Evolution is not a scientific theory

[Rorschach]

I don't think so mantra.

Me watching TV isn't scientific.
Me reading your comments certainly isn't.
Science doesn't have a monopoly over observation.

My thoughts are just that.
My written thoughts here are simply my opinion.

[Jovial Monk]

“Beneficial mutations” is a bullshit concept thought up by people with no idea of science.

Evolution is a matter of populations not individuals. Mutations are almost always harmful.

[freediver]

Where do ||we came from....?

Apes and Man came from a common ancestor who came from a common ancestor of other linages that are now extininct.

Explained in Common Ascent a theory that is one strand of the Theory Evolution.

More creationist propaganda.

I put some effort in to start to respond to your creationist blog in my eariler post.

Can you respond to the Common Ascent bits for now.

No. Like I said it sounds like creationist propaganda to me.

Appears to be a smooth transition there

Annie it is a list of transitional fossils. Doesn't the fact that it is even possible to label them transitional imply punctuated equilibria?

Agree with everything but "DNA is the designer".

Super Nova do you also doubt the theory of punctuated equilibria? This is what I mean about faith replacing reason when it comes to evolution. People throw reason out the window and stop assessing the facts in the detached manner they do with just about every scientific theory. They have the same emotional investment in the theory that religious people have in creation stories.

Fact is, Newtonian mechanics is a really good estimate of what happens and is not the scientific truth. It fails when things are travelling at high speed and when mass is very large. Einstien is more accurate but the maths is much more complex. Even NASA use Newtonian maths for their calculations...

This is another misunderstanding of the difference between newtonian mechanics and relativity. It is not merely a matter of one being more accurate at high speeds. Relativity is an entirely different paradigm, rather than a different set of equations. Everything has a different meaning. Mass, distance, time etc are different concepts. It is not merely the equations that are different, but the fabric of the universe.

So, should be teach Newtons laws a school?

If this is an analogy to evolution not being a scientific theory, it is a poor one. It is the same basic mistake of failing to differentiate between being wrong and being unscientific. Newtonian mechanics was a scientific theory. It is just further advanced than most. Most of the scientific theories we have developed have been disproven. This is why science works so well - by being demonstrably wrong. The currently accepted theories are not the 'right' ones, they are merely the ones we are currently working on disproving, and it would be naive to assume that won't happen.

Putting Newtonian Mechanics and Relativity into context is one issue for which a more accurate understanding of the modern scientific method would come in handy.

“Beneficial mutations” is a bullshit concept thought up by people with no idea of science.

And yet without it life would not exist. It is a cornerstone of the theory of evolution.

[Jovial Monk]

No, it isn’t.

[annielaurie]

Annie it is a list of transitional fossils. Doesn't the fact that it is even possible to label them transitional imply punctuated equilibria?

Not necessarily, FD.

Here is some background info on this, for those who don't know about it,

(extract)

Punctuated equilibrium originated as a logical extension of Ernst Mayr's concept of genetic revolutions by allopatric and especially peripatric speciation as applied to the fossil record.

Although some of the basic workings of the theory were proposed and identified by Mayr in 1954, historians of science generally recognize the 1972 paper by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould as the foundational document of the new paleobiological research program.

Punctuated equilibrium differs from Mayr's hypothesis mainly in that Eldredge and Gould placed considerably greater emphasis on stasis, whereas Mayr was generally concerned with explaining the morphological discontinuity (or "sudden jumps") found in the fossil record.

Mayr later complimented Eldredge and Gould's paper, stating that evolutionary stasis had been "unexpected by most evolutionary biologists" and that punctuated equilibrium "had a major impact on paleontology and evolutionary biology.

(extract)

Richard Dawkins believes that the apparent gaps represented in the fossil record document migratory events rather than evolutionary events. According to Dawkins, evolution certainly occurred but "probably gradually" elsewhere.

However, the punctuational equilibrium model may still be inferred from both the observation of stasis and examples of rapid and episodic speciation events documented in the fossil record.

Dawkins also emphasizes that punctuated equilibrium has been "oversold by some journalists", but partly due to Eldredge and Gould's "later writings".

Dawkins contends that the theory "does not deserve a particularly large measure of publicity".

It is a "minor gloss," an "interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of neo-Darwinian theory," and "lies firmly within the neo-Darwinian synthesis".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated ... #Criticism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Neferti]

xxx

[freediver]

Why not necessarily? Can you explain the difference between transitional and non-transitional fossils without invoking punctuated equilibria?

[Super Nova]

No. Like I said it sounds like creationist propaganda to me.

Is your point that those that support and promote Evolution as a scientific theory that should be taught in schools sounds like creationist propaganda. That is, they are using the same propaganda techniques to promote it as an ideology.

Therefore are you suggesting science and the process of science is an ideology like religion?

Agree with everything but "DNA is the designer".

Super Nova do you also doubt the theory of punctuated equilibria? This is what I mean about faith replacing reason when it comes to evolution. People throw reason out the window and stop assessing the facts in the detached manner they do with just about every scientific theory. They have the same emotional investment in the theory that religious people have in creation stories.

Punctuated equilibrium is often portrayed to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism. This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next

I have no doubts about punctuated equilibria. I can see how change can appear more rapid or instant in geological timelines.

I do agree that individuals will hold onto their enmotional investment in an idea just like the religious people. However the religious people hold onto their story as a fact and will not change their story when their story is contradicted by observation or a more reliable theory. Science will force change and ajustment to any of the "stories" or "theories" in science when they do not withstand the process of validation and observation.

