Evolution

I won't add the discussion prefix because I want this to be a topic for debate, but please try to take it easy and avoid anything that could be construed as a personal attack.

throughout history the scientific majority has been proven wrong on issues where the majority was sure they were right. 500 years ago the Earth had to be flat, 400 years ago the earth was absolutely at the center of the universe, 300 years ago mice were the product of wet hay or cloth, and not long ago, the theory of evolution was laughed at by scientists. Science will undoubtedly continue to revolutionize itself from time to time, which begs the question; How trustworthy is the scientific community? A vast majority of scientists accept descent from common origin as fact, but 100,000 educated scientists who doubt it is a pretty large number, considering the scientific community has been overturned by far fewer. Even famous and respected scientists scientists such as Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun, rejected the idea that mankind and all other forms of life evolved from a single uni-cellular ancestor. So what do you think, should science be trusted, and is (macro)evolution fact or theory?

Almost as if scientific opinion is...evolving?

Everything in science that is not mathematical is a theory. You can never achieve 100% certainty in science, you can only provide enough evidence to verify a theory. The theory of evolution is still a theory, although the evidence for it is overwhelming. The theory of gravity is also just a theory, but I think even the most anti-science conservatives wouldn't doubt it.

The fact that scientific opinion constantly changes is not a sign of weakness, but a strength. It shows that the truth will eventually win out, despite ridicule or doubt. Any organization that believes they have the "100%, unshakable truth that we will never reform ever" is simply not an organization that should be trusted. The fact that science will adjust or throw out theories as new evidence presents itself is a good thing.

For example, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is laughably simplistic compared to what we know today. He didn't know about DNA, or several other key mechanisms behind evolution. On top of that, most of the scientists you listed in the OP passed away long before the theory of evolution came about.

Originally Posted by Cascadian

On top of that, most of the scientists you listed in the OP passed away long before the theory of evolution came about.

History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are a few points I wish to clarify. ^_^;

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

through out history the scientific majority has been proven wrong on issues where the majority was sure they were right. 500 years ago the Earth had to be flat, 400 years ago the earth was absolutely at the center of the universe, 300 years ago mice were the product of wet hay or cloth, and not long ago, the theory of evolution was laughed at by scientists.

I'd like to point out that science, at that time, was strictly controlled by the church. The church thought that science was this cool, hip, radical thing that the young'uns could get into, but tended to try to kill scientists whenever they tried to point out that the world doesn't work like the church said it did. The Earth-centric model? It was the church basically telling astrologists that any model they created of the cosmos must feature Earth as the center of the universe, despite astrologists telling Christian religious authorities that this was wrong. This was an instance of religion forcing science at gunpoint to lie. ^_^;

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

Even famous and respected scientists scientists such as Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun, rejected the idea that mankind and all other forms of life evolved from a single uni-cellular ancestor.

I don't know the personal views of all these scientists on evolution, but I would like to point out that evolution is within the field of biology, and scientists like Kepler, Newton, Euler, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin, Maxwell, and von Braun were mathematicians and physicists, not biologists. Being a "scientist" does not mean you automatically to have the authority to speak on everything about science. It's a highly diverse field that includes physics, astrophysics, quantum physics, biological, molecular biology, genetic engineering, chemistry, biochemistry, and I'm barely scratching the surface. Just as I can't say "you're a religious person, so you know everything about Christianity and Islam by default", we can't say "you're a scientist, so you know everything about physics and biology by default". ^_^;

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

So what do you think, should science be trusted, and is evolution fact or theory?

Science itself as an institution is open to a lot of influence, just as religion as an institution is open to a lot of influence. To those who believe in science, science is simply about the objective rules of how the universe works. To those who believe in religion, religion is simply about what your gods say about life and morality. When you add people into it, however, things get tricky. Scientists and priests are not always above scandal and corruption. Scientists will sometimes falsify results if given enough money; priests will sometimes rape young boys if they think they can get away with it.

But you can't compare the entire community with these outliers, because - as a whole - most people are well-meaning in their search for the truth. However, science in general has a greater system for verification. Every time a scientist makes a groundbreaking discovery, you can guarantee that at least two other teams will be testing this theory, out of jealousy if nothing else because everyone wants to be the one to make the groundbreaking discovery, not someone else (but mostly because such discoveries need to stand up to scrutiny, and the more we learn about the universe without mistakes, the better).

As for evolution, it is a fact, and whether or not I "believe" in it is a little irrelevant; there's just too much evidence for me to deny it and pretend it doesn't exist. My pretending that gravity doesn't exist will not change the fact that I will die if I jump off a skyscraper; my pretending that evolution doesn't exist does not change the fact that macroevolution has happened. I personally find it somewhat tragic that this topic is still open to debate; I don't see anyone debating whether or not gravity exists. ^_^;

I don't know the personal views of all these scientists on evolution, but I would like to point out that evolution is within the field of biology, and scientists like Kepler, Newton, Euler, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin, Maxwell, and von Braun were mathematicians and physicists. Being a "scientist" does not mean you automatically to have the authority to speak on everything about science. It's a highly diverse field that includes physics, astrophysics, quantum physics, biological, molecular biology, genetic engineering, chemistry, biochemistry, and I'm barely scratching the surface. Just as I can't say "you're a religious person, so you know everything about Christianity and Islam by default", we can't say "you're a scientist, so you know everything about physics and biology by default". ^_^;

Mathematics and Physics have much to do with biology

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, I should say, before Darwin's theory of evolution came about. Newton's opinion on evolution is about as relevant as his opinion on video games. He died long before the theory was introduced in any meaningful way.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

Mathematics and Physics have much to do with biology

Just as Islam has much to do with Christianity; after all, both religions worship the same god. May I consider you an established authority on Islam, and an imam in Iran an authority on Christianity? ^_^;

Originally Posted by Cascadian

Well, I should say, before Darwin's theory of evolution came about. Newton's opinion on evolution is about as relevant as his opinion on video games. He died long before the theory was introduced in any meaningful way.

true it was a less well constructed theory at the time, but it was still rejected by an esteemed physicist, not exactly damning evidence against evolution, but certainly should be taken into consideration

---------- Post added at 12:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 AM ----------

Just as Islam has much to do with Christianity; after all, both religions worship the same god. May I consider you an established authority on Islam, and an imam in Iran an authority on Christianity? ^_^;

the teachings of Islam have no effect on the teachings of Christianity and vice versa. the fields of mathematics and physics are both integral parts of biology, and discoveries in those fields affect knowledge of biology

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Keep in mind though that when scientists say "theory," they don't mean a hunch or speculation, which is the common meaning of the word in everyday speech. In scientific nomenclature, a theory denotes a thorough and comprehensive explanation of a phenomenon that has been so rigorously tested over time that it is essentially fact.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

throughout history the scientific majority has been proven wrong on issues where the majority was sure they were right. 500 years ago the Earth had to be flat, 400 years ago the earth was absolutely at the center of the universe, 300 years ago mice were the product of wet hay or cloth, and not long ago, the theory of evolution was laughed at by scientists. Science will undoubtedly continue to revolutionize itself from time to time, which begs the question; How trustworthy is the scientific community? A vast majority of scientists accept descent from common origin as fact, but 100,000 educated scientists who doubt it is a pretty large number, considering the scientific community has been overturned by far fewer. Even famous and respected scientists scientists such as Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun, rejected the idea that mankind and all other forms of life evolved from a single uni-cellular ancestor. So what do you think, should science be trusted, and is (macro)evolution fact or theory?

I'm a lazy soul, so if you don't mind I'll copypaste a response I made last year to a similar post, since it's quite relevant. ^_^

Originally Posted by Astarael

Firstly, the idea that the Earth was flat was challenged by some of the earliest philosophers and reasoners. For instance, Aristotle opined that the Earth was round based on the shape of the Earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. Further evidence for the roundness of the Earth comes from observations of ships on the horizon - notice how the sails are always visible before the hull of the boat? In fact, these early scientists/philosophers were able to calculate the radius of the Earth a few centuries before Jesus was even born! They were not quite as rigorous in their deductions as scientists are required to be today, since the scientific method has only really been fine-tuned in the last couple of centuries, but they still used their reason, not superstition, to make them.

And thus the model of the Earth moved from a flat disc to a round body, around which all the other stars and planets orbit. Obviously not perfect or close to being accurate - but a little better than it was before.

It was several centuries before this model was seriously challenged by Copernicus, who proposed that the universe revolves in a circular fashion around the Sun, not the Earth. The idea seemed to fit the evidence - Galileo had employed telescopes by this time, and observed the cycles of Venus (as well as the moons of Jupiter):



Notice how Venus actually undergoes a crescent-full-crescent phase, much like the moon? This is only possible if we observers from Earth are watching it move around the Sun. If instead both Venus and the Sun were revolving around Earth, we would never observe the fully illuminated Venus:



It took some time (during which Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for heresy for his observations by the church, as I'm sure you know), but eventually the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric model.

And thus the scientific model became a picture in which the planets and other bodies move around the sun in circular orbits. Still not perfect or close to being accurate - but better than it was before.

A little time later, an astronomer known as Tycho Brahe performed extensive observations of the planets' orbits, and noticed that they didn't quite seem to be circular. Instead, an ellipse seemed to fit the bill. Johannes Kepler came to the rescue, formulating a set of mathematical laws known as "Kepler's laws" to describe the shape of a body's orbit, as well as the relationship between orbit velocities and distance between the two masses in question. Later still, Newton developed a framework of physics that, to scientists' delight, seemed to fit the evidence perfectly.

So now we have bodies orbiting in elliptical paths around a sun in a static universe. Still not perfect or all that accurate - but getting much better!

Later still, astronomers began to observe other large bodies and star systems in the universe, and realised that our own Solar System is actually only one of many in our galaxy - and that furthermore, our galaxy is only one of millions of others! We can use techniques such as parallax, Doppler shifting and standard candles to work out distances in the universe.

And so the data was used to refine the model of the universe, which became an even better description than it had been before - though still not perfect.

Furthermore, observations of Mercury's orbit seemed to indicate that it deviated from the path predicted by Newtonian physics. However, Einstein's theory of relativity was shown to be consistent with the perihelion precession. After other tests, it replaced Newtonian physics as the more accurate description of gravity and space-time (physicists still test it, by the way).

And thus our picture of the universe was altered - still not perfect, but demonstrably better than the last model.


Basically, the key part of the above mini-essay was my constant repetition of "better than it was before." Sure, it's highly doubtful that our view of the world is described perfectly (in fact, we know it isn't) but each time new evidence comes to light, the model is refined so that it fits the data better than the model before it.

Finding new flaws in the old model is a key part of science - scientists revel in it, because it gives them a great opportunity to perfect it, and the potential to gain recognition! You brought up the example of aecelomorphs, and biologists' uncertainty about where exactly they lie in the evolutionary tree. However, this is just an example of a minor tweak of one branch of that tree, so to speak. This incident doesn't throw out the evolutionary theory by any stretch - it just gives biologists incentive to further refine the picture we currently have of the history of Earth's life forms. The theory itself is incredibly sound, since it has managed to withstand all tests that scientists have thrown at it over the years.

On the other hand, the six thousand year old Earth hypothesis was thrown out well over a century ago by scientists, because in light of the evidence we have it simply does not work. It fails utterly to provide a fitting description of our observations - in fact, in terms of how much it conflicts with the evidence, it's almost right up there with the Flat Earth hypothesis!

What is your source for "100,000 educated scientists" doubting common ancestry?

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

Science will undoubtedly continue to revolutionize itself from time to time, which begs the question; How trustworthy is the scientific community?

I hope you're not insinuating that constantly changing your position based on new available evidence is a bad thing.

true it was a less well constructed theory at the time, but it was still rejected by an esteemed physicist, not exactly damning evidence against evolution, but certainly should be taken into consideration

And how would one go about "considering" this? What exactly would that entail? Is there some sort of conclusion we're supposed to reach by considering the fact that a non-biological scientist from a time when biology was less developed than it is today rejected evolution?

the teachings of Islam have no effect on the teachings of Christianity and vice versa. the fields of mathematics and physics are both integral parts of biology, and discoveries in those fields affect knowledge of biology

Have you ever asked a math teacher for help with your biology homework? Doesn't generally go too well unless he/she has prior knowledge about biology.

I hope you're not insinuating that constantly changing your position based on new available evidence is a bad thing.

Not at all, I just don't think that because something is accepted by the majority of the scientific community it should be considered absolute and unquestionable

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

Not at all, I just don't think that because something is accepted by the majority of the scientific community it should be considered absolute and unquestionable

It's not, but you'd better have a damn good reason to doubt the consensus of experts... a reason which you don't have.

I don't see anyone debating whether or not gravity exists

That is because gravity is something that anyone can directly view. There is nothing you can look at and say for certain you see macroevolution.

for me another thing that makes me question evolution is the lack of transitional species. if I look at fossil records shouldn't I be able to see a continuous series of similar creatures from prokaryote to human? It just isn't so. there are groups that seem similar to other groups, but no fluid transition between the two. If they did evolve, why were only certain generations preserved? I hope I am stating this clearly, cuz its late and hard to think straight

---------- Post added at 01:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 AM ----------

What is your source for "100,000 educated scientists" doubting common ancestry?

