Verdict In : Darwin's Theory Confirmed And Accepted

[Guest Nicholas]

A very good article about science accepting the theory of evolution on a general basis. I thought since most of us are interested in fossils that this would be a nice contribution. Not really fossil relative in a sense but very very interesting none the less.

Read the article HERE!

[PrehistoricFlorida]

now let's see if they can actually prove evolution...

[ashcraft]

I think it would be more accurate to comment that the study showed natural selection to be the probable cause of evolution, versus random inheritence.

Evolution, by definition, is the change of allele frequencies in a population over time. This happens, look at the genome of Canis familiaris (dog) versus the wolf, we have taken a majestic animal and turned it into a chihuhua. There are many other instances of genome frequency changing, even leading to groups of individuals that can no longer interbreed (new species). The fact that evolution happens is not arguable. The impllications of what this means to species over time is what evolutionary theory addresses, and is debated, about.

Brent Ashcraft

[PrehistoricFlorida]

but a chihuhua is still a dog.

[ashcraft]

Humans classify it as the same species, but can a chihuhua breed with a St. Bernard, and have viable offspring?(There is an ugly picture to have burned into your brain)

Brent Ashcraft

[PrehistoricFlorida]

Well when they get a chihuahua with flippers, let me know...

[Guest solius symbiosus]

Evolution was "proven" many years ago. It is only the theoretical aspects that have been disputed ... at least by any credible authorities.

[PrehistoricFlorida]

if it's been "proven" then why is it still a scientific theory?

[Guest Nicholas]

Science works on the basis of hypothetical theory. As it says in many of my science text books, "The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth." Science although very critical chooses what theory fits best, and if something better comes along it is tossed aside and the new theory is accepted. You can see this with Newtons theory, which was thrown out for Einsteins theory. Darwin's theory is only now being accepted fully because of the evidence, and although most scientists accepted this theory ages ago there were still those testing and experimenting with other theories, when those theories failed Darwin's theory became the best fit for the concept of evolution. People tend to think that science is about finding answers but they forget that those answers are theories that may or not work but best fit a given context. The science which was accepted 200 years ago is garbage compared to that of the science today, most old theories thrown out... and thus the same will happen in the next 200 years.

[ashcraft]

Evolution, by definition, is a fact. It happens. How and why it happens is debatable, that is the theory. Remember what a theory is, a hypothesis that has not been disproven, even after considerable testing. A theory, once again by definition, can never be proven correct, only wrong.

Gravity is a fact, how and why it works is a theory. You can possibly disprove the theory of gravity by jumping off of a 30 story building, but I wouldn't recommend it.

There are dogs with flippers, they are known as seals. Other then exterior morphology, they are extremly similar, much more so then say ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, mososaurs, etc........probably because they are more closely related, at least that is my theory.

I've hit the ground hard a number of times.

Brent Ashcraft

[Guest solius symbiosus]

You can possibly disprove the theory of gravity by jumping off of a 30 story building, but I wouldn't recommend it.

It is not the fall that gets you, it is the sudden stop.

[PrehistoricFlorida]

Evolution is a religion. Like all religions, faith is required, I guess I just don't have enough faith in something that will be "thrown out in 200 years".

[Xiphactinus]

Auriculatus -

I don't want to argue with you...that will be pointless and this is a very friendly forum.

Curious to your thought though.

The hypothesis was that if you looked in a Devonian deltaic deposit slightly older than those containing the earliest amphibians but later than the fishes, you would find a very, very primitive amphibian/fishopod.

That deposit was identified and hunted. Remember, no one knew what would be found there.

The result was Tiktaalik -- a fish with flipper - fin - leg things.

How does that now bear out as a tested hypothesis?

[fossil man]

this proves nothing about evolution. The example of giraffes makes no since, but to entertain the idea, first off why would different length necks not be sufficient? Why wouldn't length differences be inches instead of feet. The nematodes it says it looked at 40 characteristics, NOT ONE, also it does not list what characteristics, maybe lightening or darkening in color (currently observed in animals), defects, weight, slight size differences in length and width (millimeters not inches). I mean come on these "40 characteristics" could be common characteristics which vary all the time. Hello niche partitioning. its seen through out all ecosystems, think of birds and tress. One bird works up bark, one works down the bark, one works limbs, one works the fruit, one works only dead trees, one type works inside (wood ), so saying all that why couldn't giraffes with a variety of neck lengths work: one for top of trees, middle of tree, one bottom of tree and also graze, and one that is a grazer. Also why would the neck size be the only thing that would have variance, why not legs, tongues, torso length. To think that only one physiological characteristic would be affected and not others or a combination there of is crazy in my opinion. This "deterministic" idea is just another label for evolution.

