Evolution

[Bluejay]

Hello, everyone.

Edited to Add Note: I didn't intend for this to be posted as a reply to Faithless---I just hit the wrong button. Sorry

There was some discussion on this thread about the scientific terms "law" and "theory," and this is a topic that is particularly confused, because the distinction is actually philosophical, rather than scientific, and scientists are not usually formally trained in philosophy. So, naturally, you hear all kinds of ideas about what a theory and a law are, even from practicing scientists, e.g. "laws are theories with mathematical formulas attached to them," and "theories and laws are the same thing" and "theories grow up to become laws once they've gathered enough supporting evidence."

In case you couldn't tell, I'm about to argue that none of the above stuff is correct.

The two terms actually come from two different traditions within science. Back in Newton's day, science was purely phenomenological or descriptive: i.e., science described patterns in natural phenomena. From this practice came the concept of a "law," which is a pattern that has been observed so consistently that it might as well be regarded as a fact. Thus, we have the Law of Gravity.

But, by Darwin's time, in the 1800's, science had become more mechanistic: i.e., scientists were no longer keen on merely describing patterns they observed in nature, but were more interested in discovering what causes the patterns. From this practice came the concept of a "hypothesis," which is a causal/mechanistic explanation for why a particular phenomenon is observed to follow a specific pattern; and "theory," which is a hypothesis that has been supported by a great deal of evidence. Thus, we have the Theory of Evolution.

So, we have the Law of Gravity, which describes the direction, velocity and acceleration in which things on Earth move. But, as to what causes things to move in the given direction, velocity and acceleration is still, to some degree, an open question. The most successful theory to explain this pattern is space-time curvature, which I am not qualified to even attempt to explain, so I'll refrain.

So, these ideas that theories can "grow up" to become laws are not correct: theories will always be theories, and laws will always be laws; if anything, a law would grow up to become a theory (though this is also inaccurate).

And, these ideas that theories and laws are the same thing are also incorrect: they come from different logical and philosophical approaches to studying the world.

And, these ideas that laws are just theories with mathematical constructs are also incorrect, because laws do not provide a mechanistic explanation for patterns, while theories do.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Bluejay
Note: I didn't intend for this to be posted as a reply to Faithless---I just hit the wrong button. Sorry

[Dravin]

So, these ideas that theories can "grow up" to become laws are not correct

And here I had an endearing image of a baby gravity sucking on his binky hoping he could grow up to be a real law some day.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Dieublanc.

But what if there existed a living animal that was genetically both reptilian and mammalian? An animal that has remained in this 'transitional state' while other animals continued to evolve.

Well there is such an animal.......the Platypus.

The poor echidnas always get overlooked by people enthusiastically hyping up the platypus.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Tyler.

Where evolutionists and I start going different directions is when humans are involved. I do not believe that humans have the same ancestors as apes.

Unfortunately, the evolutionary transition from ape to human is probably the evolutionary transition with the most and best evidence in support of it, so, strictly speaking, it's less rational to deny human evolution than it is to deny, say, grasshopper evolution (for which there is decidedly less evidence).

As an example of this, you can compare the brain size of a chimpanzee, with the brain size of the intermediaries, and the brain size of a human, and you see a remarkably smooth line delimiting the transition from one to the next. So, while I agree that humans are certainly more intelligent than chimpanzees, the distinction would not seem so clear if all those intermediate forms had survived to the present day.

-----

The fact that animals and plants fit perfectly into their environment is amazing.

This is a very common sentiment.

The common response is a parody of it: "The fact that milk fits perfectly into the shape of the jug it's poured into is amazing."

What else could it do but fit? You certainly wouldn't expect to see animals living where they couldn't survive, would you?

So, why is it a particularly amazing thing that things exist where they are able to exist?

And, why would this suggest that the world was perfectly created for life? Why could it not also suggest that life is perfectly adapted to the world?

[Faithless]

I really liked this thread, and am sad to see it die.

[Traveler]

I really liked this thread, and am sad to see it die.

The reason it had died is the lack of understanding and willingness to see the obvious. Many that tout religion and doubt science in reality, at least in my mind, do not understand ether. Could G-d have (or did G-d) utilized dumb (inferior) animals from which to bring forth enlightened humans by bringing about a change in them that we understand as evolution? If you think you are a Christian and your answer is a definitive no - then you are wrong. You are wrong about understanding your faith and you are wrong about understanding science. Stones are a lot dumber than any animal and far less likely to evolve into a new species especially man. (See Matthew 3:9) What greater proof of evolution do we have than the very words of the creator declaring it?

The Traveler

Edited March 15, 2011 by Traveler