Saturday, April 10, 2010
"It's just a theory!"
On page 15, Coyne defends the idea against evolution from the claim "Evolution is just a theory." He defends against this by stating that, in science, a theory is more than a speculation but rather is a well thought out group of hypothesis and observations meant to explain things in the real world. Another point he brings up is that a scientific theory must be testable and make verifiable predictions. For both of these defenses, Coyne uses the atomic theory. In this way, support the theory of evolution by presenting hypothesis' made by evolutionists and also the verification of these hypothesis' through evidence such as fossil records, vestigial traits, dead genes. Also, explain why that if there is such seemingly overwhelming evidence supporting it, it is still called just a theory and not a fact.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Theories are proven hypothesis with extensive evidences and research. In the evolutionary theory, there are many evidences that support its theory. Now let's take a look. The variety of species and organisms was a huge question in the old scientific days. In 1859, Darwin came up with the force driving the evolutionary theory, which is proved to be the natural selection. Since humans are visual creatures, it is hard to imagine the theory of evolution. Rather, in the old days, people believed the theory of creationism. By God and through God, different species arised. These species were always present. God made the world in seven days and that was the 'fact.' The creationism was also a theory proved by evidences from the holy bible. Yet the evidence of fossil records was proved to be a hard bound concrete proof of the evolution. By analyzing organisms that contained features present by two different species, the theory of evolution gained a new edge over creationism. Additionally the vestigial traits are present in animals. It was hard to find organisms that wasn't suited to survive and reproduce in the environment. And lastly, dead genes became another evidence of evolution when the scientific improvements of DNA technology came around in the 1900s. By using the DNA sequences, there were present of dead genes. These genes were similar to the other species' dead genes or their active genes. This was an undeniable evidence that theory of evolution is a fact. Or is it? In the past, before the true show of the evolutionary theory by Darwin, another scientist, named Lamark, came up with the idea of transmutaiton. A specie would adapt to its changing environment by changing its features to suit the environment. This was considered as the Lamarkian theory. The theory was proved many times until Darwin proposed the theory of evolution and further scientific developments proved Lamark's theory wrong. That is the reason why theories cannot simply be facts. It may be hundreds of years later but there may be a new scientific breakthrough that may break the evolutionary theory. This shows that by stating that evolutionary theory as a fact one would have to just believe everything about evolutionary theory and leave it as a fact such as 2+2=4. This is one major reason why evolutionary theory is just merely a theory not a fact.
ReplyDeleteSources:
http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Evolution.html
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne
Campbell Biology Eighth Edition Campbell-Reece
As LionDrummer mentioned, the limits to our technology and the possible breakthroughs to be made in the future keep evolution in the relm of theory rather than proven fact. However, there is a lot of evidence stacked in favor of evolution. These are vestigal traits, dead genes, and fossil records. First,vestigal traits essentially show us what was there in past ancestors. These can be such things as the wings of flightless birds, the eyes of burrowing and cave dwelling animals, and the pelvis of whales. Non of these traits are necessary in their respective organisms, however, the reason they are there is because their ancestors had them and passed them along. These animals have evolved in such a way that these structures are no longer necessary, but they are still passed along. Also, dead genes provide evidence that supports evolution. These are genes that have become useless or detrimental in an animal and evolution has "silenced" them by turning them off. We can observe this by looking at the different genes of an organism, both expressed an not expressed. This allows us to see what was there in the past and what we evolved from. Finally, fossil records give us a physical view of what types of organisms have become extinct before us. Often, we find organisms with similar stuctures to modern day organisms as well as organisms that seem to be "in between" two different species in terms of physical traits. For example, the fossil for Tiktaalik shows an organism that seems to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. This organism is a 4 legged fish that would possibly venture out of the water into shallows. Vestiges, dead genes, and fossil records all provide compelling evidence for evolution.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Coyne also includes many things that argue against other explanations such as Creationism and Intelligent Design. Creationists believe that humanity, life, the earth and the universe were all created by a supernatural agency/group/being. Intelligent Design proponents believe that living things had to be designed by a intelligent "designer" and are not products of natural selection. Coyne explains that in both cases, it would be terribly inefficient to create or design such a vast array of organisms. Also, neither theory explains why many organisms are so similar. Would a creator/designer us the same template so often? And if every organism was designed or created intelligently, wouldn't they all be perfect? Without baggage such as vestiges?
Evolution is an imperfect process that gives rise to a myraid of different species. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution and shoot down other theories, however, it is such a slow process that it cannot be directly observed. Making it subject to different views and opinions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik_roseae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Scientific_critique
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne