Can Evolution Be Tested?

Posted by Paul Decelles February 18, 2008 at 11:39 a.m.

Evolution is routinely tested both in laboratory and field situations. For instance, this New York Times article describes interesting test of the hypothesis that speciation may involve chromosomal rearrangements. To Test Evolution, Press the 'Undo' ButtonQuoting from the article:"Researchers have long known that changes in the DNA sequences of genes can cause a population to evolve into a new and separate species. But decades ago, theorists also proposed that a new species could evolve without any such changes, but instead simply as a result of large DNA strands' moving from one chromosome to another within a genome, a change known as a chromosomal rearrangement.While the theory sounded promising, since such rearrangements can be quite common, it eventually waned in popularity, in part because scientists had no way of testing it.Now in a slick feat of molecular maneuvering, a team of researchers has reorganized huge portions of one yeast species' chromosomes, rendering its chromosomal map identical to that of a closely related species, just as it was once, in the distant past. "By the way chromosomal rearrangements are believed to be important in human evolution as well. For instance, studies of chromosomal banding patterns suggested that human chromosome 2 arose because of the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. If so then one ought to detect the distinctive DNA sequences normally found at the ends of chromosomes, in the middle of human chromosome 2. Guess what? This is exactly what one finds.Natural selection and other mechanisms of evolution are routinely studied in the lab as well with a wide range of organisms. Indeed, as Darwin was well aware, the sort of unconscious and conscious selection involved in domestication is a good stand in for natural selection.With respect to the fossil record, evolutionary hypotheses are routinely tested as new fossil data are collected and matching that data against hypotheses about evolutionary relationships.See for example:New Fossils Resolve Whale's Origin: Science News OnlineIf you check this article out, you'll see that fossil discoveries over turned the up to then prevailing hypothesis that whales evolved from land predators.Granted we can't recreate the events leading to human evolution in a laboratory but we can certainly test hypotheses related to even human evolution. Besides if your definition of science is so strict that only laboratory tests make the cut then you leave out huge areas of science beyond evolution. For instance you leave out much of modern astronomy.Come to think of it, this is exactly what the Kansas Board of Education tried to do in 1999. All to sacrifice science on the altar of "Faith".

Copy and paste the link:

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

kansas778 (anonymous) says…

Well said.
February 18, 2008 at 12:13 p.m.
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Ronaldo Ignacio) says…

Would electing Ron Paul be a test of "natural selection"?
February 18, 2008 at 2:58 p.m.
christie (anonymous) says…

I could never understand why the Right-Wing-Christian types were against Evolution. It seems they haven't read their own Good Book. Because right there in Genesis, on the first page for crying out loud....

And God said, Let the Waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life...

And God said, Let the Earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
February 18, 2008 at 8:43 p.m.
Barclay (anonymous) says…

Sounds as if it is taking intelligence to do the afore mentioned chromosomal manipulations. How that be scientific evidence for chance evoltuion? Any evolutionist honest enought to see a problem with this line of reasoning?
February 18, 2008 at 9:24 p.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Barclay,

Absolutely no problem. First of all the chromosomal manipulations were done to test the hypothesis that the differences among yeast species might be related to the chromosomal rearangements. And it does not matter that it requires intelligence-we know that chromosomal rearrangements of the type seen in yeast are quite common.

Your argument is analogous to objecting to testing ideas about lightening in the laboratory because lightening doesn't happen in the laboratory. Do you think there is a difference between natural and artificial electricity? Likewise chromosomal changes are going to have the same effects in the yeast whether they produced by some sort intelligent manipulation in the lab or by natural processes.
February 18, 2008 at 10:41 p.m.
Barclay (anonymous) says…

But how can intelligent manipulation ever be a test of chance? Besides, if evolution has occured as claimed, the millions of "chance" evolutionary improvements would necessitate millions more transitional forms. The geologic column does not reveal transitional forms. Rather, the geologic column reveals only fully formed species. Each one identifiable and named by paleontologists. If evolution is true, there should be millions of creatures representing dead-end, failed, chance genetic changes or at the very least transitional forms with identifiable links to other species. Read the research, evolutionary paleontologists admit that when push comes to shove, transitional forms have never been found.
February 19, 2008 at 6:14 a.m.
acoupstick (anonymous) says…

"If evolution is true, there should be millions of creatures representing dead-end, failed, chance genetic changes or at the very least transitional forms with identifiable links to other species."

