Is Labeling Evolution as Just a Theory in Textbooks a Reasonable Approach?

[LowlyPion]

What I don't get is why the Christian fundamentalists care about it at all.

How is that relevant to their lives that they would impose these disclaimers on science - a science that cuts across all people - believers or not?

It's very much similar to the Proposition 8 silliness in California.

It's as though denying it in thought, creating doubt about it, makes it not exist. And attempting to deny that thought to everyone then is presumed to make the Creation Myths of the Bible true?

Instead of wringing their hands and scheming to make busy work in the Courts and mischief at the School Committees and Justices of the Peace, maybe they should be more out in the community helping those that aren't so advantaged. Rather than building their self aggrandizing Houses of Worship, maybe there are better works, that might do more positive good for everyone?

If they want to demonstrate that Scripture is supreme, come up with the scientific proof and stop trying to legislate that everyone need adopt their thinking.

 

[mgb_phys]

1. It's logically impossible to lay down an upper band before a lower band. Barring a reason to believe that a rock face has somehow flipped over (not impossible, but the geologist should know), the lower band was laid down first.

But it's only a theory that the rocks were laid down at all.
Our friends in the south would say they were created that way by God!
Even geologists took quite a long time to decide that rocks were deposited, eroded and moved rather than just changed in-situ by effects of eg. weather.
Largely because of religious views it took a long time (mid C19) to really accept how old the Earth was.

2. I'm not a geologist, but it is my understanding that even plain, ordinary rocks can be dated. You don't have to theorize that an older rock was laid down before a newer rock. Either way, the way they look is most certainly not the only piece of data you have available to you about a rock.

If you are lucky with the minerals you can radioactively date many igneous rocks.
Others you have to rely on the strata and linking them back to known rocks - which again relies on your theory that they are deposited!

Anyway - my point is that; hypothesis, experiment, theory isn't quite as clearcut. Your basic observations generally are based on some theory to even know what you are measuring.

I don't think is a factor in the southern politicians - I think they have a very clear idea what 'theory' means but are relying on the voters not having. It's like when soap or cosmetic makers claim their product doesn't have any 'chemicals'

 

[mgb_phys]

What I don't get is why the Christian fundamentalists care about it at all.

The politicians care about power, getting it, maintaining it, extending it.
It doesn't matter if it's some mad middle eastern president screaming about the great satan, some sane sensible and responsible American president talking about the evil empire, or a candidate for school board in some small town.

You say what your audience wants to hear.

 

[The Dagda]

What I don't get is why the Christian fundamentalists care about it at all.

Unfortunately most fundamentalists are evangelists also, which means they have to spread the word, and of course their particular brand of the word, as absurd as it is to those outside of fundamentalist religion.

 

[baywax]

The way words are used tends to dilute their original meaning.

"A theory is the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another. In contrast with a "theorem" the statement of the theory is generally accepted only in some tentative fashion as opposed to regarding it as having been conclusively established." (Wikipedia)

"theorem |ˈθēərəm; ˈθi(ə)r-|
noun Physics & Mathematics
a general proposition not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths.
• a rule in algebra or other branches of mathematics expressed by symbols or formulae.
DERIVATIVES
theorematic |ˌθēərəˈmatik; ˌθi(ə)rə-| adjective
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from French théorème, or via late Latin from Greek theōrēma ‘speculation, proposition,’ from theōrein ‘look at,’ from theōros ‘spectator.’

Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus

So, those who attempt to downplay the importance of the concept of Evolution by calling it a "theory" are using an approximately correct term to demonstrate this. However, the theory of Evolution has proven to be a stable one for over 100 years, with enough examples and "truths" being sited that Evolution could well be considered a "Theorem". In which case the "nay-sayers" theory about the status of Evolution would be wrong.

 

[humanino]

Will they also include a 'spherical Earth theory' disclaimer ?

 

[baywax]

Will they also include a 'spherical Earth theory' disclaimer ?

