Caverdude

Hey xbob,
Proving "beyond the shadow of a doubt" is not the usual province of science. The theory of evolution is an explanation of how things work based on the evidence (absolute MOUNTAINS of it). Take another example of a theory: Electron theory. Nobody has ever seen an electron, yet I do not hear a great debate whether or not they exist. Simply stated, the evidence supports the theory. When you hear someone talk of the fact of evolution they may be referring to the MECHANISM of evolution (DNA, inherited traits and mutations) which has been shown to be real and true as close to "beyond the shadow of a doubt" as possible. The whole picture of the evolution of human and non-human life is such a vast and complex subject that there is constant study and debate within the scientific community as to the particulars (such as where Neandertal fit in to the human lineage).

Starboy

Caverdude, pardon me for responding to this but I could not resist.

Dear Mr. XbobTheAlienx,

Please be informed that all of science, YES, ALL OF SCIENCE, is not known for a fact to be true. Maxwell’s equations, those marvelous formulae that make this electronic interchange possible and that have been verified by countless experiments and experiences of people all over the world to an outrageous degree of accuracy may indeed BE INCORRECT. Please go back to your elementary school science book and open the lesson on: “The Scientific Method”. You will find prominently featured the requirement that all scientific knowledge is subject to test and verification. Perhaps you went to a religious school and they didn’t bother to make you aware of THE MOST SUCCESSFUL HUMAN ENDEAVOR TO UNDERSAND OUR SURROUNDINGS IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND, or maybe you were absent that day, or you flunked that part, but what appears to be unclear to you, is that this verification takes place constantly. Now, Mr. XbobTheAlienx, think about this, if science were “TRUE” then why would theories need to be tested constantly? DING! Have you given up yet? Science is not taken by scientists to be “TRUE”. The only thing required of science is that it works. Now contrast this with creationism, a belief system whose followers insist is true but obviously doesn’t work.

Adios

Starboy

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: gkochanowsky ]</p>

xBobTheAlienx

OK well beyond a shadow of a doubt is a bit strong i suppose. Hey im new at all this anyways. All im saying is evolutionists present their theories as facts, not theories. Like i said before, in elementary school text books for example. But, creationists do that also at private schools. I think that the books should present both creation and evolution, and as theories, for the sake of fairness. I dont know know how i got on that subject. "Now contrast this with creationism, a belief system whose followers insist is true but obviously doesn’t work." Please explain how you came to this conclusion, i would really like to know. Apologize again for use of words like "true" or whatever

Caverdude

Hey xbob,
Interesting sign on name by the way. Anyway, as I tried to explain in an earlier post, creationism is simply not a valid scientific theory. It starts and ends with a literal interpretation of Genesis. It cannot and should not be listed in the same books on science. I have not heard of any "creationist scientist" doing real research and following the standard procedures of publishing and peer review. There are plenty of groups out there such as the Institute of Creation Research, but they spend all of their time with propaganda trying to discredit evolution and old earth theories. This is religious politics, not science. I do not mean to trash you beliefs. If you want to take Genesis literally, that your right.
Another point is that science does not and cannot say ANYTHING about the existence of God or the non-existence of God. Questions such as that are in the realm of theology, not science.
Hope this has been some help.

RufusAtticus

If you are really interested in learning the answer, I suggest you read Evolutionary Biology (3e) by Douglas Futuyma. It's the standard college-level textbook.

~~RvFvS~~

HRG

Actually, I could claim that all we ever see or have seen are electrons. What other particles emit or scatter photons in the visible spectrum ?

"Seeing X" = "absorbing a photon emitted or scattered by X in one's retina" ....

Regards,
HRG

Oolon Colluphid

Hey xBob, welcome to E/C!

A few points you need to realise.

Evolution, meaning that every living thing is related by descent with modification, is a fact.

Evolution, as in ‘the theory of evolution’, is the bundled set of hypotheses, some very very well confirmed, some pretty well confirmed, and some more speculative, which together explain the fact of evolution. That is what any scientific theory is: a very highly confirmed (ie never yet refuted, despite all attempts) meta-hypothesis.

Thus for a competing hypothesis (eg creation) to replace a current theory, it must explain all the current observations and do so better: more simply (fewer initial assumptions -- Ockham’s Razor), more broadly (uniting previously disparate observations), more fruitfully (making new predictions which get confirmed, and opening up new avenues for research), and do all this testably. Creationism fails on all these fronts, and furthermore, is the theory that evolution supplanted in the first place, the theory that was found wanting, inadequate, and which has already been refuted. Sure, paradigm shifts happen -- but never back to already discredited ideas!

Now, in science, as fact is not an absolute certainty, something ‘proven beyond all doubt’. Proof, in this quasi-mathematical sense, is only possible when you have the luxury of defining the universe you’re working in at the start. In science, the whole point is that we’re trying to find out what sort of universe we’re operating in. We don’t assume what the evidence will be, because that defeats the object.

