Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Blinn · 06-06-2002, 02:11 PM

In order to brush up on terminology, I just read Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is. Mayr wants to move beyond the statement that evolution is "both fact and theory" and commit it to the "fact only" category.

From page page 264 of What Evolution Is:

Quote:

Evolution is often considered as something unexpected. Wouldn�t it be more natural, some antievolutionists ask, if everything would always stay the same? Perhaps this was a valid question before we understood genetics, but it is no longer. In fact, the way organisms are structured, evolution is inevitable. Each organism, even the simplest bacterium, has a genome, consisting of thousands to many millions of base pairs. Observation has established that each base pair is subject to occasional mutation. Different populations have different mutations, and if they are isolated from each other, these populations inevitably become more different from each other from generation to generation. Even this simplest of all possible scenarios represents evolution. If one adds further biological processes, such as recombination and selection, the rate of evolution accelerates exponentially. Therefore, the mere fact of the existence of genetic programs makes the assumption of a stationary world impossible. Evolution is thus a plain fact, not a conjecture or assumption.
It is very questionable whether the term �evolutionary theory� should be used any longer. That evolution has occurred and takes place all the time is a fact so overwhelmingly established that it has become irrational to call it a theory. To be sure, there are particular evolutionary theories such as those of common descent, origin of life, gradualism, speciation, and natural selection, but scientific arguments about conflicting theories concerning these topics do not in any way affect the basic conclusion that evolution as such is a fact. It has taken place ever since the origin of life.

On page 275, in Short Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution:

Quote:

1. Is evolution a fact?
Evolution is not merely an idea, a theory, or a concept, but is the name of a process in nature, the occurrence of which can be documented by mountains of evidence that nobody has been able to refute� It is now actually misleading to refer to evolution as a theory, considering the massive evidence that has been discovered over the last 140 years documenting its existence. Evolution is no longer a theory, it is simply a fact.(emphasis added)

A few of his other FAQs seem to address creationist assertions (p. 276):

Quote:

4. Are not the �facts� of evolutionary biology something very different from the facts of astronomy, which show that the Earth circles the sun rather than the reverse?

Yes, up to a point. The movement of planets can be observed directly. By contrast, evolution is a historical process. Past stages cannot be observed directly, but must be inferred from the context. Yet these inferences have enormous certainty because (1) the answers can very often be predicted and the actual findings then confirm them, (2) the answers can be confirmed by several different lines of evidence, and (3) in most cases no rational alternative explanation can be found.

If, for instance, in a chronological series of geological strata a series of fossil therapsid reptiles is found that become more and more similar to mammals in successively younger strata, finally producing species about which specialists argue whether they are still reptiles or already mammals, then I do not know of any other reasonable explanation than that mammals evolved from therapsid ancestors. Actually, there are thousands of such series in the fossil record, even though admittedly there are occasional breaks in most of these series, owing to breaks in the fossil-bearing stratigraphy.

Frankly, I cannot see why such an overwhelming number of well-substantiated inferences is not scientifically as convincing as direct observations. Many theories in other historical sciences, such as geology and cosmology, are also based on inferences, The endeavor of certain philosophers to construct a fundamental difference between the two kinds of evidence strikes me as misleading.

5. How can we establish theories concerning the causes of historical evolutionary processes when the most common method of science, the experiment, cannot be employed?

It is obvious, for example, that we cannot experiment with the extinction of the dinosaurs. Instead, one applies the method of �historical narratives� to explain historical (including evolutionary) processes. That is, one proposes an assumed historical scenario as a possible explanation and tests it thoroughly for the probability of its correctness. In the case of the extinction of the dinosaurs, a number of possible scenarios were tested (such as a devastating virus epidemic or a climatic disaster) but rejected because they were found to be in conflict with the evidence. Finally, the Alvarez extinction theory (caused by an asteroid impact) was so convincingly supported by the existing evidence and by all subsequent research that it is now universally accepted.

Given that most laymen don't understand that there is a difference between the vernacular and scientific meanings of "theory," (which inadvertently gives creationists fodder where there is none), perhaps it is high time that we dump "theory" and succinctly refer to evolution as the fact that it is.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ]

bluefugue · 06-06-2002, 02:25 PM

Okay, but does that make relativity and quantum mechanics "facts" as well? Should we change "germ theory" and "cell theory" to "germ fact" and "cell fact"? I mean, I thought "theory" was the highest title an idea (or set of ideas) in science could aspire to. And I thought scientific lingo supposedly maintained a distinction between discrete sets of data and the broader concepts used to explain those data.

I fear Dr. Mayr doth protest too much, so as to deprive the creationists of their favorite weasel-word.

edited to add:

I especially don't get this part:

Quote:

It is now actually misleading to refer to evolution as a theory, considering the massive evidence that has been discovered over the last 140 years documenting its existence.

I thought it was precisely that massive evidence that made evolution worthy of being a theory, as opposed to mere conjecture or hypothesis. In fact, it seems Mayr himself is subscribing to the much-maligned "just a theory" devaluation of that word!

It's all just semantics anyway, I suppose. Mayr perceives that word choice can sometimes sway men's minds, and so he wants to take command of the issue...

