Evolution as a "fact"

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Hmm, well I'd have said that massive bodies cause gravity - but I see what you're saying about it depending on which physics one is using - Newtonian, Einsteinian, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, and re-reading your previous reply I'm not sure I'd completely understood that one either; I'd assumed you were using "gravity" as an empty label when you said gravity warps spacetime but now I wonder whether you were misunderstanding the theory of relativity. To cover the bases I'll explain the theories of gravity as I understand them, and at the same time try that explanation of why one hypothesis is more substantive than another that I wasn't sure how to do earlier.

To get back to basics, the phenomenon we have is that certain objects move in certain ways - planets orbit in ellipses around the Sun, apples fall onto the Earth, etc. Newton found that if we assumed all massive objects exerted a force on each other proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, such a force would account for all those different movements - that force was called "gravity".

All we know in this context is that massive objects exert this force on each other - we don't know why, or how (in fact IIRC it was a complete coincidence in Newtonian terms that gravitational mass was the same as inertial mass, i.e. that the "m" in F=Gmm'/R2 was the same "m" as in F=ma). If we try to "explain" this by saying that massive objects induce an immaterial gravitational field that causes the movement of far-away objects to be affected, for this explanation to be in any way distinguishable from just "massive objects affect the movement of other massive objects" (or "massive object spookily act on other massive objects at a distance") you'd need some indication this gravitational field exists independently from the movements it induces (otherwise you might as well just have the movements). In other words, does the gravitational field of the Sun exist in places where there is no massive object to be affected by it ? Presumably otherwise what's the point, but if the gravitational field is defined only and exclusively by how it affects massive objects, then there is literally no way to find out. Gravitational fields can be a useful mathematical or conceptual tool, but as long as they're mathematically equivalent to there not being a gravitational field that's all they can be : a mathematical tool.

Now in the Theory of Relativity gravity doesn't exist as a force. Massive objects cause spacetime to curve, not because of the force of gravity attracting spacetime or something like that. The often-used analogy of bowling balls on a rubber surface also has the often-used caveat that bowling balls actually curve rubber surfaces (and little balls roll around that curve) because they're attracted by the Earth's gravity, whereas what makes spacetime curve around massive objects is not the same thing at all. AFAIK we don't know what it is, unless the Higgs condensate has something to do with it.
According to the Theory of Relativity, gravity is actually a pseudo-force, like the "force" that pushes you back on an accelerating car or train or the centrifugal "force" that pushes spinning things outward. Those aren't actually forces, the movements involved are just objects moving inertially in a non-inertial frame of reference, so that within that frame of reference it looks like a force is acting on them, when actually it's the frame of reference that's accelerating and either pulling them along or leaving them standing so that they look like they're accelerating backwards. Same thing with orbiting planets or falling apples : they're inertially taking the shortest route from point A to point B through curved space, which if you assume space is flat makes it look like a force is causing their trajectory to curve.

So now we've got "massive objects cause warped space which affects the movements of other massive objects"; is "warped space" an empty hypothesis like I say "gravitational field" is ? Well, if we ask the same questions of it that I asked for the gravitational field the answers are more clear - is space near the Sun warped even in points where there isn't a massive object there to be affected by it ? - Yes, the statement "massive objects warp spacetime" clearly doesn't depend on their being another massive object at that point in space. Would this have other effects beyond F=Gmm'/R2 ? Yes - warps in spacetime won't just affect massive objects, we'd expect to see effects on light or on passing time and other elements of the Universe beyond just mass. Even if there weren't any effects we could check in practice, the equations involved in the Theory of Relativity are different from those involved in Newtonian gravity so mathematically speaking there is a difference between a world where curved space causes apples to fall and one where immaterial fields, or spooky action at a distance, or anything else causes it.

To get back to your answer, massive bodies "cause gravity" whichever theory you pick; the question is how they "cause gravity", and which ways of conceptualizing this process are actual hypotheses about the world and which are conceptual tools.

Which is essentially what I said/meant - the "how" explanation depends on whichever theory one picks.

But I was really trying to get down to the simplest way to point out to Creationists that their use of "immaterial" = "supernatural" is not valid.

I have to concede that my conception of magnetic lines/shells were from a remembered physics class many, many years ago, where the physics teacher used a bar magnet with iron filings to demonstrate the magnetic field.

As I recall, the filings formed distinct lines - with very few filings in-between.

However, having found an article with a picture of a similar experiment, it's clear that the above impression was caused by too few filings.

