Take the Atheist Challenge!!!

I consider you to be honest, but confused and mistaken.Calling evolution a fact is a correct description of the status of evolution in the scientific community. You can disagree, of course, but this is a real point of disagreement. Asking for us to agree with a different perspective is simply failing to understand just how radically at odds are the views of yourself, and the views of conventional biologists. In science, evolution is regarded as fact; and as the theory explaining facts.A good understanding of English and science also requires understanding that in science, the word "theory" properly means "explanation", not "hypothesis".Evolution is fact in these two respects.

1. It is a fact that we observe evolution occurring in the present. The experiment with bacteria is, as a matter of fact, an observation of evolution.
   ​
2. It is a fact that living creatures have been around on earth for many millions of years; that the forms of life have changed dramatically over that time, and that creatures now living are related in form to very different creatures in the past.

The theory of evolution is the explanation of these facts, in terms of common descent from shared ancestors and the cumulative effect of the processes seen occurring in the present, as living forms change from generation to generation, and millennium to millennium. The two central effects (variation and selection) are both seen directly in the bacteria.Confirming evidence to show that this theory is indeed a good explanation comes from study of genetics of living things, and nested patterns of similarity which make no sense in any framework other than diversification of lines of descent from common ancestors.This evidence has been so powerfully confirming of the basic theoretical framework that there is no longer any credible basis for doubt in a third fundamental fact...

• Similarity and change in forms observed in the fossil record reflect many hundreds of millions of years of diversification from shared ancestors, and reflect a real blood relationship of diverse living creatures today.

There is plenty that is still unknown. There are many lineages that are still open to varying interpretations. There is scope to reflect on additional processes that may contribute to the modulation of change over many generations. There is scope for refinement of models used in population genetics and speciation. And this is all scratching the surface. Evolutionary biology is a vibrant and active field of research. What happened in the dish was both mutation and selection; and this is legitimately evolution. Evolution as a word is used both of the theory that explains how living forms change over time (including but not limited to the explanation of how these bacteria changed over the duration of the experiment) and evolution is also a word that refers to the fact of evolutionary change over time; of which these bacteria are a legitimate observed example.Cheers — Sylas (Edit for grammar and spelling)This message has been edited by Sylas, 05-14-2004 04:27 AM

Not in the slightest. I have no idea how you think there is any contradiction; but if you try to explain why you think there is any conflict, I may be able to be more help.Cheers -- Sylas

That would be a bit odd to me as well. I consider evolution to be thoroughly proven theory; not unproven theory.Of course, in empirical science you never get final proof, and there is always scope for new developments.However, the position of biological evolution is such that new developments are likely to be refinements; not total replacements. We've seen this already, in (for example) the celebrated New Synthesis of evolution back in the forties or thereabouts, which integrated Darwinian theory with genetics. There will new refinements in the future as well, I am sure.The following five points, I believe, are about as factual as anything can ever get in science. These points are the data which will still need to be explained in any future theoretical structures explaining biology:

1. Life has been around on Earth for a long, long time.
   ​
2. Highly diverse forms of life in the present are directly related to each other through common ancestors in the past.
   ​
3. Living creatures change from generation to generation.
   ​
4. Change between generations accumulates over many generations.
   ​
5. The fine adaptation of living creatures to their environment is substantially a consequence of the effects of natural selection of better adapted forms.

There are things I have deliberately omitted from that list. For example, I have left open the possibility of other matters contributing to adaptation, and I have omitted any reference to the processes of speciation. I have not defined lineages, and I have not said anything about the origins of life, or the matter of cross lineage linkages. There are still many matters which are wide open, and others which are strongly likely but still a long way from being solid scientific fact. Fear not... I don't.Many evolutionists do consider that evolutionary biology is strong evidence against God, but I am not one of them. Many evolutionists are themselves strong believers in God, and I am not one of them either. I am an unbeliever; but my reasons for that have nothing to do with evolution.I was rather intrigued by a comment made by Glenn Morton, who is a strongly evangelical Christian, and ex-creationist, on Genesis 1:24. Glenn feels that is a comment about evolution, because it explicitly indicates that life comes forth from the earth; rather than being formed as constructed artefacts.I don't agree with him that this actually is intended to mean evolution, but I do think that the bible speaks of the creation of an ordered and fecund cosmos, and that it is a legitimate aspect of the verse that life comes forth from the earth at God's command, rather than being constructed as if by an anthropomorphic divine engineer.I personally find very odd the theology of creationists who insist that the processes of the natural created world are something to contrast with the creative acts of their God; as if they could look at the world and single out some things as created, and others as not created but naturally formed. I don't actually think that is a good reflection of the theology of creation in Genesis. It is critical to Genesis that God is responsible for *everything*. That includes the beautiful bay of Santorini in the Greek Islands, for all that it was formed by a volcanic explosion. It includes the formation of you and I as unique individuals; for all that we grew by natural processes in our mothers' wombs.Cheers -- Sylas

Sorry for two successive posts; I'm responding to two successive questions. Only one does, because mutations are not directed to circumstances. They occur pretty much at random. However, once they do occur, they can spread through the entire population over successive generations. A "beneficial" mutation is one which makes it more likely for a carrier to leave more descendents. A "detrimental" mutation is one which makes it more likely for a carrier to leave fewer or no descendents. Selection refers to the increased probability of a beneficial mutation spreading right through a population over many successive generations.A mutation is said to become fixed when every individual of the population carries the mutation. This occurs because by this stage, everyone is descended from that one original individual who had the mutation, and they all inherited it from that one source. The chance of getting the exact same mutation in two individuals is very small (though not zero). It is effectively impossible for many individuals to get the same mutation all at the same time.A beneficial mutation is more likely to become fixed; but it can also happen with neutral mutations. This is called "drift". Even a detrimental mutation can become fixed, especially if you have a small population, though this is less likely.If you find whole populations changing at the same time, you'll have refuted evolution -- or more correctly, you'll have identified a new process quite different from what we consider at present. We don't observe change like that, and we don't expect to.Evolution refers to the changes over time in the distributions of inherited characteristics. If a mutation arises, that introduces a new heritable characteristic, and thus is an example of an evolutionary change. If over several generations, the number of carriers of a mutation increases from 10% to 15%, or if the mutation is lost altogether because none of the carriers pass it on; then that too is an example of an evolutionary change. It's not necessary; though of course you can learn a lot that way. I did go to Uni, but I never studied any of this stuff in my courses. I picked it all up later, over time, by reading and asking questions and (it must be said) by making a substantial number of errors along the way.Cheers -- Sylas

Even evolutionists will have different perspectives; you should not expect any of us here to give you final answers to anything. I'm going to explore some differences in the way Rrhain and I express matters.... I disagree. I think that facts are things established beyond reasonable doubt; and that direct observation is not the only way this happens. Indeed, direct observation is often not as good as a strong indirect case through traces left behind. Direct witnesses play well to a jury, but it is surprising how often they get things wrong. I disagree. It is true that there is never a final mathematical proof, but the more usual form of "proof", which applies in law courts and bar room arguments and science and real life, is that something is stringently tested and confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. This can apply to theories.Of course; a proven theory can still often be refined.It is interesting to note that I use the word "proof" in much the same way as the bible. For example, 1 Peter 1:7: Proved means thoroughly tested to the point where you can have confidence in its validity. The theory of evolution is proved in just this sense; the only sense we can use in science.Cheers -- Sylas

You are speaking to Ned here, but allow me to comment.It is up to Christians to decide if their religious beliefs are compatible with what we find out by science. Science is simply concerned to find out what we can of the natural world by empirical methods.The comparison with evolution and gravity helps underline for people that, from the perspective of conventional science at least, the theory of evolution is at least as well established as the theory of gravity.If this causes people to lose their faith, the "blame" lies squarely with those creationist who insist -- more than anyone else -- that their God is incompatible with evolution. There are also some scientists who say the same thing, but they are far and away a small minority. By and large scientists recognize just fine that the details of how natural processes work is not a disproof of a creator of the natural cosmos.The group that is most vocal about God being in conflict with the findings of conventional science are creationists. They are the ones who insist that evolution is atheistic... not evolutionists (with isolated exceptions).If you are really concerned about causing people to lose faith in God, you need to be far more careful about insisting that evolution is the same as atheism. It isn't; but alas I can't persuade everyone of that. If creationists succeed in associating evolutionary biology with atheism, then of cource Christians who become persuaded of the solid factual status of evolution will be forced to question their faith. It is fairly common that creationists, on discovering just how well supported evolutionary biology really is, end up losing their faith altogether. You have yet to present ANYTHING that corresponds to misleading. Let's make this personal... I promise not to take offense at your answer. Do you think *I* am misleading the public, or that I don't have the right to describe evolutionary biology in the terms I have used in this thread? Do you have enough background in biology and evolution to actually challenge my assessment?It is common for the possiblity of God to be emphasized in schools; and for schools to emphasize that evolution is not a disproof of God. Yet still the creationists insist that on making it a big conflict issue.That is their teaching; not a teaching that shows up in conventional science classes.You have this whole issue completely backwards.Cheers -- SylasThis message has been edited by Sylas, 05-14-2004 01:17 PM

I know what you mean, and concede the basic point.However, I do think there is a meaningful notion of some observations being "more direct" than others; even if we recognize that this is not a dichotomy, but a comparison with big gray areas and a continuous spectrum of "directness".My semantic quibble is with the notion that observation of a monitor is "basically as direct" as observation of common descent. Sure, the difference is of degree, not of kind. And yet, certainly observation of the monitor is much "more direct" than observation of common descent. If you acknowledge a "quantitative" scale of some kind for ranking directness... doesn't that mean we can speak of observation of the monitor being "more direct" than observation of common descent? I think it is MUCH more direct.Hence, although I grant your semantic nit; I don't think the original point was particularly misleading.Cheers -- SylasThis message has been edited by Sylas, 05-14-2004 01:17 PM

If I time this right, I can probably get the last word by posting before Adminniemooseus closes the thread... Part of my point is that it is an error to think in terms of mathematical proof when we discuss scientific models. Scientists do offer up proof of various results, based on empirical observation. For example, the solar neutrino problem relates to a shortfall in the number of neutrinos observed from the Sun, by comparison with theoretical predictions based on our knowledge of the fusion processes involved. One hypothesis, which has been around for a long time, is that neutrinos have a very small mass, and can as a result change quantum states en route to Earth from the Sun.This was proved correct recently, in a set of careful observations. The matter of why we get fewer neutrinos observed than originally expected is now resolved. There is more to learn about the details, but there is now a good scientific empirical proof of the hypothesis of neutrino state changes. It's not a mathematical proof, but we don't generally use mathematical proofs in science; except occasionally for proving an auxiliary result relating to a scientific model that can be expressed mathematically.Evolution is a proven theory, in just this empirical sense. The relatedness of diverse living things has been confirmed by genetic studies. This is a perfectly good proof, in the scientific sense of the word.Of course, empirical science can never get at final truth; but we do nevertheless learn and discover things about the world, and it is quite normal to refer to scientific empirical proofs in relation to things we confirm by careful observation and testing.By the way, I am unsure who you mean when you speak of degrees in mathematics. Do you mean me, or yourself? Just asking out of interest; it is fun to hear a bit more about the background of people in the forum.Cheers -- Sylas