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: IesusDomini ]

The Lone Ranger · 06-06-2002, 02:52 PM

Quote:

It is now actually misleading to refer to evolution as a theory, considering the massive evidence that has been discovered over the last 140 years documenting its existence.

I think in this case that he's referring to the "theory" that evolution occurs at all. In this case, I think he's absolutely right. That evolution is occurring now -- and has occurred in the past -- is a fact, and if the Creationists don't like it, that's just too bad.

Of course, there are still the various "Theories of Evolution" regarding how evolution has shaped the observed diversity of life on Earth.

I would agree, though that he's not being entirely clear.

Cheers,

Michael

lpetrich · 06-06-2002, 03:42 PM

I prefer calling it a result rather than a fact, because one does not directly "observe" most evolution.

I think that some common views on perception are naive. We do not directly "see" objects. We detect patterns of incoming light that we interpret as having come from objects. This interpretation is done unconsciously, this giving rise to that misconception.

Likewise, we do not directly "hear" tones, speech sounds, noises, etc., but instead we directly perceive an instantaneous power spectrum of the incoming sound (I note that we don't "hear" the air pressure directly). This is then interpreted as being various sorts of sound.

So many "facts" are really strong conclusions, rather than direct perceptions.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]

randman · 06-06-2002, 04:07 PM

They've been saying that for 150 years.

SanDiegoAtheist · 06-06-2002, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
They've been saying that for 150 years.

No randman, they haven't.

Until there was a VIABLE MECHANISM for both change and conservation of genetic information established, evolution was very correctly called a theory.

That mechanism was discovered about 40 years ago. Maybe you've heard of it - it's called DNA.

Up until then, without a mechanism, evolution was simply a theory that predicted certain results, and matched the current evidence - it was a good theory, as it predicted something exactly like DNA would be found...one hundred years before it actually WAS found.

Now that we know how DNA works (at least in the broad picture), evolution is as inevitable as gravity - moreso even, because we STILL don't have a mechanism for gravity - simply a good description of how gravity works.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

06-06-2002, 05:02 PM

Please, do not pander to the creationist love of bifurcated termonology. The point is that the theory/fact dichotomy is clearly the source of confusion.

Yet humans know of no such thing as a fact independent of a theory. There is no magical point at which we say, "Ok, now it's a fact" or "well, it's no longer a theory anymore", we simply conclude that denial of the theory denies us the ability to make sense of a situation... Hence the predominant reliance of creationists upon such low grade eqivocation.

Daggah · 06-06-2002, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
They've been saying that for 150 years.

No, they haven't. However, evolution has withstood the test of time and scientific skepticism better than most theories out there.

Evolution has occurred. Period.

randman · 06-06-2002, 06:44 PM

Ah yes, the old we are right and you are wrong argument. Btw, evolution did not predict DNA, a nd DNA posed serious problems for what was then the dominant theory of evolution.

Blinn · 06-06-2002, 06:48 PM

To follow up, I posted this for discussion, and was also somewhat troubled by Mayr's assertion. He is just alluding that a "theory" is nothing more than it is made out to be by laymen. However, given the abuse and corruption committed by creationists regarding that term, shouldn't we, for practical reasons, start reserving the use of "theory" to the concepts of natural selection and punk eek, etc., and not use it in combination with "evolution", in order to get the point across to the general populace, that evolution, is indeed, a factual event?

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ]

06-06-2002, 03:42 PM	#4
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I prefer calling it a result rather than a fact, because one does not directly "observe" most evolution. I think that some common views on perception are naive. We do not directly "see" objects. We detect patterns of incoming light that we interpret as having come from objects. This interpretation is done unconsciously, this giving rise to that misconception. Likewise, we do not directly "hear" tones, speech sounds, noises, etc., but instead we directly perceive an instantaneous power spectrum of the incoming sound (I note that we don't "hear" the air pressure directly). This is then interpreted as being various sorts of sound. So many "facts" are really strong conclusions, rather than direct perceptions. [ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

06-06-2002, 06:48 PM	#10
Blinn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,162	To follow up, I posted this for discussion, and was also somewhat troubled by Mayr's assertion. He is just alluding that a "theory" is nothing more than it is made out to be by laymen. However, given the abuse and corruption committed by creationists regarding that term, shouldn't we, for practical reasons, start reserving the use of "theory" to the concepts of natural selection and punk eek, etc., and not use it in combination with "evolution", in order to get the point across to the general populace, that evolution, is indeed, a factual event? [ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-06-2002, 04:07 PM	#5
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	They've been saying that for 150 years.

06-06-2002, 05:02 PM	#7
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	Please, do not pander to the creationist love of bifurcated termonology. The point is that the theory/fact dichotomy is clearly the source of confusion. Yet humans know of no such thing as a fact independent of a theory. There is no magical point at which we say, "Ok, now it's a fact" or "well, it's no longer a theory anymore", we simply conclude that denial of the theory denies us the ability to make sense of a situation... Hence the predominant reliance of creationists upon such low grade eqivocation.

06-06-2002, 06:44 PM	#9
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Ah yes, the old we are right and you are wrong argument. Btw, evolution did not predict DNA, a nd DNA posed serious problems for what was then the dominant theory of evolution.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.