Do you believe in Macroevolution, Microevolution or both?
Do you believe in Macroevolution, Microevolution or both?
I don't think you can get the former without the latter. So the question could be rephrased:
Do you believe in Macroevolution?
If yes, you believe in both. If no, you don't believe in evolution (which is an observed phenomenon).
I only asked the question because in recent weeks or trips ( I listen to talk radio), I have heard the argument for Micro only not Marcoevolution.
So I will say, you are right and the heading should have been more thought of and rephrased.
You can believe in Micro w/o Macro, but not Macro w/o Micro.
Last edited by celtic friend; May 2nd, 2008 at 10:27 AM. Reason: lack of comprehension skills on my part
And both are observable phenomenon. It should be called the "Law of Evolution" and the "Theory of Natural Selection".Originally Posted by celtic friend
We know that organisms have evolved. All evidence points towards Natural Selection as the driving mechanism.
Its called theory, because it's exactly that. Theory.
It has to be observed, tested, reproduced to even quality as scientific fact, and it hasnt, and cant.
Just because it hasn't been tested doesn't mean it could not be. (It'd be one hell of a long experiment though)
The "theory" however is based on observable scientific facts.
The good die young.
Pricks, live forever!
You mean an experiment like this one?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...evolution.html
It does not have to be observed to qualify as fact. Observation can be of evidence left behind. We understand plate tectonics without observing the actual drift of continents. We knew the principles of diamond formation before we got to watch them grow under heat and pressure in the lab. We know that the planets formed via accretion by looking at impact craters, and the belt of debris that exists were a planet should have formed, but couldn't due to Jupiter's gravity well.
Lucky for us, you are wrong on both counts. Not only do we NOT need observation to prove a law, we HAVE observed evolution on numerous accounts. And we have thousands of transitional fossils that allow us to "observe" the process of macro-evolution as well.
It is the most-tested theory in human history, and it has survived all rival theories. No other scientific field has been as stable as biology, because no other field has had a perfect theory created by a genius so far ahead of their time. What Darwin did would only be equaled by a Newton skipping gravitational theory and going straight to relativity. The only other field of thought that has remained so stable, despite so much criticism, is the economics of Adam Smith.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
1 Member(s) liked this post
Do you believe in gravity? That's basically how the question comes off to me, except gravity seems to be a lot more complicated than evolution.
2 Member(s) thanked for this post
Fucking awesome.
Only, not.
Scientific Fact:
Definition: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
If they could call Evolution The Law Of, they would. For any scientific theory to be called a fact, or law, it HAS to be observed. TO say something is true, because we suspect its so, or presume its so because of circumstantial evidence, is just silly.
Gravity is called law because we can test it, watch it, and reproduce it. Complicated as it is, if I drop a fork, its going to fall. But if I buy a lizard, breed it, and continue to keep that lizard family for eons with my family for eons, that lizard family wont evwentually grow wings.
You are incorrect. And there is much pressure in the biological community right now to start referring to Evolution as a Law, and Natural Selection as a Theory.
Evolution has been observed, as has been pointed out in this thread several times. You are confusing the argument against Natural Selection with the argument against Evolution. A common mistake, since most people think that Darwin dreamed up Evolution, even though his grandfather was an evolutionist.
Great read at Wired.com: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/...11/st_thompson
Last edited by swivel; May 5th, 2008 at 08:57 PM.
4 Member(s) thanked for this post
1 Member(s) liked this post
Thanks for the link. I always enjoy debating with the likes of you, CPL, Athena, and others who always have something to offer. When I can come here, and get engaged in these kinds of things, it makes me realize why this place can be special, and why I like you motherfuckers so much.
However, the write-up in the link was terrible. :D It's like a scolded kindergartener wrote that, and right now, I have all of two minutes before I have to go again, but in approx. two hours or so, I'll return and post why I thought it was dreadful. I just read this, and HAD to say how ridiculous I thought it was before I headed out to work again. :o See ya in just a bit, and I'll dive give an appropriate response then.
I thought otherwise. I originally read the article in the physical magazine, and it excited me to no end. Here was a guy that understood the failing of science to engage in the social war that religion fights alone, and therefore wins. Scientists need to fully understand the power of semantics, and spend at least some of their time on PR work, rather than focusing on just the results of experiment.
All the scientific progress in the world will mean squat if we let our teachers place creationism alongside evolutionary theory. We might as well teach Ptolemaic cosmology alongside the Standard Model.
In fairness, Ill post in a few seconds why I didn't like it.
But to address your point, I think it also addresses the big flaw in the article. You say "here's a guy who understood the failing of science to engage in the SOCIAL WAR that religion fights alone"....
That's why he fails too, as many religious zealots who wage the creation war do....because he's making it a war. This is why science is beautiful to me, because it is without agenda....Science to me, is the discovery of who, what, why, where and all that shit, and I don't begrudge it one bit, just because I believe in a higher presence. Not a bit. But this guy who writes this thing, sounds like he's engaging in this, and even well---let me go make my post addressing the article before I get ahead of myself.
BRB....
I'm not suggesting that all scientists need to stop what they are doing and engage superstition, only that the sciences in general need to maintain a populist voice that engages the public in the same manner that superstitions do. We need our Sagan's, Dawkins', Russell's, etc... And part of this game is semantics. If the popular usage of "Theory" becomes "Guess", we need to stop using it in science to mean "Accepted Explanation".
The word "Law", in popular use, has become something which is considered bendable (if not breakable). Speed limits are suggestions, not absolutes. Let's use the word "Law" in science to mean what "Theory" used to mean, a tested hypothesis for which there is no current doubt regarding veracity. Current scientific laws are constantly upgraded with new observation (the law of conservation of energy was modified with the discovery of virtual particle pair creation, and the law of gravity was modified with Relativity, and even Euclidean geometry was modified with non-Euclidian {curved} spaces).
The author's point is right-on. Science needs to fight, not just for the truth, but for its own survival. It needs to fight for the hearts and minds of the public at large.
2 Member(s) thanked for this post
1 Member(s) liked this post
The fight for the realization of an objective reality is a battle worth engaging in. True understanding takes a back seat when we give in to whims of fantasy, when we let the squeeky wheels convince people that dinosaurs aren't real the doors are open for any speculation based on the human heart and not the mind. This epistemology is indicative of the dark age.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
To address the article, and why I think Clive Thompson is a moron:
When he speaks of Quinn's essay, he says: Scientists are already pondering this. Last summer, physicist Helen Quinn sparked a lively debate among her colleagues with an essay for Physics Today arguing that scientists are too tentative when they discuss scientific knowledge. They're an inherently cautious bunch, she points out. Even when they're 99 percent certain of a theory, they know there's always the chance that a new discovery could overturn or modify it.
It's intellectual dishonesty to just say fuck it, we're 99% sure, even though there is a chance we could be wrong, let's call it fact. Because there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence pointing toward this, we'll call it The Law Of.
ANd here, in his bit about the culture wars, he even refers to the language of science as a strength, hence: Of course, antievolution crusaders have figured out that language is the ammunition of culture wars. That's why they use those stickers. They take the intellectual strengths of scientific language — its precision, its carefulness — and wield them as weapons against science itself
So he would take this, what he perceives as strength, and change it--modify the language, just so he could fight back on their level and be "right". It's senseless. He's being a hypocrite. He is understandably frustrated, because he believes passionately about something, but he is arguing to lower the standards so he can feel like he's winning these "culture wars".
So he goes into the defense of this....defense of this. And even suggests, as Quinn has, that in PUBLIC, they change the lexicon, and defends Quinn, when she suggests: "we need to be less cautious, in PUBLIC, when talking about scientific conclusions that are GENERALLY agreed upon."
That whore is talking about flat out manipulating the scientific language and passing theory off as fact just because most agree, but not all. And this jerk off is waving a flag and parading around with the banner of hypocrisy...to me, that's disgusting. And this, to me, has nothing to do with creationists, religion, or anything. This to me, are a few bad seeds who want to change the way science works, and is represented, just to win a culture war. SHameful.
He calls evolution supersolid. Fair enough, but there are real differences between micro and macro. Evolution is real, yes. But the kind of origin evolution that is being talked about...macro evolution, is most certainly NOT supersolid. But he says, yeah, let's call it LAW. Close enough. And then the piece of shit even refers to it as linguistic jujitsu. Says it will be cool, because if someone says they don't believe in the LAW of evolution, they'll sound insane. Likens evolution to gravity, which to me, is disgusting. This guy is an agenda driven pile of shit, to me. And its people like this, just like evangelical nutjobs with agenda driven wars being waged, that are a detriment to progress in these fields.
