Why do folks compare evolution with gravity?

Question

It is very easy to make an experiment to test gravity, anyone can do it. Please show how an experiment can be done to test evolution and then show the results of that experiment.

I'm not looking for evidence of relation, I'm looking for an experiment to test whether or not a new critter can be produced.

You don't need to know what causes something to be able to describe what it does and develop a test for it. Gravity may be testing be dropping things in a vacuum.

rhsaunders: put your money where you mouth is... post that link here.

yousedummy: watch your tongue. Einstein already thought of that, and it have been tested since his death, go google gravitational lensing

Skeptic123: adaption is NOT evolution of a new species... it is the same critter... just the balance of the population has shifted to one that is resistant. That's called natural selection, not evolution.

atheist: the age old "why goes up comes down" will test gravity... show me an experiment to test evolution.

murnip: The theory of gravity predicts how fast a mass will accelerate toward another mass. Dropping something and timing it to measure it's total time falling and terminal velocity can indeed be used to test the theory.

Skeptic123: that "branching off" is what I want tested.... Has there ever been a laboratory experiment to test that. I'm looking for two critters at the end that cannot interbreed. - AKA a separate species.

yousedummy: it does not follow... show me a way to test evolution.

PaulCyp: You are using a definition of irrefutable that isn't in the exhaustive dictionary. Please describe an experiment to test evolution and post reference to the results.

nardhelain: I am well aware of the difference. I am trying to understand the debate. Adaptation of a species is readily testable and shouldn't be a problem to the Xians... The production of a different species, where difference is defined by the inability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring seems to the problem. I'll looking for how something so easilly testable and repeatable as gravity can be compared with something to hard to test as the formation of new species.

novangelis: I found that journal article it PDF scanned form at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=224220

Thanks.

Answer 1

People compare evolution to gravity because both concepts have achieved the same level in the scientific hierarchy of ideas. Gravitation is classified as a theory, that is, it is a hypothesis that has stood the test of time and been validated by a multitude of experiments. The preponderance of available evidence supports it. The theory of evolution has achieved the same classification in terms of evidentiary support.

The reason people choose gravity when drawing comparisons to evolution is because non-scientists often misunderstand what is meant by the word "theory." In the vernacular, a "theory" is a hunch. It's an unproven idea that has not been put to the test. In scientific jargon, however, a "theory" is a hypothesis that has proved its merit and proved its worth as a predictive tool and explanatory model of reality. Even those not extensively educated in the sciences recognize the validity of the theory of gravitation; they are not so quick to dismiss gravity as an unproven hunch. You indicate as much, yourself, in your question. In comparing evolution to gravitation, the intent is to demonstrate to naysayers that evolution and gravitation have met similar evidentiary requirements and are similarly valid concepts.

Addendum:

I concur with others who have suggested you do not understand the scope of evolution theory. Evolution does not include biogenesis or abiogenesis. Evolution simply addresses the change over time of populations of organisms in order to be better suited to their environments. The origin of life is another matter altogether, and my understanding is that hypotheses dealing with such have not advanced to the level of theory yet.

Addendum #2:

Okay, here's a realtime example of speciation (this one happens to follow the parapatric speciation mechanism). Anthoxanthum is a common genus of grass plants. It has been observed over a period of 40 years that a single-species population of Anthoxanthum grass (A. odoratum) growing near the boundary of a mine has gradually split into a metals-tolerant species very close to the mine and the wild-type, metals-intolerant species further away from the mine. The original population and its offshoot have evolved far enough away from one another that they will no longer cross-pollinate. A population that began as one species of grass is now two species of grass. This information comes from: Heredity. 2006 Jul;97(1):33-7. Epub 2006 Apr 26. Abstract. Link to abstract is given in the Sources section. There's an experiment for you.

Answer 2

Ask and ye shall receive.

I asked a question about this a while ago and novangelis gave me a link to:

If evolution were true then if a species' habitat were changed then, providing it did not go extinct, over time the species would adapt to the environment.

Now as adaption is a function of time you need a rapidly reproducing organism to be able to test a good number of generations within a "human" period of time.

Given modern gene sequencing techniques you can sequence a simple genome before the test. Perform the test and then re-sequence.

So what about
1. Get a species of yeast
2. Sequence the genome
3. Reduce the amount of sugars in its environment
4. Let it run for 450 generations
5. Re-sequence the genome

If evolution is right you should be able to see beneficial mutations. If evolution is wrong you should not be able to see beneficial mutations.

Answer 3

Here are two. A high frequency of beneficial mutations in bacteria, and yeast with alternate genetic properties when grown in environments with selective factors.

The fact that gravity is obvious as the time scale you are used to does not make it better proved. If it took 100 years for a hammer to hit the floor, it would not be obvious. The fact is that Earth's gravity is a major impediment to studying gravity. That and several other technical consideration are why evolution has much better evidence than gravity. On the other hand, electromagnetism is better proven than either.

ADDENDUM:
Speciation -- a laboratory strain of fruit flies was capable of being crossbred with flies in the wild in 1958, but not with the same strain in 1963.
Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
(source is not available online)

Answer 4

Gravity is just as much a scientific theory as evolution, but Christians don't run around yell "gravity is just a theory! Don't teach it in schools!"

While we can easily see that gravity exist, there is a great deal about gravity that we don't understand. Our understanding of gravity is more theoretical than our understanding of evolution.

EDIT

No, the age old test "what goes up must come down" does not prove gravity. That adage doesn't explain why a "heavy" ball falls at the same rate as a ball that weighs less. It doesn't explain how the sun holds the earth in orbit, or the earth holds the moon in orbit. There is so much more to gravity than "what goes up must come down."

You still haven't explained why you think gravity is a better theory than evolution.

Answer 5

Alright how come the Flu Virus hasn't been wiped out yet?

Maybe it keeps on ADAPTING TO IT'S ENVIRONMENT!

seeing your first edition I think you confused evolution with biogenesis

You fail to see where this is going, At one point Natural Selection will cause those parts to split off becoming different species. That's evolution. Ex. There are several species of Ebola around.

Answer 6

Please explain what makes gravity work. You know, the theory. (maybe it is the flying spaghetti monster keeping you on the ground)

We can also observe evolution. Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together.

Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing 'does not!

Answer 7

i'm not a scientist, so obviously i wouldn't be able to tell you how you can test evolution.

i noticed you told somebody that natural selection is NOT evolution. NS is a major tenet of evolution. evolution doesn't ONLY mean creating new species.

Answer 8

Dropping something is not a test of the theory of gravity.

Answer 9

Simply because they are both natural processes that are operative in the real world, and are supported by abundant irrefutable evidence.

Answer 10

You don't understand much about science, do you?

About that very easy test of gravity... Please design your test to demonstrate the influence of gravity on light.

ADDENDUM

"You don't need to know what causes something to be able to describe what it does "

QED