Disprove evolution - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

tecoyah · 03-22-2004, 01:01 PM

Felt it might be an intersting exersize, and get the discussion in here going again.
Is there any way to "Prove" that evolution is an incorrect model?

shakran · 03-22-2004, 01:17 PM

not with the current evidence. If there were, the creationists would have already won

Bill O'Rights · 03-22-2004, 01:24 PM

Nope.

Damn. That was a short discussion. Of course you can't disprove evolution...any more than you can disprove creationism. I would, however, argue that the proof for evolution lies in the fossil record; whereas the proof for creationism lies totaly in the Bible, which I don't beleive in either.

Ustwo · 03-22-2004, 01:49 PM

Quote:

I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

CSflim · 03-22-2004, 02:00 PM

There are two meanings of the words fact/know/prove/etc.

There is the philosophical, pedantic, epistemological version: Essentially we cannot know anything, after all we could be plugged into The Matrix...

There is also the ordinary everyday sense of these words. It is a fact that New York is a city in America. I know that I am sitting at my computer typing. It is a fact that the earth is round, and that it revolves around the sun.

Evolution is a fact in the same sense of the word that it is a fact that the earth is round.

You can get pedantic and philosophical and demand that evolution is "just a theory", but to ensure that you are not being inconsistent, it is necessary that you apply that same status to everything. ("it is only a theory that things fall down, not up")

Bill O'Rights · 03-22-2004, 02:32 PM

OK, Ustwo, I get your point. Substitute "proof" with "evidence", and I still stand by my statement.

Oh, and welcome back, by the way.

Ustwo · 03-22-2004, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill O'Rights
OK, Ustwo, I get your point. Substitute "proof" with "evidence", and I still stand by my statement.

Oh, and welcome back, by the way.

I didn't go anywhere, just avoiding politics, though I have been 'asked' back by someone I respect a lot so I may return

BTW that wasn't aimed at anyone.

tecoyah · 03-22-2004, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
I didn't go anywhere, just avoiding politics, though I have been 'asked' back by someone I respect a lot so I may return

Would you come back if asked by someone you have absolutely no respect for.....please. Regardless of differing opinions, you are valuable to the community, and......missed.

asaris · 03-22-2004, 04:16 PM

I think the question was, not whether or not given the current evidence it was reasonable to believe that evolution was incorrect, but whether or not there is any possible evidence that would disprove evolution. I would assume there is, but I'm not sure what it could be, and I'd like to see suggestions as to what exactly it could be.

CSflim · 03-22-2004, 04:46 PM

asaris:
I'm not really sure if that was what the question is asking...it would be a pretty uneventful conversation.

Of course evolution could be proved wrong. All scientific claims must be falsifiable, and evolution is no exception. In Origin, Darwin made plenty of points, that if true, would be "absolutely fatal to my theory",
The strongest of these points is thus:

Quote:

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."

Simple. If evolution is false, then finding such a counter example should be no problem. 150 years later...nada!

brianna · 03-22-2004, 04:56 PM

One of my biggest annoyances with the evolution debate is the apparent inability of those on the anti side to understand the concept of a scientific theory. When scientists refer to something as a theory they are essentially saying "no one has been able to prove this idea wrong yet." not "hey i have an interesting idea that i just came up with on the spot." In the last 150 years no one has been able to disprove the theory of evolution -- that doesn't make it defiantly true (science has high standards for declaring something a law) but it makes it a lot more viable than most other ideas out there. drives me freaking nuts.

/sorry for being a bit off topic.

orange monkeyee · 03-22-2004, 05:08 PM

Read Michael Crichton's Prey if you want a better understanding of evolutionary possibilities. He shows how competition causes adaptive responsiveness and relationships with other organisms.

CSflim · 03-22-2004, 05:50 PM

Well I have to say that I would be very much against the idea of reading science fiction with the aim of understanding scientific concepts.

If you are looking for a good solid introduction to what evolution is all about, then I would strongly reccomend The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. Absolutely unparalleled introduction to evolution.

Bill O'Rights · 03-22-2004, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by orange monkeyee
Read Michael Crichton's Prey if you want a better understanding of evolutionary possibilities. He shows how competition causes adaptive responsiveness and relationships with other organisms.

AAAHHHH!! I just started that book three days ago...don't say any more.

Ustwo · 03-22-2004, 07:01 PM

I’ve always have had a natural understanding of evolution. The concepts to me are as natural as breathing. Back when I was just staring my biology degree, I walked into a class of 800 students in the standard biology 110 course and scored 4th highest without going to a lecture, and I never had much experience in evolutionary biology before. The second class was the classic biology material and my equal effort got me a C, heh. The subject matter to me is as clear as gin, and goes down easier. I switched my major to one more ‘evolution’ based from the basic biology and have never understood how people have a hard time understanding evolution.

That being said don’t over estimate evolution any more than underestimate. Not all positive traits survive, not all negative ones die off, and just because it could work doesn’t mean the right mutations will happen to allow it.

I don’t think you can be a really competent biologist without understanding evolution, on almost any level. The interlocking species, the ebb and flow of bio-diversity, the basic chemistry of the cell is all part of this understanding.

Just always remember that you are the end product of for billion years of evolution, but so is the mosquito you just swatted and the bacteria growing on your teeth.

raeanna74 · 03-22-2004, 07:45 PM

This would be an unending debate. Both sides of the argument believe that it's possible, at least in their mind, to disprove the other side. Otherwise why would they believe as they do?

There has been a long discussion HERE with both sides trying to prove or disprove the two theories.

Personally, I say that if it's not observable and reproducible then you can't prove it. I have yet to see a dinosaur evolve from any lower life form or a dinosaur be spoken into existence by a higher being and I believe no one else as observed it either. So by those rights you cannot prove either.

Ustwo · 03-22-2004, 08:17 PM

I'm sorry but creationism is NOT a theory because it does not hold up to any tests. Its evidence is poor, its non-predictive, and contradicts the fossil record no matter how you want to look at it.

Its easier to believe that God set up the fossils and other evidence (and some have claimed this) then it is to believe that there is evidence for creationism.

Creationism is not a science any more then astrology or witchcraft.

It has been debated, debunked, defeated in all scientific terms, and only someone with a rabid belief in literalist interpretation of the bible could think other wise provided they were willing to look at the evidence.

I’d hate to tell you how I REALLY feel about it.

mr sticky · 03-22-2004, 08:42 PM

ok guys

How about these apples...

What I understand through various readings, is that God made the heavens and the earth...and the earth brought forth life!

Nowhere in the bible does it say that evolutionary process is wrong!

Can we both be right?

CSflim · 03-23-2004, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mr sticky
ok guys

How about these apples...

What I understand through various readings, is that God made the heavens and the earth...and the earth brought forth life!

Nowhere in the bible does it say that evolutionary process is wrong!

Can we both be right?

No. Because that's not what creationism is.

Creationism is the belief in a literal six day creation by God, a la Genesis. (So yeah, it does say in the bible that evolution is wrong....if you insist on taking it word-for-word)

You can still see that evolution is true and believe in God, but that is not what the "debate" is about.

CSflim · 03-23-2004, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raeanna74
Personally, I say that if it's not observable and reproducible then you can't prove it. I have yet to see a dinosaur evolve from any lower life form or a dinosaur be spoken into existence by a higher being and I believe no one else as observed it either. So by those rights you cannot prove either.

Not so. Evolution is observed all the time! Ever heard of drug-resistant bacteria? Where did they come from? I mean they didn't exist before...maybe our merciful and all-loving god decided that medical advances were going too far, and decided to whip up something new in his Creation Kitchen?

Or maybe they aren't new, merely evolved forms of other strains of bacteria, with a devolped trait of resistance to the popular drug. Such a turn of fate was predicted by evolutionists, who were warning about the misuse of drugs, before these drug resistant strains appeared.

If you want to actually perform a controlled experiment to view evolution in action, that can be done too. By exposing a sample of bacteria, over time, to higher and higher concentrations of a toxin, you can breed a drug resistant strain, right before your eyes!

Creationist: Yeah, but that's only microevolution.

Evolutionist: Sorry? 'microevolution'? What's that?

Creationist: It's a new term we made up. Anything that you can observe , we are defining as microevolution. Lets see some proper evolution...macroevolution

Evolutionist: So, you are defining everything that can be observed as microevolution, and are complaining about that fact that no one has observed macroevolution? Hmmm....

raeanna74 · 03-23-2004, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
I’d hate to tell you how I REALLY feel about it.

Yeah you really sound SORRY!

asaris · 03-23-2004, 08:37 AM

CSflim -- you're not really being fair to creationists. It seems to me to be a valid point that there's a difference between evolution within a species and evolution between species. Not that I agree with them, but I don't like to see them unfairly ridiculed either.

The point in my earlier post was that, if evolution could not be disproved, it wasn't a scientific theory, for all that it might look like a scientific theory. Now, as Popper has shown, all scientific theories tend to undergo ad hoc adjustments to preserve the theory. But at the end of the day, they can in fact be disproved. But a non-scientific theory like Freudianism, or Creationism for that matter, cannot be disproved, no matter what new facts come to light. One should be, at least, very suspicious of these sorts of theories. And it's a valid question as to whether or not evolution is really a scientific theory. To those who don't know a lot of science, it's very easy to make evolution look like a bunch of guesses, altered to fit the facts every time they change.

brianna · 03-23-2004, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raeanna74
Personally, I say that if it's not observable and reproducible then you can't prove it. I have yet to see a dinosaur evolve from any lower life form or a dinosaur be spoken into existence by a higher being and I believe no one else as observed it either. So by those rights you cannot prove either.

No one has actually seen a dinosaur AT ALL -- if you believe in the existence of dinosaurs you are already accepting the existence of something that cannot be observed or reproduced (Jurassic park non withstanding

). On top of that most creationists deny the existence of dinosaurs entirely or claim that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth TOGETHER.

The kind of evolution that I think you are demanding be produced before your eyes (what most refer to as "macroevolution" but which as was pointed out by CSFilm is really just sequential instances of "microevolution") takes place over hundreds of thousands of years. It you really want to understand evolution research it, I think you'll find that the science is there to support the theory -- something that is not even promised by the creationists.

rsl12 · 03-23-2004, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raeanna74
Personally, I say that if it's not observable and reproducible then you can't prove it. I have yet to see a dinosaur evolve from any lower life form or a dinosaur be spoken into existence by a higher being and I believe no one else as observed it either. So by those rights you cannot prove either.

Personally, I say that if it's not observable and reproducible then you can't prove it. I have yet to see electrons and protons appear in front of my eyes or I believe no one else living has observed them either. So by those rights you cannot prove either.

I have yet to see the dark side of Uranus with my own eyes and no one else living has observed it either. So by those rights you cannot prove it exists.

I have yet to see what's in the center of the earth and I believe no one else living has observed it either. So by those rights you cannot prove there's anything there.

I have yet to see a uranium atom split (all you can see is a big explosion) and I believe no one else living has observed it either. So by those rights you cannot prove that that's what's happening when you bombard uranium with neutrons.

dy156 · 03-23-2004, 02:35 PM

I posted this on another very similar topic, and will post it again here, because it fits. Call it circumstantial evidence against evolution explaining our current biology.
Yes, this makes three times now that I have posted the same quote, but I think it's compelling stuff.

Quote:

Originally posted by dy156
I didn't know whether to post this here or on the Darwinism thread, so I'll post it on both, because I have never heard this but it really made me think and I hope it generates discussion. It come from Greg Easterbrook, a guy that writes a football column, called the TMQ (Tuesday Morning Quarterback), that has football anaysis and alot of his thoughts on a wide range of topics. You can find threads about him and his column, and the controversy surrounding it in the politics or sports forums (fora?) Anyway, here it is.

quote:
TMQ is a churchgoer who believes there are higher powers and a life to come, but since the Bible tells us nothing about what the afterlife may be like, I don't pretend to know details. I can note, however, that the dying in many places having similar mental experiences is not "impossible" absent the supernatural. There may be a perfectly natural reason why people facing mortality see hallways of peace or wisdom: because that is what culture conditions people to expect on death. (Let's hope it's right!) As for the bright lights the dying sometimes report experiencing, this article by Brendan Koerner explains mundane physical theories. Among them are that brain anoxia, or oxygen depravation, causes the optic nerves to sense white; and that at death the body releases all stored endorphins (no need to keep saving them) to stop mortal agony and create a sense of peace, making dying less traumatic.

The latter biological possibility is actually one of the reasons TMQ believes that human beings were made by a God who loves us. Why would natural selection have cared about reducing a person's trauma at death? All natural selection cares about is fitness in passing down genes; if after replicating its DNA an organism dies in pain or panic, what's that to evolution? In Darwinian terms, there would be no "selection pressure" favoring the peaceful death over the horrible death. Yet there appear to be biological mechanisms that help most people die peacefully. Why are such mechanisms in our physiologies? Maybe because somebody loves us.

article mentioned in column

link to full TMQ

CSflim · 03-23-2004, 02:39 PM

dy156: well this at least is a step in the right direction for such a debate, as at least it represents some kind of an argument (unlike most of the sad tired creationist objections). However, it happens to be a rather deceptive claim:

Endorphin levels are elevated even by relatively minor trauma. Alleviating the pain and stress of a person who has suffered a trauma can keep them functional enough to take life-saving actions such as staunching the bleeding or seeking help. That endorphins are released also during fatal trauma is a side effect.

rsl12 · 03-23-2004, 04:13 PM

still an interesting point--during minor trauma, the endorphin levels may be raised, but not to the point that you feel more 'at peace' than you would on a normal day--just enough that you can stay functional and take care of yourself properly. Why would the brain cause a sense of peace when you're in mortal throes?

On the other hand, for every story of a person saying that they felt a sense of peace at the moment of death, there are probably 10 that say they never felt worse pain ever in their entire life before they were rescued from the fire, pulled out of the cold water, given a morphine injection, etc.

CSflim · 03-23-2004, 04:51 PM

I think there are two seperate arguments at work here.

There is the actual biological fact that recieving a mortal wound will flood your body with endorphins. I explained above why this occurs, and why it does not in any way contradict evolution. The more trauma, the more endorphins.

As for the sense of "feeling at peace" argument, well, like you said this is not an established fact, though I am sure that it happens in many cases (as well as the very opposite in plenty other cases). But again, I don't see how this is supposed to challenge evolution. It seems to me a rather simple psychological phenomenon.

EDIT: And the fact that not every human trait has any obvious survival benefit does not prove evolution wrong.
e.g. There doesn't seem to be a huge amount of survival benfit in appreciating beautiful sunsets! or music, or art, or whatever. Doesn't prove evolution wrong.
Since there is no complete model of how the human mind works, we cannot definitively say why humans tend to do X. Only armed with such knowledge can we begin to try and understand why such traits evolved.

raeanna74 · 03-23-2004, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brianna
On top of that most creationists deny the existence of dinosaurs entirely or claim that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth TOGETHER.

I just wanted to point out that I have yet to meet a creationist that DOESN'T believe that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together. IF they believe that everything was created in 7 days how could they not believe that all the creatures at one time co-existed?

CSflim · 03-23-2004, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raeanna74
I just wanted to point out that I have yet to meet a creationist that DOESN'T believe that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together. IF they believe that everything was created in 7 days how could they not believe that all the creatures at one time co-existed?

Not only that, but they were brought on the Ark with Noah.