I don’t think this proves anything about evolution. Also a theory is such because it doesn't always have the same out come when tested. When a theory has the same result every time you test it, that is when it becomes a law like the laws of thermodynamics. There is no law of evolution nor will there ever be because there is no evidence to prove it. If one chose to entertain this idea, to each there own. And the obvious NO FOSSIL.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

I don’t think this proves anything about evolution. Also a theory is such because it doesn't always have the same out come when tested. When a theory has the same result every time you test it, that is when it becomes a law like the laws of thermodynamics. There is no law of evolution nor will there ever be because there is no evidence to prove it. If one chose to entertain this idea, to each there own. And the obvious NO FOSSIL.

I choose to skip the first part of your post. However, regarding the latter, might I suggest you look at THIS.

[hybodus]

Hate to do it - and really did not want to chime in as it usally does not make sense to engage in discussions like this...

Nicholas found an informative article, and we should all enjoy its content...

I found this awhile back, and it is a pretty good general overview... AND my only response to this chain

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.

Hypothesis: All swans must be white.

Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.

Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."

Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.

Theory: All swans are white.

Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.

[ashcraft]

Hybodus

Nice explanation of law versus theory.

Brent Ashcraft

[fossil man]

well i would say its clear that nobody can agree on a definition of theroy and law especially the last post, which i guess makes it hard to make a point when even definition are scattered. This post has been very interesting, i like it

[Guest N.AL.hunter]

The example used of why the necks of giraffes are not made up of different lengths as an example of why evolution is not valid is wrong. There does exist many different animals all evolved with different lengths of necks and legs to allow the species access to different levels of vegetation. Therefore, the fact that there are animals that have adapted to the various feeding niches, helps to validate the theory of evolution. The giraffes adapted to the upper reaches of food and have longer necks and legs to allow them to reach their food source. As a trade off, it makes it very hard for them to drink water.

As a former science teacher (still certified), the definitions of hypothesis, theory and law that have been given are accurate. Stating what someone else said earlier: The theory of evolution is fact, we just have not figured out all the hows and whys yet.

[ashcraft]

It is a common misconception that the length of a giraffe's neck has been determined by the ability to browse higher vegetation. A study has shown that this is not the purpose of the neck (although it is the end result), it was shown that female giraffes prefer longer necked males. The longer the neck, the more offspring, driving the neck forward at greater lengths, until it is now about as long as it can get and the giraffe still be able to function.

Females have ruined many good males, look at the poor peacock. He has that big gaudy predator attractor on the end of his rear that really keeps his life span fairly short, but he has to have it in order to reproduce. Early death in his case often means more babies, and a larger percentage of the genetic pie.

Women.

Brent Ashcraft

[Guest N.AL.hunter]

Continuing in that vain, think of the poor male black widow or male praying mantis.

The long neck for giraffes due to food or sexual attraction is actually a chicken and egg argument. Did the long neck mean able provider mean good mate, or did the long neck mean able food getter and thus able provider and thus a hunk. Anyway, I know that the female is always in charge (Yes Dear)...

[ashcraft]

I agree with you from a species point of view, but I was speaking strictly of what I think the female giraffe sees when she looks at a male-"ooh, look at that neck!"

[PrehistoricFlorida]

Humans obviously don't discriminate as much as giraffes... It's always amazed me some of the gene pools that are allowed to continue in humans.

[Gatorman]

Wow for some reason you sounded like a

Reminder to everyone Please do NOT bring Creationism or Intelligent Design into this conversation. This forum is meant to be a peaceable place where a debate such as this one can continue on without argument, the inclusion of things such as creationism can lead to irrational posts and heated arguments for that reason this forum has banned these conversations so please read the rules.

Thank you.

[PrehistoricFlorida]

I was actually referring to aesthetic appeal rather than race.

and how does evolution not lead to irrational posts and heated arguments?

if you're going to ban one theory, ban them all.