Ha...!... yeah... that's all hearsay from these self-described "astronauts".

 

[turbo]

Will they also include a 'spherical Earth theory' disclaimer ?

I fear that the fundamentalists will start printing paleontology materials using the Flintstones comics (man and dinosaurs co-existing) as authoritative references.

 

[turbo]

Ha...!... yeah... that's all hearsay from these self-described "astronauts".

You mean those fakers who pretended they went to the Moon?

 

[mgb_phys]

You mean those fakers who pretended they went to the Moon?

<monty python voice>The moon - it's only a model...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Are they going to put a sticker for $a^2 + b^2 = c^2$? "It's only a theorem."

 

[baywax]

I fear that the fundamentalists will start printing paleontology materials using the Flintstones comics (man and dinosaurs co-existing) as authoritative references.

On a side note... we're starting to see fossils of our ancestors from approx 7 million years ago... not quite the Jurassic Period... but heh!

The most startling implication of the find, the scientists agree, is that our human progenitors diverged from today's great apes -- including gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees -- several million years earlier than widely accepted research based on molecular genetics had previously asserted.

The trail in the hunt for physical evidence of our human ancestors goes cold some six or seven million years ago.

Orrorin -- discovered in Kenya in 2000 and nicknamed "Millennium Man" although its sex remains unknown -- goes back 5.8 to 6.1 million years, while Sahelanthropus, found a year later in Chad, is considered by most experts to extend the human family tree another one million years into the past.

Sorry... link...http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070824121653.65mgd37f&show_article=1

 

[Monique]

For those of you interested in the evidence we have for evolution, here are http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf", published by Nature

Most biologists take for granted the idea that all life evolved by natural selection over billions of years. They get on with researching and teaching in disciplines that rest squarely on that foundation, secure in the knowledge that natural selection is a fact, in the same way that the Earth orbits the Sun is a fact.

Given that the concepts and realities of Darwinian evolution are still challenged, albeit rarely by biologists, a succinct briefing on why evolution by natural selection is an empirically validated principle is useful for people to have to hand. We offer here 15 examples published by Nature over the past decade or so to illustrate the breadth, depth and power of evolutionary thinking. We are happy to offer this resource freely and encourage its free dissemination.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=282642

 

[turbo]

For the really jaded, we only need to look back a few years and observe how staph has evolved to resist drug after drug. Stress a population of organisms, and watch them evolve to resist the stress. The "advantage" with observing micro-organisms is that you can see many, many generations of them on very short time-scales. Of course, this is the disadvantage, too, if you are trying to kill them off to prevent/cure infections.

 

[The Dagda]

Some bacteria are not only resistant now, but they need antibiotics to survive more effectively. Isn't nature wonderfully persistent, blind and directionless but tenacious.

 

[Monique]

For the really jaded, we only need to look back a few years and observe how staph has evolved to resist drug after drug. Stress a population of organisms, and watch them evolve to resist the stress. The "advantage" with observing micro-organisms is that you can see many, many generations of them on very short time-scales. Of course, this is the disadvantage, too, if you are trying to kill them off to prevent/cure infections.

To play the devil's advocate, there is a difference between micro- and macro-evolution (I've never seen a bacterium develop an eye ). This is usually an issue, people will acknowledge micro-evolution but can't grip macro-evolution.

 

[tim_lou]

hmm, in fact they should put a disclaimer in all non-physics book saying:

The book discusses things not directly related to physics. The usefulness of such topics is controversial, and most of them are just stamp collecting. These stamps must be considered with an open mind, studied carefully, and used appropriately when mailing a letter

the physics god will be pleased.

 

[The Dagda]

To play the devil's advocate, there is a difference between micro- and macro-evolution (I've never seen a bacterium develop an eye ). This is usually an issue, people will acknowledge micro-evolution but can't grip macro-evolution.

There are believed to be over 100,000 small changes that go into making an eye over millions of years, I'm pretty sure only computer models can really show how unbelievably complicated evolution is. That said even the average high school student can grasp this.

 

[OAQfirst]

Some bacteria are not only resistant now, but they need antibiotics to survive more effectively. Isn't nature wonderfully persistent, blind and directionless but tenacious.

That's interesting. Do you have any sources for this? All I'm finding are articles: "antibiotic resistant."

 

[The Dagda]

That's interesting. Do you have any sources for this? All I'm finding are articles: "antibiotic resistant."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13587-soil-ultrabugs-thrive-on-a-diet-of-antibiotics.html

Soil 'ultra-bugs' thrive on a diet of antibiotics

Call them the "ultra-bugs" - bacteria that are not merely resistant to antibiotics, but feed on them. They lurk in dirt from parks, farms and gardens. While the ultra-bugs don't normally cause disease, researchers are concerned the bacteria might pass drug resistance onto their deadly kin.

Unlike antibiotic-resistant bacteria, such as MRSA and XDR tuberculosis, which grow on other food in the presence of the drugs, the soil bacteria can subsist on a diet of antibiotics alone. The ability is akin to a person thriving on a diet of snake venom.

While hunting for soil bacteria that can turn plant waste to biofuels, a team of microbiologists led by George Church of Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, decided to grow soil samples in pure antibiotics as a control.

"We expected not to find a lot of bacteria that could eat antibiotics for breakfast," says Church. "We were kind of surprised."
Multiple resistance

To make sure the discovery was not a fluke, his team collected more dirt from farms, forests and parks around the northeast United States and Minnesota. All the soil samples contained bacteria that can survive on antibiotics, and many subsisted on multiple drugs, he says.

Not only could the soil bacteria live on older antibiotics that many bacteria have developed resistance to, such as penicillin, but they could digest modern-day silver bullets as well, including ciprofloxacin.

Many of the bacteria were found to be impervious to the bulk of antibiotics, although they often could not grow without alternative food sources. "They are resistant to virtually all antibiotics," says microbiologist Morten Sommer, also at Harvard. Among 75 strains the team tested, half were resistant to clinical doses of 17 of 18 antibiotics.

That trait is particularly worrisome, says Sommer. Though none of the bacteria normally cause human disease, many are close relatives of pathogenic strains...

 

[OAQfirst]

Sadly only those by subscription I'm afraid.

Yeah? Can you tell me what journal or study, please? The issue date? I'd really like to read more about this.

 

[OAQfirst]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13587-soil-ultrabugs-thrive-on-a-diet-of-antibiotics.html

Okay, but I didn't see anything about bacteria needing antibiotics to survive more efficiently, or needing anything really. Did I miss it?

EDIT: "Many of the bacteria were found to be impervious to the bulk of antibiotics, although they often could not grow without alternative food sources"

 

[humanino]

For those of you interested in the evidence we have for evolution, here are http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf", published by Nature

Thanks for this great link !
What is Darwin holding in his left hand on the last page ?

 

[The Dagda]

Okay, but I didn't see anything about bacteria needing antibiotics to survive more efficiently, or needing anything really. Did I miss it?

EDIT: "Many of the bacteria were found to be impervious to the bulk of antibiotics, although they often could not grow without alternative food sources"

Given that there are few food sources, antibiotics might be just enough to keep them going. Ok I probably phrased it ambiguously, my bad, but it is interesting that they can make do on antibiotics as well as other food sources.

 

[russ_watters]

To play the devil's advocate, there is a difference between micro- and macro-evolution (I've never seen a bacterium develop an eye ). This is usually an issue, people will acknowledge micro-evolution but can't grip macro-evolution.

Define "macro evolution". If speciation is enough, here are several dozen examples where it was directly observed (even created!): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[Gokul43201]

(to humanino) A sponge?

 

[humanino]

(to humanino) A sponge?

Is it to wash what may fall from the bird on the top of his head ?

Sorry

 

[chemisttree]

The "tree of life" (that shows the relationship between species) is not a theory, it is a graph of observed data.

The "Tree of Life" was originally http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html". It was as important as the tenent of natural selection.

The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened.

Moving from the outer branches of that tree inward toward the trunk implied common ancestry at some time in the past. This view of evolution is changing (evolving?) and is regarded by many in the field as incorrect.

So, the "tree of life" is a theory and it is one that is being discarded as useless by the experts.

Yesterday in Texas the requirement that teachers discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution was removed. This means that in Texas the "theory of evolution", like the theory of AGW, is treated like the "Law of Evolution".

Further discussion is meaningless.

 

[mgb_phys]

interesting that they can make do on antibiotics as well as other food sources.

I think bacteria can thrive on just about anything that has chemical energy in it somewhere - I for one welcome our old bacteria overlords !

 

[Monique]

Define "macro evolution". If speciation is enough, here are several dozen examples where it was directly observed (even created!): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Macro-evolution may be a controversial term. What I mean is the evolution of a complex system: the fact that you need each component for the system to work, so how can such a system be created without every component being in place (the eye as an example).

It is an argument often used by creationists, they acknowledge that genes can mutate and be selected, but refute that mutations will lead to complex machinery. In fact, it is something that amazes me on a daily basis. It is definitely not something to be taken for granted.

 

[Monique]

Thanks for this great link !
What is Darwin holding in his left hand on the last page ?

As Gokul said, it is indeed a sea sponge (likely the first multicellular animal that evolved).

 

[LowlyPion]

Are they going to put a sticker for

$$a^2 + b^2 = c^2$$? "It's only a theorem."

But LaTex is working when I put a return before the passage.

 

[PhysicsILike]

Only in america

 

[NeoDevin]

Macro-evolution may be a controversial term.

Macro-evolution was a term coined by creationists to deceive people into thinking there was more of a difference between large and small changes than time/scale. By coining the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution", they managed to convince large numbers of people that there are fundamental differences between "micro-evolution" (which is harder to refute, because there is simply so much evidence, and so many observed instances), and "macro-evolution" (which there is also lots of evidence and observations showing, but which lay-people have not necessarily heard of), when the only difference is that what they call "macro-evolution" is accumulations of what they call "micro-evolution". It is only controversial because it was invented to deceive people.

the fact that you need each component for the system to work, so how can such a system be created without every component being in place (the eye as an example).

Irreducible complexity (a given system is irreducibly complex if the rest of the system is completely useless without anyone of it's components) has never been shown to exist in nature. The eye is easy to reduce, here's an example of how it could have evolved (I'm no biologist, so I don't know off hand how it actually happened, this is off the top of my head)

1. Light sensitive cells evolve at various locations on the organism.
2. These cells cluster in 2 locations, allowing limited stereoscopic vision (2 is the minimum required for stereoscopic vision, and is probably more efficient than 3+), the ability to distinguish distances.
3. A clear protective cover forms, which protects these cells from damage.
4. Fluid fills the space between the clear cover and the light-sensitive cells, allowing better focusing.
5. The cover thickens forming a lens.
6. An iris forms, controlling the amount of light let in, to allow vision in variable light conditions.

4, 5, and 6 could probably happen in any order, or simultaneously, or 6 could even happen before 3. Instead of 1 and 2, the light sensitive cells could have initially formed in a single spot and then split.

In fact, about the only part of an eye which you cannot "remove" and still have something better than no eye, is the retina (the light sensitive cells). I put "remove" in quotes, because obviously if you remove any of the parts of an eye as it exists today, the organism will be blinded (co-dependence from evolution), what I mean is not the physical removal from an eye, but a more primitive eye, lacking one or more of the parts of the "modern" eye.

 

[mgb_phys]

The other point about the evolution of the eye is that it's a crap design.
The wiring to the retina is in front of the sensitive surface and has to go back through it to get to the brain.
If it was designed by God then it must have been on the same day that she did testicles.