Posted by Walker on April 25, 1998 at 22:55:59:
In Reply to: So an experiment isn't what you were asking for. You were asking for a history lesson? posted by rpcman on April 24, 1998 at 14:39:29:
: Yes. But unless those adaptions are made they may not. There is a BIG difference between experimentation and predictability of scientific theories and foretelling the future.
I disagree. If a theory is to be proved by experimentation, the experiment must make some prediction. In a sense, the future must be foretold.
: Astromony, for instance can predict where a known planet will be at a given time in the future using certain known assumptions. Astronomy can't predict when a currenly unknown asteroid will collide with the earth.
I didn’t name any unknown species. I listed cheetah, rhino, iguana and finch. Galapagos iguana and finch have more steady environments than others. But you pick any KNOWN species you like. Where will it be 10,000 years from now? To say it will change in some unspecified way is no more useful than to say the configuration of the stars and planets will change in some unspecified way 10,000 years from now.
I like your astronomy example. Pick any of the thousands of objects in our solar system. Each has a predictable path and in this sense we can foretell the future. We know each object’s speed and direction many thousands of years into the future and past; which is one reason Newton’s laws are so damn useful (and provable).
Evolution is useful for explaining the diversity of species and homogeneity of species. But it just doesn’t cut it for making predictions (unlike Astronomy and other sciences). The problem is NOT that evolution lacks ample supporting evidence. The problem is that the interaction of evolutionary forces are just too complex to quantify and considerable time is required to observe them. This makes experimentation ever so difficult when compared to say, Newton’s laws.
Perhaps it is because of these difficulties that there are no known evolutionary laws.
Evolution is called a theory, not a law and that is an important distinction. When the day comes when evolutionary theory is complete perhaps we will have solutions to problems like the mutating, anti-biotic resistant bacteria. Perhaps we will no longer hear, "We can put a man on the moon but we can’t cure the common cold"
: : Would you share one example? If it sounds good, I'll look at the book.
: I'll list a few that have been observed first hand...
European house sparrow
Rhizosolenia (this is clear from the fossil record rather than first hand)
the salamander Ensatina species E. oregonensis has split
the famous peppered moths can completely change color when the environment changes within a couple dozen generations
mosquitoes and DDT
Sickle-cell anemia victims (condition caused by evolution defense against malaria)
There are countless others that have been modified non-naturally (ie, humans do the selecting) like dogs, pigeons, flowers, etc.
New species of orchids are produced at a rate of about 300 a month!
Again, I don’t doubt that species mutate. These are great examples (although I’m skeptical about the orchids, that sounds rather fantastic) But where are the predictions? That is, who predicted the peppered moth would change color before it was observed? And why weren’t other life forms observed changing color that lived in that environment. Was the peppered moth the only organism capable and benefited by such a change? Why? I believe these are legitimate questions. Incidentally, this is an example of natural selection for a trait rather than an example of evolution.
: Is there little proof or have you just not looked?
I came to this site looking.
I have asked several times for a repeatable, predictable experiment; this would be proof. You have answered with evidence from unrepeatable experiments. You told me to go see a doctor. You probably meant a shrink. That was good. Evidence does not equal proof (in science anyway).
I really believe that for the most part, we can agree on evolution. I agree with you that it is a damn good theory. It certainly has much more to offer than creationism. My only beef is your statement "Evolution is just a theory is laughable"
I put evolution lower on my list of scientific truths, below say Newton’s laws, Laws of Thermodynamics, Theory of relativity. Still, in the context of all truth, it’s pretty high on the list.
Maybe we still disagree. Whatever the case, I enjoy this site. Keep up the good work.
--Alan
[ Follow Ups ] [ Exmormon.org- Honest Inquiry Message Board ] [ FAQ ]