Reply to recent unbiased sites/publications to read about creationism vs. evolution

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "recent unbiased sites/publications to read about creationism vs. evolution"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Please excuse the questions, but is evolution really science? I thought it was a theory. It's neither testable nor reproducible nor observable. Thought you needed those things to validate a scientific theory.[/quote]

Evolution is a theory.  So is the idea of gravity.  Theory is a scientific word for an explanation.

You can't directly observe either evolution or gravity, you can only observe the results.  But you can use both evolution and gravity to make predictions.  If predictions are confirmed over and over again, as they have been for both evolution and gravity, then we would say that that theory is science.

Creationism isn't based on science.  There is zero scientific evidence to support it.  People who believe in creationism are either deeply religious people who accept the Bible or another religious text as evidence, or they are idiots who don't understand science.  [/quote]
Can you please show predictions of evolution coming true "over and over again"? Evolution as a theory originated in the 1800s. How have we been able to predict it's results and have it borne out empirically since then?[/quote]

You're assuming that predictions must be about the future. Many predictions based on evolution are about how things happened in the past. Just to name a few:

• [b]Jaw to Ear Transition:[/b] In 1837, C.B. Reichert observed that when pig fetuses were growing, there was a point at which a portion of the jawbone detaches to become the tiny bones of the middle ear.  One of the early predictions of the Theory of Evolution was that there should exist a fossil between reptiles and mammals that essentially has two separate jaws, one of which was smaller and near the ear. When fossils of early cynodonts were found, specifically the Diarthrognathus (“two-jointed jaw”), this prediction was found to be true.

•[b] Trilobite Precursors:[/b] Darwin predicted that precursors to trilobites should be found in pre-Cambrian fossils, honestly acknowledging that a lack of such would be bad for the theory. Consistent with his prediction, precursor fossils have been found.

• [b]Long-tongued Moth:[/b] Darwin predicted in 1862, from observation of the Madagascar Star orchid, that there should exist a species of moth with a tongue a bit less than 30 cm (specifically “between 10 and 11 inches”). At the time, one with a tongue that long had not been discovered. However, evolution predicts a battle between the orchid and moths in an “arms race” to get/deny nectar without proper “payment” in the form of pollination. In 1903, A hawk moth with a tongue around 300 mm was discovered, satisfying Darwin's predictions.

• [b]Archaeopteryx Teeth:[/b] When the first Archaeopteryx fossils were found, the head was not in good shape and had no teeth. Then when Ichtyhornis and Hesperornis were found in 1872, they were determined to be seabirds, but they retained teeth. Henry Woodward of the British Museum, predicted that that the archaeopteryx should also have had teeth since reptiles had teeth, and birds descended from them. Woodward recognized the controversy of his proposal, writing “But, it may be urged, ‘your proposition that the Archaeopteryx had teeth is a pure assumption. Show me some evidence of a fossil bird whose head and skeleton are in juxtaposition so as to leave no reasonable doubt of their unity’”. Like Darwin's prediction regarding trilobite precursors, if the Archeopteryx didn’t have teeth, that was a problem for evolution. In 1877, more intact Archaeopteryx fossils were found with teeth.

• [b]Antarctica, and its fossils:[/b] We didn’t always knows Antarctica existed (nor did we understand continental drift or the idea of Pangaea). In 1893, H.O. Forbes presented a paper at the Royal Geographic Society in which he discussed his findings in the Chatham Islands. He (and other naturalists) predicted that there should have existed a large sub-tropical southern continent because of the wide variety of species whose distribution only made sense in light of there being this continent. At this time Antarctica had been spotted, but was seen as just being ice shelves. At this time scientists were just starting work on the idea of prior large connected continents that broke up over millions of years. In any case, Antarctica was obviously finally discovered. One of the predictions was based on similarities between marsupials in Australia and Patagonia, arguing that while there were obviously not going to be live marsupials in the current Antarctic environment, there should be fossils in the Antarctic from the Mesozoic era. These were found in 1982, with Polydolops - a 9-foot marsupial.

• [b]Flying Insects with Hemocyanin: [/b]The theory of evolution held for a long time that flying insects evolved from gilled crustaceans. Those crustaceans use a protein known as hemocyanin to circulate oxygen. Evolutionary theory would hold that there should be still be remnants of that in some flying insects, but none had been found. In 2003, scientists discovered a type of stonefly (generally considered to be some of the most “primitive” of insects, which makes sense) which still had functional versions of that protein.

• [b]Ancestral Whale with Teeth and Baleen:[/b] There are two types of whales: those that have teeth, and those that have baleen to filter their food. None exist currently that have both. On the assumption that all whales must have descended from a common ancestor, it was predicted that there must have existed a whale that had both teeth and baleen at the point in time when the two diverged. Even today, baleen whales start with tooth buds that disappear (evidence that the toothed whale was first).  In 2008 this transitional form was found to have existed 24-28 million years ago.

• [b]“Junk” DNA Fingerprinting:[/b]

“Junk” DNA can be used to predict whether two seemingly-unrelated animals shared a common ancestor. When we know that two species are related, we can predict whether or not they will share certain sequences of “junk” DNA. For example, There is a particular sequence found in hippos, whales  and cows but not in humans, mice, kangaroo, elephants or horses. This would lead to conclusion that there was a common ancestor that split off from the evolutionary tree that is shared by hippos, whales and cows (which is true). And based on this theory, they should be able to find this same set of “junk” DNA in deer, but not in monkeys. (Were they to find this particular “junk” DNA in monkeys, it would actually be a point against evolution, since the retro-virus that caused it came after the ancestor to primates. It hasn't been found there.)

As another example, both guinea pigs and humans have a specific defect in the gene that encodes for Vitamin C processing, meaning that anything from guinea pigs up to humans should have that mutation (the genetic divergence would have occurred approximately 20 million years ago). If this exact same “typo” (of the same letters) were found outside of the primate line from guinea pigs to humans, that would be a problem for evolution. As with the previous example, it hasn't been found outside of that line.

• [b]Location of Human Ancestors: [/b]Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence.

• [b]Relationship Between Speed of Change in Environment and Mutation Rate: [/b]Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients. Ernst Mayr also predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied by faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction.

Going beyond just predictions, evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas. For example:

• Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions. 
• Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture. 
• Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields. 
• Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping. 
• Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations has been used to help guide public health policy. 
• Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction.

There are no countervailing examples of successful predictions made using creationism/intelligent design as an underlying framework. Here's the NOVA site for the Dover School Board case (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html) where Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican appointed in 2002 by George W. Bush, ruled in a 139-page opinion that intelligent design is not science. (Here's the full opinion - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/File:Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District.pdf)[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics