Evolutionary Theory predicts almost nothing?

[FarWanderer]

I would not turn to evolutionary theory because it predicts almost nothing.

Rarely have I encountered a statement that strikes me as ridiculous as this. What in biology does evolutionary theory NOT predict?

[marco]

Why else spend so much time trying to refute mythologies, or even regarding them in the first place? Again, refuting mythologies doesn't prove a theory.

No school student would confuse theory and myth. It would be silly to spend any time refuting the myth, say, of Narcissus turning into a flower. Myths are not meant to be proved but theories are. I've got intelligent friends who grapple with theories about black holes and they inject some terrifyingly complex mathematics into their work. They are assuredly not working with myths. It would seem the kindest explanation for someone confusing a myth and a theory is for amusement. Let us be kind.

[Kapyong]

Greetings shnarkle,

Like most creationists - you don't understand the meanings of the word 'theory'.

THEORY has 2 meanings

It is all too common for people to confuse the two meanings of the word "theory".

In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation. Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just speculation".

But,
in scientific terms, there is another, different, meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION.

Theories EXPLAIN facts

Theories explain the facts we observe :

Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.

Evolution is a fact, it is observed.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.

the ToE is an EXPLANATION, NOT speculation

The Theory of Evolution is NOT "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all.

Rather -
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for how evolution works, it models the behaviour of the FACTS of evolution, and allows predictions to be made.

Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.
Would one say "germs are just a theory" ?
Of course not.

Yet
some people say
"evolution is (just) a theory"

as if it means
"evolution is merely untested speculation" (false)

when it really only means
"evolution is an explanation, or model" (true)

Claiming "evolution is just a theory" indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of the word, and how science operates, and that the ToE is an explanation for observed facts.

EVOLUTION = FACT & THEORY

Evolution is a FACT.
We observe evolution.
And,
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION, or model, for the observed facts of evolution.

Theories can be WRONG

Sometimes I see claims that theories are "higher" than laws or facts in some hierarchy, or somesuch claim - but that is just not correct.

A theory, or explanation, can be wrong.

Consider these two theories :

1. The Germ Theory (explanation) of Disease
Claims that disease is explained by germs - a fairly modern theory, supported by facts, and now considered correct.

2. The Demon Theory (explanation) of Disease
Claims that disease is explained by demons - a traditional theory, supported by church doctrine, no longer considered correct.

In this case we have two competing theories (explanations) for disease - one theory is correct, one theory is wrong.

A theory can be wrong.

Theories do NOT get promoted to laws

Following on from that last point : there is NOT a hierarchy which sees 'theories' promoted to 'laws' once they are 'proven'.

e.g. the 'theory' of gravity did NOT become the 'law' of gravity once gravity was 'proven' - not how it happens.

These days - scientists tend NOT to make 'laws' anymore - it's considered out of date, mechanistic, Victorian.

The 'Law of Gravity' is an example of an old classic - and it refers to a clear and specific simple mathematical relationship F ~ m / d^2

There is ALSO a 'Theory of Gravity' - well, there are at least TWO :
* Newton's Theory of Gravity
* Einstein's Theory of Relativity (which covers gravity)

One is about 99% accurate and stood for 4 centuries, the other is 100.000% accurate and is about one century old.

Theories explain facts.
Theories can be wrong, or accurate, or even mostly accurate.

Theories CAN be SPECULATION

Keep your shirt on!
Remember - a scientific 'theory' is an explanation for facts, and a theory can be wrong.

Another example of a wrong theory would be the Phlogiston Theory of Burning which explained burning as the giving off of a substance 'phlogiston', when in fact it turned out to be the addition of Oxygen.

The Phlogiston Theory (explanation) of Burning was *speculation* based on the idea that burnt objects seemed to have lost something - fair speculation for early chemists, but it turned out to be WRONG.

This speculative theory (explanation) was wrong.

More test and observations and experiments lead to the Oxygen Theory of Burning - this was based on careful observations of weights before and after burning. Later, much better tests confirmed this was indeed so.

But initially, we could say the Oxygen Theory of Burning was speculation - not fully confirmed.

This speculative theory (explanation) turned out to be CORRECT.

Theories explain facts.
Theories can be wrong.
Theories can be speculation.

Theories are accepted based on EVIDENCE

So,
why did the Phlogiston Theory of Burning get rejected in favour of the Oxygen Theory of Burning?

Why did the Germ Theory of Disease win out over the Demon Theory of Disease ?

Obvious isn't it?

Because we FOUND germs.
And we found Oxygen.
We OBSERVED them, and saw their effects.
(And we never ever found Demons or Phlogiston.)

So now here is the key point :
That's WHY Einstein is famous - because he was OBSERVED to be right!

Not because they all sat around a smoke filled room and decided -
"I say old boy, I think we should go with Einstein's speculation - it's as good as any"
"well OK, old chap, Einstein could be right - who would ever know? but you must support me for college President."
"It's agreed then - we'll support Einstein on this one - after all he does look so dashing photos, and it's not like his speculation could be proven anyway".

So - Einstein theories explain how light, time, mass and gravity interact - especially the big and the fast. By those times, it had been observed that Newton's theories were not quite right (his 'theory' being a set of formulas such as F~m/d^2.) In other words - observations of the planets did NOT quite match Newton's formulas. This was BIG news, because Newton's formulas were so good they had worked fine for several centuries, so much so that no-one ever expected they would be wrong. But they were wrong, slightly, but only for the BIG and the FAST - in this case, Mercury's orbit.

Einstein's theory is also a set of formulas that describe gravity etc., and they are slightly different to Newton, especially when it comes to the big and the fast.

And sure enough - Einstein's theory, his explanation, his formulas MATCHED the observations of Mercury's orbit - with 100.000% accuracy.

So scientists looked closer and did more tests - including one during the solar eclipse in 1919 IIRC. And that too matched Einstein's numbers - 100.000% accuracy.

Wow - more tests!
Clocks fast - correct 100.000%
Clocks high - correct 100.000%
Red shift - correct 100.000%
Particle accelerator tests - correct 100.000%
Other test - correct 100.000%

THAT's why Einstein is famous - because his theory is correct - we OBSERVE it to be correct.

This theory (explanation) has been observed to accurately match and predict reality.

Mostly. Because it turns out that just like Newton, there are some exceptions where Relativity appear to be inaccurate (down at the small scale.) Which does not make Einstein wrong, any more than Newton was wrong.

Evolution is supported by evidence

So,
Darwin has a theory (explanation) to explain the origin of species.
(NOT the origin of life.)

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection explains how species arise by a process of mutation and natural selection over relatively long periods of time.

Darwin proposed his theory based on his observations of living things, but initially it was speculation.

Yes, the Theory of Evolution WAS speculation.
Shock!

So why is it accepted?
Why is it considered true?
Why do we insist it's NOT speculation now?
Why is Darwin famous like Newton and Einstein?

Much the same reason - because we have OBSERVED that he is RIGHT.

It's been 150 years now - in that time there have been MILLIONS of tests and observations and experiments by THOUSANDS of scientists in dozens of countries which could have either :
* supported evolution
* disagreed with evolution

The score so far is:
MILLIONS - supporting evolution
ZERO - against evolution.

THAT'S why Darwin is famous like Einstein.

And THAT's what creationists don't seem to grasp - just how clear the result is - and just how VAST the amount of evidence that supports evolution is. So much so that it's considered a fact - we observe it.

Evolution is an observed fact of life.
It's not some vague speculation that might be correct, maybe.

Please learn the facts shnarkle

Kapyong

[Don McIntosh]

[Replying to post 84 by Neatras]
Neatras, your post frankly deserves more attention than I can give it at the moment, but let me just say that I greatly appreciate your friendly remarks.

Evolution has always fascinated me, despite that I've been a skeptic for many years. So yes, feel free to share your work. I will try to comment on what seems the most challenging or intriguing about it.

As for bad weeks, we've all been there. Here's to a better next week.

[FarWanderer]

Apart from the pot-shot at whiny creationists... Agreed. My point was not the evolution predicts absolutely everything but that it explains "too much" even in the context of biology. I have seen evidence of tremendous genetic variability within species, and even of what may be speciation in certain instances (depending on how one defines "species"). But it hardly follows from those observations that all of life descended from a common ancestor.

The idea of multiple instances of abiogenesis having occurred on Earth is interesting, but it doesn’t play itself out very well. Even if such a thing happened, any new form of life would probably in its most initial stage be hopelessly unequipped to survive in a world full of already-evolved creatures, so they would die out immediately leaving only the one original lineage.

At any rate, at least with regards to specific species, just follow the taxonomic tree. Let’s start with say, the appearance of vertebrates in the fossil record. Vertibrates appeared, and over time the variety of vertebrates increases to include mammals. Then over time the variety of mammals increases to include primates. Then over time the variety of primates increases to include apes. Then over time the variety of apes increases to include humans.

In light of these observations it is hardly arbitrary to say that we share a common ancestor with all other vertebrates. Not to mention how the shared biological histories are even traceable through our respective genetic codes.

[Danmark]

It the mythologies were compelling, you might have a point. The problem here is that they're not even compelling to you. Why scrape the bottom of the barrel to compare your beliefs if not because better theories could disprove them?

Exactly, the myths are not compelling as representatives of reality, yet millions of Christians claim those absurd myths represent reality. If few believed such nonsense, few would comment on them. However, the astounding fact that hundreds of millions believe and act upon their false beliefs compels the rational to explain reality to others so we can collectively make rational political responses. Rejecting reality yields disasters like the election of Donald J. Trump.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 92 by Kapyong]

Theories EXPLAIN facts

Yep, and anyone who has bothered to read what I've posted so far would know that is exactly how I use the term. I have repeatedly pointed out that theories have great explanatory power. So do myths. Both theories and mythologies operate as a framework to explain the world around us, and both can devolve into religion when accepted with blind faith.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 95 by Danmark]

the myths are not compelling as representatives of reality,

And yet these myths are what are propped up to compare with TofE. Is there nothing more compelling to compare it to??? Why take what may well be the most uncompelling representation of reality to compare to the TofE?

yet millions of Christians claim those absurd myths represent reality.

And millions of those faithful to the TofE claim that the TofE is a better model than these absurd myths. Mickey Mouse and Looney Tunes are a better model as well. My point is that it isn't saying much if one compares their precious mythologies to the most uncompelling myths available.

If few believed such nonsense, few would comment on them.

My point exactly, If people began to believe in Thoth or Thor I would say the same thing, but as it is the devotees to the TofE are the only ones claiming they have the facts.

However, the astounding fact that hundreds of millions believe and act upon their false beliefs compels the rational to explain reality to others so we can collectively make rational political responses.

While my comments weren't with regards to politics, I agree insofar as they were with regards to the blind faith people exhibit in the TofE.

Rejecting reality yields disasters like the election of Donald J. Trump.

No doubt the political process is a joke, but I like Trump, and if I had known he would have generated this much anguish and disgust, I would have voted for him. When I was a child people would say, "Anyone can grow up to be President". I didn't believe that then. I do now. I can also see that it doesn't really matter. It may well e a disaster for those who believe that politics matter, but for people who know how to throw darts at a stock chart, it's been an overwhelming windfall. A monkey could make money playing the stock market. May the Mechanism and God bless Donald Trump.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 95 by Danmark]

the myths are not compelling as representatives of reality,

And yet these myths are what are propped up to compare with TofE. Is there nothing more compelling to compare it to??? Why take what may well be the most uncompelling representation of reality to compare to the TofE?

Your questions miss the point by a league. The point is that the comparison is made (as I have pointed out) by the fact that hundreds of millions of people worship the anti reality (fantasy) the myths embrace. Thus, the rational, educated person makes an effort to bring his fellows to reality by contrasting the absurdity of belief to the reality of TOE and other scientific explanations.
[/quote]

No doubt the political process is a joke, but I like Trump

Of course you do. Evangelicals in particular and every white Christian demographic likes Trump, not because he is stupid, ignorant, a narcissist, amoral, and a prolific and incessant liar, but because he claims to share their same mythic belief. He has a disdain for truth and reality that is in accord with the myths of the Christian belief system.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 98 by Danmark]

The point is that the comparison is made (as I have pointed out) by the fact that hundreds of millions of people worship the anti reality (fantasy) the myths embrace.