So we have to make do with empirical evidence, with all the evidence there is, and any more we can gather. Therefore, in science, a fact is a statement about the world that is ‘true (as far as we know)’, something that is so well demonstrated that it would be perverse not to (provisionally) agree with. In other words, it is not totally certain; but something we are as certain about as we possibly can be.

Evolution is considered a fact because every piece of research in every area that it touches on has always supported it, and never refuted it. (There’s a crucial difference between irrefutable and never refuted, yeah? ) These areas include anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, genetics, ecology, biogeography and palaeontology (all of which have diverse sub-disciplines), and by extension -- since a good Theory must mesh with other knowledge -- geology, geophysics, astronomy, cosmology and physics.

That is the level of the creationist challenge. It is not just evolution they seek to overturn, it is all of science they inevitably reject.

As for presenting creation too as a matter of fairness, which of the countless accounts of creation should we offer? Why reject those of the Hindus, the Inuit, the ancient Greeks or the Australian aborigines (to name just a few)? Just what size of textbook did you have in mind?

As for how we know evolution is true (see above) and creationism false, the others are right. Get hold of a decent college-level textbook (eg Futuyma) for starters. Or Futuyma’s excellent Science on Trial, which specifically contrasts the evidence for each side.

TTFN, Oolon

beausoleil

Well, I'd say every living that that has been examined so far is related by descent with modification - that seems to be a fact to me. I doubt we're even approaching a simple majority yet, given ideas about how many species there are. Then the theory might get some useful modification should a second ecosystem be discovered on, say, Mars.

Some philosophers of science say this sort of thing. Reality is much more messy, unfortunately. When a new theory comes along it typically explains some new observations and some old observations that used to be explained by one or more other theories, and hopefully makes some predictions that can be checked out. For instance, until the last couple of decades there was no real difficulty explaining the K-T mass extinctions in the context of evolution and gradual changes in the Earth's environment - it wasn't widely seen as compelling evidence against that paradigm, anyway. Now there's the giant impact theory which accounts for iridium anomalies, shock quartz and a whole load of extinctions previously explained some other way.

I'm not defending creation science, for which the case, as far as I can see, is entirely rubbish and deliberate lies. But I also see a problem with the way science is perceived by the general population. My experience trying to recruit students to university science courses is that many of them find that sort of description entirely lacking in passion and thus unattractive. It's also nothing like the way most scientists actually work.

Skeptical

Others have done a very good job of addressing your questions but I wanted to make a very quick point. Creationism may be a theory, but it is not a _scientific_ theory. This is a crucial distinction. The point that is missed by those who say they want creationism taught along with evolution in science class is that creationism is _not_ science. Creationism is a philosophical/religious theory and as such if it should be taught anywhere it would be in philosophy or comparitive religion class.

There is a reason that astrology is not taught in astronomy class. While astrology is related to stars, its not a science.

There is a reason that numerology is not taught in mathematics class. While numerology is related to numbers, its not a science.

There is a reason that alchemy is not taught in chemistry. While alchemy is related to chemicals, its not a science.

Get my drift? The central point in all this is that only science should be taught as science. Period.

The other comment I see made is that "if evolutionary theory is so strong, why is it afraid of competition?". This comment utterly and completely misses not only my above point but also fails to understand how science works.

As others have pointed out, evolutionary theory is a collection of diverse but related theories on a multitude of topics. Scientists are constantly investigating different phenomena seeking to find new and better explanations for what they observe. There is _constant_ "competition" for ideas, and they all must pass the rigorous gauntlet of the scientific method and the scrutiny of peer review. If there were scientific theories that could pass muster that overturned traditional theories of evolution, scientists would be jumping at the chance to do so. Truly revolutionary ideas are what win prestige and nobel prizes. The idea that scientists are somehow in a secret collusion to hide the truth of creationism is ludicrous on its face, yet I see this constantly implied or explicitly stated by creationists.

The problem for so many creationists is that they are so desperate to cling to their belief systems that they will use any method, commit any act and perpetrate any deception so long as it furthers their cause. Their own deception blinds them and their complete lack of understanding of how science works lead to the inevitable conclusion that scientists are using the same methods they are.

The pure and simple bottom line is that the dichotomy of creationism and evolutionary theory is false. The official doctrine of the Catholic church recognizes evolutionary theory, yet try asking the Pope how he believes life got started on earth and you'll get the stock Christian answer.

Creationism is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be a science in any way. One should no more teach a religious viewpoint in science class than should they perform chemistry experiments in church.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

xBobTheAlienx

None of you have answered my queston yet: What is one piece of evidence proving/supproting evolution.
Prove it!