Johnson argues that “the theory of evolution” should be renamed to “evolution science.” That would be fine if it didn’t make me think of “creation science.”
I know many people use “evolutionary biology,” but that sounds too restrictive and technical.
Isn’t it just plain old “science”? I mean, is there “gravitational science” or “heliocentric science”?
If you could rename “the theory of evolution,” what would it be?
I would call it just plain Evolution. That’s what it is, isn’t it?
@Kate: Wow, a winner in less than two minutes after I posted it! Impressive.
Also, I feel pretty dumb for completely forgetting that is what I call it.
I would name it “Jerry” to make it more friendly and personable.
@Mike: Ha, I think that’s what Microsoft is trying to do with Vista.
I would call it Heretical Monkey-Worship!!1
j/k ;-)
How about Historical Biology? That’s all it really is.
I definitely think the long form description should be Darwin’s facts of evolution by natural selection
How about “Zoology” ?
“If you could rename “the theory of evolution,” what would it be?”
Fred.
Evolution is technically a law. It’s an observed reliable fact about the universe. A ball falls when you drop it, a species changes over time. The theories are things like natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift. Those we can’t be quite so sure about, but the evidence is overwhelming that they work and no better explanation has come along.
***Evolution is technically a law. It’s an observed reliable fact about the universe. A ball falls when you drop it, a species changes over time. The theories are things like natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift. Those we can’t be quite so sure about, but the evidence is overwhelming that they work and no better explanation has come along.***
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You can’t do that, no matter how much it suits your political desires. You can’t bend a screwdriver into a wrench, just because you need a wrench.
I was lucky to go the school before politicians were allowed to edit school books. There is a very clear barrier between law and theory in science. A law has to be able to be repeated under constant conditions, such as the Law of Gravity. Repetition a results is required for a law. At the same time, the word “theory” is also not to be taken too lightly.
I have no problem with evolution being taught as a theory. I remember chuckling to myself when my human anatomy professor had us groping around our necks for where our gills used to be, and watching the amazement/stupidity on the faces of some to finally know the origin of life via science. Some questions can’t be addressed through science, though I think it’s legitimate to push to boundaries of what we know to be true.
Yeah, I’m not sure that ‘a species changes over time’ merits being called a “law”, nor am I sure that this is really what evolution says. (Some species change more than others, some haven’t changed perceptibly in a long time, some die off instead of ‘changing’, etc. All of the above is part of evolution.)
To me the basic problem with how evolution is discussed is that there are really two things people can mean when they speak of evolution. One of them is just obvious, while the other one isn’t:
1. Evolution = natural selection operating on genetic drift. This sort of “theory of evolution” makes this basic observation: critters are the offspring of other critters, reproduction means those offspring got their genes from their parents (with perhaps some randomness), those genes help determine traits, and traits can affect whether the offspring survive to have more offspring. Add this together and you get something like: genetic populations can drift over time via natural selection, and thereby speciate. This is FREAKING OBVIOUS. It’s also almost not even interesting enough to merit a glorified term such as “theory of evolution”. It’s basically just observing that kids kinda resemble their parents, and some critters have more offspring than others due to explainable reasons. How controversial!
2. Evolution = HOW ALL LIFE WAS CREATED!!!! The problem with this version of “the theory of evolution” is that “evolution” per se doesn’t explain how life was created. It merely explains how life came from other life and diversified, but the question of the first life is still an open one. One can posit plausible mechanisms that are in line with the mechanism of how evolution itself operates on already-existing living populations, but the truth is that the actual origins are simply not known.
My view is that when evolutionists (such as myself) start slipping and using version 2. instead of version 1., we tend to overreach. The “creationism” movement, however misguided, is a reaction to this overreach. Evolutionists are on more solid ground when they stick to version 1.
Definitely we’re not yet at the burden of scientific proof required for calling this a law, and it’s going to be hard to get there because we still can’t sort out how to re-create the original conditions of the primordial soup and to get that to generate something self-sustaining. If you don’t like “theory” then “model” might be more appropriate. But I also like “natural selection” better as a more descriptive term–evolution just means change, whereas this is change in a uniform direction, such that nature selects increasing complexity.
wazza writes: “Evolution is technically a law”.
This is simply not true in a strict sense. And as long as we are talking about “law” we should be strict. At any rate, The reason this debate gets so heated is because there are really two manifestations of the theory. One is in fact observable, the other is not.
I am referring to the difference between Micro and Macro Evolution.
again, wazza writes: “A ball falls when you drop it, a species changes over time”.
This is true when referring to Micro-evolution. However, proving Macro-evolution requires an observation of a species literally turning into another species. There is no proof of this and is therefore only a theory. Folks try to say that it is reasonable to assume derivative facts about Macro through the observation of Micro. For example, proponents of the Macro theory suggest that the DNA of a chimp is 99% identical to ours. Well this is true and we know that much because we can observe it. What it does not mean is that humans descended directly from them.
It could very well point to a common creator using the same raw materials to make two different things (one human, on chimp). When a construction crew finishes one job and moves on to another, they probably will be using some wood, concrete, glass and nails. Any scientist worth his weight in salt would tell you that correlation does not mean causation. What happens in this argument is that otherwise scientifically sound minds completely ignore this fact. Abandoning principles of logic to prove a hypothesis does not science make.
peace
Let’s keep calling it the theory of evolution, but start referring to intelligent design as “the unscientific hypothesis of intelligent design.”
I always try to call it evolutionary law, much like gravitational law or physical law. I also always note that evolution is not something one can believe in; it is a collection of scientific tenets which can be understood, not disbelieved in. Which is why it and ‘intelligent design’ aren’t on equal footing.
Some of these comments are correct — evolution is not really a theory. It’s something that happens. The process by which it happens is natural selection. “Emergence” might be a good synonym — although it refers to “unpredictable” and unforeseen aspects of evolution. Unlike causal relationships in nature (i.e. those studied in physics), evolution has none of the same law-like behavior. It is what it was and has become…And will be…
Evolutionology
Evolutianity? There’s a concept to mull over…
Theophobia.
well, now, is gravity really a law? It can’t be PROVEN that every time you release a massive object next to a massive object, they’ll move together…
(badly worded I know, but I can’t be bothered to add in all the little qualifiers, so here’s a big one)
There WILL be genetic change in an organism. That’s unavoidable. An animal might seem unchanged in shape for millions of years, but thanks to the Red Queen, it’ll be running as fast as it can to keep in the same place. Evolution occurs.
And don’t give me that BS about micro and macro. Get enough micro and you get macro. Animals that are too genetically different to breed are called species, so genetic change over time must result in new species eventually.
The problem is that you don’t even understand what you’re advocating. Are you talking about natural selection or are you talking about a larger Darwinist cosmogony?
@Chesty: How do you know I don’t know what I’m advocating? I find it interesting you can know so much about what I don’t know.
I don’t know if this is relevant but you could click over to some thoughts I posted yesterday that have been rattling around my head from recent topics that have come up .It’s titled; “Nature tells us the most able to cooperate not “fittest” will survive.” http://murrowcronkite.wordpress.com/
I think that one was aimed at me, Dan
I’m talking about the larger fact that biological systems change, rather than the specific theory of natural selection. There are just too many complex variables NOT to change.
murrowcronkite: the theory you espouse was suggested more than 100 years ago by an aristocratic Russian cum anarchist theorist. I think it’s more that willingness to cooperate is an adaptive trait leading to higher fitness. So is the ability to cheat. So is the ability to detect cheats, which leads to an interesting little arms race… but it all comes down to the same basic thing: what will best help me survive long enough to breed?
“There are known knowns and there are known unknowns and there are unknown unknowns blah blah” to quote the biggest war criminal of world history Donald Rumsfeld who as head of G.D. Searle made sure that aspartame who pushed through the approval of aspartame at the FDA.
Aspartame is a poison that turns to formaldehyde above 80 degrees F.(What’s your body temperature?).75% of complaints the FDA recieves are for aspartame.The vote to approve aspartame was 3 for 3 against with the tie being broken by the newly picked(by Rumsfeld)head of the FDA during the Reagan administration.
He was a former pentgon doctor and crony of our so called “protector of democracy”.All the cancer doctors at the FDA voted against it’s approval.
@wazza,
I agree with what you said though it seems that as organisms blessed higher conciousness we should be able to figure out how to help the whole not just survive but thrive instead of just a few who basically got rich or in thier positions of power by exploiting the rest of us.We aren’t lower mammals,insects or amoebas anymore.
As far as detecting cheats goes I think that gene has been switched off in much of our current leaders make ups.
Maybe not having a concience or any sense of cheating is a necessary trait for a leader but it causes the majority often to suffer greatly. Why would you make the majority of your body sick so that a small part of it could be healthy?
If you take this reasoning to its end then all the powers with nukes and bio weapons should start taking out everyone that can,t defend themselves till theres only one power or government left .Then it could turn on itself to kill off those deemed unworthy of survival.Winning is great and losing sucks but I don’t have any nukes or stealth bombers in my garage so a little more workable solution might be in order.
WHO DECIDES WHO SURVIVES? Nature ultimately but higher conciousness has already taken us above nature.
I am the peak of evolution.
Perhaps the evolution of higher conciousness is the cosmos evolving or experimenting.
Just as we are deciding whether artificial intelligence in digital devices would be good or bad or if these same devices would eventually turn on us.Maybe when we stop turning on our creation(i.e. the planet and its inhabitants) we will become more creator and less creation.
There are alot of dead rocks in our universe .I’d rather not see our planet become one of them.
Some reading perhaps-
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fourth-Reich-Societies-Threaten/dp/0061245585/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221390693&sr=1-1
@Murrowcronkite: Please try and comment all in one post, instead of 6 posts. You can put multiple relies to people in one comment. It keeps things cleaner and makes it look less like someone has hijacked the thread. Thank you!
Sorry about all the posts.Steam of conciousness,slow brain or something.@John McCain-John McCain thinks there’s such a thing as “clean coal”.What an oxymoron.Both the word and people that use it are more moron than oxy.
Also with the weapon systems,ecological irresponsibility and unsustainable activity we are now engaged in it will be a challenge to f**k our way out of extinction.
My definition of evolution:Rearanging deck chairs on the USS Earth and wait for the inevitable.
Then we can all e-mail each other and say “Great job Brownie!” OR “Great job soccer mom!”
I think “the Evolutionism” is un atitude and “the Theory of evolution” is a workonrg tool for Biology.
It is called the “Theory of evolution” since it is just a theory and can not be proved. Just like religion is theory and can not be proved. Both require faith based on some evidences to believe them.
Theory can never be proved. The beauty of science is that nothing can be proved. Experiments can only support the theory, it cannot technically prove the theory. If the theory is wrong, it would be unproved at some point.
The other beauty of science is that if it is truth, it will never get unproved. And so far, Evolution has not been unproved for 140 years.
Goddamnpaganism! hehe joking
I love discussions on evolution thuogh it seems as homo sapiens we are no longer a part of evolution.We are in control of our own destiny now.Us and the uber corporatioons and governments that have already decided how many and who is likely to die from thier plans and policies.They like to appear bumbling,innaffective or inactive when it’s thier way of causing death,controling population and exploiting every worker for maximum profit and tax revenue.
I guess what I mean is we have introduced unnatural selection into our environment through harmful medicines,vaccines,food poison outbreaks that can’t be traced and the creation of wars.I wonder if anyone has actually done a study to see if all the people peeing into a watershed region can account for the drugs and thier amounts that are showing up in our water supplies?
I doubt it because it would entail accessing the medical records of everyone in that particular watershed.It would be nice to know though.
Pharmaceutical companies do not have to take the hippocratic oath to do no harm.Thy are strictly businesses concerned with botom lines and stockholders
@20 Peter: in that light we should call all religion Logicaphobia. Or Reasonaphobia. Or Ignoraphilia.
Murrowcronkite: you’re straying off topic…
into CONSPIRACY KOOL-AID RIVER!!!
I’m sure I’ve seen it described as a LIE!!! Always in upper case and underlined.
The Law of Evolution. No-one second-guesses a law.If someone says “I don’t believe in the Theory of Evolution”, they may sound reasonable. But if they say “I don’t believe in the Law of Evolution”, they sound insane. It’s tantamount to saying, “I don’t believe in the Law of Gravity”.