David:
We've touched on "science" here and there throughout the blog. Before we start an in-depth discussion on some things that are heavy on data, like global warming, I thought we might discuss the limitations and strengths of studies, and what we can know versus what is simply speculation. In other words, what is science, really.
Doug:
Ok, but you already sound like you are headed into politics. As a good friend of mine would often say: science is the process designed to get things "less wrong." Science doesn't make a distinction between "speculation" and "truth"... everything is just a working hypothesis until we find a better theory and supporting data.
(We also need to be careful with language: for example, the word "theory" in science is not the same word that people use in everyday language. That can be confusing and lead people to have misguided ideas about science. For example, evolution and gravity are both theories.)
David:
Believe me, politics and science do not have much in common. I've seen elected officials look at a study, which clearly indicated the correct path to accomplish their stated goal, and vote against a bill based on that study and ones that supported it.
Doug:
And of course there are politics in science, like all human endeavors. But we hope that over time, human bias will be ferreted out of science.
David:
I absolutely agree. But sometimes, it can take a considerable amount of time for the data to overcome the politics. Just ask Copernicus. Or Galileo.
Continuing with your theme, let's define our terms.
Doug:
I'm not sure why you would assume that. I don't have any special beliefs about evolution, other than it is one of the most import theories developed, ever.
David:
That sounds like a "special belief" to me. My assumption was a theory. I made a prediction based on the facts I had assembled about you, and voila. We disagree. I love it when my theories are proven true.
Doug:
You got confused already between the different uses of the word "theory." Assumptions are not theories, and you can't prove them.
David:
But I believe you have said that many things in science can't be "proven" either. It's easy to get confused with the terms, so let's try to sort it out. Evolution is a theory that matches up with a relatively small number of fossils that have been found.
Doug:
In science, we try not to use vague words like "matches up," or "relatively small numbers." Theories explain data, or they don't. In science, we would say that evolution explains all known fossils, and makes predictions about some of those that we haven't yet found.
David:
"Science" encompasses many fields, and many fields of science are littered with vague words and assumptions. As your wise friend noted, we continue to modify what we know and become more precise as we move forward.
Evolution can be tested on a micro scale. In other words, we can see that a colony of bacteria can be changed by outward influences (like antibiotics) to change the entire colony. All of the bacteria that are susceptible to the antibiotic are killed off, and those that have a mutation that allows them to survive, divide to populate a new antibiotic-resistant strain.
However, the bacteria does not become a new species (speciation). Evolution theory fails in this aspect. No new species have been formed, even when bacterial colonies (which can reproduce in hours, and multiply thousands of times in mere days) have been subjected to all forms of environmental conditions for years at a time. They experience micro-evolution, but not the macro-evolution that Darwin envisioned, which states that environmental pressures cause changes that result in new species.
Doug:
Science is a process, a method of working through a problem. You can't state that something will never become a new species. You can make a hypothesis that it will never. But then you have to test your hypothesis forever. How to test if two organisms belong to two different species? One way is that if the two strains of organisms can no longer produce viable offspring, then we would say that we have two species. It isn't hard to see that if these dog breeds continue to diverge, they won't be able to interbreed:
David:
You breed something a billion times, or a trillion times, or a hundred trillion times, subjecting it to all types of mutation-creating environmental exposures, and it still remains the same species. That argues against your theory. It doesn't prove it wrong, but argues against it.
Doug:
No, that is not how evolution works. It works over time, on a population. Evolution doesn't say anything about the size of a population. (Actually, it does, but not in this context. For example, small populations can actually evolve faster.)
David:
And to say "It isn't hard to see" that something could happen is not the same as something actually happening.
Doug:
I agree. I'm trying to appeal to basic logic that if small things can happen over a small amount of time (a few thousands of years), bigger things can happen over huge amounts of time (millions of years).
David:
You say I can't state something will never become a new species, and yet your hypothesis claims that something (dogs) will surely become a new species. Your hypothesis holds no more weight than mine, and I would argue (based on the bacteria example), it has less evidence to support it.
Doug:
My point is that dogs are becoming more and more different over time. They all started out the same (as wolves) and we used selective breeding to develop different breeds. It seems possible, even likely, that over a much larger timespan, they continue this process.
David:
Sure. We'll have even more breeds of dogs. But, they will all still be dogs. Hmmmm, I wonder: If you bred a miniature great dane, would it still be "great"?
Doug:
You can't prove that something will never happen. Such a hypothesis will require you to keep checking forever. That is a bit hard to prove. On the other hand, once two breeds can no longer produce viable offspring, you can stop testing.
David:
So, we agree. Evolution makes predictions that can never be proven or disproven, because of the time-line that is necessary. (By the way, we're using the word "prove" again...)
With evolution, it's the same moving forward and back. There really is no experiment that can demonstrate that we all came from one cell or organism.
Doug:
Oh, that sounds like a different hypothesis from that of the theory of natural selection. But science doesn't require that you replicate evolving an entire organism from a single cell to confirm it.
David:
So, you'd like to keep the discussion of evolution to just natural selection? Although evolution does propose that all life comes from a single common ancestor, we can leave it at that for this discussion, especially if we ever want to move on to gravity...
The biggest problem with the theory of evolution is that it has not made any predictions that we have seen to be true. The original definition of "theory" indicates that this aspect needs to be present for a viable theory.
Doug:
That is far from true. Darwin described his theory before genetics were even discovered. Evolution explains so much. It is why we don't see new species appear spontaneously, but does explain how small changes, over time, can create new species.
David:
To be accurate, it "hypothesizes" that small changes, over time, can create new species. And yet, we can't induce anything (not even bacteria) to become a new species.
So I guess we won't get into the fact no one has yet been able to create anything that even closely resembles "life", from which we are all descended from?
Doug:
You should probably state the theory that you are referring. I don't believe that Darwin wrote scientifically about "abiogenesis", life from non-life. So that wasn't part of his theory. And depending on how you define "life" there may be things that do resemble it. For example, there is an area of study called "Artificial Life" that is related to my own research.
David:
Darwin didn't use a lot of the words we use now in the fields of evolution, genetics, etc.
Doug:
...because they weren't discovered yet!
David:
But that doesn't mean he didn't ascribe to the ideas, or that these ideas aren't part of a bigger evolutionary picture.
Evolution is not just about moving forward in time. The theory is based on looking back through the fossil record, to a common ancestor, who came from....where? The discussion of evolution invariably returns to a starting point.
Doug:
I think you got confused between theories. Evolution is theory about how species evolve over time, not about generating life from non-life. But surely you believe in evolution, right? You are not saying that you are medical doctor in the year 2015 that doesn't believe in one of the central tenets of biology? You know the Earth is older than 6,000 years, right? Even all of the Popes (well, at least the last 4 Popes) believe in evolution and that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
David:
You misunderstand my points. I'm not saying that evolution is wrong. I'm saying that it fails key components we established for a viable theory: prediction and experimentation. It explains the data, but predictions have not, or perhaps can not, be realized. And experiments that should have yielded predicted results, have not provided any evidence that supports it. That leaves evolution as a hypothesis at best, but not a "theory" as defined by the United States National Academy of Science.
Doug:
Evolution is a theory, explains all of biology, and has not been shown to be wrong. Stating otherwise is holding evolution to different criteria than, say, gravity. In fact, the definition of theory above from the US National Academy of Sciences also states that "the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact."
David:
If evolution explained all of biology, we wouldn't have biology. It would just be evolution! Perhaps you forget that my undergrad degree was in.....biology.
Doug:
It does explain biology, but there are biological systems that can be studied independently of where they came from. Evolution is the science of studying of where organisms came from and how they change.
David:
So now you do agree that evolution is the study of where things came from. A minute ago you argued that idea was a completely different theory. You must be getting your argument coaching from Hillary Clinton. "Say whatever you have to say, whether it's consistent or not..."
Doug:
Evolution doesn't say anything about the originating forms. For example, there are competing theories on originating life forms, including panspermia and abiogenesis. Evolution can be considered independently.
David:
If one theory doesn't meet the requirements to be considered a theory, and another theory does, then, they are different. One is a theory (gravity), the other is a hypothesis (evolution), by definition, and by using the same criteria.
Doug:
No, there is no such distinction between these theories.
David:
The United States National Academy of Science disagrees with you. Perhaps you should go back and re-read their definition.
Doug:
From the definition you cited: "...scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact." How much more clear could they be?
David:
But you have excluded the first part of that quote. "In science, a 'fact' typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances." They admit that evolution does not function in this way, but that it is only used as an explanation for known facts. It cannot be tested as other theories can.
Doug:
They didn't say that it can't be tested! They said that in science, the idea of a "fact" also includes well-established theories like evolution.
David:
It doesn't surprise me to see you go on a personal attack earlier in this blog, Dr. Alinski. You claim, "everything is just a working hypothesis until we find a better theory and supporting data", but then mock anyone who would point out problems they find with the theory.
Doug:
I haven't seen any "problems." If you have found a problem, tell us! You will be world famous! That is how science works. You can't say that it "fails key components" and then dismiss one of the most important scientific discoveries ever. If you can do that, then the whole endeavor of "science" is meaningless.
David:
You refuse to acknowledge that evolution fails to meet the requirements of the definition of a theory.
Doug:
Interesting argument... if you can't find a problem with a theory, you argue that it isn't even a theory!
David:
I thought you wanted to be precise in our terms? Oh, that was only until your argument started to break down. I see.
Stating something has not been shown to be wrong, is not the same as making predictions that are valid or being able to test the theory. It may be right, but without a mechanism to test it, you can't conclude is is the absolute, correct theory.
Doug:
I thought I already described science as not about truth, or correctness, but about getting things less wrong.
David:
And "proving" them. Wait, we're confusing our terms again. Now we're not using definitions or finding truth?
A theory isn't a discovery, it's a theory. And, as evolution fails to meet the definition of a theory, it is a hypothesis. It's a working hypothesis, but a hypothesis all the same.
Doug:
I think it is completely reasonable for me to ask if you believe in evolution. Or if you believe that the world is only 6,000 years old. Because if you do, then that says a lot about your world view. It says a lot about what you can believe in.
I would think that someone might be interested in the idea of artificial life. But you don't even want to know what it is?
David:
Of course you think it's reasonable. You're trying to shift the discussion from scientific definitions to individual beliefs, because your argument is failing in it's current form. So, you're devolving to typical leftist, grade-school taunts: "You must be a denier!"
Doug:
If you think that the world is 6,000 years old and God can create the world and all animals as-is, then what need is there for science? And I'd be glad to continue to discuss evolution; for example, what fossils can evolution not explain?
David:
Focus a little bit. I know your flustered, but I actually said that evolution does explain the fossil record. Let's keep moving forward.
Doug:
You said: "Evolution is a theory that matches up with a relatively small number of fossils that have been found." But you now concede that it explains the entire fossil record. Ok, forward we go.
David:
Let me explain. The vast, vast majority of fossils are all the same undersea creatures. Thousands and thousands of these fossils have been found. But, the number of differing species is relatively small in comparison. How many complete hominid fossils have been found?
Doug:
Yes, the number of species is far fewer than the number of individuals. But evolution explains that, and all known found fossils.
How is the number of hominid fossils found relevant to any claim?
David:
Just that the number is very, very, very small.
Doug:
They are rare finds, and I guess it makes sense that there are so few since there were such small populations of individuals over the millennia. Here is a list of human, and proto-human fossils: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
David:
By definition, artificial life is, well, artificial; A mere copy of something natural.
Doug:
Is artificial life more like an artificial flower, or is it more like artificial flight (e.g., an airplane)? That would be interesting to explore. I'd be glad to tell you about artificial life. I have papers published in that area.
David:
Perhaps. I'd say the two examples are the same. A copy of something natural. Might be the makings of a future blog.
Doug:
Artificial Life is based on the ideas from Artificial Intelligence (AI). The idea that computers can make intelligent decision is no longer science fiction. So, it isn't crazy to consider that the essence of life, too, could be captured by computer programs. I look forward to those topics to discuss.
David:
And coming full circle, the nexus of artificial intelligence is found in the politics of Washington, D.C...
Now, moving on to a theory with a bit more, um, weight: Gravity.
Gravity is still a theory in flux in the sense we are still developing ideas on "how" it works. But, unlike some "other" scientific theories, it can be tested, and you can make predictions, that work. It meets all of the criteria laid out for a theory to be considered "valid".
Doug:
All theories are still subject to refinement on "how" they work. There is no theory that is considered sacred, or beyond correction.
David:
Right. Except, apparently, evolution.
Doug:
Evolutionary theories are being refined every year; there is still much work to be done to understand all aspects of how evolution works.
But I would be equally perplexed if you claimed that there are some key problems with gravity. Disproving a theory that has stood up to decades of testing will take a brilliant new theory. You can say you don't like a theory, but that is not how science weighs evidence. You have to be specific about what is wrong, and then propose an alternate theory. Is your contention that "there are some things that are wrong about evolution", so, "God done it"? If so, then you are out of the realm of science.
David:
You made a few mighty leaps, there. The definition of a theory notes that you must be able to experiment and make predictions within the hypothesis, and those experiments and predictions need to play out in favor of the theory. Again, evolution fails that test.
Doug:
Evolution does not fail any predictive testing. We can look at a variety of evidence. We can look at DNA over time and see how much they sequences have changed. We can make predictions about how much an organism's DNA can change, and see if we are correct. We can make predictions between known fossils, and see if we can find intermediary forms. That has been done, and confirms evolution.
David:
And, conveniently, if something does not fit the evolutionary storyline, it is deemed an "evolutionary dead-end". It's written off as a branch of the tree that just didn't make it. No further explanation needed. All of our expectations are met to the evolutionist's satisfaction. Move along. Nothing to see here...
Again, micro-evolution occurs. Macro-evolution doesn't, at least not in any confirmed way. You're using the terms interchangeably, when they are not the same. Evolution confirms micro-evolution, as I mentioned earlier. It does not confirm macro-evolution (Speciation).
Doug:
I'm seriously trying to understand your points. So, you claim:
David:
You are confused. On that we can agree.
Organisms change: true. Species can become a different species: hypothesis.
Doug:
And as soon as two breeds can no longer breed with each other, then they must be two different species, by definition.
David:
It has nothing to do with liking or disliking anything. I don't have to provide another, alternate hypothesis to say that evolution does not meet the definition of a valid theory. You're grasping at straws to claim that evolution is better than it is, just because you don't want it to fail the definition of a theory. And when that doesn't work, you attack the messenger. Not a very scientific approach.
And how did the inability to pro-create become the marker of a new species? I guess by that loose definition, an infertile couple is now a new species. Remarkable.
Doug:
I'm not attacking you. Whether you believe in evolution or not has no bearing on the validity of the science. But you have to understand that if I claimed that I did not believe in gravity, that would make you question my scientific understandings.
David:
I'm already questioning your understandings. You seem to be emotionally attached to evolution.
Doug:
I am emotionally attached to the theory of evolution about as much as I am attached to the theory of gravity. That is to say, if you said you had doubts about either being a theory, I'd be very perplexed.
David:
Once again, I have not stated any disbelief in evolution. I've said multiple times that fits the data, but doesn't fit the definition of a theory. But it certainly is a hypothesis.
Doug:
So let me get this straight: you believe in evolution, but don't believe it is testable because it happens on long timescale? You must have a problem with plate tectonics, and galaxy formations, too.
What would it take for you to consider evolution a theory?
David:
Every theory must meet the definitions of a theory. It's that simple. (Your argument is shifting back to personal beliefs...)
I also like the way you insinuate that someone who believes in God doesn't use grammar correctly.
Doug:
I don't know what you are talking about now.
David:
"God done it"? Obviously, to you, a Christian is a backwoods hick, who can't understand scientific principles. Einstein, who fundamentally transformed our understanding of gravity and physics, believed in a higher, guiding power.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/06/14/did-albert-einstein-believe-in-god-or-not/
Doug:
I was just quoting Christians saying "God done it." Darwin was religious and a Christian. His theory really caused himself some grief. What is your point?
David:
You're choosing disparaging language in an attempt to belittle Christians as ignorant. Once again, you attack the messengers, when the debate doesn't go your way. That's my point.
Doug:
Ok, so we can get back to the issue at hand without distracting you, imagine that the above is "God did it." There. Now, the question at hand is: What would it take for you to consider evolution a theory? And, what is your point that scientists can also hold religious views?
David:
I have no problems with gravity being defined as a theory, because it meets and exceeds the necessary requirements that define a valid one.
As soon as evolution meet the definition of a theory, it becomes a defined theory. You're making this too hard.
And, many brilliant scientists (and even average folks out on the street) believe that God may have something to do with who we are, and how things around us work. No need to insinuate that religion is for uneducated illiterates.
Doug:
Luckily, science doesn't need you to put your personal stamp of approval on a theory for it to be valid. I'm here to tell you that evolution is a theory as well. But don't take my word for it: listen to the US National Academy of Sciences. Whether or not "you have a problem" with a theory has no bearing on a theory's validity. That is the beauty and power of science.
David:
Well, now you're using the word "theory" interchangeably with "science". Science is the process of sorting out all of the hypotheses and theories. It's the process of assembling data and collecting more, through experimentation and theorizing. And I agree. It is beautiful.
However, a theory's predictive value, and the inability to experiment, does have some bearing on it's validity.
Doug:
Ironically, at the basis of understanding of gravity is another theory called "string theory." It is a theory, but some might not consider it science. At least not yet. But this is very different from evolution (or Micro-evolution, if you wish). Even string theory is still a theory.
David:
We continue to learn new things and find new sub-atomic particles that interact to create what we call gravity. But gravity in the real world can be demonstrated, and experiments can be recreated with the same results over and over. We can make predictions. Even on vehicles we send into the far reaches of space, we can calculate their trajectory and the results are just as we predict. We can land folks on the moon and bring them back home, thanks to the theory of gravity. That's why we say gravity is a "law" of physics.
Some science is much "less wrong" than others, it would seem.
Doug:
We continue to find new aspects about all sciences. Hopefully, we continue to get it all less wrong.
We've touched on "science" here and there throughout the blog. Before we start an in-depth discussion on some things that are heavy on data, like global warming, I thought we might discuss the limitations and strengths of studies, and what we can know versus what is simply speculation. In other words, what is science, really.
Doug:
Ok, but you already sound like you are headed into politics. As a good friend of mine would often say: science is the process designed to get things "less wrong." Science doesn't make a distinction between "speculation" and "truth"... everything is just a working hypothesis until we find a better theory and supporting data.
(We also need to be careful with language: for example, the word "theory" in science is not the same word that people use in everyday language. That can be confusing and lead people to have misguided ideas about science. For example, evolution and gravity are both theories.)
David:
Believe me, politics and science do not have much in common. I've seen elected officials look at a study, which clearly indicated the correct path to accomplish their stated goal, and vote against a bill based on that study and ones that supported it.
Doug:
And of course there are politics in science, like all human endeavors. But we hope that over time, human bias will be ferreted out of science.
David:
I absolutely agree. But sometimes, it can take a considerable amount of time for the data to overcome the politics. Just ask Copernicus. Or Galileo.
Continuing with your theme, let's define our terms.
The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:
"The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."Since you've already chosen gravity and evolution, let's stick with those. As you received your first undergrad degree in anthropology, I assume we may have a slight difference of opinion on evolution.
Doug:
I'm not sure why you would assume that. I don't have any special beliefs about evolution, other than it is one of the most import theories developed, ever.
David:
That sounds like a "special belief" to me. My assumption was a theory. I made a prediction based on the facts I had assembled about you, and voila. We disagree. I love it when my theories are proven true.
Doug:
You got confused already between the different uses of the word "theory." Assumptions are not theories, and you can't prove them.
David:
But I believe you have said that many things in science can't be "proven" either. It's easy to get confused with the terms, so let's try to sort it out. Evolution is a theory that matches up with a relatively small number of fossils that have been found.
Doug:
In science, we try not to use vague words like "matches up," or "relatively small numbers." Theories explain data, or they don't. In science, we would say that evolution explains all known fossils, and makes predictions about some of those that we haven't yet found.
David:
"Science" encompasses many fields, and many fields of science are littered with vague words and assumptions. As your wise friend noted, we continue to modify what we know and become more precise as we move forward.
Evolution can be tested on a micro scale. In other words, we can see that a colony of bacteria can be changed by outward influences (like antibiotics) to change the entire colony. All of the bacteria that are susceptible to the antibiotic are killed off, and those that have a mutation that allows them to survive, divide to populate a new antibiotic-resistant strain.
However, the bacteria does not become a new species (speciation). Evolution theory fails in this aspect. No new species have been formed, even when bacterial colonies (which can reproduce in hours, and multiply thousands of times in mere days) have been subjected to all forms of environmental conditions for years at a time. They experience micro-evolution, but not the macro-evolution that Darwin envisioned, which states that environmental pressures cause changes that result in new species.
Doug:
Science is a process, a method of working through a problem. You can't state that something will never become a new species. You can make a hypothesis that it will never. But then you have to test your hypothesis forever. How to test if two organisms belong to two different species? One way is that if the two strains of organisms can no longer produce viable offspring, then we would say that we have two species. It isn't hard to see that if these dog breeds continue to diverge, they won't be able to interbreed:
David:
You breed something a billion times, or a trillion times, or a hundred trillion times, subjecting it to all types of mutation-creating environmental exposures, and it still remains the same species. That argues against your theory. It doesn't prove it wrong, but argues against it.
Doug:
No, that is not how evolution works. It works over time, on a population. Evolution doesn't say anything about the size of a population. (Actually, it does, but not in this context. For example, small populations can actually evolve faster.)
David:
And to say "It isn't hard to see" that something could happen is not the same as something actually happening.
Doug:
I agree. I'm trying to appeal to basic logic that if small things can happen over a small amount of time (a few thousands of years), bigger things can happen over huge amounts of time (millions of years).
David:
You say I can't state something will never become a new species, and yet your hypothesis claims that something (dogs) will surely become a new species. Your hypothesis holds no more weight than mine, and I would argue (based on the bacteria example), it has less evidence to support it.
Doug:
My point is that dogs are becoming more and more different over time. They all started out the same (as wolves) and we used selective breeding to develop different breeds. It seems possible, even likely, that over a much larger timespan, they continue this process.
David:
Sure. We'll have even more breeds of dogs. But, they will all still be dogs. Hmmmm, I wonder: If you bred a miniature great dane, would it still be "great"?
Doug:
You can't prove that something will never happen. Such a hypothesis will require you to keep checking forever. That is a bit hard to prove. On the other hand, once two breeds can no longer produce viable offspring, you can stop testing.
David:
So, we agree. Evolution makes predictions that can never be proven or disproven, because of the time-line that is necessary. (By the way, we're using the word "prove" again...)
With evolution, it's the same moving forward and back. There really is no experiment that can demonstrate that we all came from one cell or organism.
Doug:
Oh, that sounds like a different hypothesis from that of the theory of natural selection. But science doesn't require that you replicate evolving an entire organism from a single cell to confirm it.
David:
So, you'd like to keep the discussion of evolution to just natural selection? Although evolution does propose that all life comes from a single common ancestor, we can leave it at that for this discussion, especially if we ever want to move on to gravity...
The biggest problem with the theory of evolution is that it has not made any predictions that we have seen to be true. The original definition of "theory" indicates that this aspect needs to be present for a viable theory.
Doug:
That is far from true. Darwin described his theory before genetics were even discovered. Evolution explains so much. It is why we don't see new species appear spontaneously, but does explain how small changes, over time, can create new species.
David:
To be accurate, it "hypothesizes" that small changes, over time, can create new species. And yet, we can't induce anything (not even bacteria) to become a new species.
So I guess we won't get into the fact no one has yet been able to create anything that even closely resembles "life", from which we are all descended from?
Doug:
You should probably state the theory that you are referring. I don't believe that Darwin wrote scientifically about "abiogenesis", life from non-life. So that wasn't part of his theory. And depending on how you define "life" there may be things that do resemble it. For example, there is an area of study called "Artificial Life" that is related to my own research.
David:
Darwin didn't use a lot of the words we use now in the fields of evolution, genetics, etc.
Doug:
...because they weren't discovered yet!
David:
But that doesn't mean he didn't ascribe to the ideas, or that these ideas aren't part of a bigger evolutionary picture.
Evolution is not just about moving forward in time. The theory is based on looking back through the fossil record, to a common ancestor, who came from....where? The discussion of evolution invariably returns to a starting point.
Doug:
I think you got confused between theories. Evolution is theory about how species evolve over time, not about generating life from non-life. But surely you believe in evolution, right? You are not saying that you are medical doctor in the year 2015 that doesn't believe in one of the central tenets of biology? You know the Earth is older than 6,000 years, right? Even all of the Popes (well, at least the last 4 Popes) believe in evolution and that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
David:
You misunderstand my points. I'm not saying that evolution is wrong. I'm saying that it fails key components we established for a viable theory: prediction and experimentation. It explains the data, but predictions have not, or perhaps can not, be realized. And experiments that should have yielded predicted results, have not provided any evidence that supports it. That leaves evolution as a hypothesis at best, but not a "theory" as defined by the United States National Academy of Science.
Doug:
Evolution is a theory, explains all of biology, and has not been shown to be wrong. Stating otherwise is holding evolution to different criteria than, say, gravity. In fact, the definition of theory above from the US National Academy of Sciences also states that "the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact."
David:
If evolution explained all of biology, we wouldn't have biology. It would just be evolution! Perhaps you forget that my undergrad degree was in.....biology.
Doug:
It does explain biology, but there are biological systems that can be studied independently of where they came from. Evolution is the science of studying of where organisms came from and how they change.
David:
So now you do agree that evolution is the study of where things came from. A minute ago you argued that idea was a completely different theory. You must be getting your argument coaching from Hillary Clinton. "Say whatever you have to say, whether it's consistent or not..."
Doug:
Evolution doesn't say anything about the originating forms. For example, there are competing theories on originating life forms, including panspermia and abiogenesis. Evolution can be considered independently.
David:
If one theory doesn't meet the requirements to be considered a theory, and another theory does, then, they are different. One is a theory (gravity), the other is a hypothesis (evolution), by definition, and by using the same criteria.
Doug:
No, there is no such distinction between these theories.
David:
The United States National Academy of Science disagrees with you. Perhaps you should go back and re-read their definition.
Doug:
From the definition you cited: "...scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact." How much more clear could they be?
David:
But you have excluded the first part of that quote. "In science, a 'fact' typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances." They admit that evolution does not function in this way, but that it is only used as an explanation for known facts. It cannot be tested as other theories can.
Doug:
They didn't say that it can't be tested! They said that in science, the idea of a "fact" also includes well-established theories like evolution.
David:
It doesn't surprise me to see you go on a personal attack earlier in this blog, Dr. Alinski. You claim, "everything is just a working hypothesis until we find a better theory and supporting data", but then mock anyone who would point out problems they find with the theory.
Doug:
I haven't seen any "problems." If you have found a problem, tell us! You will be world famous! That is how science works. You can't say that it "fails key components" and then dismiss one of the most important scientific discoveries ever. If you can do that, then the whole endeavor of "science" is meaningless.
David:
You refuse to acknowledge that evolution fails to meet the requirements of the definition of a theory.
Doug:
Interesting argument... if you can't find a problem with a theory, you argue that it isn't even a theory!
David:
I thought you wanted to be precise in our terms? Oh, that was only until your argument started to break down. I see.
Stating something has not been shown to be wrong, is not the same as making predictions that are valid or being able to test the theory. It may be right, but without a mechanism to test it, you can't conclude is is the absolute, correct theory.
Doug:
I thought I already described science as not about truth, or correctness, but about getting things less wrong.
David:
And "proving" them. Wait, we're confusing our terms again. Now we're not using definitions or finding truth?
A theory isn't a discovery, it's a theory. And, as evolution fails to meet the definition of a theory, it is a hypothesis. It's a working hypothesis, but a hypothesis all the same.
Doug:
I think it is completely reasonable for me to ask if you believe in evolution. Or if you believe that the world is only 6,000 years old. Because if you do, then that says a lot about your world view. It says a lot about what you can believe in.
I would think that someone might be interested in the idea of artificial life. But you don't even want to know what it is?
David:
Of course you think it's reasonable. You're trying to shift the discussion from scientific definitions to individual beliefs, because your argument is failing in it's current form. So, you're devolving to typical leftist, grade-school taunts: "You must be a denier!"
Doug:
If you think that the world is 6,000 years old and God can create the world and all animals as-is, then what need is there for science? And I'd be glad to continue to discuss evolution; for example, what fossils can evolution not explain?
David:
Focus a little bit. I know your flustered, but I actually said that evolution does explain the fossil record. Let's keep moving forward.
Doug:
You said: "Evolution is a theory that matches up with a relatively small number of fossils that have been found." But you now concede that it explains the entire fossil record. Ok, forward we go.
David:
Let me explain. The vast, vast majority of fossils are all the same undersea creatures. Thousands and thousands of these fossils have been found. But, the number of differing species is relatively small in comparison. How many complete hominid fossils have been found?
Doug:
Yes, the number of species is far fewer than the number of individuals. But evolution explains that, and all known found fossils.
How is the number of hominid fossils found relevant to any claim?
David:
Just that the number is very, very, very small.
Doug:
They are rare finds, and I guess it makes sense that there are so few since there were such small populations of individuals over the millennia. Here is a list of human, and proto-human fossils: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
David:
By definition, artificial life is, well, artificial; A mere copy of something natural.
Doug:
Is artificial life more like an artificial flower, or is it more like artificial flight (e.g., an airplane)? That would be interesting to explore. I'd be glad to tell you about artificial life. I have papers published in that area.
David:
Perhaps. I'd say the two examples are the same. A copy of something natural. Might be the makings of a future blog.
Doug:
Artificial Life is based on the ideas from Artificial Intelligence (AI). The idea that computers can make intelligent decision is no longer science fiction. So, it isn't crazy to consider that the essence of life, too, could be captured by computer programs. I look forward to those topics to discuss.
David:
And coming full circle, the nexus of artificial intelligence is found in the politics of Washington, D.C...
Now, moving on to a theory with a bit more, um, weight: Gravity.
Gravity is still a theory in flux in the sense we are still developing ideas on "how" it works. But, unlike some "other" scientific theories, it can be tested, and you can make predictions, that work. It meets all of the criteria laid out for a theory to be considered "valid".
Doug:
All theories are still subject to refinement on "how" they work. There is no theory that is considered sacred, or beyond correction.
David:
Right. Except, apparently, evolution.
Doug:
Evolutionary theories are being refined every year; there is still much work to be done to understand all aspects of how evolution works.
But I would be equally perplexed if you claimed that there are some key problems with gravity. Disproving a theory that has stood up to decades of testing will take a brilliant new theory. You can say you don't like a theory, but that is not how science weighs evidence. You have to be specific about what is wrong, and then propose an alternate theory. Is your contention that "there are some things that are wrong about evolution", so, "God done it"? If so, then you are out of the realm of science.
David:
You made a few mighty leaps, there. The definition of a theory notes that you must be able to experiment and make predictions within the hypothesis, and those experiments and predictions need to play out in favor of the theory. Again, evolution fails that test.
Doug:
Evolution does not fail any predictive testing. We can look at a variety of evidence. We can look at DNA over time and see how much they sequences have changed. We can make predictions about how much an organism's DNA can change, and see if we are correct. We can make predictions between known fossils, and see if we can find intermediary forms. That has been done, and confirms evolution.
David:
And, conveniently, if something does not fit the evolutionary storyline, it is deemed an "evolutionary dead-end". It's written off as a branch of the tree that just didn't make it. No further explanation needed. All of our expectations are met to the evolutionist's satisfaction. Move along. Nothing to see here...
Again, micro-evolution occurs. Macro-evolution doesn't, at least not in any confirmed way. You're using the terms interchangeably, when they are not the same. Evolution confirms micro-evolution, as I mentioned earlier. It does not confirm macro-evolution (Speciation).
Doug:
I'm seriously trying to understand your points. So, you claim:
- Micro-evolution is not only a theory, but is a fact.
- Macro-evolution is not even a theory.
Is that right? And if one breed of dog can no longer breed with another breed, then we can consider those two breeds different species. And that then makes Macro-evolution now a theory, and makes it a fact as well?
David:
You are confused. On that we can agree.
Organisms change: true. Species can become a different species: hypothesis.
Doug:
And as soon as two breeds can no longer breed with each other, then they must be two different species, by definition.
David:
It has nothing to do with liking or disliking anything. I don't have to provide another, alternate hypothesis to say that evolution does not meet the definition of a valid theory. You're grasping at straws to claim that evolution is better than it is, just because you don't want it to fail the definition of a theory. And when that doesn't work, you attack the messenger. Not a very scientific approach.
And how did the inability to pro-create become the marker of a new species? I guess by that loose definition, an infertile couple is now a new species. Remarkable.
Doug:
I'm not attacking you. Whether you believe in evolution or not has no bearing on the validity of the science. But you have to understand that if I claimed that I did not believe in gravity, that would make you question my scientific understandings.
David:
I'm already questioning your understandings. You seem to be emotionally attached to evolution.
Doug:
I am emotionally attached to the theory of evolution about as much as I am attached to the theory of gravity. That is to say, if you said you had doubts about either being a theory, I'd be very perplexed.
David:
Once again, I have not stated any disbelief in evolution. I've said multiple times that fits the data, but doesn't fit the definition of a theory. But it certainly is a hypothesis.
Doug:
So let me get this straight: you believe in evolution, but don't believe it is testable because it happens on long timescale? You must have a problem with plate tectonics, and galaxy formations, too.
What would it take for you to consider evolution a theory?
David:
Every theory must meet the definitions of a theory. It's that simple. (Your argument is shifting back to personal beliefs...)
I also like the way you insinuate that someone who believes in God doesn't use grammar correctly.
Doug:
I don't know what you are talking about now.
David:
"God done it"? Obviously, to you, a Christian is a backwoods hick, who can't understand scientific principles. Einstein, who fundamentally transformed our understanding of gravity and physics, believed in a higher, guiding power.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/06/14/did-albert-einstein-believe-in-god-or-not/
Doug:
I was just quoting Christians saying "God done it." Darwin was religious and a Christian. His theory really caused himself some grief. What is your point?
David:
You're choosing disparaging language in an attempt to belittle Christians as ignorant. Once again, you attack the messengers, when the debate doesn't go your way. That's my point.
Doug:
Ok, so we can get back to the issue at hand without distracting you, imagine that the above is "God did it." There. Now, the question at hand is: What would it take for you to consider evolution a theory? And, what is your point that scientists can also hold religious views?
I have no problems with gravity being defined as a theory, because it meets and exceeds the necessary requirements that define a valid one.
As soon as evolution meet the definition of a theory, it becomes a defined theory. You're making this too hard.
And, many brilliant scientists (and even average folks out on the street) believe that God may have something to do with who we are, and how things around us work. No need to insinuate that religion is for uneducated illiterates.
Doug:
Luckily, science doesn't need you to put your personal stamp of approval on a theory for it to be valid. I'm here to tell you that evolution is a theory as well. But don't take my word for it: listen to the US National Academy of Sciences. Whether or not "you have a problem" with a theory has no bearing on a theory's validity. That is the beauty and power of science.
David:
Well, now you're using the word "theory" interchangeably with "science". Science is the process of sorting out all of the hypotheses and theories. It's the process of assembling data and collecting more, through experimentation and theorizing. And I agree. It is beautiful.
However, a theory's predictive value, and the inability to experiment, does have some bearing on it's validity.
Doug:
Ironically, at the basis of understanding of gravity is another theory called "string theory." It is a theory, but some might not consider it science. At least not yet. But this is very different from evolution (or Micro-evolution, if you wish). Even string theory is still a theory.
David:
We continue to learn new things and find new sub-atomic particles that interact to create what we call gravity. But gravity in the real world can be demonstrated, and experiments can be recreated with the same results over and over. We can make predictions. Even on vehicles we send into the far reaches of space, we can calculate their trajectory and the results are just as we predict. We can land folks on the moon and bring them back home, thanks to the theory of gravity. That's why we say gravity is a "law" of physics.
Some science is much "less wrong" than others, it would seem.
Doug:
We continue to find new aspects about all sciences. Hopefully, we continue to get it all less wrong.