I don't throw reason out the window. Scientist do not throw reason ou the window. Individuals who do not understand anything about how the universe works may just believe in science like a faith and blindly trust it. They are not scientists. Also the fields of science are so huge now, no individual can understand it all, so when a theory survives the scientific process and can be called the most accepted theory by the scientific community, those who do not specialise in that field will probably accept it as the truth, having faith in the process and his/her peers in promoting it as the current leading theory to explain an area of the universes behaviour.

That allows others to build on this and engineers to apply it.

So I expect engineers are also working on a bases of faith that the theories that apply work. When they don't, the engineers will challenge the theory. Faith will be lost and refinements needed.

The religious groups stick to their theories and stories as a universal truth. Never to be challenged. Never to be refined. (though some do try). That is the difference.

Fact is, Newtonian mechanics is a really good estimate of what happens and is not the scientific truth. It fails when things are travelling at high speed and when mass is very large. Einstien is more accurate but the maths is much more complex. Even NASA use Newtonian maths for their calculations...

This is another misunderstanding of the difference between newtonian mechanics and relativity. It is not merely a matter of one being more accurate at high speeds. Relativity is an entirely different paradigm, rather than a different set of equations. Everything has a different meaning. Mass, distance, time etc are different concepts. It is not merely the equations that are different, but the fabric of the universe.

True. I was just being simplistic. The introduction of space-time is a completely new paradigm. Still it is closer to the truth than newton's.

So, should be teach Newtons laws a school?

If this is an analogy to evolution not being a scientific theory, it is a poor one. It is the same basic mistake of failing to differentiate between being wrong and being unscientific. Newtonian mechanics was a scientific theory. It is just further advanced than most. Most of the scientific theories we have developed have been disproven. This is why science works so well - by being demonstrably wrong. The currently accepted theories are not the 'right' ones, they are merely the ones we are currently working on disproving, and it would be naive to assume that won't happen.

Putting Newtonian Mechanics and Relativity into context is one issue for which a more accurate understanding of the modern scientific method would come in handy.

Right. Now we have got there.

Using your the logic above I would argue that evolution is the currently accepted theory and like all theories will wrong in parts and the process will improve the theory.

Just because it may be refined or even replaced does not mean for now it is not a "Scientific Theory".

As a minimum Evolution is a "Meta" Theory. if that helps you. It is a theory that brings together all the other biological theories to explain a non-linear and complex process title "Evolution".

“Beneficial mutations” is a bullshit concept thought up by people with no idea of science.

And yet without it life would not exist. It is a cornerstone of the theory of evolution.[/quote]

How can this be bullshit Monk?

[freediver]

Punctuated equilibrium is often portrayed to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism. This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next

It does 'oppose' gradualism and the original presentation of the theory (or prediction made by the theory) is clearly wrong. "It's all relative" does not contradict this. It merely shifts the goalposts.

I have no doubts about punctuated equilibria. I can see how change can appear more rapid or instant in geological timelines.

Are you suggesting the appearance does not reflect the reality?

However the religious people hold onto their story as a fact and will not change their story when their story is contradicted by observation or a more reliable theory.

How is this different to any other field? Kuhn, the modern leader when it comes to the philosophy of science, argues that scientists themselves are the same. The difference with evolution is that non-scientists put the sort of emotional investment into the theory that you would otherwise only expect from the people who are actually involved. Combine that with ignorance of the theory and it looks a lot more like faith than anything else.

I don't throw reason out the window. Scientist do not throw reason ou the window. Individuals who do not understand anything about how the universe works may just believe in science like a faith and blindly trust it. They are not scientists.

Never mind, I see you agree with me.

Also the fields of science are so huge now, no individual can understand it all, so when a theory survives the scientific process and can be called the most accepted theory by the scientific community, those who do not specialise in that field will probably accept it as the truth, having faith in the process and his/her peers in promoting it as the current leading theory to explain an area of the universes behaviour.

Do you acknowledge the benefits that would come with a greater understanding of the modern scientific method?

That allows others to build on this and engineers to apply it.

Engineers do not need faith among laymen in Newtonian Mechanics to build a bridge.

The religious groups stick to their theories and stories as a universal truth. Never to be challenged. Never to be refined. (though some do try). That is the difference.

You seem to be contradicting yourself there.

Using your the logic above I would argue that evolution is the currently accepted theory and like all theories will wrong in parts and the process will improve the theory.

I agree with that, however I doubt it will ever become a victim of the fundamental paradigm shifts we see in science.

Just because it may be refined or even replaced does not mean for now it is not a "Scientific Theory".

Of course not. I was actually arguing the opposite - that being wrong is what makes an accepted theory scientific.

As a minimum Evolution is a "Meta" Theory. if that helps you. It is a theory that brings together all the other biological theories to explain a non-linear and complex process title "Evolution".

I am happy with meta rather than scientific.

How can this be bullshit Monk?

I suspect he has thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

[annielaurie]

Why not necessarily? Can you explain the difference between transitional and non-transitional fossils without invoking punctuated equilibria?

Because we don't know for a fact that fossils that seem to "stop" are really non-transitional.

There are gaps in the record, but there are other factors to consider, such as Dawkins' suggestion that migration of populations has played a part - making it appear that evolution has stopped in a species in one place, while it is actually continuing within that species in another place.

Some scientists have kicked around other ideas as well - hierarchical evolution, saltationism, quantum evolution and mass extinction.

As a lay person who studies science but without being a scientist, I would go with phyletic gradualism, which states that

evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated ... #Criticism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;