Isn't that what all fossilized extinct animals are? Dinosaurs represent an evolutionary dead end as well as the precursors to modern birds.

"Lack of transitional animals" is a common creationist critique of evolution and could not be less true. In fact transitional organisms are quite common and more are found every year.
February 19, 2008 at 6:39 a.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Barclay,

You must be reading very different research, maybe from another planet. The fact is in spite of the limitations of the fossil record there are plenty of transitional fossils. By the way the human fossil record is one of the best in this regards.

As for your comment about intelligent manipulation, that is a red herring. Of course intelligent manipulation is not the result of chance. But the issue is can natural processes give rise to new forms? The answer from what we can tell is..yes.
February 19, 2008 at 7:50 a.m.
salad (anonymous) says…

" The geologic column does not reveal transitional forms. Rather, the geologic column reveals only fully formed species."

False.

However, if you can manage to pass this bit of complete false-hood off as the truth, Barclay, then I'm sure there's a job for you in Bush administration.
February 19, 2008 at 8:18 a.m.
bondmen (anonymous) says…

We'd all like to have answers to these questions: Does science need evolution?, Does medicine need evolution?, Have claims of intelligent design been refuted?, and Is evolution compatible with religion?

In an exceptionally well written refutation of the National Academy of Sciences' booklet titled Science, Evolution and Creationism, scientist and logician Jonathan Sarfati has now demolished the NAS's latest claims with ease.

Even if you are a dedicated evolutionist you'll want to read the very best arguments the other side has to offer at: http://creationontheweb.com/content/v...
and in PDF at http://creationontheweb.com/images/pd...
February 19, 2008 at 9 a.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Jonathan Safarti?

You have to be kidding...his book "Evolution Refuted" is so riddled with inconstancies and misunderstandings I don't even know where to begin. I will be really interested to see what howlers he has now.

Thanks I am sure this will be a great teaching tool in my biology classes!
February 19, 2008 at 9:37 a.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Oh by the way here are the NAS links to evolution resources so that people can get a more complete look to have something to compare Safarti against:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evol...
February 19, 2008 at 9:39 a.m.
jonas (anonymous) says…

Does science need evolution?
Probably.

"Does medicine need evolution?"
Certainly. Evolving viral strains. Happens all the time.

"Have claims of intelligent design been refuted?"
Have any claims been made that have enough basis in anything real to actually be properly refuted? I don't think that they have, otherwise they would have been thoroughly refuted by now.

"and Is evolution compatible with religion?"
Certainly, as long as religion sticks to its purpose of moral guidance, and doesn't try and convince itself that it has any scientific merit in regards to the physical world, they should both do fine.
February 19, 2008 at 9:50 a.m.
acoupstick (anonymous) says…

Evolution is completely integrated with other sciences and technology. As mentioned on another thread, contemporary evolutionary theory draws upon paleontology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, medicine, and agriculture. Creationist critique often tries to isolate evolutionary theory to weaken it. Logical people see through this ruse. The scientific base (and basis) for evolution is quite strong.
February 19, 2008 at 10:02 a.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Acoupstick,

Excellent point. One of the hall marks of a scientific idea being on the right track is if the mechanisms relate to other areas of science. For instance evolution is so closely tied to genetics that today we understand biological evolution as ultimately being a change in the genetic makeup of a population.

A great book that explains in really simple terms about how evolution relates to DNA is Sean B. Carroll's book-The Making of the Fittest (2006) Norton. Also I recommend his book Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

This people interested in the intersection of evolution and religion might check out Ken Miller's Book, "Finding Darwin's God". This book gives a good critique of intelligent design. Might be a good read in conjunction with Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black box which presents the argument for intelligent design.

Finally I recommend Richard Dawkins' book The Ancestor's Tale as a good overview of the sate of our understanding of the broad sweep of evolution as of about 4 years ago.