"In Genesis 6:19–20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate (seven of the 'clean' animals) were brought by God to the Ark. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...nos_on_ark.asp

Xothan · 03-23-2004, 08:38 PM

I believe in both God and evolution, because if find it pretty difficult to believe that a great big swirling cloud of matter (The Big Bang) managed BY CHANCE to coalesce into universes, and that on hot chunk of rock, those same atoms of matter managed to become everything that exists on this fine planet we call home without some divine direction. It just doesn't seem plausible that out of all the diverse forms of life on this planet, apes alone managed to evolve into humans. Dolphins are just as smart as those apes, why isn't there an intelligent race of sea-dwellers?

Who knows? We may be some divine godling's version of a sea monkey kit...add water and in a couple billion years you have a solar system with real live creatures on it...(this kind of goes back to the argument that we all may be plugged into the matrix) I say that you can really never ever know, you just gotta believe in whatever floats your boat.

Xothan

Mantus · 03-23-2004, 09:20 PM

The reason people relax in when they receive major trauma is rather simple. When in the jaws of a predator any struggle will be met with further mauling. A limp prey will not receive further attention. This buys us time to think about a possible solution or for our mates to come in and save the day.

It is also important to note that humans are not the only ones who experience this relaxation during major trauma.

The reason this feeling of calm does not happen during minor trauma is also explainable. When receiving a flesh wound we tend to flinch away from the source of pain. This is the best response to stop further damage to our bodies. When you put your hand on a hot stove there is no time to stop and think, hence we instinctively jump.

tecoyah · 03-24-2004, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xothan
It just doesn't seem plausible that out of all the diverse forms of life on this planet, apes alone managed to evolve into humans. Dolphins are just as smart as those apes, why isn't there an intelligent race of sea-dwellers?

Xothan

Two things are unavailible to Sea life.....Fire, and Hands.

Fire= accessible energy=eventual technological innovation.

Hands=Tools=eventual technological innovation.

Water is the brick wall, that has prevented cetacean developement beyond current abilities. Maybe if whales had hands they could utilize hydrothermal vents as energy sources, but what media would they build with?

Thagrastay · 03-24-2004, 07:56 AM

The point in my earlier post was that, if evolution could not be disproved, it wasn't a scientific theory, for all that it might look like a scientific theory. Now, as Popper has shown, all scientific theories tend to undergo ad hoc adjustments to preserve the theory. But at the end of the day, they can in fact be disproved. But a non-scientific theory like Freudianism, or Creationism for that matter, cannot be disproved, no matter what new facts come to light. One should be, at least, very suspicious of these sorts of theories. And it's a valid question as to whether or not evolution is really a scientific theory. To those who don't know a lot of science, it's very easy to make evolution look like a bunch of guesses, altered to fit the facts every time they change. [/B][/QUOTE]

This has always been my contention- Evolution and evolutionary theory does not allow for the possibility of being disproven. No matter what takes place that may seem to upset the theotetical apple cart, adjustments are made- especially in the timeline- to make room for the theory being proven out.
This gives Evolution not so much the credibility and and credentials of a legitimate science as much as that of a desperate and immediate denial of creationism and it's very own "Non-God" religion, with you scientists as the high priests and messiahs of the world of reason and rationale!
What hogwash.
I don't think it possible in a reasonable sense to disprove evolution using science because that will never be allowed. The bias within the scientific/religious community is much too great.

This argument has no end.

Yakk · 03-24-2004, 11:19 AM

Mantus, realize that dolphins are really close relatives of ours.

Mammals are much smarter and/or more active than the competing lifeforms (reptiles and birds), and the age of mammals isn't all that old.

Hell, the age of animal life on land isn't that old, or the age of herbivor/carnivor/plant serious competition. And, if I know my paleobiology, the the concept of multicellular life is pretty recent.

All of these are on scales compared to the age of the earth.

The solar system itself isn't that old for a star of it's type: and only stars of its type would have as much high atomic-weight atoms lieing around, giving us the building blocks of technology.

There are explanations behind how the universe is hospitable for life. Amoung them are the "really damn huge" universe explainations, where the universe is MUCH MUCH larger than we think it is, and what we think of as 'universal constants' vary slowly over the entire universe.

The 'universe' we know and love happens to be a place where the constants are hospitable to life. Life and intelligence doesn't show up where it isn't hospitable to life, to life never seeing a 'universe' inhospitable to life wouldn't be shocking.

(I think this is an arguement based off the weak anthropomorphic principle?)

CSflim · 03-24-2004, 11:22 AM

Thagrastay, apologies, but that is complete nonsense of the highest order.

Evolution is most definitely falsifiable.

The Origin of Species is full of examples of how the theory could be destroyed beyond all repair.
I gave one such example above, and also the argument of evidence for a merciful God due to endorphin release.
Such things if true, would most definitely disprove evolution.
At the time of Darwin, it would have been even more open to falsification. There was the blending problem, which could have proved fatal (that newly evolved traits would actually 'fade-away' due to inter-breeding, rather than being passed on down through the generations)...but it was shown not to actually arise (Mendel's peas showed how inheritance actually worked). Erwin Schroedinger in his book What is Life? made some speculations about how it might be solved.... reading this book today, it is striking how closely his speculation aligns with that 20th Century discovery: DNA.
Had the reproduction inheritance mechanism been different from such a thing, the blending problem would have been fatal, and destroyed evolution. You could very easily say that the theory of evolution by natural selection predicted modern genetics. While it certainly didn’t give details, it marked out what kind of mechanism would have been consistent.
In Darwin's time, there were not a huge amount of fossils. As more and more fossils came in, things generally fit into place. If Darwin's theory is a myth, it would be one hell of a coincidence for all of these fossils to slot so neatly into place. Now granted, there are exceptions...but they are, as you can guess...the exception not the rule. Also it is important to realise, that all of these exceptions which have occurred do damage NOT to the theory of evolution, but only our ideas of what actually happened.
(ie. it is one problem to come up with the laws of gravity. It is another to apply this law to predict the motions of the planets/comets) There is still much controversy among scientists of what actually happened (the classic argument being Punctuated Equilibrium vs. Gradualism). Regardless, all of the fossils that have been found fit within the theory, but it is certainly logically possible that fossils which couldn't be explained by evolution could be found.
There are plenty of ways that evolution could be falsified. Admittedly, it is very hard to see today, how such a thing could be done, given the massive amounts of evidence we have. But it is falsifiable none-the-less. Reconsidering the theory of gravitation:

Aristotolist: Unfair! You can’t use your theory of gravity to explain things...it’s unfalsifiable!

Newtonist/Einsteinist: Oh but it is! As soon as things start falling up, we can declare gravity well and truly falsified.

So as soon as we start seeing things inconsistent with basic evolutionary theory we will declare it falsified. The appearance overnight of a brand new species would certainly be devastating to evolution, to say the least. It would be as much proof as one could reasonably ask for for the existence of a higher intelligence (either god or aliens!) The discovery of a Pegasus, with a mixture of horse and bird parts, would do irrevocable damage to the theory, as would things like mermaids, centaurs and plenty of other such conceivable creatures. Don’t think that such a thing is a crazy claim; there are plenty of very weird and wonderful life forms on this planet, many incredibly alien seeming...yet they all have one thing in common...they are completely consistent with our biological flagship theory. Like I said above, a static fossil record would have falsified evolution. The discovery of a blending inheritance mechanism would have destroyed it. The discovery of a part of a creature, which is there for the sole purpose of the benefit of another creature would falsify it. There are endless ways in which evolution could be falsified.

Evolution can be falsified; but never has been falsified, even after more than a century of testing.

I also think that it is wonderfully ironic that creationists scream foul-play, with the claim that evolution is unfalsifiable....

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye"

Lebell · 03-24-2004, 12:12 PM

Any scientific theory can be disproven if information becomes available that contradicts a premise of that theory.

Most theories however got to be theories because they take into account all the information/data available.

This is the case with evolution and it is very unlikely at this point that it will be disproven.

It can however like all theories, be modified to fit new information (that doesn't strike at it's premise) as well as be argued at the details level (punctuated equilibrium for example).

CSflim · 03-24-2004, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by asaris
CSflim -- you're not really being fair to creationists. It seems to me to be a valid point that there's a difference between evolution within a species and evolution between species.

Well, if that is the challenege then what should be said is:
"Nobody has ever observed speciation".

But saying "nobody has observed evolution" just sounds so much more impressive, doesn't it? (Too bad that it happens to be false)

The claim that no one has observed speciation is similarly a lie. Take breeds of dogs. There are breeds of dogs which cannot produce viable offspring, and hence are of a "different species". Now certainly no one person has seen speciation occur among dogs, it has happened over many generations. Regardless, doesn't change the fact that it was observed (and directed in some cases).

This is simply the most well known case, but there are plenty of cases of observed speciation.

Actually observing speciation in a single lifetime is of course very difficult, given that
a)Even small changes are painfully slow to evolve
b)Speciation requires massive changes in a creature
So speciation takes a looong time. Regardless, we still have quite a number of examples of observatuons of speciation,

See Observed Instances of Speciation by Joseph Boxhorn for an introduction to the concepts of what a species is, and what speciation is, along with plenty of examples of speciation being observed.
and also some more observed speciation events

CSflim · 03-24-2004, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thagrastay
This argument has no end.

Quite right! Or at least it would be if people keep repeating themselves. So to stop the discussion from going around in circles, lets keep a record of the objections which have been debunked:

Evolution is only a theory
Evolution is unfalsifiable
Evolution has never been observed
Speciation has never been observed
Edorphins at death have no surival benefit

So, with this in mind, to avoid repetition, let's leave these particular arguments behind, unless you have something explicit to add to them (as opposed to simply restating them in a different manner).

raeanna74 · 03-24-2004, 05:59 PM

Well if you believe that
1. Evolution is NOT a theory. and
2. Seciation has been observed.
Then this debate has no purpose whatsoever.

When you refer to dogs that were a different species. Were you saying that they were so simply because they could not reproduce? If that is what you meant that we also created a new species by breeding horses with donkeys and creating Mules. The only problem with this is that BOTH of those new species were completely unable to replicate themselves on their own and thus would be a dead us branch of evolution. Can you find ANY form of speciation that actually produces positive results?

03-22-2004, 01:01 PM	#1 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Disprove evolution Felt it might be an intersting exersize, and get the discussion in here going again. Is there any way to "Prove" that evolution is an incorrect model? __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

03-22-2004, 01:24 PM	#3 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Nope. Damn. That was a short discussion. Of course you can't disprove evolution...any more than you can disprove creationism. I would, however, argue that the proof for evolution lies in the fossil record; whereas the proof for creationism lies totaly in the Bible, which I don't beleive in either. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt. Last edited by Bill O'Rights; 03-22-2004 at 01:29 PM..

