Theory of Evolution

[markearthling]

Montanman

 

I understand that in general a theory describes how something or a system works.

 

Theories may be correct or incorrect. They may accurately reflect the reality

or they may simply be ideas and not facts ( unsubstantiated ideas in some cases).

 

Many people think that evolutionary theory is all fact. I do not agree with this.

Many of it's ideas are unsubstantiated. For example I have been told

( by Ophiolite here ) that speciation has been observed but I have not yet

seen the evidence ( I have some research links on this I am looking at now).

There are other evolutionary ideas I am also not sure about.

 

Natural selection as far as I can see works fine and is demonstrated

today ( and past observations ) in the wild/nature.

 

When I have seen more hard evidence I may change my mind in a number of

areas.

 

On that last point you made above I agree that I was just stating the obvious.

 

Thanks again for your help.

[Moontanman]

Montanman

 

I understand that in general a theory describes how something or a system works.

 

Theories may be correct or incorrect. They may accurately reflect the reality

or they may simply be ideas and not facts ( unsubstantiated ideas in some cases).

 

No, evidently you do not know what a theory is in science, it is never an unsubstantiated guess, a theory is always supported by a body of evidence, in biology nothing makes sense with out the frame work of evolution, would you question gravity because it is a theory? Does music theory need to be proved? You do not know what theory means in the context of anything but a guess and that is not what it means in the context of science.

 

 

Many people think that evolutionary theory is all fact. I do not agree with this.

 

Well then give us another guess... but watch this first..

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54?ob=5#p/u/31/EEKqqrfWevc'>http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54?ob=5#p/u/31/EEKqqrfWevc

 

Many of it's ideas are unsubstantiated. For example I have been told

( by Ophiolite here ) that speciation has been observed but I have not yet

seen the evidence ( I have some research links on this I am looking at now).

There are other evolutionary ideas I am also not sure about.

 

Again i suggest you watch this

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54?ob=5

 

This series is very good too, AronRa gives plenty of sources for his material you can look up if you are interested.

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#p/u/112/KnJX68ELbAY

[markearthling]

Moontanman

 

Read the first part above of what I said about the definition of what a theory is.

 

I did not just say that theories are ONLY unsubstantiated ideas.

 

Theories describe how something or a system works.

 

Is that OK ?

 

Then I also mentioned unsubstantiated ideas. You have heard of these right ?

 

I do understand what you are talking about and I do think you are right.

[Hal.]

There is a standard science community way to describe what a theory is . In these forums that is the way it is and that is the way it is widely in science . Then I perceive a superset of all meanings for and uses of the word theory . It's a bit like learning to drive using a set of standard rules and learning to drive just by getting in the car and doing whatever makes that car move .

[swansont]

Unsubstantiated ideas are not scientific theories, and since evolution has been observed (many, many times), evolution (the process) is fact; the issue is whether the theory accounts for the observation.

[pwagen]

I did not just say that theories are ONLY unsubstantiated ideas.

Scientific theories are not ONLY unsubstantiated ideas, simply because scientific theories are NEVER unsubstantiated ideas.

 

It's like saying that a "duck is a bird, but not all birds are ducks". Except in this case, it's more like saying "cars are not ONLY doors, because cars are NEVER doors".

[CharonY]

Just to reiterate, evolution, i.e. change of allele frequency over time is easily observable. Through which precise series of events a particular evolutionary outcome was reached is often not answerable. It is akin to see a speck of dust and asking how precisely it ended up there. You can e.g. analyze its composition to figure out its origin, check the wind to make reasonable guesses from how far it may have come etc. But you will not be able to reconstruct the events with absolute certainty.

[markearthling]

Swansont and others

 

Perhaps my wording above was not well structured/couched.

 

It is obvious that people are making the assumption that I am saying that

scientific theory is simply based on unsubstantiated ideas

(as I am assured above that this is never the case).

 

Usually ideas will lead to research and hopefully the right results which

may lead to new theories.

 

The debate is whether all theories are actually fully correct (factual ?).

 

I still do not agree that all evolutionary theory is necessarily

correct and fully factual.

 

Unsubstantiated ideas are not scientific theories, and since

evolution has been observed (many, many times), evolution

(the process) is fact; the issue is whether the theory accounts

for the observation.

 

As to whether evolution has been observed is still open to debate.

But please do not lose patience with me on this as I am still doing my research.

So as such I do not yet agree that "evolution the process" is actually

fully real fact. ( still examining the literature and there is a lot

so New Rome will not be built in one day).

 

People usually start with ideas (perhaps original or based on the work of others);

example : like einstein did when he was developing his theories.

Many areas of einsteins relativity theory are being proved out in the

areas of physics/cosmology these days. There are other areas which

are still subject to many debates.

 

Most ideas are initially unsubstantiated until they are tested out.

Are we saying that nothing unsubstantiated ever slips through the net ?

(our scientific system never slips up and everything is observed, tested, repeated

and peer reviewed perfectly ?).

 

Until I do further research it will not become clear to me that there is NOTHING

unsubstantiated in/about the set of evolutionary theories we now today

in our modern culture seem to so readily accept.

 

The following information from wikipedia I think properly elucidates

the definition of the word theory and deals with the scientific definition

which people here have expounded above.

 

It may not be perfect but I can see no major problem with this

(perhaps others can see what I can't).

I understand there are some who don't consider Wikipedia as a reliable source

of information ( there may be better sources and as such I welcome others pointing these out).

I have referred to wikipedia many times on many different subjects and have found in general

that the information there is usually reliable, comprehensive and can be corroborated

from other sources ( others may have had a different experience here and if this is the case

I would like to hear about it ).

 

The definition of the word theory below from a Collins dictionary seems to cover

the science definition as discussed above by others here.

 

BUT I understand that people here will not hold with the statement

"to speculate (about)" in the definition.

 

This Collins dictionary is a bit long in the tooth but I thought the definition

was worth including here anyway.

 

From Wikipedia

 

 

While theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily observable, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science. A common distinction made in science is between theories and hypotheses, with the former being considered as satisfactorily tested or proven and the latter used to denote conjectures or proposed descriptions or models which have not yet been tested or proven to the same standard.

 

 

From a Collins dictionary

 

 

Theory

 

 

A supposition to account for something; a system of rules and principles and reasoning

 

Etc as distinguished from practice – theoretical, theoretically, theorist, theorise :

 

To form a theory or theories ; to speculate (about).

 

Back to the grind stone (much reading to do) and other things.

 

 

[Hal.]

I could draw a technical drawing by a set of rules which people call a standard and this technical drawing would be interchangeable in all systems that use the same standard . When 2 systems use different standards these drawings are no longer understood by the different systems . Each system can move along perfectly happy at their own thing and using their own meanings for terms that may have the same name . One system is correct in it's use of a term by it's rules whereas another system is correct in it's use of the same term by it's different rules .

 

I have a theory . Don't confuse a theory with a theory or you may theorise inconsistently .

[swansont]

Swansont and others

 

Perhaps my wording above was not well structured/couched.

 

It is obvious that people are making the assumption that I am saying that

scientific theory is simply based on unsubstantiated ideas

(as I am assured above that this is never the case).

 

Usually ideas will lead to research and hopefully the right results which

may lead to new theories.

 

The debate is whether all theories are actually fully correct (factual ?).

 

I still do not agree that all evolutionary theory is necessarily

correct and fully factual.

 

Here's a point of reference: There are probably NO theories that are fully correct. So let's avoid a straw-man discussion and not hold evolution up to some standard that is not applied to other theories. Newtons' gravitation famously fails, but it is still useful. Einstein's gravitation (general relativity) does not reconcile with quantum mechanics, yet in the areas where it can be assessed, it has passed the tests.

 

As to whether evolution has been observed is still open to debate.

But please do not lose patience with me on this as I am still doing my research.

So as such I do not yet agree that "evolution the process" is actually

fully real fact. ( still examining the literature and there is a lot

so New Rome will not be built in one day).

 

Allele change in populations over time has been observed (a famous example is the peppered moth). Ergo, evolution has been observed. This is a trivially confirmed fact, so no, it's not really open to debate unless you redefine debate to mean something else. Speciation has been observed. There are many examples of this.