More philosophical people such as Devobrun, if he is reading this, might want to read Elliot Sober's book on natural selection called The Nature of Selection out of Chicago University Press last edition in 1993.
February 19, 2008 at 10:31 a.m.
moderate1 (anonymous) says…

Where's all the lab evidence for creationism?
February 19, 2008 at 10:34 a.m.
jonas (anonymous) says…

moderate1: How can you look at the beauty of the world around us and not call it the perfect lab evidence for divine creation?
February 19, 2008 at 2:20 p.m.
Maddendalybrokaw (anonymous) says…

Dude, Paul, what happened to the commas? As the article progressed, they seemed to become more and more scarce.

And secondly, in this context I think an important distinction to make is this: researchers are not testing hypotheses as to whether evolution happened in a particular manner; rather, they are testing hypotheses as to whether evolution Could Possibly happen in a particular manner (assuming that laboratory conditions somehow mimic real life).
February 19, 2008 at 3:06 p.m.
moo (anonymous) says…

I think that the beauty of the world is cheapened by the belief that it had to be that way, that some creator intended it. The fact that it happened through random chance is infinitely more amazing. You also can't blame chance for the horrible things in the world. Any kind of divinity should have been able to do better, though. Just my personal opinion.

The term "evolutionist" cracks me up, as if looking at all available evidence up to this point in time is some sort of wacky belief system. The theory of evolution at present is not complete, and will probably eventually be proved incorrect in some ways, but up to this point is our best scientific explanation of how things got to be the way that they are.
February 19, 2008 at 3:27 p.m.
tony88 (anonymous) says…

I want to add a recommendation to Paul's list regarding the evolution/religion relationship, Christopher Alexander's "The Nature of Order" (in particular, book 1, "The Phenomenon of Life" and book 2, "The Process of Creating Life"). Although it doesn't approach the topic head-on, it does operate on a tacit assumption that the two are not mutually exclusive but rather symbiotic. The work does suggest some rather profound ways of understanding order in nature and in human creation. Alexander is a scientist and architect. Another book by Alexander that provides some mathematical underpinning for "The Nature of Order" is "Notes on the Synthesis of Form".
February 19, 2008 at 3:47 p.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Good comments,

Jonas,

Can't you still see the Divine Creator in the normal operation of the universe even if evolution is operating as scientists believe? If as many believe, God is outside of time and space why is it not possible that from our perspective God is operating via natural laws that we can understand?

You might look up Keith Miller from K. State. He is an evangelical geologist who accepts evolution and has written extensively about the fossil record including its weaknesses and about the relationship between evolution and Divine Creation.

Madden,

I am allowed only so many commas per day and I am getting close to my limit. Therefore comma conservation is in play.

Moo, well said. Oh and scarier yet is when we are labeled as Darwinists or materialists. As for evolutionist, I wear that label proudly. You are absolutely right when you say evolution is incomplete. Darwin understood this and we still understand this today.

Creationist argumentation though boils down to saying here are some gaps and weaknesses in evolution therefore the whole idea is wrong. Darwin would recognize natural selection for instance but would be amazed at what we understand about genetics and probably amazed at the controversies in the scientific community not about whether or not evolution happens, but about the details, most of which he could only dimly see.

Anxiousatheist. I am sure Jonas has an answer for the existence of death, poverty, starvation etc. It seems a lot of theology is about trying to reconcile these things with the notion of a loving God.
February 19, 2008 at 4:05 p.m.
jonas (anonymous) says…

Man, you guys. You make it too easy, really. At least read my Other comment on this thread before rushing to snap judgments about what I believe or believe that I can answer.

;)
February 19, 2008 at 4:13 p.m.
Oracle_of_Rhode (anonymous) says…

moo (Anonymous) says:

I think that the beauty of the world is cheapened by the belief that it had to be that way, that some creator intended it. The fact that it happened through random chance is infinitely more amazing.

--

While I appreciate your sentiments, moo, it's a misunderstanding of science to say that humans and the world we inhabit "happened through random chance."

We and everything around us happened because of the laws of chemistry and physics -- not random chance.
February 19, 2008 at 4:21 p.m.
tony88 (anonymous) says…

anxiousatheist, though you make a good point, Jonas was being sarcastic with the "How can you look at the beauty of the world around us and not call it the perfect lab evidence for divine creation?" post. read his post prior to that. perhaps your point should be directed to the audience generally rather than to Jonas in particular.
February 19, 2008 at 4:29 p.m.
moo (anonymous) says…

But the laws of chemistry and physics did not have to be what they are. That is random chance. If the universe had expanded differently during the big bang, we would have completely different laws.