03-22-2004, 02:00 PM	#5 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	There are two meanings of the words fact/know/prove/etc. There is the philosophical, pedantic, epistemological version: Essentially we cannot know anything, after all we could be plugged into The Matrix... There is also the ordinary everyday sense of these words. It is a fact that New York is a city in America. I know that I am sitting at my computer typing. It is a fact that the earth is round, and that it revolves around the sun. Evolution is a fact in the same sense of the word that it is a fact that the earth is round. You can get pedantic and philosophical and demand that evolution is "just a theory", but to ensure that you are not being inconsistent, it is necessary that you apply that same status to everything. ("it is only a theory that things fall down, not up") __________________

03-22-2004, 02:32 PM	#6 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	OK, Ustwo, I get your point. Substitute "proof" with "evidence", and I still stand by my statement. Oh, and welcome back, by the way. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

03-22-2004, 04:16 PM	#9 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	I think the question was, not whether or not given the current evidence it was reasonable to believe that evolution was incorrect, but whether or not there is any possible evidence that would disprove evolution. I would assume there is, but I'm not sure what it could be, and I'd like to see suggestions as to what exactly it could be. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

03-22-2004, 01:17 PM	#2 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	not with the current evidence. If there were, the creationists would have already won

03-22-2004, 04:56 PM	#11 (permalink)
brianna Addict Location: nyc	One of my biggest annoyances with the evolution debate is the apparent inability of those on the anti side to understand the concept of a scientific theory. When scientists refer to something as a theory they are essentially saying "no one has been able to prove this idea wrong yet." not "hey i have an interesting idea that i just came up with on the spot." In the last 150 years no one has been able to disprove the theory of evolution -- that doesn't make it defiantly true (science has high standards for declaring something a law) but it makes it a lot more viable than most other ideas out there. drives me freaking nuts. /sorry for being a bit off topic.

03-22-2004, 05:08 PM	#12 (permalink)
orange monkeyee Banned	Read Michael Crichton's Prey if you want a better understanding of evolutionary possibilities. He shows how competition causes adaptive responsiveness and relationships with other organisms.

03-22-2004, 05:50 PM	#13 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	Well I have to say that I would be very much against the idea of reading science fiction with the aim of understanding scientific concepts. If you are looking for a good solid introduction to what evolution is all about, then I would strongly reccomend The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. Absolutely unparalleled introduction to evolution. __________________

03-22-2004, 07:01 PM	#15 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I’ve always have had a natural understanding of evolution. The concepts to me are as natural as breathing. Back when I was just staring my biology degree, I walked into a class of 800 students in the standard biology 110 course and scored 4th highest without going to a lecture, and I never had much experience in evolutionary biology before. The second class was the classic biology material and my equal effort got me a C, heh. The subject matter to me is as clear as gin, and goes down easier. I switched my major to one more ‘evolution’ based from the basic biology and have never understood how people have a hard time understanding evolution. That being said don’t over estimate evolution any more than underestimate. Not all positive traits survive, not all negative ones die off, and just because it could work doesn’t mean the right mutations will happen to allow it. I don’t think you can be a really competent biologist without understanding evolution, on almost any level. The interlocking species, the ebb and flow of bio-diversity, the basic chemistry of the cell is all part of this understanding. Just always remember that you are the end product of for billion years of evolution, but so is the mosquito you just swatted and the bacteria growing on your teeth. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-22-2004, 07:45 PM	#16 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	This would be an unending debate. Both sides of the argument believe that it's possible, at least in their mind, to disprove the other side. Otherwise why would they believe as they do? There has been a long discussion HERE with both sides trying to prove or disprove the two theories. Personally, I say that if it's not observable and reproducible then you can't prove it. I have yet to see a dinosaur evolve from any lower life form or a dinosaur be spoken into existence by a higher being and I believe no one else as observed it either. So by those rights you cannot prove either. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

03-22-2004, 08:17 PM	#17 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I'm sorry but creationism is NOT a theory because it does not hold up to any tests. Its evidence is poor, its non-predictive, and contradicts the fossil record no matter how you want to look at it. Its easier to believe that God set up the fossils and other evidence (and some have claimed this) then it is to believe that there is evidence for creationism. Creationism is not a science any more then astrology or witchcraft. It has been debated, debunked, defeated in all scientific terms, and only someone with a rabid belief in literalist interpretation of the bible could think other wise provided they were willing to look at the evidence. I’d hate to tell you how I REALLY feel about it. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-22-2004, 08:42 PM	#18 (permalink)
mr sticky Psycho Location: NC	ok guys How about these apples... What I understand through various readings, is that God made the heavens and the earth...and the earth brought forth life! Nowhere in the bible does it say that evolutionary process is wrong! Can we both be right? __________________ The sad thing is... as you get older you come to realize that you don't so much pilot your life, as you just try to hold on, in a screaming, defiant ball of white-knuckle anxious fury

03-23-2004, 08:37 AM	#22 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	CSflim -- you're not really being fair to creationists. It seems to me to be a valid point that there's a difference between evolution within a species and evolution between species. Not that I agree with them, but I don't like to see them unfairly ridiculed either. The point in my earlier post was that, if evolution could not be disproved, it wasn't a scientific theory, for all that it might look like a scientific theory. Now, as Popper has shown, all scientific theories tend to undergo ad hoc adjustments to preserve the theory. But at the end of the day, they can in fact be disproved. But a non-scientific theory like Freudianism, or Creationism for that matter, cannot be disproved, no matter what new facts come to light. One should be, at least, very suspicious of these sorts of theories. And it's a valid question as to whether or not evolution is really a scientific theory. To those who don't know a lot of science, it's very easy to make evolution look like a bunch of guesses, altered to fit the facts every time they change. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

03-23-2004, 02:39 PM	#26 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	dy156: well this at least is a step in the right direction for such a debate, as at least it represents some kind of an argument (unlike most of the sad tired creationist objections). However, it happens to be a rather deceptive claim: Endorphin levels are elevated even by relatively minor trauma. Alleviating the pain and stress of a person who has suffered a trauma can keep them functional enough to take life-saving actions such as staunching the bleeding or seeking help. That endorphins are released also during fatal trauma is a side effect. __________________ Last edited by CSflim; 03-23-2004 at 02:45 PM..

03-23-2004, 04:13 PM	#27 (permalink)
rsl12 On the lam Location: northern va	still an interesting point--during minor trauma, the endorphin levels may be raised, but not to the point that you feel more 'at peace' than you would on a normal day--just enough that you can stay functional and take care of yourself properly. Why would the brain cause a sense of peace when you're in mortal throes? On the other hand, for every story of a person saying that they felt a sense of peace at the moment of death, there are probably 10 that say they never felt worse pain ever in their entire life before they were rescued from the fire, pulled out of the cold water, given a morphine injection, etc. __________________ oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

03-23-2004, 04:51 PM	#28 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	I think there are two seperate arguments at work here. There is the actual biological fact that recieving a mortal wound will flood your body with endorphins. I explained above why this occurs, and why it does not in any way contradict evolution. The more trauma, the more endorphins. As for the sense of "feeling at peace" argument, well, like you said this is not an established fact, though I am sure that it happens in many cases (as well as the very opposite in plenty other cases). But again, I don't see how this is supposed to challenge evolution. It seems to me a rather simple psychological phenomenon. EDIT: And the fact that not every human trait has any obvious survival benefit does not prove evolution wrong. e.g. There doesn't seem to be a huge amount of survival benfit in appreciating beautiful sunsets! or music, or art, or whatever. Doesn't prove evolution wrong. Since there is no complete model of how the human mind works, we cannot definitively say why humans tend to do X. Only armed with such knowledge can we begin to try and understand why such traits evolved. __________________ Last edited by CSflim; 03-23-2004 at 04:59 PM..

03-23-2004, 08:38 PM	#31 (permalink)
Xothan Tilted Location: Athens, GA	I believe in both God and evolution, because if find it pretty difficult to believe that a great big swirling cloud of matter (The Big Bang) managed BY CHANCE to coalesce into universes, and that on hot chunk of rock, those same atoms of matter managed to become everything that exists on this fine planet we call home without some divine direction. It just doesn't seem plausible that out of all the diverse forms of life on this planet, apes alone managed to evolve into humans. Dolphins are just as smart as those apes, why isn't there an intelligent race of sea-dwellers? Who knows? We may be some divine godling's version of a sea monkey kit...add water and in a couple billion years you have a solar system with real live creatures on it...(this kind of goes back to the argument that we all may be plugged into the matrix) I say that you can really never ever know, you just gotta believe in whatever floats your boat. Xothan __________________ Xothan AIM - icarlson75

03-23-2004, 09:20 PM	#32 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	The reason people relax in when they receive major trauma is rather simple. When in the jaws of a predator any struggle will be met with further mauling. A limp prey will not receive further attention. This buys us time to think about a possible solution or for our mates to come in and save the day. It is also important to note that humans are not the only ones who experience this relaxation during major trauma. The reason this feeling of calm does not happen during minor trauma is also explainable. When receiving a flesh wound we tend to flinch away from the source of pain. This is the best response to stop further damage to our bodies. When you put your hand on a hot stove there is no time to stop and think, hence we instinctively jump.

03-24-2004, 07:56 AM	#34 (permalink)
Thagrastay Crazy Location: Handrail, Montana	The point in my earlier post was that, if evolution could not be disproved, it wasn't a scientific theory, for all that it might look like a scientific theory. Now, as Popper has shown, all scientific theories tend to undergo ad hoc adjustments to preserve the theory. But at the end of the day, they can in fact be disproved. But a non-scientific theory like Freudianism, or Creationism for that matter, cannot be disproved, no matter what new facts come to light. One should be, at least, very suspicious of these sorts of theories. And it's a valid question as to whether or not evolution is really a scientific theory. To those who don't know a lot of science, it's very easy to make evolution look like a bunch of guesses, altered to fit the facts every time they change. [/B][/QUOTE] This has always been my contention- Evolution and evolutionary theory does not allow for the possibility of being disproven. No matter what takes place that may seem to upset the theotetical apple cart, adjustments are made- especially in the timeline- to make room for the theory being proven out. This gives Evolution not so much the credibility and and credentials of a legitimate science as much as that of a desperate and immediate denial of creationism and it's very own "Non-God" religion, with you scientists as the high priests and messiahs of the world of reason and rationale! What hogwash. I don't think it possible in a reasonable sense to disprove evolution using science because that will never be allowed. The bias within the scientific/religious community is much too great. This argument has no end. __________________ "That's it! They've got the cuffs on him, he's IN the car!"

