The young 'eel' soon becomes blind from electricity-induced cataracs. To navigate and find food, it puts forth a series of electrical discharges that tell it the shape of it's location. It is highly accurate.

I recall reading that the torpedo rays do the same, but it was a popular piece and suspect.

doov

The Lone Ranger

Where, exactly, is the "equivocation"?

There is no doubt whatsoever that evolution occurs, so it's utterly proper to say, "Evolution occurs; that's a fact."

As for saying something along the lines of "all living organisms are the results of billions of years of evolution, and are related by common descent", that is a "fact" in the sense that it has long-ago been established beyond any reasonable doubt. It's not improper to call this a "fact" because if it's not true, our perception of the world around us is so mistaken that we obviously can't rely upon evidence at all, and we therefore can't say that anything is true. As Gould points out in the article referenced above: "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

He goes on to point out that "Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between 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."

I've yet to read any introductory-level science textbook which doesn't emphasize that all scientific knowledge is provisional, and subject to revision in the light of new data. Nonetheless, we can confidently state that there are established facts -- things that are "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." That all extant organisms are related by common descent is just such a fact.

This fact has been confirmed over and over again, by everything from comparative anatomy to molecular biology, any one of which could have disproved it. If there are data which disprove this "fact," no one has presented them yet.

There comes a time when the evidence in favor of a particular conclusion can become so overwhelming that to deny the factuality of the conclusion is to deny reason. Here, we have just such a case.

Cheers,

Michael

Charles Darwin

Failure is a strong word. You're the one claiming that the ERVs help make evolution a *fact*. Sure, there is a lot of consistencies, there are also important differences, such as the ERV in the gorilla and chimp but not the human.

God Fearing Atheist

Its not equivocation Charles. The thing is, the "change in allele frequency in a population over time" and "decent with modification" definitions are functionally equivalent.

-GFA

Charles Darwin

OK, very good. I agree with your definition of what a "scientific fact" is (ie, evidence is overwhelming; if we're wrong about it, then we're wrong about a whole lot of things). I'll use the term "scientific fact" rather than "fact." So now, you write:

"As for saying something along the lines of "all living organisms are the results of billions of years of evolution, and are related by common descent", that is a "fact" in the sense that it has long-ago been established beyond any reasonable doubt. "

and

"This fact has been confirmed over and over again, by everything from comparative anatomy to molecular biology, any one of which could have disproved it. If there are data which disprove this "fact," no one has presented them yet. "

Now Gould utterly fails to make the sort of proof you are talking about. So my question is, why do you think that evolution is a scientific fact? You mentioned comparative anatomy and molecular biology. Can you go down a level deeper and explain why those areas confirm that evolution is a scientific fact?

The Lone Ranger

Here's a good introduction.

Cheers,

Michael

Doubting Didymus

Didn't you read the results section? If you're talking about the one that this report itself found, then the anomaly was explained within the report.

Doctor X

I argued against evolution, but the staphylococcus disagreed with me. . . .

This is all an elaborate complaint that because we do not know "everything"--trace the entire development of species--evolution remains a theory as tenuous as the flat earth.

--J.D.

Wounded King

Dear Charles,

You ask
Do you really expect me to give you a course in evolutionary-developmental biology right here and now? Its a big topic! There is plenty of research into the conservation of developmental programs, wjy not take a look at the primary literature or read a textbook like Gilbert or Wolpert. In fact you can access the text of Gilbert free online at pubmed so you don't even have to go to the library.

As to the 'machinery' for adaptation, its inherent in any population of imperfect replicators, and since it forms the basis of evolution evolution did not 'create' it.