How accurate is the theory of evolution by natural selection of darwin?

[ark200]

1.how large the sample of study darwin conducted was?

2.how many accurate prediction the theory has made?

3.what kind of sampling method darwin used? probability or non probability?

4. did darwin have any researcher bias i.e. his thought was effected by somebody's idea?

5. what is the effect size of the scientific field where darwin conducted research?

[harshgoel1975]

 

4. did darwin have any researcher bias i.e. his thought was effected by somebody's idea?

 

 

 

Darwin theory and Indian God incarnation has close resemblance..First incarnation of GOD as single cell amoeba and last one was full fledged Human being .. between , animal in water, water-earth animal.. half human half animal and so on....strange...

Edited August 4, 2014 by harshgoel1975

[ajb]

I am not familiar with Darwin's evidence for natural selection, but one must remember that there has been evidence of evolution and natural selection since Darwin published his findings. In this respect it is not really of any importance as to what evidence Darwin had. The ideas have been shown to be realised in nature time and time again. Finding any holes in Darwin's work will prove nothing.

 

I guess to find out what Darwin's original ideas were you should read his book The Origin of Species.

Edited August 4, 2014 by ajb

[chadn737]

The questions you are asking assume modern statistics and research practices at a time when modern science was still in its infancy and statistics didn't really exist as a field. Darwin's arguments were in large part anecdotal and not based on actual probability, but rather field observations. However, he drew on many sources of data from not only his travels, but also the burgeoning field of plant and animal breeding at the time.

 

That is really irrelevant however, because in the 150 or so since Darwin, thousands of scientists have conducted thousands of experiments in numerous organisms testing all aspects of Darwin's theories. After 150 years of rigorous research, Darwin's central ideas have held and so we accredit him with them.

[Phi for All]

 

1.how large the sample of study darwin conducted was?

2.how many accurate prediction the theory has made?

3.what kind of sampling method darwin used? probability or non probability?

4. did darwin have any researcher bias i.e. his thought was effected by somebody's idea?

5. what is the effect size of the scientific field where darwin conducted research?

 

I find this fairly dishonest, intellectually speaking. You seem to be claiming that the pioneer of this theory be held to standards and experimentation parameters that are 150 years ahead of his time. Since his time, like all mainstream theories, others have built enormously on his original work. They've done what scientists do, they've removed what was false and what's real and observable is left.

 

I can only conclude that you have some sort of argument up your sleeve that requires Darwin to be some kind of scientific stumblebum. Good luck with that. Evolution is still an observable process with mountains of evidence to back it up.

[ark200]

 

Darwin theory and Indian God incarnation has close resemblance..First incarnation of GOD as single cell amoeba and last one was full fledged Human being .. between , animal in water, water-earth animal.. half human half animal and so on....strange...

very funny explanation

[ark200]

some more tests of scientific theory apart from prediction:

1. it must be supported by many evidence rather than one evidence.

2. it is consistent with pre existing theories.

3.It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered.

did theory of evolution meet any of the above mentioned criteria?

[hypervalent_iodine]

Yes.

[Ophiolite]

 

some more tests of scientific theory apart from prediction:

1. it must be supported by many evidence rather than one evidence.

2. it is consistent with pre existing theories.

3.It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered.

did theory of evolution meet any of the above mentioned criteria?

 

1. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is supported by multiple lines of evidence from palaeontology, anatomy, ethology, microbiology, genetics, zoology and botany.

2. It need only be consistent with pre-existing theories, if those theories give a good explanation for observation. They don't.

3. Through the work of Sewall Wright, J.B.S.Haldane, R.A.Fisher, Ernst Mayr, G.G.Simpson, T.Dhobzhansky and others a wealth of new material was incorporated into what became known as the Modern synthesis.

 

You appear to be critical of the theory. Is this the case? If so why? (And if so, is it wise to be critical of something of which you are largely ignorant?)

[Delta1212]

I think it's also important to note, I think, that Darwin could have gone about developing his theory in a completely unscientific way and it wouldn't make a lick of difference to modern evolutionary theory. We've had a century and a half since Darwin both to better develop the scientific process and to make sure the modern theory of evolution fits the more rigorous criteria of a scientific theory.

 

As noted above, a lot of people have worked on it since Darwin and it is considerably updated since his time. He got a surprising amount right considering the limited information he was working with as far as the genetics and the mechanism for inheritance go, but, again, it doesn't really matter how much he did or didn't get right as the theory has moved on since his time. On the Origin of Species is an interesting historical text but it isn't a textbook on our current understanding of evolution.

 

One of the great things about science is that the idea have lives independent of their originators. It is entirely possible to base good science on an idea that came from a crackpot as long as someone puts in the work to make the idea conform to scientific standards, updating it as necessary.

 

Darwin wasn't a crackpot, but his ideas have undergone that same process, so whether or not evolution fit the criteria for a good scientific theory at the moment he wrote it is entirely irrelevant to whether it fits those criteria now, which it does.

[Greg H.]

The more questions this chap asks, the more it starts to sound like he's working on a paper for school.

[chadn737]

 

some more tests of scientific theory apart from prediction:

1. it must be supported by many evidence rather than one evidence.

2. it is consistent with pre existing theories.

3.It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered.

did theory of evolution meet any of the above mentioned criteria?

 

 

All of them.

[ark200]

1. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is supported by multiple lines of evidence from palaeontology, anatomy, ethology, microbiology, genetics, zoology and botany.

2. It need only be consistent with pre-existing theories, if those theories give a good explanation for observation. They don't.

3. Through the work of Sewall Wright, J.B.S.Haldane, R.A.Fisher, Ernst Mayr, G.G.Simpson, T.Dhobzhansky and others a wealth of new material was incorporated into what became known as the Modern synthesis.

 

You appear to be critical of the theory. Is this the case? If so why? (And if so, is it wise to be critical of something of which you are largely ignorant?)

 

i want to verify the validity of a scientific theory. i don't think that one should not verify a theory becoz some authority has made the theory. this is unscientific attitude. hence my attempt.

 

but one question is not yet answered. what practical prediction is made by the theory and how accurate it was? can you give me any prediction that the theory accurately made?

The more questions this chap asks, the more it starts to sound like he's working on a paper for school.

well if i did work on a school paper whats wrong with that? you are a blind believer of authority. you don't think it is necessary to verify a theory when some authority made it. this is not a scientific attitude.

[ajb]

but one question is not yet answered. what practical prediction is made by the theory and how accurate it was? can you give me any prediction that the theory accurately made?

The prediction that we share more DNA with a Chimpanzee and less with a spider monkey, for example.

[ark200]

why fossil record don't show intermediary steps of development?

The prediction that we share more DNA with a Chimpanzee and less with a spider monkey, for example.

but still there is some match of DNA between man and spider monkey. isn't it? the degree shows that. but it should be no match between man and spider monkey.

[ajb]

I though there were some examples, like archaeopteryx.

[Delta1212]

why fossil record don't show intermediary steps of development?

 

 

The "missing link" hasn't been missing for decades. We constantly find intermediate fossils for all sorts of species. We can trace theropod dinosaurs to modern birds fairly well as a non-human example.

[ajb]

but still there is some match of DNA between man and spider monkey. isn't it? the degree shows that. but it should be no match between man and spider monkey.

Why no match? We share a common ancestor with everything. But our separation from a Chimpanzee is later than that of a spider monkey. If we evolved from great apes, then we would expect to share more DNA with them than other types of primates.

[Delta1212]

I'd expect to see more of a match between humans and spider monkeys than humans and (e.g.) ostriches. I'd also expect to see more of a match between humans and ostriches than between humans and trees.

 

In fact, having absolutely no match at all with spider monkeys would go against the predictions of evolution. The fact that there is some degree of match is a prediction of evolution, not evidence against it.

[StringJunky]

why fossil record don't show intermediary steps of development?

There won't be fossils available for every stage of evolution in all organisms for the simple fact that their structures weren't amenable to the fossilization process, or some other method of natural preservation, for reasons such as having no hard structures to concentrate minerals on/in to create an impression of their -past form. The prevailing and future geological make up of the terrain where they lived and ultimately perished also determined if they were preserved or not. Lots of factors were against preserving specimens.

Edited August 5, 2014 by StringJunky

[Delta1212]

There won't be fossils available for every stage of evolution in all organisms for the simple fact that their structures weren't amenable to the fossilization process, or some other method of natural preservation, for reasons such as having no hard structures to concentrate minerals on/in to create an impression of their -past form.

That, and not every dead animal falls into a peat bog.

 

Most dead things simply don't become fossils, not every fossil that forms survives to modern times and not every fossil that exists had been found.

 

The sampling we do have though shows plenty of intermediate stages and conforms very well to what we'd expect to find given evolutionary theory.

[StringJunky]

The sampling we do have though shows plenty of intermediate stages and conforms very well to what we'd expect to find given evolutionary theory.

It's the only horse in the race methinks.

[Greg H.]

 

The more questions this chap asks, the more it starts to sound like he's working on a paper for school.

well if i did work on a school paper whats wrong with that? you are a blind believer of authority. you don't think it is necessary to verify a theory when some authority made it. this is not a scientific attitude.

 

 

Your blind ad hominem attack isn't going to earn you any points. My point is, if you're trying to get assistance with a school assignment of some kind, there is a proper place on the forums to do so, and it also changes how we respond to you.

 

That aside, no, I don't find it necessary to validate every scientific theory I run across. I make the assumption that the authorities in question (scientists, in other words) know what they are talking about and, if they do not, the further assumption that other scientists will happily correct them by failing to validate their predictions. Science, you see, is a self-correcting process. False ideas only get to propogate so far before someone falsifies them.

 

Darwinism, in it's original form, looks only remotely like the current theory of evolution. We have made huge advances in all areas of science related to this field in the 150 years since Darwin first wrote Origin. We have supporting evidence from multiple scientific disciplines that provide us a more complete picture of how life evolved and conitnues to evolve on this planet.

 

And finally, appealing to authority is only a fallacy when the authority in question has no particular knowledge on the subject at hand.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Greg H.

[chadn737]

Based on models of evolution we can make numerous predictions about how genomes and organisms evolve and then test those models against the actual data. These models are also used to guide modern plant and animal breeding, which is evolution in action.

[Phi for All]

you are a blind believer of authority. you don't think it is necessary to verify a theory when some authority made it. this is not a scientific attitude.

why fossil record don't show intermediary steps of development?

 

You have to be very careful with this. Some "authority" told you there were no intermediary steps of development in the fossil record, but there are. The "authority" you're listening to was wrong, but you didn't question them before asking us.

 

So far, this is sounding like all the creationist arguments that have been debunked for a long time. Why do creationists ask questions, receive detailed scientific knowledge back, and then ignore the answers?

 

I predict there will be some talk about micro and macro evolution soon.