That's interesting. I did study physics beyond the iron fillings bit (I probably have something not too far from a bachelor's), and it was clear the separate lines were conceptual; the equation defining what the magnetic force was at any point worked for any non-zero point, i.e. the force existed everywhere outside of the magnet. We even had to draw those lines sometimes; IIRC (and I very well might not) they're the equivalent of the lines on a topographical map : they indicate all the points that are at the same level, but they're not the only such lines that exist, only those you chose to draw. (the reason I have a problem with the topographical map analogy is that there is a directionality involved in magnetic fields and that's actually what the lines show; hence why iron fillings illustrate them nicely, because they tilt themselves to align with what that direction is wherever they happen to be. The equivalent drawing for an electric field or a (Newtonian) gravitational field would be lines radiating straight outwards)

I think also that my initial memory of the experiment ,with the filings forming more distinct "lines", may have been due to slight variations in the filings - some bigger, some smaller - creating more contrast than would otherwise have occurred between the "lines" and blank areas.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

I'm reading through the thread on EvolutionFairyTale, and I can see why Gilbo has pretty much abandoned LoR. Everyone there seems to agree with his ignorant crap.

Though, I did register for the forum 3 days ago. Don't know why but it hasn't been approved.

[...]

Yes, that's the sort of stuff you see there.

I've had something of a similar experience.

I'd registered just before Christmas and, whilst perusing a topic, my name appeared as a live-link at the bottom of the page. When I clicked on it, I got a message to the effect that I couldn't view members' profiles - I then attempted to log in but was then told there was a error (presumably my profile didn't exist yet until approved?!). Meanwhile, the live-link on the thread disappeared when I refreshed the page.

So, I've registered again and await developments.

Kindest regards,

James

It would appear that they don't want me there - as I still can't log in - or, perhaps, even more members from LoR!?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[DutchLiam84]

EvolutionFairyTale.....based on that alone I can say with 100% certainty that it's a Christian forum.

 

[Gnug215]

EvolutionFairyTale.....based on that alone I can say with 100% certainty that it's a Christian forum.

You will not be getting any cookie for being correct on this one.

 

[herebedragons]

I would say that there is legitimate confusion in the general public regarding the use of the term "evolution." I would actually say there is three main ways that the term evolution is used, based on what I have been taught and what I have observed in these debates. (I posted this over at EFT but it was thought that I was equivocating by trying to use one definition to prove another - when actually I was trying to be conciliatory that there was indeed confusion regarding how the term evolution is used. )

1- changes over time in the proportion of individuals that differ genetically in one or more traits (this is biological evolution)
2- common descent as per Darwin. (This is actually a limited definition of the theory of evolution. The full definition includes the things I listed above: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, variation, population genetics and genetic drift - among others) Common descent seems to be what is referred to most often since this is the main point of contention in these debates.
3- the origin and changes of the characteristics of entities or ideas over time. (This would be general evolution and could mean the whole process from the big bang to today, it could mean the evolution of a philosophy or society or clothes or anything that changes over time)

(Scientists would be referring to the entire ToE when using definition #2 - creationists usually only mean common descent)

I think the scientific community assumes that the general public understands the context in which the terms are being used and can seem to be using word play to confuse the issue. When someone like gilbo hears the expression "evolution is a fact," he assumes it means that all three definitions are being claimed as true. In doing so, he thinks he has a valid point that "evolution is a fact" is an dishonest word play.

However, anyone claiming scientific training or thinking they have enough knowledge about evolution to argue against it should not be making this mistake. And if they do, once the proper usage of the terms is explained, they should except and understand how scientists use the terms and argue appropriately. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest and equivocation. Same goes for quibbling over the definition of 'fact'.

HBD

 

[Deleted member 619]

I'm interested to hear the reasoning / logic behind the claim "evolution is a fact" or "the facts of evolution" or something to that effect. Considering that the very first thing we learnt in tertiary Biology was that there are no absolutes (facts) in science, since every idea, hypothesis, theory and even law can come undone via future evidence.

Hypotheses, theories and laws can certainly be undone, but facts can't, because they're facts. Evolution is a fact. It has been observed.

You know when you let go of a pencil? It's a fact that it fell to the ground (or table, or quilt, or whatever, if you're going to attempt pedanticism here; good luck with that). It may not always be the case that this happens, as all such observations are subject to the problem of induction. Thus far, however, all observations have concluded that things fall when you let go of them in the presence of substantial mass. This brings us nicely to how things really work in science.