Jonas, I never thought I was arguing with you, I just felt like responding to that often-expressed sentiment that you posted. It kind of cracked me up that everyone thought you were a big creationist all of a sudden. ; )
February 19, 2008 at 4:30 p.m.
75x55 (anonymous) says…

"the acceptance of a certain premise without any sort of proof"

Now that is interesting. A baseless assumption imposed on theology in this case, but interesting observation none the less.

"without any sort of proof" is a dangerous reef to go skimming over like that, my friend..... :)
February 19, 2008 at 4:31 p.m.
jonas (anonymous) says…

moo: Didn't think I was arguing with you, either, so don't worry about it. It just endlessly amuses me how hard it is to make a comment on this board appear too over-the-top to be taken seriously.
February 19, 2008 at 4:34 p.m.
ilikestuff (anonymous) says…

Anxious,

I am curious about your post. Typically, a thesis for creationism is in the beginning the world was perfect. Accordingly, all of creation has since run a consistent course toward chaos and destruction save one evident which I understand little. Do you suppose your observations, which generally I agree with, may be evidence, overall, for Creationism?

Contrarily, it seems a thesis underlying evolution is all things are moving from chaos or disorder toward perfection. I realize the price for perfection sometimes is the extinction of a "disorderly" species so I suppose the chaos in the world today does not preclude generally a move toward perfection. No matter, please, if you don't mind, explain your perceptions a bit more.

Thank you.
February 19, 2008 at 4:39 p.m.
moo (anonymous) says…

What we need is a tone of voice stamp you can put on your comment. You know, like red=anger, green=sarcasm, etc. You have it right, you try to say something so over-the-top that everyone will immediately realize that you're making fun of the extreme posters, but everyone instead just assumes you are one. It's kind of funny and depressing at the same time.
February 19, 2008 at 4:39 p.m.
moo (anonymous) says…

I know that you didn't ask me, ilikestuff, but the idea that evolution is a process that moves from chaos towards perfection is a huge misunderstanding. Evolution does not perfect anything, it has no intent. Natural selection does mean that the weak (or often simply the unlucky) die off and don't procreate, but new things are always evolving: some will work out, some won't. It does not move from chaos towards order, rather keeps a kind of constant level of both.
February 19, 2008 at 4:43 p.m.
Satirical (anonymous) says…

Note to testers: Please replicate, and test the hypothesis of MACRO evolution (not micro evolution which we all know exists) where you take 1 life form and end up with billions, over billions of years. I am not claiming it can't be done, or evolution is incorrect, it just appears that macro evolution is non-replicable which is a requirement for good science.
February 19, 2008 at 5:13 p.m.
Oracle_of_Rhode (anonymous) says…

moo (Anonymous) says:

But the laws of chemistry and physics did not have to be what they are. That is random chance. If the universe had expanded differently during the big bang, we would have completely different laws.

--

Sorry moo, ask a scientist or a physicist if you know one: the universe expanded according to the laws of physics. In fact, it is still expanding according to the laws of physics.
February 19, 2008 at 5:14 p.m.
acoupstick (anonymous) says…

In an evolutionary sense, perfection is the persistance of a one's genes in successive generations not the movement towards an anthropomorphic archetype.
February 19, 2008 at 5:16 p.m.
Satirical (anonymous) says…

Note to testers: Please attempt to falsify macro evolution. (not falsify micro evolution by attempting to prove nothing ever changes). Creationism can't be falsified and those who determine what "science" is say this is another reason it is not science. Rightly so. But how do you falsify macro evolution? "I have some fossils that appear to be similar, therefore it proves cross-speciation." How do you disprove what sometime infers based on dead evidence that you can't replicate? "I don't think those appear to be similar, and their aren't enough of them." Does either statement prove evolution true or false or is it just inductive logic? Is macro evolution falsifiable?

A good scientist challenges everything!
February 19, 2008 at 5:26 p.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

You are right Jonas,

I somehow missed your earlier comment. ;-)
February 19, 2008 at 5:34 p.m.
ilikestuff (anonymous) says…

Thank you Moo, that is good information. Thank you Acoupstick.
February 19, 2008 at 5:41 p.m.
Satirical (anonymous) says…

No one has taken up my previously posted challenge to replicate or falsify macro evolution. Therefore, I declare macro evolution is not "science" since it fails two requirements of what is "science"

Or.... perhaps this group pro-evolution commentators has not reached a critical mass of intelligence to accomplish such a daunting task.
February 19, 2008 at 5:45 p.m.
jonas (anonymous) says…

satirical: Perhaps most regular scientists have already realized that, because if it was obvious to you we can be sure it was obvious to them.

And, of course, we all realize that evolutionary change on a macro scale would take eons to work its way out, so it will take considerably longer than any of us have to live. I say that we realize that, of course, because you wouldn't have the courage to make that challenge without knowing this in the first place.

So, what's your point?
February 19, 2008 at 5:59 p.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

More sloppy science.
Where to start?

Evidence and test are two different words with different definitions and implications scientifically.
I assert that evidence is that which is used to form an hypothesis. Evidence can be further collected to see if the new evidence supports or refutes the hypothesis. But new evidence is not a test

A test is a controlled experiment that reproduces all or part of the hypothesis. Generally the test is a reproduction of the hypothesis over a wide range stimulus-response type of experiments. The idea is to push the limits of the experiment until the hypothesis fails, if it ever does. The hypothesis is carefully stated, and IT is tested. Extrapolation to further hypotheses can only be scientific if they are tested. Collections of hypotheses can come together in some metahypothesis, but for it to be truly scientific, it must be tested. In short If you say it, do it.

Often I see these two words used interchangeably, without merit. We have evidence that there is a large serpent-like creature in Loch Ness, Scotland. Evidence comes in the form of sonar, visual, and photographic reports. Now a test would be to set up human and electronic and photographic sensors, leaving no part of the loch unobserved. Drain the loch, look for the monster. Since this is not feasible, politically, environmentally, and culturally (everybody would be angry), the test will not happen. Thus, there is a limit to science. So, pseudo-science and mystery remains surrounding "Nessie".
So, in this context, evolution is ill-defined, impossible to properly test, and not much different than evidence-based hypotheses regarding "Nessie".
The most important character trait of scientists must be integrity. Tell yourself and others the truth, as far as you know it.
So here is what I think you should say:
1) You hate Christianity or any other religion telling an origin myth. This area of truth seeking is for you Darwinians, and only for you.
2) So far your science is not very good, but that doesn't preclude the above statement.

So what should be taught in science class. Maybe that, all the -ologies are not science in the same sense as physics. Controlled experiments are possible in the -ologies, but the results are usually limited in scope. Grand hypotheses like big bang, and evolution remain beyond proper testing. Oh, and creation science is even farther away from any hope of testing. These endeavors may be fecund (usually in a much smaller scope like virus mutation), but the grand pronouncements about origins of species are grandiose pontifications.

Evolution is the cutting edge of biology. Darwin, after 150 years is loosing the sharp edge. Proper testing of his theory is just 10 years away. Unfortunately, it has always been 10 years away. It might be 10 years away forever.
February 19, 2008 at 5:59 p.m.
bondmen (anonymous) says…

"Thermodynamics Defeats Evolution "in a Most Spectacular Way" 12/30/2005

The second law of thermodynamics (2TD), what Sir Arthur Eddington called the supreme law of nature, does not permit evolution, argued Granville Sewall in The American Spectator; in fact, evolution violates it "in a most spectacular way." A mathematics professor at Texas A&M University, Sewall explained that 2TD applies to much more than heat flow; it applies to every real system. He defended the second law against the "standard reply," the "open system" argument. Not "anything" can happen in an open system, he explained, not even with a Darwinian mechanism; otherwise, we would expect computers, spaceships, television sets and DNA to appear just with the energy of the sun.
Sewall's lay-level article was prompted by the wars over intelligent design. He adapted it from the appendix of a book he co-authored on The Numerical Solution of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations (see end of article for reference and link). The appendix, "A second look at the second law," asked, "Can anything happen in an open system?" and is available online at Math.tamu.edu.

The venue may have been a conservative rag, but the author knows what he is talking about. Dr. Sewall is a mathematician and author with expertise in probability and the second law of thermodynamics. He is right; tell a Darwinist about 2TD, and you will get little more than an "open system" brush-off. This article pulls that rug out. No more simplistic open-system answers, Darwin Party: fess up, you cannot get brains from matter in motion, open system or not. Do the math. Face the real world. Just-so storytelling cannot help in the world of hard physical science. It's the ultimate Reality Check. No federal judge can help you now. What would you have him do: declare the second law of thermodynamics unconstitutional? Rule it inadmissable because of separation of church and state? Go ahead and try. Your opponents will just appeal it to the court of last resort: the real world."
From http://creationsafaris.com/crev200512...
February 19, 2008 at 6:56 p.m.
75x55 (anonymous) says…

Well, since you've asked so nicely...
February 19, 2008 at 7:14 p.m.
Logan5 (anonymous) says…

Your argument about the 2nd Law assumes that we are now more "evolved" than we were in the past. Assuming we are, isn't anything we do also a violation. Constructing a computer from raw materials for instance? Too small of an example? How about star formation, galaxies, etc. This is obviously order from disorder is it not? These are things that will eventually be overcome by the 2nd Law, but local orderliness (is that a word) can and does occur.
February 19, 2008 at 8:02 p.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Bondman,

A most elementary consideration of what goes on in the real world would demonstrate the Sewall is incorrect. Do you really believe for instance that a zygote has higher entropy than a fully formed adult organism? You might check out this rebuttal to Sewall's argument.

http://www.1729.com/blog/SecondLawDoe...

We know that even in simple physical systems order can and does increase locally- this is the whole point of what in biology and chemistry is called self assembly-the classic example being the formation of phospholipid bilayers that are part of cell membranes. That local decrease in entropy that happens because of the way phospholipids interact with each other and with water is counter acted by an increase in the entropy of the surroundings.

Also Sewall's equations are diffusion equations and he might be correct for the sorts of diffusive processes he is envisioning. But evolution is not strictly a random diffusive process of the sort that he is talking about. He is ignoring the importance of natural selection as a deterministic process.

When math and empirical observation contradict...check the math.
February 19, 2008 at 8:43 p.m.
mick (anonymous) says…

There is another type of "natural selection" going on here- the natural tendency of the mind to select the factoids that will support its preconceptions. I don't believe in evolution theory and I don't believe in creationism. They are both pseudoscience and anyone who believes in either is a pseudoscientist.
February 19, 2008 at 8:57 p.m.
jonas (anonymous) says…

Which talking head did you base that opinion off of?
February 19, 2008 at 10:08 p.m.
acoupstick (anonymous) says…

Please look into the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant on Darwin's finches. Theyhave collect evidence, made predictions, and tested their predictions since 1973. Their work has redefined evolution as a process in perpetual motion subject to and defined by both the laws of nature and the selective pressures caused by natural phenomena. Teasing the details of evolution in real time or prehistoric time is a grueling process that leaves no room for sloppiness.
February 19, 2008 at 10:22 p.m.
Kropotkin (anonymous) says…

From the Dover trial:

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?
A (Michael Behe) No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct.
February 19, 2008 at 10:55 p.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Some late night rambling comments probably lacking appropriate commas...and perhaps coherence.

As for testing macroevolution this discussion on talk origins may be useful.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macro...

As for Mick's comments about factoids: a little story. When Michael Behe's book the Black Box came out my reaction was cool-is this evidence that challenges evolution? After reading and thinking about it I realized that Behe's logic is a rehash of 19th century arguments recast with examples from cellular and molecular biology, still my basic position. The point being scientists love facts that don't fit their preconceptions-or at least some do. Behe indeed raises a puzzle but jumping to ID as a way to explain what he sees makes no sense to me.

devobrun, you write:

..assert that evidence is that which is used to form an hypothesis. Evidence can be further collected to see if the new evidence supports or refutes the hypothesis. But new evidence is not a test...

I think I agree in that I would love the sort of experimental test say of macroevolution that you want. But if new data is collected independently of previously existing data and that data contradicts a historical hypothesis-that sounds like falsification to me.

Evolutionary biologists recognise that evolutionary explanations are provisional and I know when I teach I present them in just this way.

I bring this up Mick to point out that I don't reject counter arguments about evolution out of hand but given the utility of evolution as a program, what Popper called a metapysical program for research there has to be extraordinary evidence to reject it. To put evolution on the same footing as creationism as pseudoscience does not make any sense to me.

Devobrun again, the mechanisms involved in speciation can be examined in the laboratory that was the point of the yeast article. In fact the biological literature is replete with experimental tests of speciation mechanisms.

This review may be useful though it is a few years out of date:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-s....

Many of these experiments are perhaps in themselves limited in scope. I wonder though, do you reject all notion that hypotheses related to history can be properly tested? Are geneological hypotheses about one's family ancestory untestable? After all you or I can't repeat family history under all conditions.

To bed!
February 19, 2008 at 11:28 p.m.
bondmen (anonymous) says…

"Fossil Salamanders Test Evolution 03/25/2001
A new treasure-trove of exquisitely detailed salamander fossils has been found in China, according to Science Now. Evolutionists claim they are 150 million years old, the oldest salamander skeletons known, yet indistinguishable from modern species.
The evolutionists immediately jump for joy at the prospect of studying salamander evolution here, but fail to ponder the logical question that if evolution is such a pervasive agent of change, why are today's salamanders virtually identical to their 150 million year old parents? The article mentions "possible salamander ancestors in the Paleozoic," leaving room for storytelling. The article says the fossils are dead ringers for those alive today, but in the next sentence quotes a paleontologist calling them "very primitive." This is the Darwinian mindset, feeling compelled to shoehorn things into an evolutionary sequence, whether they fit or not. Salamanders are not primitive! They are highly complex vertebrates with exquisite capabilities for respirating in water and on land. The fossil record in general shows abrupt appearance of complex life-forms, and often catastrophic burial. That pattern is exemplified right here with these salamanders."
From http://creationsafaris.com/crev03.htm
February 20, 2008 at 6:12 a.m.
devobrun (anonymous) says…

anxiousatheist, "I'm glad that you've pointed out the difference between what is termed "hard" science vs. "soft" science. They can be characterized by the differences in physics and sociology. That being said, they both play by the same rules, theories are reviewed by peers that then judge the methods and data. If a theory provides a meaningful addition it's field it is accepted as the best yet explanation."

Actually, the technique you describe is a DA presenting evidence to a jury of the peers. It is a legal proceeding. Whether the evidence and judgment is physics, a burglary trial, or in the field of paleo-evolutionary-bio-hystrionics at Harvard, the technique is soft. It isn't science. This science-by-peer-review stuff has many implications:
1) It is highly acculturated. It is self promoting and fulfilling.
2) It plays well on TV, and TV is the modern definition of truth for the masses.
3) It promotes the notion of experts. Thus, the plethora of PhDs in the world can find a job.
4) It can easily be politicized. In this world of increasing top-down management, experts have replaced wisdom. Politically, experts are easier to manipulate than wise people.
5) it isn't science. It is a culture, a family, a religion. It is much more human than science, and therefore much more comfortable. People would rather argue religion than argue scientific technique. Pissing contests are fun. Science is inhuman.

There actually is science going on in the world, but it is much smaller in scope than all the NOVA program sciences that have so much cache in this era of modern soft science. They generally are within labs like @ Intel, where Hafnium and Si have been alloyed to build a new passivation layer for Integrated circuits. Higher speeds are the result. Yes, this was announced in trade journals, but it doesn't play well when Kati Couric describes it.
February 20, 2008 at 7:17 a.m.
moo (anonymous) says…

Oracle_of_Rhode, hehe, this is fun. I have studied a decent amount of physics both in college and for fun, and I do know several physicists. The thing is, the universe was not born into an existing space that already had set laws. The laws were born with the universe. So yes, the universe expanded according physical laws, but the birth of the universe created those physical laws. I have often read physicists philosophize that if something slightly different had happened at that moment, t=0, the moment of the bing bang, then the physical laws that we know and love might be very, very different.

Also, do not forget that some of what I originally called randomness is random because of those physical laws. Brownian motion, for example. The fact that molecules are in motion is in accordance with physical laws, but the actual paths they take are random, as are their interactions. In our bodies, the right things bump into each other randomly, as a result of the laws of physics and chemistry, and they make life possible. That ordered randomness is what is truly beautiful!
February 20, 2008 at 8:48 a.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

A couple of quick comments then I am off to do other things-teach, grade papers stuff such as that. Devobrun I think you raise some useful points about the social aspects and quite frankly the marketing of science, but if you examine the actual literature of evolution there is a lot more going on than programs such as Nova discuss. I suspect that is also true in other areas of science that have gotten marketed.

There are different levels of test and different degrees of confidence one can have with respect to these tests and I question your use of the term pseudoscience. Is evolutionary biology a hard (in the sense of quantitative science) that can be tested in the lab? Sometimes yes sometimes no.

P.S. new computer chips play well for me. ;-)

Bondman,

I am not familiar with the literature on salamander evolution, but I do know that when a biologist attempts to develop a hypothesis about evolutionary relationships among different groups of organisms the biologist is using primitive in a different way than you might think. As I understand, primitive means a character that presumably is present in a certain form in a hypothetical ancestor. It meed not mean simple. For instance to a biologist the reduced tail-with fewer parts, loss of certain muscle attachments etc- of humans would not be a primitive character even though anatomically the human tail is simpler than the tail of most other mammals...and salamanders by the way.

Of course salamanders are complex organisms. That's in part why when biologists today draw "trees" that reflect a hypothesis about macroevolution, existing organisms regardless of how simple or complex are shown at the top (or side of the tree).

Notice my use of the word hypothetical.

Beyond that I would have to go to the primary scientific literature to comment further. As for catastrophic burial, yup sometimes we see that. Sometimes we don't. The fact that we see that sometimes, assuming that your link provides plausible evidence is not really relevant, to my way of thinking.

Again though you might look up the geologist Keith Miller at K State and read what he has to say about the fossil record and evolution.
February 20, 2008 at 10:46 a.m.
supertrampofkansas (anonymous) says…

Devo,

All of the things you refer to could easily be said for gravity theory, Einstein's general relativity theory, or quantum mechanics. Even though these descriptive theories cannot be directly tested, they do provide a basic structural foundation for Physics just as evolutionary theory provides for biology. Attacking a descriptive theory by saying you can't directly "test" it and calling something "sloppy" science demonstrates a lack of understanding of how science and the use of the scientific method works both from theoretical and practical standpoints.

Whenever I read your posts Devo, I get the sense that you feel superior and better than 99% of the scientists in the world. I keep thinking ok here is a guy who has produced some great scientific discovery or has made major contributions to the field of science but I imagine that the opposite is true. You became a teacher because you don't quite make the cut as a scientist. I also wonder why you don't take your arguments directly to the science community instead of being on these blogs trying to impress or manipulate the non-scientific general public into your way of thinking.

I do agree that many people become confused about what is "evidence" and what is a "test" and incorrectly equate the two, However I did find your example of the Lock Ness Monster to be sorely lacking especially since you failed to mention that there is a large amount of evidence against the existence of such a creature. For example, the existence of fake photographs, hidden agendas from a monetary standpoint etc. You also only pointed to one possible test. Surely you must realize there are more than just one way to test the working hypothesis (which have actually been done) or were you being obtuse Devo.

I did find your statements identifying religion as the real reason for the existence and support for certain theories to be curious and somewhat hypocritical on your part. You complain about being incorrectly identified as a religious zealot and your motives being questioned and yet you turn around and do the exact same thing with your own postings.

Again regardless of your motives, I think it is quite clear that you have already decided that evolutionary theory is wrong no matter what evidence or testing is currently there or going on with this theory. Your long and passionate responses attacking evolutionary theory makes it easy for me to write you off as an "anti-science" fundamentalist.
February 20, 2008 at 11:38 a.m.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

It's amusing to watch the debates, as folks worry about common ancestry with our ape cousins. Those who are interested in learning should read:
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin.
Darwin's genius was figuring out common origins, and most of the work done since then as confirmed his "hunch." We share genetic materials with our ancestors going all the way back to jelly fish and single-celled organisms. With our without a skygod's help, I find this fascinating and encouraging. Life is special and we are lucky Earth is somehow in the right place near the right sized star. Other planets are not so lucky!
February 22, 2008 at 6:34 a.m.
reasonmclucus (anonymous) says…

Such experiments can only prove that an Intelligence could have produced changes by manipulating the genetic computer program. The process suggested by Darwin is the type of process that intelligent (or at least quasi intelligent) beings called humans use to develop everything from literary works to technology to computer programs. An uncontrolled process would not be able to develop life in a step by step fashion.
March 29, 2008 at 1:09 a.m.