A 2009 study I heard about said that 5% (about 100,000) of scientists do not except the theory of evolution.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

That is because gravity is something that anyone can directly view. There is nothing you can look at and say for certain you see macroevolution.

for me another thing that makes me question evolution is the lack of transitional species. if I look at fossil records shouldn't I be able to see a continuous series of similar creatures from prokaryote to human? It just isn't so. there are groups that seem similar to other groups, but no fluid transition between the two. If they did evolve, why were only certain generations preserved? I hope I am stating this clearly, cuz its late and hard to think straight

You may wish to take a look at this article that explains that - yes - transitional fossils do exist. ^_^

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

A 2009 study I heard about said that 5% (about 100,000) of scientists do not except the theory of evolution.

42% of all people who believe in Jesus (about 1.5 billion people) do not accept the theory that he is the Son of God. That's better than 5%. XD

(Disclaimer: I didn't include the fourteen million who adhere to Judaism. Sorry about that. ^_^; )

A number as low as 5% (and I would really like to see a link to that study) does not stand credit to the remaining 95% and their mother lode of evidence. ^_^;

You may wish to take a look at this article that explains that - yes - transitional fossils do exist. ^_^

I am talking about a direct transition, something to fill the gaps. Why can we find multiple fossils of Hyracotherium and Orohippus but nothing between? That fact that we can define them so distinctly means that there is a gap between them, why was nothing in this gap preserved?

---------- Post added at 01:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:24 AM ----------

42% of all people who believe in Jesus (about 1.5 billion people) do not accept the theory that he is the Son of God. That's better than 5%. XD

more people believe there is a god than those who don't, does that make atheism wrong?

The number of people that believe a particular thing has no bearing on whether or not it's true.

What matters is that so many people (in this case, scientists) can justify their beliefs.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

I am talking about a direct transition, something to fill the gaps. Why can we find multiple fossils of Hyracotherium and Orohippus but nothing between? That fact that we can define them so distinctly means that there is a gap between them, why was nothing in this gap preserved?

Every being in existence is a transitional organism. To clear up any "gaps" once and for all, we'd need to find fossils that aren't that far apart in age, which is incredibly unrealistic given the fact that fossilization is really rare.

The theory of evolution is, pivotally and obviously, a theory. What a lot of people don't realise is that 'theory' is a technical scientific term. It means that it hasn't been proven completely, unlike a law, which is an undeniable fact.

The problem here is that the easiest way to make a law is through actually observing it. This is obviously difficult.

Anyway, as evolution has not been proven as law, I feel it would be hypocritical of me to say it was fact. It'd be like deciding who was guilty before a trial. As such, I voted probable.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

A 2009 study I heard about said that 5% (about 100,000) of scientists do not except the theory of evolution.

An unsourced claim. Nice. And it's not even anything that you've actually seen for yourself. Hearsay of hearsay. Very credible.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

I am talking about a direct transition, something to fill the gaps. Why can we find multiple fossils of Hyracotherium and Orohippus but nothing between? That fact that we can define them so distinctly means that there is a gap between them, why was nothing in this gap preserved?

You obviously don't understand how fossils work. The formation of fossils is a very rare occurrence, simply due to the fact that most carcasses get eaten. And once a set of remains does fossilize, it still has to actually survive to the present, and that usually means staying buried, which means no tectonic activity, erosion, or a host of other possible factors. Even then, we still have to find it. Sometimes the conditions in a particular area are just right for the preservation and eventual discovery of fossils, and that's why we find a bunch. Most of the time, though, not so much.

Originally Posted by R3B3LCAUSE

That is because gravity is something that anyone can directly view. There is nothing you can look at and say for certain you see macroevolution.

Well that's just microgravity. Macrogravity, i.e. that an object can fall for 1000 years - well I don't believe in that. Have you ever observed macrogravity? No you haven't.

Vestigial body parts, as Iron Man posted a picture of, are very convincing to me. However, the smoking gun for me is probably the two fused chromosomes that humans have. Evolutionary theory indicates that we should (probably, at least) have the same number of chromosomes as our closest relatives (chimps, I believe). However, we don't, and when this oddity was investigated, it was discovered that two chromosomes fused into one, making our knowledge consistent with evolutionary theory.