As do those who worship their TofE myth. They each have their respective presuppositions, and these presuppositions are equally unproven.

Thus, the rational, educated person makes an effort to bring his fellows to reality by contrasting the absurdity of belief to the reality of TOE and other scientific explanations.

And yet in the final analysis, the inculcated reality of the TofE's explanations still rely upon the same observations of those with just as absurd presuppositions. While I would in no way disagree that their presuppositions are absurd, your unproven presuppositions do not negate theirs. That's the point you keep ignoring. The argument isn't over observations or even the fact that each belief system frames their interpretation in terms that fit with their respective presuppositions. The argument is that neither denomination has proof for their respective presuppositions. Each is coherent within their respective frameworks, and yet neither one is able to prove their presuppositions. Pointing out that they can't prove theirs doesn't prove yours. If you were to ignore their very existence completely, you wouldn't have much of anything to post anymore because most of what you post is in relation to their silly beliefs. By removing that context altogether reveals presuppositions that have yet to be proven. By the same token, we could get rid of Trump and the Republican party and the country would continue it's steady decline as if they were still in office. History has repeatedly proven that when both houses of Congress have a majority and the Presidency, that party makes practically no headway whatsoever according to their ideology.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 93 by Don McIntosh]

Evolution has always fascinated me, despite that I've been a skeptic for many years. So yes, feel free to share your work. I will try to comment on what seems the most challenging or intriguing about it.

I'll start off with two examples from genetics that I believe demonstrates common ancestry. Since this is a cold start, I might not get into technical details quickly, so further elaboration may come later. I will then attempt to provide description of what I believe creationists claim about the information, and how I think the evidence does not fit their model.

The first example is fairly basic. Human chromosome #2.

The structure of a chromosome is pretty robust, it will have telomeres at the end (these are like end caps, and the amount of alteration to their lengths and structure result in them being largely non-coding; they're filler material with the occasional protein-coding sequence).

Next to the telomeres will be structures only found near the telomeres in all other forms of life on earth.

Toward the middle of the chromosome will be a centromere, with accompanying sequences adjacent to it.

When humans were compared to apes, we already had a vast network of evidence-based reasons to believe humans and apes shared a common ancestor. When the number of chromosomes was compared, we discovered that humans have 46 and other great apes have 48.

I have to step aside here and point something out: For some reason, creationists and shnarkles alike often step in to declare that this alone should "disprove" the theory of evolution. I personally find this tactic to be disingenuous.

The theory of evolution is used to describe the process of life changing over time. Therefore if humans and apes share a common ancestor, that would mean a change took place in our genetic history that resulted in one fewer chromosome pair. The possible adaptations: Deletion of a chromosome in humans; addition of a chromosome in most other apes; fusion of a chromosome in humans.

When we examined the chromosomes, we found that human chromosome pair #2 had characteristics we do not find in other ape species: A chromosomal structure where-in there were telomeres at the ends, two centromere structures (slightly degraded) at a mid-point between the ends and the center, and then a fused telomere structure at the very center where a centromere would usually go.

Evolutionary theory's prediction that the Human Chromosomal pair #2, or any human chromosomal pair, would represent a fused structure was well within natural processes demonstrated by the theory. It was a ratification that an entirely natural, non-exceptional event had taken place that resulted in a portion of life's diversity. Because our chromosomes have high degree of similarity to other ape chromosomes (including pair #2 resembling two full ape chromosomes), there is no evidence provided here that would dismiss evolutionary theory.

I've seen creationists default to using one, and only one, answer for why humans and apes share genetic similarity: Design. But when pressed, this argument gives us no predictive power whatsoever. It did not confer to us any knowledge of how human/ape genetic similarity would exhibit in the genome, it does not explain a mechanism for what "design elements" your god wanted both humans and apes to show (that would trick us into thinking we were related by common ancestry), and they do not explain why this "created" structure would exactly mimic a natural process we've since determined is quite capable of happening without divine intervention.

Any god who intentionally designed humans to resemble apes also made a special effort such that evolutionary biologists, not creationists, would have their predictions verified by the evidence. This is why I do not see "design" in nature, but a natural process we understand better by the day.

The second piece of evidence is endogenous retroviruses (termed ERVs). Retroviruses are RNA sequences in a protein shell that mechanically infiltrate cells, inject their RNA, reverse-transcribe it into DNA, attach it to the nucleus' DNA, and hijack the coding sequence to turn the cell into a retrovirus-producing factory at its own expense.

By examining the genomes of (any) vertebrate species, we find partially, mostly, or slightly obscure sequences that apparently interrupt or splice between "indigenous" genes that resemble retroviruses we observe in nature today (or rather, they resemble what retroviral DNA looked like in the past, with alterations predicted by evolutionary theory).

Evolutionary theory made a prediction: These retroviral DNA sequences did not originate naturally from the organism, they were in fact inserted there by an external retrovirus.

However, there's more. ERVs have been found in multiple species; they are identical in every way, and even occupy the same locus in the genes between two species. Moreover, the degree of similarity between all ERV insertions in species is exactly matched by the relational separation between species as predicted by the tree of life (common ancestry).

Evolutionary theory had to make a prediction for this: Because ERVs inject randomly into the genome, that would mean for them to be fixed in the population at the exact same site as in a separate species, both species would have to have inherited these ERVs from a common ancestor which obtained the ERV originally.

This isn't a stretch by any imagination. In fact, it is so compelling shnarkle has intentionally avoided addressing this topic because for all his comments about how evolutionary theory is mythic, he can't provide any counterpoint for why ERVs "look" exactly like genetic fossils that demonstrate evolution.

I'll go on. When a retrovirus infects a somatic cell (a normal cell, like skin or blood), that usually is the end of that. But if a germline cell (sperm or egg) is infected, it is possible that the cell does not die, and is used to reproduce (the infected individual mating and producing offspring). That egg, with an alteration to its genome, would pass on the retroviral fragment and remain fixed in the offspring's genes. A slight mutation that inhibits the ability for the retroviral DNA to become active (leaving it dormant) leaves it incapable of moving from its injected spot. It becomes endogenous, and an ERV is made.

Because the ERV is now fixed in the individual, all of that individual's off-spring have a chance of inheriting the ERV in the exact same site. When it spreads throughout the population, it will become fixed in the species, a permanent mark that indicates they all share relational separation from the original person who contracted the ERV. The ERV is inactive, so it is just like any other non-coding gene.

Evolutionary theory only requires the populations to become distinct from each other, and it then predicts that the ERVs will remain in both populations, demonstrating they both share common ancestry with each other. This matches the nested hierarchy of relationships we have seen in other forms of evidence. Thus, ERVs demonstrate common ancestry: They are random insertions that demonstrate discrete events in history, they are shared between related species because the only mechanism for matching ERV insertions is inheritance, and the ERVs themselves resemble retroviruses, a known mechanism for injecting DNA into a genome.

Creationists have one answer for why all ERVs behave and look this way: Design. But it offers no predictions, it gives us no insight, and demonstrates no mechanism as to why they appear this way. It only leaves us a prediction that a god apparently decided he really wanted life to look like it has common ancestry by bequeathing a genetic structure that resembles what happens when life lives on a planet for a really long time and changes through natural processes.

Up to 8% of your genome carries ERVs, and there are some 10,000 unique ones in you alone. All are shared with other humans, most are shared with other apes, and many are shared with your taxonomic brethren in the tree of life. ERV insertions are exceptionally rare, and so require a long time to happen. Geologists already present evidence that the Earth is billions of years old, paleontologists present evidence that life is billions of years old, and now evolutionary theory predicts how we will expect to see the fruits of these many unique and permanent events.