It is a fact that things fall when you let go of them in the presence of substantial mass. It may not be a fact that things always fall when you let go of them, but that doesn't challenge the fact that things fall when you let go of them. In space, for example. things don't fall when you let go of them, they just sit there, unless some force is (or has been during the letting go) imparted to them. This is a fact, and it has been observed.

Thus, we have hypotheses, theories and laws dealing with those observations. Those observations are absolute, and tell us that gravity is a fact. The theory of gravitation, formulated by Newton, was not a fact; it was a theory. It also happened to be wrong, but this doesn't alter the fact that gravitation occurs, because gravity is a fact. Newton was wrong, but only in terms of accuracy (this can be elucidated further if you think it might be useful).

Similarly, evolution has been observed. It is a fact. The theory of evolution may or may not be factual (it largely is, as far as can be ascertained), but whether or not the theory of evolution is fact is still an open question. It's entirely probable that there are details of the broad theory currently under study that are wrong or, at least, inaccurate. None of that will alter the simple statement that evolution is a fact, because it has been observed occurring, in the same way that gravitation has been observed occurring.

Whoever told you that there are no facts in science was talking through their arse, or you misunderstood the valuable lesson being imparted.

Now, one might take away from this the idea that facts are more important or of as great a status than theories, but this would be categorically wrong. Theories are, in science, explanatory frameworks encompassing all of the facts, hypotheses, observations and laws in an area of specific interest. In other words, fact is subservient to, and subsumed by, theory., as are law and hypothesis.

Now to pre-emptively avoid any equivocation attempts here is the definition of "fact"


fact
[fakt] Show IPA

noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

5. Law. . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

Ah, argumentum ad lexicum. Let us know how that works out for you.

Doesn't the claim of "evolution is a fact" defy the plasticity of science in that it incorporates new evidence and updates its claims accordingly, how can one update a claim when its already deemed an absolute? (Keep in mind that this is taught at university level)

No, what is taught at university, had you been paying attention (assuming you've ever studied any science; I have met more plausible assertions), is that models are updated to account for new evidence. Facts are never updated, because facts are the data points upon which hypotheses, theories and laws are built. No future observation is going to impact on the FACT that, when you dropped the pencil at the beginning of this post, it fell.

Learn stuff. Stuff good.

 

[mumblingmickey]

I'm interested to hear the reasoning / logic behind the claim "evolution is a fact" or "the facts of evolution" or something to that effect.

Well clearly most observed instances of evolution are factual.. in that they have been observed or are themselves the study of an ongoing experiment.

But more specifically certainly mathematical proofs are factual... or at least its a fact that they predict the outcomegiven a ceertain input.

So the Price equation is most certainly a mathematical proof of altruism and mutability evolution. Mendals laws of segregation etc. areproofs of how to predict the properties of offspring in a given population. There are many more too... its not like this is a singular thing, and it certainly would be very difficult to understand how living things evolve without an mathematical model to follow.

In addition if you Google Murray Gell-Mann and complex systems you'll find that evolution itself is merely a real world expression of a more complex evolutionary phenomena. Living things just repeat that complexity arrangement since they have the ability to reproduce. But there are singular examples such as snowflakes etc.

I'm actaully often surprised CAS was not understood thousands of years ago.

But the point is not all the laws, principles and math that would need to be ignored to ignore evolution the 'fact' bit is the same as it is for any phenomena.

Gravity for example is a fact... it was a fact before Newton. Apples did not remain fixed in mid air awaiting Newtons calculus before falling to the ground. All Newton done was explained the fact that things fall.

So when we refer to the fact of evolution its just recognising the axiomatic fact observed by everyone that organisms change and diversify...

 

[Rumraket]

Ahh, a dictionary argument. Ho hum...

I guess that means evolution, simply because of the definition of a word, is now much less secure than it was before this argument took place. Also, now, because it's much less secure, it might as well be entirely false. In fact, now that I think about it, I guess it means everything we thought we know is false.

