Why do GOP candidates keep stumbling on evolution? By Byron York

[Dexter]

a theory is at best an educated guess.

The most educated guess we can possibly make based on all of the evidence we have, yes.

[ABX]

It's important to understand that theories are still believed by the vast majority of scientists. When something is a theory it is the best conclusion that the most qualified people in the world have come to based on the evidence we have.

I was biting my tongue saying something but the 'just a theory' is one of the biggest fallacies people mention. A theory in science isn't a 'guess' or a belief. It is related to the word 'theorem' and is a larger basis point that can be measured against that is supported by evidence. It is a completely different definition of the word.
For example, gravity is a theory (Gravitational Theory). That doesn't mean people are just 'guessing' or believing in gravity but that it is a larger construct that can be measured and supported by evidence.

Global Warming isn't a theory or a law, it is a predictive model that references theories and laws to try to create a model of future events.

Unfortunately when one reads media and internet accounts of things, the term theory is interchanged with both scientific theory (theorem) and guess and it clouds the layperson's thinking.

[Carling]

Why is that unbelievable? The vast majority of the random mutations are failures. On the rare occasion a mutation creates an advantage it increases the probability of living longer and mating more times. Each time there is a successful mutation it makes the evolving creature more and more successful/advanced.

What is the frequency of these genetic mutations?  Shouldn't there be species created out of mutations that have been documented over the past 1000 years?  How does mutation work?

[Dexter]

I was biting my tongue saying something but the 'just a theory' is one of the biggest fallacies people mention. A theory in science isn't a 'guess' or a belief. It is related to the word 'theorem' and is a larger basis point that can be measured against that is supported by evidence. It is a completely different definition of the word.
For example, gravity is a theory (Gravitational Theory). That doesn't mean people are just 'guessing' or believing in gravity but that it is a larger construct that can be measured and supported by evidence.

Global Warming isn't a theory or a law, it is a predictive model that references theories and laws to try to create a model of future events.

Unfortunately when one reads media and internet accounts of things, the term theory is interchanged with both scientific theory (theorem) and guess and it clouds the layperson's thinking.

A lot of people don't realize theories unify a plethora of different ideas in science. If a theory is proven wrong it completely redefines the way we look at everything related to it. Calling something a theory does not delegitimize its significance in the least.

[Carling]

The most educated guess we can possibly make based on all of the evidence we have, yes.

Yes, a guess.  You do know what the word "guess" means, I assume.

Here is some homework for you.  You believe in the scientific theory of evolution.  Create organic life in a petri dish for me out of inorganic matter, and then document it evolving into new species, and then I'll listen more closely, since you proved the theory scientifically. 

Frankly, almost nothing you post here is worth reading, and I rarely read your posts, so I'm doing this out of amusement at this point.

[Dexter]

What is the frequency of these genetic mutations?  Shouldn't there be species created out of mutations that have been documented over the past 1000 years?  How does mutation work?

Why do you think we need to get new flu shots so often? The flu is evolving. I don't think you understand the time tables when it comes to macro evolution, but we absolutely can observe micro evolution.

[Dexter]

Yes, a guess.  You do know what the word "guess" means, I assume.

Here is some homework for you.  You believe in the scientific theory of evolution.  Create organic life in a petri dish for me out of inorganic matter, and then document it evolving into new species, and then I'll listen more closely, since you proved the theory scientifically. 

Frankly, almost nothing you post here is worth reading, and I rarely read your posts, so I'm doing this out of amusement at this point.

Calling something a theory does not delegitimize the idea at all. It means the most educated people in the world are saying "We believe this is true, and everything we can observe confirms that belief."

[Dexter]

Yes, a guess.  You do know what the word "guess" means, I assume.

Here is some homework for you.  You believe in the scientific theory of evolution.  Create organic life in a petri dish for me out of inorganic matter, and then document it evolving into new species, and then I'll listen more closely, since you proved the theory scientifically. 

Frankly, almost nothing you post here is worth reading, and I rarely read your posts, so I'm doing this out of amusement at this point.

I really only allowed the word "guess" to slide because it wasn't worth nitpicking. Guess implies a lack of evidence, but theories have lots and lots of evidence and they unify entire scientific concepts. You really just don't understand the magnitude of something being a scientific theory.

[Carling]

Why do you think we need to get new flu shots so often? The flu is evolving. I don't think you understand the time tables when it comes to macro evolution, but we absolutely can observe micro evolution.

The flu is still the flu, but the virus mutates.  It just has different strains.  When the flu evolves into a new disease, let me know.  The common cold mutates all the time, too, but the virus still has the genetic marking of a cold.

[Carling]

I really only allowed the word "guess" to slide because it wasn't worth nitpicking. You really just don't understand the magnitude of something being a scientific theory.

Um, OK.  When does that theory become a scientific law?  Can you teach me that too?

[Carling]

Calling something a theory does not delegitimize the idea at all. It means the most educated people in the world are saying "We believe this is true, and everything we can observe confirms that belief."

Educated scientists would never admit that a theory is "true."  You really don't understand the scientific method at all.

[Dexter]

 

[Carling]

Evolution doesn't massively change the appearance of a creature over short periods of time; it takes millions of generations and successful mutations to do that.

Wouldn't the fossil record record these millions of mutated generations.  I'm wondering where the evolutionary chain is that has Neanderthals extinct, yet chimpanzees unchanged for generations.  How does that work?

And yes, I realize you're a liberal plant here.  I just want some answers from your side for once.

[Oceander]

Evolution is a theory.  It is not a scientific law, such as gravity.  In science, theories are not things that should be "believed in."  In fact, scientists argue that believing in a theory adds bias to the process of evaluating that theory.  Theories are frameworks for developing hypotheses which are then tested.  When so many hypotheses have been tested and verified that there is a general consensus in science that a theory is absolutely valid, then the theory becomes a scientific law, as it did in the case of gravity.

Neither evolution or global warming are recognized in science as laws.

The only people who "believe in" theories are people who are involved in politics rather than science, and that includes those who are trained in science but become advocates of theories.

Why conservatives have such a difficult time communicating this very basic principle is beyond me. 

Here is what I would say: "Maybe a better question would be whether God believes in evolution.  I keep asking Him but he gives me the same answer he gives the scientists: lots of evidence but no definitive answer."

Gravity is a theory as well.  Gravity is the bone of contention between the two basic conceptual frameworks for the Universe:  the Standard Theory of quantum physics and Einstein's General Relativity.  It's even worse:  in the Standard Theory, the graviton - the particle that's hypothesized to carry the gravitational force - is just that, hypothetical.  No one's ever seen it.  And in General Relativity it's even worse:  GR punts on the whole question of whether gravity actually exists or if it's just an epiphenomenon resulting from the curvature of space (which, of course, also begs the question of how matter actually interacts with space, to my mind).

In fact, the Universe itself is theory, not fact (if you will; the whole discussion begs the question of what we mean when we say "fact" - beyond the immediate material objects we can directly interact with).  Specifically, how many dimensions does it have?  Is time a "dimension" or just another epiphenomenon?  If more than 4, how many.  In fact there's even a rather elegant theory that posits that the 3+1 universe we experience is holographic.

As a matter of theoretical certainty, gravity is more like evolution than it differs.

[Carling]

Gravity is a theory as well.  Gravity is the bone of contention between the two basic conceptual frameworks for the Universe:  the Standard Theory of quantum physics and Einstein's General Relativity.  It's even worse:  in the Standard Theory, the graviton - the particle that's hypothesized to carry the gravitational force - is just that, hypothetical.  No one's ever seen it.  And in General Relativity it's even worse:  GR punts on the whole question of whether gravity actually exists or if it's just an epiphenomenon resulting from the curvature of space (which, of course, also begs the question of how matter actually interacts with space, to my mind).

In fact, the Universe itself is theory, not fact (if you will; the whole discussion begs the question of what we mean when we say "fact" - beyond the immediate material objects we can directly interact with).  Specifically, how many dimensions does it have?  Is time a "dimension" or just another epiphenomenon?  If more than 4, how many.  In fact there's even a rather elegant theory that posits that the 3+1 universe we experience is holographic.

As a matter of theoretical certainty, gravity is more like evolution than it differs.

"Gravity," for whatever you want to label it, will yield the same result 100% of the time on earth.  Here is an experiment for you.  Place a pen in your hand, and then let go of it 100 times in a row.  Let me know if the results at all deviate from the pen falling to the floor, and not moving unless you drop it on a downhill slope.

Science has been so bastardized by this Evolution/Global Warming nonsense.  LIVs eat this crap up, and I know you're not a LIV.

[Dexter]

Wouldn't the fossil record record these millions of mutated generations.

Not every creature that dies creates a fossil that can be examined millions of years later. A creature needs to die in a very specific way for us to be able to observe it later. Nevertheless the fossil record does show many mutations of many different evolutionary chains.

I'm wondering where the evolutionary chain is that has Neanderthals extinct, yet chimpanzees unchanged for generations.  How does that work?

Chimpanzees have a common ancestor and have evolved as well. Humans are not the end result of evolution. All ape like creatures are not in the process of evolving into humans. Different creatures evolve differently depending on their environments and what mutations happened to give them advantages. It's entirely possible that other ape like creatures will never evolve to be more similar to us.

And yes, I realize you're a liberal plant here.  I just want some answers from your side for once.

Oops, busted. I'll have to inform Obama that my secret operations here have been foiled.

[Oceander]

Wouldn't the fossil record record these millions of mutated generations.  I'm wondering where the evolutionary chain is that has Neanderthals extinct, yet chimpanzees unchanged for generations.  How does that work?

And yes, I realize you're a liberal plant here.  I just want some answers from your side for once.

Evolution is not necessarily a gradual straight-line process where there is a whole continuum of entities showing partial changes between the starting point and the ending point.  Punctuated Equilibrium is a rather robust theory that posits that evolution consists of short bursts of change separating relatively long periods stasis.

And at any event, appealing to the fossil record, or rather the relative paucity of the fossil record, as evidence that evolution is wrong because the record doesn't contain the intermediate steps, is not a good argument, for two reasons:  (a) by its very nature the fossil record consists of mostly missing pieces, and (b) absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Dexter]

Evolution is not necessarily a gradual straight-line process where there is a whole continuum of entities showing partial changes between the starting point and the ending point.  Punctuated Equilibrium is a rather robust theory that posits that evolution consists of short bursts of change separating relatively long periods stasis.

And at any event, appealing to the fossil record, or rather the relative paucity of the fossil record, as evidence that evolution is wrong because the record doesn't contain the intermediate steps, is not a good argument, for two reasons:  (a) by its very nature the fossil record consists of mostly missing pieces, and (b) absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Carling]

Evolution is not necessarily a gradual straight-line process where there is a whole continuum of entities showing partial changes between the starting point and the ending point.  Punctuated Equilibrium is a rather robust theory that posits that evolution consists of short bursts of change separating relatively long periods stasis.

And at any event, appealing to the fossil record, or rather the relative paucity of the fossil record, as evidence that evolution is wrong because the record doesn't contain the intermediate steps, is not a good argument, for two reasons:  (a) by its very nature the fossil record consists of mostly missing pieces, and (b) absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I read it as (A) evolutionary theory cannot be proven in a laboratory setting, and (B) which fossil records are considered "missing pieces?"  I've heard from Dex that changes are subtle, yet I've heard from you that changes are in the fossil record.  How would anyone know if they are in the fossil record if they can't replicate the science in a controlled setting?

[Carling]

  Punctuated Equilibrium

Prove punctuated equilibrium, as it applies to evolution, in a controlled scientific setting.  Why are you averse to the Scientific Method?

Remember, I'm not a creationist at all, either, but reading the BS from people like you who claim to know it all comes across as delusional as the 6-Day Creationists. 

What's wrong with just saying "we don't know?"

[Oceander]

"Gravity," for whatever you want to label it, will yield the same result 100% of the time on earth.  Here is an experiment for you.  Place a pen in your hand, and then let go of it 100 times in a row.  Let me know if the results at all deviate from the pen falling to the floor, and not moving unless you drop it on a downhill slope.

Science has been so bastardized by this Evolution/Global Warming nonsense.  LIVs eat this crap up, and I know you're not a LIV.

Actually, no, it doesn't.  The difference in the curvature of space, as small as it is, can be measured.  NASA in fact used the Gravity Probe B to measure the effects of relativity and the curvature of space.


And we can also see the predicate necessary for evolution every day.  In fact, unfortunately, it shows up in the form of cancer.  DNA is remarkably unstable and mutates all the time.  Some mutations have little or no effect - although some of them do add to the variety of hair color, for example - and many are lethal, but mutation is the basic building block of evolution.

And the changes that non-lethal mutations - shall we say changes in the DNA - create can have astoundingly large effects even if the change itself is very small.  Double a short DNA sequence - something that can happen quite easily under the DNA/RNA method of replicating DNA - and the effects can be astounding (provided they're not lethal).  Very small changes in the DNA of the fruit fly can have dramatic effects (to understate it).

Thinking evolution is a lie because one cannot see actual "evolution" in the short term is of a kind with liberals/progs who think capitalism and free market economics are lies because they cannot see Adam Smith's invisible hand.

[Oceander]

Prove punctuated equilibrium, as it applies to evolution, in a controlled scientific setting.  Why are you averse to the Scientific Method?

Remember, I'm not a creationist at all, either, but reading the BS from people like you who claim to know it all comes across as delusional as the 6-Day Creationists. 

What's wrong with just saying "we don't know?"

Prove the Sun will rise tomorrow morning.

[truth_seeker]

It's important to understand that theories are still believed by the vast majority of scientists. When something is a theory it is the best conclusion that the most qualified people in the world have come to based on the evidence we have.

Not all theories have the same degree of acceptance. In different disciplines, there are greater or lesser degrees of general acceptance.

Only during my lifetime, did they discover the settlement of norsemen in Canada, Eric the Red I believe, year 1,000.
That altered the beliefs about that topic, quite drastically. Staying with the settlement of North America, we still are not settled on dates for the first arrivals from NE Asia, but we are more certain every few years.

Trying to grapple with these topics scientifically, across disciplines, makes it ridiculous to waste time on young earth creationists, when archaeology, geology, argue so strongly against it.

[Oceander]

Not all theories have the same degree of acceptance. In different disciplines, there are greater or lesser degrees of general acceptance.

Only during my lifetime, did they discover the settlement of norsemen in Canada, Eric the Red I believe, year 1,000.
That altered the beliefs about that topic, quite drastically. Staying with the settlement of North America, we still are not settled on dates for the first arrivals from NE Asia, but we are more certain every few years.

Trying to grapple with these topics scientifically, across disciplines, makes it ridiculous to waste time on young earth creationists, when archaeology, geology, argue so strongly against it.

Heck, the "theory" of continental drift is barely a century old.

And, apropos of the "show me" "argument" against evolution, I found this chestnut regarding continental drift:

David Attenborough, who attended university in the second half of the 1940s, recounted an incident illustrating its lack of acceptance then: "I once asked one of my lecturers why he was not talking to us about continental drift and I was told, sneeringly, that if I could I prove there was a force that could move continents, then he might think about it. The idea was moonshine, I was informed."

And all along, that force was there, right beneath his lecturer's feet.

[Carling]

In fact, the Universe itself is theory, not fact (if you will; the whole discussion begs the question of what we mean when we say "fact" - beyond the immediate material objects we can directly interact with).  Specifically, how many dimensions does it have?  Is time a "dimension" or just another epiphenomenon?  If more than 4, how many.  In fact there's even a rather elegant theory that posits that the 3+1 universe we experience is holographic.

I don't at all claim to understand the universe.  It's beyond my comprehension as a human on earth.  Your theories about the universe seem like wild ass guesses to me.