re: Why are theories on evolution, climate change, etc sacrosanct,

quote:

---

You see? that's my whole point. If there were solid evidence it would be a law. There is observational evidence, which is not the same thing. But 400 years ago there was observational evidence that the sun rotated around the earth....or so they thought...until it changed. 400 years from now? Who knows? EVERY scientist will tell you that science changes.

The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.

---

There is solid evidence. There is more than solid evidence. Scientific theories aren't synonymous with the general concept of a "theory" - they're substantiated by facts, tested hypotheses, and actual laws.

Most of our current understanding of evolutionary theory comes from molecular analysis and genetics, which corroborates and indisputably validates the troves of already extant data and evidence.

quote:

---

Evolution by natural Selection is but one theory of evolution. Do you have any idea of how many theories of evolution there are?

Evolution by Natural Selection
Front-loaded Evolution
Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo)
Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering
Somatic Selection Structuralist / Platonic Evolution
Biological Self-Organization
Multilevel Evolution
Epigenetic Evolution
Evolution by Symbiogenesis
Teleological Selection

---

None of those concepts have anything to do with evolution via natural selection.

Front-loaded "evolution" has nothing to do with how populations change over time. Nothing. This "theory" has theological undertones and appears to be synonymous with intelligent design. Fun fact: evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Developmental biology is an incredibly important field, and a lot of the findings from this field have helped further corroborate evolutionary theory. Just look at Hox genes, for example.

NGE, again, has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. It simply refers to how alterations within a genome occur. As we've developed more advanced investigative methods, we continue to discover just how intricate some of these DNA altering methods can be. For example, just a simple methylation of a histone complex could result in differentiated genetic regulation, and therefore altered phenotypic expression.

Biological self-organization has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Molecules react in specific ways based on chemical interactions to form everything from proteins to various cellular structures.

Multilevel evolution (group selection) is a concept that corroborates evolutionary theory. Mathematical models have been employed to evaluate the significance of individuals within a group acting altruistically, or selfishly, and how that influences the net fitness of not only the individual, but of the group. This entire model operates on the paradigm of evolutionary theory via natural selection.

Epigenetic evolution, or really...just "epigenetics" refers to how alterations are made in the differential expression of genes due to biochemical modifications made to chemical structures other than nucleotides themselves. Again, this really has nothing to do with evolution.

Symbiogenesis, like abiogenesis, has nothing to do with evolution via natural selection.

Teleological selection, like front-loaded evolution, are philosophical and theistically insidious concepts masquerading as scientific theories. Teleology makes no refutations or contradictions to the tenants of evolution via natural selection; rather, it seems to misrepresent and misunderstand why certain functions exist - for example, a mouse with a dark brown coat allows it to blend in to the foliage and soil, allowing it to evade predation from hawks. Teleology questions the "function" of the coat, rather than why the coloration of the coat is the way it is. The brown coat of the mouse doesn't serve any inherent "function" and it wasn't "guided" in any way. Rather, the genetic variance in the mouse population resulted in some mice with darker coats than the average for the population. With the hawks soaring overhead, they were able to more easily identify mice with lighter coats, thereby affording the mice with darker coats a higher fitness. Over time, the genetic variance of the mice population shifts to darker colored coats, which serve no preconceived "function", but are rather strictly a product of the stressors of the environment.

I've never heard of Platonic Evolution, so perhaps you could provide some specifics regarding this concept.

quote:

---

That's true and an earlier poster noted the difference between the scientific definition of "theory" and the lay definition of "theory"

---

Yes. I understand that once something moves from hypothesis into scientific theory they have observational basis to lay of foundation of certainty. However, it would not be the first time a theory was proven to be inaccurate. just because it is a scientific theory does not make it indisputable.

quote:

---

Just like Gravity is also a scientific theory.

---

At one point, Gravity was considered to be a law. (I honestly had no idea it had moved from law to theory, though. Just shows that i am an old man and have not followed things as closely as perhaps i should...I DO realize, though, when my wife drops a dish, it falls and breaks and I have to go out and buy a new one! )

quote:

---

But at this point when looking at all of the evidence evolution via natural selection is the most likely explanation.

