Why believe the theory of evolution? What is it's basis?

[insane_alien]

Agnostic: No offence meant in this, but, you seem to know more about the U.S. legal system than you do about science and hence are taking the POV of "I know the legal system like the back of my hand and science must be almost the same. so i know scientific method" well we know science like the backs of our hand and it isn't as similar as you appear to think.

[phcatlantis]

Agnostic: No offence meant in this, but, you seem to know more about the U.S. legal system than you do about science and hence are taking the POV of "I know the legal system like the back of my hand and science must be almost the same. so i know scientific method" well we know science like the backs of our hand and it isn't as similar as you appear to think.

 

Agnostic asked what is his obligation to believe that evolution is true. That has nothing to do with the scientific method; it is an epistemological question that is as validly addressed through a legal lens as it is through any other principle method of divining truth. If you care more about whether you should believe that a man and ape have a common ancestor rather than the coherence of a model predicting one way or another, then a legal approach is probably more interesting than a scientific one. For those of us not terribly interested in biology on a whole, this is definitely an appropriate outlet for entering the discussion. It's definitely in the right forum.

[~Agnostic~]

You want to know my job here? Have you noticed that my username is in bold? That means I'm a mod.

 

Mokele

Thanks much for your comments. I had actually formulated responses to your statements, but it's my guess that if we continue on like this, we're just going to have a conflict, if there isn't one already. We're merely exchanging negative energies at this point. Best wishes to you and your students.

[FreeThinker]

Agnostic,

 

Imagine two rabbits of opposite sex. If we allowed these two rabbits to mate, and all their offspring survived, and all their offspring survived, and all their offspring survived… the world would be over run by rabbits in a very short time. However, this does not happen. Here is why:

 

1) Predators will eat a number of individuals

2) There is a limited amount of food supply , and each individual will compete with other individuals for food

3) Potential mates are limited, and each individual will compete with other individuals for mates

4) Each individual rabbit is different and hence each will have a different chance of escaping predators, surviving or finding food. The rabbits that have a disadvantage (slower running speed, more distinct colours attacking predators) will, on average, tend to get eaten, die or fail to reproduce. Ultimately, in evolutionary perspective, this will mean the rabbit will not pass its genes on to the next generation. The better equipped rabbit will pass on its genes.

 

Now imagine a species of rabbits that get separated by a newly formed river. Different traits might be favored in the two different groups. One side might have an abundance of a certain type of food which can only be eaten by long teeth (individuals with short teeth are unable to eat the food, for whatever reason). Individuals with shorter teeth will not be able to feed and eventually the population will be dominated by rabbits with longer teeth (because the longer teeth rabbits eat more food, hence don’t die and live long enough to pass on their genes on to the next generation”).

On the other side of the river the rabbits might be favored for shorter teeth because of the food present. For the same reason as the original side, the population will become dominated by individuals with shorter teeth. Imagine this sort of selection happening on the ears, body shape, eyes and molecular structures. Eventually, give it a few million years; the genomes of the two species will be so different that they will not be able to reproduce with each other.

 

It is all logic, logic supported by a mountain of evidence. Humans have successfully made hundreds of species of dogs by choosing individuals for their desirable characteristics. This has been done in only a few thousand years, imagine what nature can do in 3 billion!

[Edtharan]

The existance of evolution can acutally be infered from what we know about DNA today.

 

1) It is known that DNA is the main method of determining the phenotype of an organism.

2) It is known that DNA can mutate when copied or "shuffled" during reproduction.

3) The phenotype of an organism will give it an advantage or disdavantage for survival in particular environments.

4) Only creatures that survive can pass on their DNA to the next generation.

 

From these 4 points we can infer Evolution.

 

If a creature survives, it will pass on its traits through its DNA. If that DNA gives it an advantage over other organisms, then it will reproduce more successfully and its offspring will also live to reproduce. Any change to the DNA that confer survival advantage will therefore be passed on to more offspring and eventualy come to dominate the genepool of that organism.

