Micro evolution is fact, macro evolution is a theory, but a damned good one. Creationsism is a nice cute fantasy. :)
Is evolution a fact or theory?
by sleepy 41 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
rem
sleepy,
Evolution has a lot less to do with chance than you may know. Natural Selection is the driving force and it is the opposite of randomness and chance. Mutations aren't always as random as we might think - there are limitiations to their randomness, but evolution through natural selection would work even if mutations were completely random. Natural Selection selects the good and discards the bad and keeps the benign along for the ride.
There have been many many different environments on Earth throughout time. Perhaps you are not realizing the magnitude of billions of years. For billions of years life has been evolving, adapting to various environments and niches. To me it is quite obvious why we have such diversity in life right now. Remember, evolution does not happen to individuals, but to populations. There have been millions, even billions of populations of plants and animals and stuff in between over the billions of years of Earth's history.
I think you are focusing too much on randomness and chance when that is not what Evolution hangs on. Evolution works with random mutations and with nonrandom mutations. That is what makes natural selection so powerful.
I would recommend some books by Richard Dawkins including The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and Climbing Mount Improbable for a good explanation of Natural Selection.
rem
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell -
Warren
In a newspaper article entitled "Misinformation causes confusion about evolution", biology professor Jane Maienschein claims that there is no legitimate scientific evidence against evolution and that evolution is a theory as secure as the heliocentric theory (that the Earth goes around the sun). If the evolution Maienschein has in mind is the kind that is currently observable then even religious fundamentalists are evolutionists. The statement "We breed a great variety of dogs," which rests on direct observation, is much easier to prove than the statement that the earth goes around the sun, which requires sophisticated reasoning. Not even the strictest biblical literalists deny the bred varieties of dogs, the variation of finch beaks, insects becoming resistant to poisons and similar instances of change within types. What is being questioned is the more controversial claim that all complex biological structures, organs, and even human consciousness arose through nothing more than natural selection acting on random variation.
This important claim of Darwinism that complex biological structures and organs like eyes, wings and brains were produced by random mutations and natural selection without the need for intelligent assistance has come to be known as the blind watchmaker hypothesis and it certainly is not as secure as the theory that the Earth goes around the sun. Has science confirmed the blind watchmaker hypothesis?
The issue really doesn't arise. That's because science is defined as an activity in which only materialistic explanations are considered and in which the goal is always to improve the best existing materialistic explanation. The blind watchmaker hypothesis is therefore merely a way of stating the commitment of "science" to materialism, and as such the existence of a blind watchmaker is a logical necessity. If a critic doesn't like Darwinism, his only permissible move is to suggest a better blind watchmaker. That a competent blind watchmaker doesn't exist at all is not a logical possibility.
Maienschein claims that arguments from design are unscientific. This is really misleading. When a scientist says something is unscientific they may mean that it is untestable or irrational. But scientists also label as unscientific, explanations that are not materialistic. The concept of intelligent design in nature is rational and testable it's just not materialistic.
On what basis are rational, testable hypotheses not allowed in science? Why is our educational system insistent upon uncritical acceptance by students of the claim that purposeless material mechanisms were responsible for the creation of all forms of life? Is scientific materialism becoming the officially established religion of America?
-
Warren
>>Evolution has a lot less to do with chance than you may know. Natural Selection is the driving force and it is the opposite of randomness and chance.<<
It's not clear that natural selection is deterministic. First, if an advantageous mutation appears in a population, it can still be lost early on by random drift. Secondly, selection depends entirely on the environment. Say a bacterium experiences a mutation that allows it to uptake sugar A. Well, if there is no sugar A in the environment, or if there is plenty of sugar B, C, and D, the mutation is not advantageous - it would only become advantageous under certain conditions which, in turn, are based on contingency.
-
Teirce
Alan, do you have any materials/links on the origins of the X and Y chromosomes? Tks
-
Trilobite
sleepy,
You raise a good question. However, first it is probably a good idea to understand what a "theory" is as opposed to a "fact" in a general sense. For most, evolution is a too emotionally charged topic to understand the distinction. So, what I'd suggest is that you look into the meaning of "theory" versus "fact" in a less highly charged arena. For example, is gravity a theory or a fact? Obviously most scientists have no ulterior theological motives when it comes to gravity. Therefore, once the understaning of "theory" vs. "fact" has been arrived at, in the contect of gravity, the concepts can be transferred directly to evolution.
It is a rather illuminating exercise.
T.
-
-
Warren
Evolution is a fact of natural history if evolution merely refers to change over time, however, if we are talking about a non-intelligent process that accounts for all of biotic reality then the term "blind watchmaking" better describes such a process.
Blind watchmaking is a non-intelligent-directed-at-any-level process. To say that God employed a non-intelligent-directed-at-any-level process to effect the origin of the biological world including humans is an internally contradictory statement.
-
GWEEDO
Ripped off the FAQ at Talkorigins
[url] http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html[/url]
I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
-
sleepy
Just picked up "River out of Eden" and "The blind watchmaker" from the Library.
Although I've read portions out of books that deal with evolution I must admit I haven't read a hole book on the subject.
I hope I learn something intresting and different to what I already know.