Is Evolution (Macro) a Science?

[tarchira]

I thought I will derail this thread and thus I create a new one. This exchange, especially the bold lines from that thread, give me a pause to think “what makes a theory to be scientific?”. Here is the exchange at post 14

I would say that there is a very rough science in psychology, byconducting studies to accumulate statistical data, to learn certainbehaviors of humans and animals.

Unlesspossessing a common theory that is explanatory and derives from experimental evidence, it is not.There are any number of speculative systems. Which are evidencebased? Would the psychologists support their lobbying association'scall for evidence based theories? Ha, not on a bet even. What you describe is description, not explanation.

emphasis added


My understanding of theory to be designated as “Scientific” came from this Feynman's video.




From the video, Scientific Method is defined by Feynman as
Gusess--->Computational Experiment--->Compare Experimental Result (with ComputationalExperiment)


If the experimental result does not match the Computational Experiment, then the theory is incorrect and importantly, not scientific.


In the case of Evolution (Macro), we have a guess or hypothesis and the evidences(vast but incomplete) but no demonstrable experiment or an unique explanation of its mechanism so far (Correct me if I am wrong. My Knowledge is very limited about Evolution). Like Psychology, as I see it, Evolution (Macro) is a theory with description but without explanation. Then can we still designate Evolution (Macro) as "Scientific" and if so, how and why?

[Corwin111]

I thought I will derail this thread and thus I create a new one. This exchange, especially the bold lines from that thread, give me a pause to think “what makes a theory to be scientific?”. Here is the exchange at post 14







emphasis added


My understanding of theory to be designated as “Scientific” came from this Feynman's video.




From the video, Scientific Method is defined by Feynman as
Gusess--->Computational Experiment--->Compare Experimental Result (with ComputationalExperiment)


If the experimental result does not match the Computational Experiment, then the theory is incorrect and importantly, not scientific.


In the case of Evolution (Macro), we have a guess or hypothesis and the evidences(vast but incomplete) but no demonstrable experiment or an unique explanation of its mechanism so far (Correct me if I am wrong. My Knowledge is very limited about Evolution). Like Psychology, as I see it, Evolution (Macro) is a theory with description but without explanation. Then can we still designate Evolution (Macro) as "Scientific" and if so, how and why?

Sigh... macroevolution.

The straw man that you have created can be applied to many other sciences.

Following your bold example, is it safe to assume that the theory of gravity "(macro)" - as in the assumption that there is gravity on celestial bodies we have not explored yet is unscientific too? :)

How about macrohistory and macropaleontology - the assumption that people, cultures, animals etc. have existed in the past and died off so they can not be directly observed in the present - based solely on archaelological evidence?

Macrolinguistics should be a fun one. What reason do we really have to believe that what we call dead languages were ever spoken... aside from archaeological evidence that you would surely reject as "unscientific".

Macrogenetics? Surely, without relying on archaeological evidence and assumptions, we have no way of knowing that organisms in the past used DNA to pass on their genes. That it could have been happening by magic instead would be a valid assumption, nay?

Hey, I know... wanna talk macrotheology?

[hensatri]

What do you mean it's only descriptive and not explainitory?

Evolution is used as the most commone explaination for the diversity of life on earth, AND as a description of how that process almost certainly played out.

It is both explanitory and descriptive....

So I reject your premise that it is descriptive only. You'll need to back up that statment a bit.

You say that your knowledge of evoltuion is limited.....well then go get some more knowledge before making claims like this.

[tarchira]

Sigh... macroevolution.

The straw man that you have created can be applied to many other sciences.

Thanks for giving me credit for creating macroevolution. I was denied my deserved "Noble Straw Man prize".

Following your bold example, is it safe to assume that the theory of gravity "(macro)" - as in the assumption that there is gravity on celestial bodies we have not explored yet is unscientific too? :)

How about macrohistory and macropaleontology - the assumption that people, cultures, animals etc. have existed in the past and died off so they can not be directly observed in the present - based solely on archaelological evidence?

Macrolinguistics should be a fun one. What reason do we really have to believe that what we call dead languages were ever spoken... aside from archaeological evidence that you would surely reject as "unscientific".

Macrogenetics? Surely, without relying on archaeological evidence and assumptions, we have no way of knowing that organisms in the past used DNA to pass on their genes. That it could have been happening by magic instead would be a valid assumption, nay?

Hey, I know... wanna talk macrotheology?

Wow, I did not know there are so many macros thingy. Who studies those? MacroTroll or MacroStupid or Macro AssHole or all three?

[tarchira]

What do you mean it's only descriptive and not explainitory?

Evolution is used as the most commone explaination for the diversity of life on earth, AND as a description of how that process almost certainly played out.

Well I can define Astrology as a science something like that

Tarchira's theory of Astrology:

Astrology + “All Factors Considered” = Predicts future well

Astrology + 'Not All Factors Considered” = can't predict future

Here Factors mean Planetary motion, society, environment, economics,personal attributes (gender, age, sexual orientation, etc.) etc.


My Experimental result:

Evidences I and my colleagues gather, suggest that Astrology can't predict future ( exception, in some extremely rare cases). It is because I and my fellow distinguished Astrologers could not find out the relation between the factors which influence the future.

Still, Astrology is a science because the theory is supported by evidences. Right?

It is both explanitory and descriptive....

So I reject your premise that it is descriptive only. You'll need to back up that statment a bit.

I already did in the OP or do you think Feynman is not a credible source?. Here, from a university site

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.


(Mutation Gene Flow Genetic Drift Natural Selection) + 3.8 billion years = Macroevolution


A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.

Give astrologers 1 million years and they will certainly come up with a formula for predicting future. Wanna bet?

You say that your knowledge of evoltuion is limited.....well then go get some more knowledge before making claims like this.

I am just a layman.

[Thanatos]

Macro and microevolution actually have definitions!

Microevolution is the changes in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population.

...

Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic.

The sciency definition does not fit well with the creationist definition, which is something like "large qualitative changes in appearance" or "anything a creationist does not currently understand."

The study of changes in gene frequency over geologic time is primarily observational but it is capable of making predictive statements. The creationist definition is too poorly understood at this time to determine whether it is science or not; we will need to do science to it.

[minorwork]

Still, Astrology is a science because the theory is supported by evidences. Right?

What theory?

[Senor Hoint]

What I've never heard is a Creationist explain to me why microevolution cannot simply become macroevolution given time. When you ask that question you typically get an evasion or some other crooked answer. But I suppose expecting anything more from a creationist would be folly.

[minorwork]

What I've never heard is a Creationist explain to me why microevolution cannot simply become macroevolution given time. When you ask that question you typically get an evasion or some other crooked answer. But I suppose expecting anything more from a creationist would be folly.

Tell you what I hear YEC (Young Earth Creationists)apologists say.

"Conniving evolution apologists are always trying to pull out that time card hidden up their sleeve, like time is speciation."

Then I ask how old they say the earth is and all is revealed as the oldest they imagine is 12,000 years. What else are they gonna say?

Most of the body form development was done pre-Cambrian when there was a long stretch of stability and time aplenty to play with all kinds of diverse HOX gene combinations. Post Cambrian, the symmetries established, the selection for a changing environment predominated.

[grandpa]

Tell you what I hear YEC (Young Earth Creationists)apologists
say.
"Conniving evolution apologists are always trying to pull out that
time card hidden up their sleeve, like time is speciation."

In my experience, they cannot give evidence to support creationism or deny
evolution. If God (or Jesus) could be seen and
photographed at the airport getting his luggage (for example), they'd have something. Evolution is a time-consuming process, but some times are different from others. For example, it's proven that people at high elevations develop deeper lung capacity.

Grandpa h.

[gallo]

(Correct me if I am wrong. My Knowledge is very limited about Evolution).

No problem. You're wrong. Probably because of your limited knowledge. There have been many experiments that have supported evolutionary theory.

By the way, what Feynman doesn't mention is that the guess is an attempt at an explanation for an observed phenomenon or event. You see, it starts with an observation that one doesn't understand. Then, using experience and previous knowledge, one guesses at an explanation. In science that is called an hypothesis. The experimental testing part is also more complex. This usually involves making a prediction that is the necessary consequence if the guess is correct. Then one devises an experiment to test the prediction. If the prediction is supported, then the hypothesis is supported. If not it is rejected - as Feynman says, its wrong.

By the way, astrology isn't science. It has not been successfully tested.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

In my experience, they cannot give evidence to support creationism or deny
evolution. If God (or Jesus) could be seen and
photographed at the airport getting his luggage (for example), they'd have something. Evolution is a time-consuming process, but some times are different from others. For example, it's proven that people at high elevations develop deeper lung capacity.

Grandpa h.

the lung capacity thing is an adaptation of a living biological system, not evolution.

Unless you mean that groups of people who live at high elevations have a greater chance of survivng and passing on their genes if their lung capacity is above average. In a case like that, you might find that lung capacity is greater overall in 'races' of people who have historically lived in higher elevations, due to the environmental pressure of having to deal with a more rarefied atmosphere.