 

 

People usually start with ideas (perhaps original or based on the work of others);

example : like einstein did when he was developing his theories.

Many areas of einsteins relativity theory are being proved out in the

areas of physics/cosmology these days. There are other areas which

are still subject to many debates.

 

Relativity has been tested for many decades and was accepted long ago. Industries — successful industries — are built on it being correct, which is also true of evolution.

 

Most ideas are initially unsubstantiated until they are tested out.

Are we saying that nothing unsubstantiated ever slips through the net ?

(our scientific system never slips up and everything is observed, tested, repeated

and peer reviewed perfectly ?).

 

No, but that would be an appeal to ridicule. A straw-man argument that paints a ludicrous picture. Evolution is not some brand-new hypothesis that's being checked out.

 

Until I do further research it will not become clear to me that there is NOTHING

unsubstantiated in/about the set of evolutionary theories we now today

in our modern culture seem to so readily accept.

 

Again, this is an unreasonable standard not being applied elsewhere. If you accept this as your criterion, you have to throw away all of your technology, since it's based on quantum mechanics with some unsubstantiated topics, somewhere out on the cutting edge, and be afraid that gravity isn't going to work because of your aforementioned observation of relativity still being tested.

[Stefan-CoA]

Evolution is a bit like playing detective. Except you're trying to find several billion murderers over the course of 3.2 billion years from only one point in time where most of the murderers have already been dead for a few hundred million years.

 

So, you tell me if we will ever be able to prove evolution 100% correct. Of course not; barring the usual scientific paradigm of a theory is held as true until proven otherwise, evolution proves most difficult to prove.

 

Yet despite that we have millions of pieces of evidence ranging from paleontology, geology and pretty much all the biological sciences that say, "yeah, this pretty much happened". Evolution can explain the origins of most things biological, except you won't be able to prove this since you're looking at a puzzle 3.2 billion years in the making. So you will have lost a lot of information of the years. But, for those things that we can and have observed, evolution provides a wonderful, simple explanation which one can use to explain other things as well.

 

When trying to define a theory, please don't use a dictionary full of colloquial English, use a scientific dictionary. Because we are using the scientific definition of theory, not the every-day theory.

[markearthling]

StefanCOA

 

In general what you are saying above seems to be quite reasonable.

 

On the subject of dictionary definitions maybe someone should

take this up with the dictionary makers because there are

a lot of lay people out there who have the wrong

impression of things scientific (lead up the garden path)

because of what the dictionary makers print and because

most lay people read ordinary dictionaries.

 

I always thought that a theory (scientific or otherwise)

was simply a set of ideas about the reality of things.

Now I have been informed otherwise.

 

Of course there are better sources of information

like libraries and other repositories of

scientific literature. And now we have the net

(we are lucky these days).

 

But we all have plenty of reading/work to do

weeding out the good stuff from the rubbish.

[Arete]

...

 

This is subjective, as it is my take on how I view the definition of certain proposals in my own scientific writing but:

 

Speculation - an idea/explanation/etc still in the process of formulation and prior to any proof of concept - a back of the envelope, down at the pub kind of idea.

 

Hypothesis - an idea/explanation/etc which has proof of concept, but no experimentally viable support as of yet - the kind of idea you can design an experiment to test.

 

Theory - a hypothesis which has been supported by one or more experimentally viable studies.

 

As for observed evolution, Journals like: Evolution, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Journal of Molecular Evolution, Molecular Ecology, Journal of Biogeography etc and so on are dedicated to publishing peer reviewed, empirically supported studies in evolutionary biology.

 

As such, experimental tests, which support the fundamental principles of the modern theory of evolution and explore details thereof, are published by the hundreds every month. This makes the modern theory of evolution one of the most well supported scientific theories there is. Further to SwansonT's peppered moth example, well supported studies have linked reproductive isolation to genetic divergence between related species e.g. http://onlinelibrary...1096.x/abstract and http://www.sciencema...8/5847/95.short, changes in phenotype to changes in genotype e.g. http://www.plosbiolo...al.pbio.1000363 and http://www.nature.co...ng.2007.70.html, environment to changes in phenotype and genotype e.g. http://www.nature.co...ature07285.html and http://www.cell.com/...092867408001141, etc and so on.

 

Basically - saying "You've never observed speciation so therefore you have no proof it happens." is akin to saying "You didn't see that oak tree in your front yard grow from an acorn so you can't prove that it did."

[markearthling]

I guess you are right.

 

Thanks for the references.

 

I still have some reading to do.

 

I have my L plates firmly affixed to my rear bumper

[Ophiolite]

On the subject of dictionary definitions maybe someone should

take this up with the dictionary makers because there are

a lot of lay people out there who have the wrong

impression of things scientific (lead up the garden path)

because of what the dictionary makers print and because

most lay people read ordinary dictionaries.

Dictionaries reflect common usage, they do not set standards, they reflect standards. If you want a scientific definition of theory one consults a dictionary of science. If one wishes a lay definition, reflecting everyday usage one consults a regular dictionary. It is not the dictionary makers who need to be approached, but educators and individuals.

[Arete]

I guess you are right.

 

Thanks for the references.

 

I still have some reading to do.

 

I have my L plates firmly affixed to my rear bumper

 

 

No worries. Many of us spend several years studying full time just to catch up on the known research and concepts, so it's not a trivial task to try and evaluate the existing evidence. It's exceptionally admirable to actually try rather than dismissing it all out of hand.

[Edtharan]

Evolution can be proven. It is a matter of mathematics.

 

System Analysis is the analysis of algorithms. Algorithms are a proven generalisation of how algebra works, and algebra is the proven generalisation of how mathematics work. At each stage of this there are mathematical proofs to support the next level.

 

What system analysis does is use the mathematics of algorithms to show one process is algorithmically identical to another. Thus one can take a process that occurs in the real world (such as the processing of forms) and turn it into a computer program by showing that the two are mathematically identical.

 

Basically, anything that can be shown to work as an algorithm can be mathematically proven to operate as stated. As evolution can be programmed into a computer, it can be shown to be true, and using system analysis, it can be shown that biological evolution is identical to algorithmic evolution, thus proving biological evolution to be true.

[Ophiolite]

Please provide appropriate citations from peer reviewed journals demonstrating this concept.

[swansont]

Basically, anything that can be shown to work as an algorithm can be mathematically proven to operate as stated. As evolution can be programmed into a computer, it can be shown to be true, and using system analysis, it can be shown that biological evolution is identical to algorithmic evolution, thus proving biological evolution to be true.

 

That last step is the problem, I think. Things that work mathematically can be proven true, but you also have the burden of showing that that's how nature does it. e.g. I can show that the harmonic oscillator is mathematically valid, but not all physical systems are harmonic oscillators.

[pantheory]

Montanman

 

I understand that in general a theory describes how something or a system works.

 

Theories may be correct or incorrect. They may accurately reflect the reality

or they may simply be ideas and not facts ( unsubstantiated ideas in some cases).

 

Many people think that evolutionary theory is all fact. I do not agree with this.

Many of it's ideas are unsubstantiated. For example I have been told

( by Ophiolite here ) that speciation has been observed but I have not yet

seen the evidence ( I have some research links on this I am looking at now).

There are other evolutionary ideas I am also not sure about.

 

Natural selection as far as I can see works fine and is demonstrated

today ( and past observations ) in the wild/nature.

 

When I have seen more hard evidence I may change my mind in a number of

areas.

 

On that last point you made above I agree that I was just stating the obvious.

 

Thanks again for your help.

 

Of course some consider that speciation is still debatable. It is at the heart of evolution just following natural selection. I suggest you read as much as you wish on the subject. As for myself I have seen lots of great examples/ evidence for it but don't wish to spend the time to find the links at this time. Hopefully, for your questions sake, others will do so. If not later I might look for the examples that I aware of.

 

There is lots of evidence that some of the animals within the same genus can bread together, lions and tigers, whales and dolphins, horses and donkeys, etc. One of the definitions of speciation, with lots of exceptions like the ones given, are that animals in different species no longer can bread together. In the cases given, some of the off-spring are fertile and some are not. It is not a point to be argued IMHO unless you are educated concerning "examples" of natural selection and speciation which would require at least several days of investigation on the net IMO.

 

Obviously there are no "certain" examples that are beyond argument, but it's easy to draw logical conclusions from the evidence that speciation exists IMHO. The problem is that it usually takes millions of years to occur and is more rare concerning members of an evolving species when both species are alive. Realize that speciation does not necessary mean that the species that started the speciation has died off although that usually is the case. Speciation is also not thought to always be linear or based upon natural selection. An example would be a virus or bacteria getting into the DNA of a living animal and its embryos. It could in one step modify the offspring to the extent that it would not be better adapted but might be equally adapted. This "new species" might prefer breading with each other and may not be able to bread with members of its original species. There are many man-made examples of creating divergent individuals using foreign DNA.

[pantheory]

Here are a few links that I found concerning/ discussing speciation.

 

http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html

 

http://answers.yahoo...28124045AAJzK57

 

http://www.nature.co...e081002-01.html

 

http://www.nature.co...l/6800840a.html

 

 

One of the examples concerns a type of lake fish, I have heard of before. There are also other examples that I am aware of but could not find links in the brief time that I researched it. Evolution like other theory have theoretical variations to it and as you understand much of it is speculative but the general principles of natural selection I believe are beyond question in that I would bet my house (no mortgage) against a six pack (when I am thirsty ) that this theory of natural selection is generally correct.

Edited June 27, 2011 by pantheory

[MajorTom]

OP, I'd recommend TalkOrigins.org. Great source with references.

 

Also, for a good explanation of Evolution and how it relates to scientific theory, please read the following Stephen Jay Gould quote:

 

"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

 

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

 

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

[Aerials]

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

 

What is the state of evolution? When did evolution officially become a 'fact'? I have trouble with this because it seems like people use this statement because evolution has outgrown the word 'theory', which seems to downplay the entire thing. Personally, I have been researching the topic for a couple of a months now and feel that I have a pretty decent understanding of the subject. I understand that we can know that the process itself is fact, evolution really does occur. And that there is an enormous body of evidence that has been assembled, that seems to fit perfectly. But I still feel a bit unsure of the factuality of the deeper aspects of the theory, maybe because I still don't know enough. I just wonder if 'fact' is a little too arrogant, and if 'theory' doesn't quite do it justice. If there is some kind of middle ground between the two, maybe that's still where evolution belongs.

[CharonY]

The fact part applies to the observation that allele frequencies change over time. In fact, only under very limited conditions can you expect these changes (i.e. evolution) not to happen. Just to clarify, evolution is defined as the change of allele frequency within a population over time. Everything else, including speciation, is basically a consequence thereof.

 

The theory part mostly deals with the kind kind of mechanism that are involved an their relative contribution. For instance the role of horizontal gene transfer is quite a hot topic.

Edited June 28, 2011 by CharonY

[MajorTom]

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

 

What is the state of evolution? When did evolution officially become a 'fact'? I have trouble with this because it seems like people use this statement because evolution has outgrown the word 'theory', which seems to downplay the entire thing. Personally, I have been researching the topic for a couple of a months now and feel that I have a pretty decent understanding of the subject. I understand that we can know that the process itself is fact, evolution really does occur. And that there is an enormous body of evidence that has been assembled, that seems to fit perfectly. But I still feel a bit unsure of the factuality of the deeper aspects of the theory, maybe because I still don't know enough. I just wonder if 'fact' is a little too arrogant, and if 'theory' doesn't quite do it justice. If there is some kind of middle ground between the two, maybe that's still where evolution belongs.

 

I'm not sure I understand your question. Let me take a shot at it, tell me if I'm misunderstanding you..

 

An observation or data can be considered fact. Evolution has been observed. Speciation has been observed. There is nothing arrogant about that. We've observed it in the lab and in nature.

 

A theory is an explanation of some element of nature supported by facts, laws, etc.

 

The Theory of Evolution, sets to explain the facts and data we've gathered.

 

Theories are held to be more powerful in science because they have explanatory power and are able to make predictions. These facts, these observations are important, but it's the theory that is the amazing part. It has the power to make predictions on the world.