03-24-2004, 11:19 AM	#35 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Mantus, realize that dolphins are really close relatives of ours. Mammals are much smarter and/or more active than the competing lifeforms (reptiles and birds), and the age of mammals isn't all that old. Hell, the age of animal life on land isn't that old, or the age of herbivor/carnivor/plant serious competition. And, if I know my paleobiology, the the concept of multicellular life is pretty recent. All of these are on scales compared to the age of the earth. The solar system itself isn't that old for a star of it's type: and only stars of its type would have as much high atomic-weight atoms lieing around, giving us the building blocks of technology. There are explanations behind how the universe is hospitable for life. Amoung them are the "really damn huge" universe explainations, where the universe is MUCH MUCH larger than we think it is, and what we think of as 'universal constants' vary slowly over the entire universe. The 'universe' we know and love happens to be a place where the constants are hospitable to life. Life and intelligence doesn't show up where it isn't hospitable to life, to life never seeing a 'universe' inhospitable to life wouldn't be shocking. (I think this is an arguement based off the weak anthropomorphic principle?) __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

03-24-2004, 11:22 AM	#36 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	Thagrastay, apologies, but that is complete nonsense of the highest order. Evolution is most definitely falsifiable. The Origin of Species is full of examples of how the theory could be destroyed beyond all repair. I gave one such example above, and also the argument of evidence for a merciful God due to endorphin release. Such things if true, would most definitely disprove evolution. At the time of Darwin, it would have been even more open to falsification. There was the blending problem, which could have proved fatal (that newly evolved traits would actually 'fade-away' due to inter-breeding, rather than being passed on down through the generations)...but it was shown not to actually arise (Mendel's peas showed how inheritance actually worked). Erwin Schroedinger in his book What is Life? made some speculations about how it might be solved.... reading this book today, it is striking how closely his speculation aligns with that 20th Century discovery: DNA. Had the reproduction inheritance mechanism been different from such a thing, the blending problem would have been fatal, and destroyed evolution. You could very easily say that the theory of evolution by natural selection predicted modern genetics. While it certainly didn’t give details, it marked out what kind of mechanism would have been consistent. In Darwin's time, there were not a huge amount of fossils. As more and more fossils came in, things generally fit into place. If Darwin's theory is a myth, it would be one hell of a coincidence for all of these fossils to slot so neatly into place. Now granted, there are exceptions...but they are, as you can guess...the exception not the rule. Also it is important to realise, that all of these exceptions which have occurred do damage NOT to the theory of evolution, but only our ideas of what actually happened. (ie. it is one problem to come up with the laws of gravity. It is another to apply this law to predict the motions of the planets/comets) There is still much controversy among scientists of what actually happened (the classic argument being Punctuated Equilibrium vs. Gradualism). Regardless, all of the fossils that have been found fit within the theory, but it is certainly logically possible that fossils which couldn't be explained by evolution could be found. There are plenty of ways that evolution could be falsified. Admittedly, it is very hard to see today, how such a thing could be done, given the massive amounts of evidence we have. But it is falsifiable none-the-less. Reconsidering the theory of gravitation: Aristotolist: Unfair! You can’t use your theory of gravity to explain things...it’s unfalsifiable! Newtonist/Einsteinist: Oh but it is! As soon as things start falling up, we can declare gravity well and truly falsified. So as soon as we start seeing things inconsistent with basic evolutionary theory we will declare it falsified. The appearance overnight of a brand new species would certainly be devastating to evolution, to say the least. It would be as much proof as one could reasonably ask for for the existence of a higher intelligence (either god or aliens!) The discovery of a Pegasus, with a mixture of horse and bird parts, would do irrevocable damage to the theory, as would things like mermaids, centaurs and plenty of other such conceivable creatures. Don’t think that such a thing is a crazy claim; there are plenty of very weird and wonderful life forms on this planet, many incredibly alien seeming...yet they all have one thing in common...they are completely consistent with our biological flagship theory. Like I said above, a static fossil record would have falsified evolution. The discovery of a blending inheritance mechanism would have destroyed it. The discovery of a part of a creature, which is there for the sole purpose of the benefit of another creature would falsify it. There are endless ways in which evolution could be falsified. Evolution can be falsified; but never has been falsified, even after more than a century of testing. I also think that it is wonderfully ironic that creationists scream foul-play, with the claim that evolution is unfalsifiable.... "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye" __________________ Last edited by CSflim; 03-27-2004 at 04:03 PM..

03-24-2004, 12:12 PM	#37 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Any scientific theory can be disproven if information becomes available that contradicts a premise of that theory. Most theories however got to be theories because they take into account all the information/data available. This is the case with evolution and it is very unlikely at this point that it will be disproven. It can however like all theories, be modified to fit new information (that doesn't strike at it's premise) as well as be argued at the details level (punctuated equilibrium for example). __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

03-24-2004, 05:59 PM	#40 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	Well if you believe that 1. Evolution is NOT a theory. and 2. Seciation has been observed. Then this debate has no purpose whatsoever. When you refer to dogs that were a different species. Were you saying that they were so simply because they could not reproduce? If that is what you meant that we also created a new species by breeding horses with donkeys and creating Mules. The only problem with this is that BOTH of those new species were completely unable to replicate themselves on their own and thus would be a dead us branch of evolution. Can you find ANY form of speciation that actually produces positive results? __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.