I give up, praise jebus. And to think I could have been converted before christmas if only I'd found this discussion sooner. :roll:

 

[scientia]

2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

This is a good example of the type of mistake often made in characterizing science. Space travel became a reality in 1897 when Konstantin Tsiolkovsky derived the ideal rocket equation. This could have become the reality in 1813 when the same equation was derived by the Royal Military Academy. When Francis Scott Key wrote about "the rockets' red glare" in September, 1814 as British Congreve rockets were fired at Fort McHenry in the Battle of Baltimore during the War of 1812, Key came close to chronicling the birth of space flight. However, it appears that no one at the RMA thought to apply the equation beyond military use. Instead, having read the fanciful stories of Jules Verne, Tsiolkovsky derived the equation independently and applied it directly to space flight including followup publications such as The Exploration of Cosmic Space by Means of Reaction Devices and Investigation of Outer Space Rocket Devices. Tsiolkovsky's work was studied by Wernher Von Braun, Valentin Glushko and Sergey Korolyov.

Professor Langley tried to take credit for the Wright Brothers' successful flight. In reality, they knew that flight was likely possible after observing Otto Lillienthal fly one of his gliders. They had to build a wind tunnel and directly measure the properties of airfoils before they were certain of having enough lift. However, it wasn't until they both came up with the idea of wing warping that they were certain that a powered craft would be controllable. Lillienthal's gliders depended on weight shift for control. The reason the Wright Brothers' work was first was that their 1903 powered flight predated airfoil theory by Lanchester in 1907.

Sometimes experimental data is ahead of theory and sometimes theory is ahead of experimental data. With Evolutionary Theory, it has been pretty much even. Darwin based his theory in 1859 on a lot of observation. The experimental data and evidence has steadily piled up in the past 150 years. Evolutionary Biology is today as much of a proven fact as Newton's laws of physics or Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

Doesn't the claim of "evolution is a fact" defy the plasticity of science in that it incorporates new evidence and updates its claims accordingly, how can one update a claim when its already deemed an absolute?

You are confusing preponderance with absolute. If you imagined a balance scale, the preponderance of Evolutionary theory is like five tons of weight on one side with a few grams on the other. This isn't even close. However, it is possible that some new discovery could significantly modify the theories; it just isn't very likely, much as it is not likely that something will invalidate Tsiokolvsky's equations that have been in use now for almost a century.

 

[scientia]

1. Except evolution, which is claimed to be a fact...... Also when there is conflicting evidence an ad hoc hypothesis is created, (see Punctuated Equilibrium)

Punctuated Equilibrium is a subset of Evolutionary theory; it isn't ad hoc. Founder Effect and Gene Drift are also subsets.

2. Firstly the formation of amino acids is not life, unless you are an extremely zealous pro-life supporter....

No, it isn't life; it's organic molecules which are necessary for life.

Secondly Miller only used a fraction of the voltage of lightning, (if he had used the full voltage it would have oxidised, burnt out or otherwise destroyed the amino acids). Lightning is reported to be 100 million volts, reference below

Thirdly Miller didn't have oxygen in the atmosphere, the reason is because it would (obviously) oxidise the amino acids, however oxygen is a part of the ozone cycle which is required to protect the Earth, (and the amino acids) from UV light, we use UV light in the lab... guess what... it kills stuff...

Fourthly the amount of amino acids is an extremely small percentage whereas the rest were toxic compounds, mainly carboxylic acids which by being weak acids would degrade the amino acids over time anyway.

This has several incorrect statements. The early organisms would all have been anaerobic. Free oxygen wasn't available until stromatolites (cyano bacteria). The problem with your claim of free oxygen is that you are right, it would indeed oxidize amino acids but it would also oxidize everything else including iron and sulfur until there was no free oxygen left.

UV radiation is indeed damaging but not below water. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/watabs.html

"Just above the visible in the ultraviolet, the absorption of water increases by nine orders of magnitude, adding to our protection against ultraviolet rays from the Sun. "

Miller's experiment is one of many. We have found organic molecules around volcanic vents, in hot-springs, and in comets. It has even been shown that at 70 degrees F, amino acids will polymerize due to nothing more than evaporation. There is no dependence on an electric spark. Further, a weak acid in the solution does not degrade the amino acids; however, it could influence chirality. 50/50 chirality shows up with a pH of 7. Lemon juice will indeed cook proteins but it has a pH of 2.3. Try cooking protein in black coffee which has a pH of 5. Phenol (carbolic acid) is a weak acid. The other fact that is left out when discussing chirality is that isomers usually have different properties in terms of being hydrophobic or hydrophilic.

 

[scientia]

3. If you had bothered to read my post, (please do so again), you would see that I alread demonstrated how the small changes do not lead to larger ones as benign changes such as hair colour etc have no effect on the basic body plan of the organism.. If fact I was asking you for evidence that small changes can lead to such large changes... Or do you assume its correct without evidence? (Dawkins says this is a no no)

This, to me, is a fascinating argument. I assume you aren't aware that you are asserting a genome centering agent. In other words, you are suggesting that there is some mechanism that prevents the collective genome of a population from changing. There is no such mechanism within the chromosomes. Could you state what this mechanism is?

Without such a mechanism, a given population will change due to random variation. Statistically, it can be shown that the effect of random variation would get smaller as a population gets larger. So, for example, wildebeest would not be expected to change much over time unless their environment changed.

4. Really.. Again I ask for evidence, youre claims or opinions are not evidence, (otherwise any Creationist can use that as evidence of God). However one thing I will ask is by what mode of experimentation has the similarities in fossils been determined to be caused via evolution? Or is evolution assumed as the cause?

One would have to ask why birds have genes for teeth and horses have genes for toes if the original design excluded these. Why do whales and pythons show remnants of hind legs? Since you've mentioned Dawkins, I think it would be appropriate to let him speak for himself. This video is an excellent example of something difficult to explain with an intelligent designer but consistent with evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

There is an attempt to refute this here: http://creation.com/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve
However, if you can follow logic, you can see that the explanation of why the nerve makes such a long path is almost entirely an explanation of what the nerve does with the assumption of the long path. Imagine that when you are considering buying a car a friend of yours tells you that your preferred choice has had transmissions problems. But, you buy it anyway. One day, your transmission breaks and knowing that your car would be in the shop for several days, you decide to go ahead and get a dent fixed. Now imagine that your friend notices that you are driving a rental car and and inquires about it. However, instead of telling them that your transmission broke, you say that you are getting a dent fixed. Getting the dent fixed is a positive, to be sure, but it obviously is not the reason you took your car to the shop. The descriptions of the giraffe laryngeal nerve are similar positives but they don't outweigh the glaring negative.

I do know of another more involved attempt to explain this in terms of embryonic development: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiX0jYUCnLo&feature=fvwp&NR=1

The video quotes the popular science publication of Erich Blechschmidt while blatantly lying by referring to him as an eminent embryology professor. Again, his book is popular science, not an article in an actual science journal. If you follow the tortured logic, it winds up repeating that the nerve is elongated because it is looped around the aortic arch. Thus, it never actually answers the question of why the laryngeal nerve is looped around the aortic arch. The embryonic development that they refer to would work the same (and with shorter pathways) if radiating nerves occurred in the portion of the Vagus nerve bundle above the aortic loop.

Another strange idea of Dr. Blechschmidt's is that the embryo begins to move in a way similar to breathing immediately following conception and that this movement is what promotes the development of lungs.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Welcome scientia. Excellent posts.

 

[scientia]

Welcome scientia. Excellent posts.

Thank you.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Very good posts, scientia, though I doubt Gilbo has read your replies, since he's moved to EvolutionFairytale, where his horsepoop is welcome and your healthy dose of knowledge is frowned upon and possibly banned.

 

[Aelyn]

Greetings,

I've had something of a similar experience.

I'd registered just before Christmas and, whilst perusing a topic, my name appeared as a live-link at the bottom of the page. When I clicked on it, I got a message to the effect that I couldn't view members' profiles - I then attempted to log in but was then told there was a error (presumably my profile didn't exist yet until approved?!). Meanwhile, the live-link on the thread disappeared when I refreshed the page.

So, I've registered again and await developments.

Kindest regards,

James

Hullo DraganGlas !
Shortly after our conversation I started reading "The Hidden Reality" by Brian Greene and he talked of fields as existing things; I intended to get back to you on that but never got around to having the book and the internet with me at the same time. But my problem is over ! Because I have found this talk by Sean Carroll explaining quantum field theory and he's even clearer than Brian Greene was about fields existing :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrs-Azp0i3k

I do feel however that one can only conclude that the fields physicists deal with are as material as you and me - because they are what you and me are made of.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Thank you, Aelyn, for the reply.

I have Greene's book but have yet to read it - too many distractions at present, hence my absence from the forum!

I watched Carroll's video - very interesting: I wish I could have linked to it at the time of our discussion.

I was particularly interested in the tangential dismissal of supernatural phenomena, including life after death. I wonder was this his own take on things or science's. If the latter, science hasn't done a very good job of explaining why life after death doesn't exist.

Kindest regards,

James