---

I understand this, too...I was only trying to point out that this question was far from final.

quote:

---

I consider myself a man of science and I do not believe in evolution, I merely accept that it is the most likely outcome based on the evidence that is out there.

---

I also agree. As I said earlier in the thread....everything people are pointing t as fact is based on information they have right now. In 400 years they (Scientists and academia in general) will be shaking their heads and laughing at how backward and naive we are today.

Evolution is a bit of a hot button issue for people. I remember when schools taught the evolutionary chart. (There was actually one hung up in one of my science classrooms when i was a kid. It was made up of observable "facts" and it only took a few years to discover it was full of holes....but that is another topic.

quote:

---

None of those concepts have anything to do with evolution via natural selection.

---

I understand that. Obviously i am not expressing myself well.....that's my fault.

In listing those, I was merely pointing out that there were many other theories out there about evolution. The poster I was responding to, (I don't even remember who it was) said something that indicated to me that he thought of evolution only in terms of Natural Selection. I was simply pointing out that there were many other theories concerning evolution than just Natural Selection.

I hope this better explains why i made that long, boring list.

quote:

---

If evolution were so proven, then it would be a Law and not a theory. The very fact that it is still considered a theory suggests there is not proven evidence to support it. Do they think evolution is how everything happened? yes. Do they have proof or evidence? No.

---

Wait...so this is now a topic again on TigerDroppings?

I'm almost certain I got banned for about 6 months for arguing this topic and was told, point blank, that arguing about religion (and let's not be obtuse, that's the only reason anyone would be discounting evolution) was not tolerated on this board.

Something change?

quote:

---

I'm almost certain I got banned for about 6 months for arguing this topic and was told, point blank, that arguing about religion (and let's not be obtuse, that's the only reason anyone would be discounting evolution) was not tolerated on this board.

---

I was unaware that arguing religion was not acceptable.

However, religion is not the only reason one might discount evolution.
Also, evolution was not the main topic. Scientific theory verses Law, and how our perception of science changes over the years was the main topic. Evolution was only being mentioned as a way to talk about what is fact/Law and what is theory.

(I don't always make myself clear, so if all of that is clear as mud.....sorry. )

quote:

---

As time passes, it is inevitable that much of what we accept as fact today will be thought of as naive and incomplete.

---

Yes and no. The fact science is self correcting and there have, in the past, been times where it has corrected in large jumps, say from a earth centric to a heliocentric model of the solar system, in no way suggests that every and all scientific theories are bound to be overturned and THEREFORE we ought now give much weight to them because, after all, things have been over turned in the past. That's either a ruse to discredit a theory you don't happen to like, or a misunderstanding of what's actually happening.

It's a bit long and some find the narrator boring, but I've always loved this Issac Asimov piece on this topic. It's called The Relativity of Wrong. Enjoy.

LINK

quote:

---

Maybe I am wrong. (It certainly wouldn't be the first time) however, your response indicates to me that if it were not flawed in some way it would still be considered law. Is this correct, or is it not?

---

That's incorrect. This is a great piece that explains this. Scientific theory and theory as used by detectives on TV are simply not the same thing. That's cool if you don't know that...information is great. however, most folks on the right that have been advocating for Creationism and it's reorded name of Intelligent Design who professionally do this ABSOLUTELY KNOW this and are attempting to use this misunderstanding to muddy the waters. Lying is bad...regardless of why one is lying.

LINK

quote:

---

in no way suggests that every and all scientific theories are bound to be overturned and THEREFORE we ought now give much weight to them because, after all, things have been over turned in the past.

---

Did not mean to insinuate that at all. I would not be at all surprised, however, if some basic, accepted tenet was overturned and shown to be absolutely false.


Ok. there are entirely too mny large words being bandied about in this thread. I think I will go check out some of the "lighter" threads on the board where I can stick to my more natural 2 syllable words.

quote:

---

Thanks for a mostly civil conversation!

---