 

This is evolution. So from known facts and observerable premises, we can infer evolution. this can become a theory if we use it to make predictions (it needs more details to do so, but even this moddle can be used to make some predictions). If these predictions are tested and found to be correct, then we can say the the theory is correct. But regardless of the theory used to make these predictions, thay must all explain and account for these aboservable and observed phenomena (ie the 4 points I mentioned and the results of them interacting - what we call evolution).

 

So as far as needing proof of evolution you can infer it from what can be observed in a biology lab today. This infered behaviour is logical and rational and in no step is anything objectional happening (and it can be observed). It is only the long term effects of it that people object to because they can not immediatly observe it, but that can be done over many generations (and if any wish to contest this with me, provide funding for a multigenerational experiment to prove or disprove this point - JK ).

 

Evolution can be proven, it is only the results when applied over genreations that people can't seem to bring them selves to accept. For me it is not a case of beliefe in evolution as beliefe requiers a leap of faith and that is not needed for evolution. Evolution is a logical consiquence of the evidence that can be demonstrated in a biology lab.

 

Or to put it another way if "B" = C" and "A" = "B" then "A" must = "C", but because people object to "C" they refuse to admit that "A" = "C" even though they will admit to "A"="B" and "B"="C".

[GutZ]

The only thing I have against Evolution is the organization and manner in which it is describe. It seems to imply an independant force that drives the change.

 

I regard it as the causality of life and survivial. Each species is specifically the way they are is because every interaction or lack of interaction with it's enviroment changes or doesnt change its form that it is today. We have 4 fingers and a thumb because 6 fingers wouldnt help us. We don't need extentive strength because we know how to over come it, we can create devices to aid us, therefore exercising the brain.

 

You can ask why we don't have wings, well if we look at the species we evolved from they survived without wings, or had their own way of surivial without them. As for us we don't need them because we can get all the food we need with climbing, or using devices (like a stick). We don't need them to escape from predators because we can create weapons, we know areas to go to for shelter (Notice how thats common for many species), We know the areas where the dangers lurk, etc.

 

You can take every species and break down its strengths, weaknesses, and general differences to the smallest proportions and with knowning its enviroment know how it developed those features. So I firmly believe all the evidence for Evolution can be seen in plain site, and reassured with deeper scientific analysis.

 

Remember they are theories for a reason. People do like to believe that it's 100% proven, and they bring superiority over other theories. In the end its the most logicial, but it's still just as unproven as any other theory. It's hard not to be unbaised when it come to the method of how we exist, we like to have the theory solved so that we know exactly who we are, by nature we arent comfortable with ambiguity.

[Edtharan]

The only thing I have against Evolution is the organization and manner in which it is describe.

I agree with this but only when described by people who don't fully understand it or arn't good at explainaing it. They tend to use metafores and similies and methods of speach that make it seem that there is "some outside force" acting on the organisms that control the direction of evolution.

 

You even edge towards that with your post.

 

We have 4 fingers and a thumb because 6 fingers wouldnt help us. We don't need extentive strength because we know how to over come it, we can create devices to aid us, therefore exercising the brain.

This is not corect. We do not have extensive strength because it is either not advantagious or is disadvantagious for us to have extensive strength, not that we know how to overcome it.

 

These types of statements do not apply to evolution and IDers will grab hold of statemnts like these to attempt to disprove evolution (but all they are doing is disproving something that is not evolution, but a misinterpertation of it).

 

Not only that but your statement implies an outside force, which you have profesed to have a problem with.

 

We developed the ability for tool use because it offered us a survival advanatage. Humans are a "generalist" species, that is we are not specialised. Generalist species will have an advantage if they exist in a changeing environemnt (either because they move or the environemnt changes rapidly). Tool use can allow an organism to adapt their feeding patterns to take advantage of a new food source without haivng to evolve a trait to exploit it. Intelegence will enhance tool use and also allow an organism to be more behaviourably flexable, both give a survival advanatage to generalist species (like ourselves).

 

hominids evolved in Africa at a time where rapid climate change was occureing, a creature that evolved generalist traits before the cange occured (primates) would have an advantage during this period. Any primate that was more able to be behaviourably flexable and use tools to gather food would have an advantge. It is no wonder then that an intelegent tool using generalist evolved. This of course would be the hominids (humans came later).