To try and suppress theory about religion...to try and suppress theory about evolution as well...I don't know, seems ridiculous. Schools? Let the children know whats out there....let them know what science has uncovered, let them know about all religions and why they're out there, and the pasts, good and bad. Let them make up their own goddamn minds. Parents are going to influence them anyway. :o
And here is Clive's last disgusting paragraph:
It's time to realize that we're simply never going to school enough of the public in the precise scientific meaning of particular words. We're never going to fully communicate what's beautiful and noble about scientific caution and rigor. Public discourse is inevitably political, so we need to talk about science in a way that wins the political battle — in no uncertain terms.
Yeah. Basically, our own high standards work against us in some public opinion, so let's sacrifice that, become hypocrites so we can get political, baby, yeah!
Fuck Clive Thompson, and I bet lots of scientists agree.
That's my theory, anyway. :( <----Okay, that was bad. I'm sorry.
3 Member(s) thanked for this post
swivel, science is not in danger, my brother. I promise you.
This is all just a little dramatic.
This has suddenly become a really interesting conversation. I find myself generally unconvinced, which doesn't happen too often. I do hope you fellas continue to hash this one out so that I can eventually pick a side. In this situation, observing the conversation is almost as exciting as engaging in it. :)
On an off note - While CPL's post was a bit dramatic (I figured he intended that), it was beautifully written.
CPL always writes well. Even when he uses those bad unicorn analogies. :D
Truth be told, I love reading from both these guys, but I disagree strongly with them on this one.
If we have a theory with 99.99% surety, and we start calling it a law, and some major breakthrough takes place which overturns it, we won't be able to update our ontology? This is already what happens, dude. We have had theories that were 100% which were destroyed and replaced.
Science is never really 100%. Bertrand Russell proved this with his Principia. Even mathematics can not be determined to be wholly internally consistent. That bit of assumption is the .001% in every scientific theory/law.
Your expectations of science are precisely the problem we need to address. In order to GET to 99% requires a whole heap of evidence. The type of evidentiary mountain not easily moved in the future. If gravity is a law, then so is evolution.
I really don't understand your hang-up here. You aren't making any sense to me at all.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
1 Member(s) liked this post
That's too bad, I think I'm being very clear.
It seems like the author is just trying to overturn the common misconception that evolution is a theory. It's not. It's a law, liken to gravity. I think you're misconceiving some sort of lax in standards where one doesn't exist.
We actually know less about gravity than evolution. The means in which evolution occurs is where the crux of the debate is. That's where the theories lie. The fact that evolution occurs is not really up for debate, at least not for any scientific reasons.
And yeah, I meant for that other post to be overly dramatic. It adds life to the fray.;)
Last edited by CPL CHUD; May 6th, 2008 at 03:16 PM.
I didn't think it was that dramitic. I read it pretty literally and found it to be spot-on.
I found that the language The Diabolical Mr. Lieman chose to use weakened his argument. Calling terminology "invalid" would have been more persuasive but using terms like "piece of shit" and calling someone a "whore" are not much better than the people who come here posting that "U PPL DONT KNOW SHIT".
I am afraid I must concurr with my "god" swivel that nothing is ever totally sure but calling something "law" when current science shows it to be so is correct. Science is never rigid, things change and we learn more every day. Who knows, maybe someday we may find an instance where gravity does not work as we always thought it would. In anticipation of that event, does that mean calling it the "law of gravity" is also invalid?
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
LMAO. Raq, normally, I'd be right with you. But, if he ever gets to posting with regularity, you will notice that Lieman is a sharp savage, here to club people with his perspective, rather than wage civil arguments meant to appeal to the reader.
...and that's why I love seeing him post. I'm bound by a certain level of formality. He's not. It's refreshing.
I certainly agree that we refer to evolution as a law and natural selection as a theory, as swivel suggests.I am afraid I must concurr with my "god" swivel that nothing is ever totally sure but calling something "law" when current science shows it to be so is correct. Science is never rigid, things change and we learn more every day. Who knows, maybe someday we may find an instance where gravity does not work as we always thought it would. In anticipation of that event, does that mean calling it the "law of gravity" is also invalid?
What I'm not sold on is the belief that we must do so in order to combat our enemy in a war...that we're already winning. With every day that passes, science chips away at superstition, through nothing but sheer merit. More and more people shed the burden of blind faith; those who are religious are less devout. This success isn't the result of "linguistic jujitsu", but rather, good ol' substance.
Should I hop on the bandwagon that will shake up the standard protocol of the entire scientific community when tactical adjustments haven't even been proven necessary? If it ain't broke...right?
Are we winning in the United States? Less than half our population thinks that evolution occurs. Not natural selection... Evolution!
Creationist's museum.
http://www.creationmuseum.org/
I guess reality is a popularity contest.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks