Is Evolution really a theory? Does it describe the known species? Did it discover new species, unknown before?

Question

First, no need to say that it is valid, true, false, proven, verified, etc. It would not be clear to me what you mean. Second, I use "theory" in the sense that it provides formula that we can use to predict outcomes, which are the species in this case, in the same way as the particles created in accelerators are the outcomes in High Energy physics,

I am not a believer in anything on this subject. However, I feel extremely open minded, which means that it would not bother me that modern science have no model to predict the vast variety of species starting from no species. In an accelerator, the initial condition contains some particles and the final condition contains other particles. In the Evolution theory, ideally, we have no species initially and the theory explains the vast variety of species, not just in principle, but by computation with the formula provided. Do we have that? Yes or no? If no, what is the best computation we did?

I read the first four answers and the reason why I am still puzzled is because I am not sure what is the exact nature of the "prediction". Do we have a model of the possible random mutations and of the selection process that would account for the current species starting from no specie. If not, do we have a model that at the least works in some restricted cases? What was the initial condition and what was predicted with such a model?

I cannot emphasize enough that I don't care what is true. I don't give a **** whether the Creation theory is true or not. It just seems difficult to understand how a specie would suddenly appears without building on previous species, but this is not the issue here. Certainly, it is not a basis for me to accept the evolution theory,. if there is no theory, If there is no theory, as I define it, I would simply believe that there is no theory. I would not start to believe in a theory that doesn't exist.

To vorenhutz: Yes we have no theory to explain complex molecules starting from the standard model, but at the least we have a model and some evidence. We do explain a lot about the Hydrogen atoms. Yes, fair enough, I knew that we could not predict the exact DNA structure from fundamental physics, but I had no idea what could be possible with an higher model starting with some complex molecules. I admit that I am an ignorant on the subject. This is why we ask question.

Now, can you tell me a little bit more about the tiktaalik rosae fossile? What model was used and what data was considered to predict the existence of this fossile. I mean, at the least we must have a general model, something that would play the same role as the standard model. Perhaps, we cannot do the computation in complex cases, but we must have the model. I want to get a feeling for how much evidence the prediction of the tiktaalik rosae fossile provides for the proposed model.

To vorenhutz: You say "it is support for the theory". What theory? What's the model? Is it really based on a model for random mutation and selection?. I hope that it supports some theory, but what is it?

To jonmcn49: I quickly visited the link you proposed. It didn't start very well. They say "explore the controversy" and it was not immediately obvious where I could get some simple account of the theory, the models, etc. When I learned the standard model, I first learned the model and only much later I considered some controversies. I am open minded. I am willing to innocently read an explanation of the model behind the evolution theory, without the intrusion of Creationists or whatever. In this way, I would give my total attention to the theory. It seems to me that it is the normal way of learning a theory.

MyNameAShadi: I am not sure how it would help the discussion, but the standard model is a basic model of quantum field theory that describes all forces in nature except gravity. String and M theories are attempt to include gravity. I don't know them very well.

I understand that random mutations + natural selection is the only possible explanation within the current physics for the diversity of species. This is evidence for that explanation.

Clearly, the purpose of my question was to obtain needed extra evidence for the proposal that randomness + natural selection explain the vast diversity of species. So, I wanted a formulation of the evolution theory that closely matches this proposal and evidence for that theory.

Here, I learned that there are qualitative principles that suggest where to look to possibly find new species (with more or less certainty depending on the situation.) and that these principles are the evolution theory.

However, I don't see how this relates to my original purpose. Sure, the validity of these principles, this evolution theory, is evidence for random mutations and natural selection, but it is not *extra* evidence for the proposal that species can be explained by these random mutations + natural selection.

To jonmcn49: Thanks for being honest in saying that you did not understand me. I don't see how this suggests that I should go in the philosophy category.

My position is clear. The fact that random mutations and natural selection exist and that there are no other explanation within current physics for the diversity of species is evidence for the fact it should be the actual explanation. This evidence stands by itself, but in view of our astonishment in front of the diversity of species, more evidence would be useful. My purpose was to find out if we have more evidence in the form a specific evolution theory.

There is a difference between (1) evidence for random mutations + natural selection and (2) evidence that random mutations + natural selection is the explanation for the diversity of species. I was looking for extra evidence for (2), but not for (1). Unfortunately, my understanding is that the principles used in the evolution theory is evidence for (1), but not for (2).

I guess that one possible point of confusion is that the evolution theory, as I understand it from what I learned here, is not that random mutations + natural selection explain the diversity of species. The latter is a different theory which would require a model for random mutations and natural selection. It is confusing to say that these two theories are identical. It seems clear that the principles currently used to predict species are not at all enough by themselves, not even in principle, to explain the diversity of species. They might constitute a valid predictive theory in some cases, but that theory is incomplete. Again, it is not just a difficulty to solve equations, etc. such as in physics, but simply that, even in principle, they do not explain the diversity of species. It is fundamentally an incomplete theory of evolution.

Ken E: By "discover new species, unknown before", I meant something like the discovery of the fossil tiktaalik roseae, which was proposed as an example by one of the answerer.

Anyway, may be the problem is that I first insisted on quantitative predictions. Now, I would be happy with a connection that is not necessarily quantitative, but at the least rigorous, between a basic model with random mutations + natural selection and the principles that have been used to explain or predict the observations presented in the many tons of paper that you mention. Do we have such a connection? If we don't then we have no evidence. If we do have such a connection, then the quality of the evidence depends on the principles used in these explanations or predictions.

In my previous details, I suggested that such a connection was no extra evidence. I should have said that, if these principles have limited applications, which I suspect is the case, it is not much evidence.

Answer 1

ok, take the standard model of particle physics, and predict the structure of an atomic nucleus. not too heavy now, to give you a chance. aluminium-26 (13 protons, 13 neutrons). it shouldn't be too hard, right? in practice isn't it is far easier to just measure the properties of the isotope than to predict them from first principles?

this i think is similar to the sort of question you're asking. there are far too many factors to consider to do a fully detailed simulation. mutations cannot be predicted for similar reasons that weather cannot be predicted a week in advance - too many initial conditions and measurements are not detailed or precise enough.

i think this is not really what you meant, but the fossil tiktaalik roseae was discovered by looking in places that evolutionary theory (common descent) and plate tectonics suggested that such an organism should be found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

perhaps you would object that it's not really a prediction, more like interpolation with known data. i would just point out that the fossil (and others like it) was actually found where it might not have been, it is support for the theory.

the theory is common descent, as i said. the idea is that all organisms are related by heredity. it is not a mechanism, it's a pattern - like an orbit is a pattern. there are mechanisms such as natural selection and genetic drift but they are very hard to differentiate in the fossil record (much easier in the laboratory though). tiktaalik was found by looking for an intermediate species between fish and amphibians.

ok here is an introduction to the subject, not quite as focused on creationist distortions as is talk.origins:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Answer 2

Actually some of the answers above are partially or wholly wrong. Evolution is not a theory, it is an observed fact of nature, in the same way that gravity and combustion are. There have been theories, which are sets of logical ideas backed by evidence that attempt to explain those observed facts.

There have been at least two theories of combustion, one based on an hypothetical substance called phlogiston, a later one based on the oxygen in the air. Now the phlogiston theory turned out to be dead wrong, but it did actually explain some of the observed facts about combustion. It was supported by some evidence and that is why it was called a theory. But the phlogiston theory fell to bits after oxygen was discovered.

In the same way it was thought in the 1700s that evolution proceeded by inheritance of acquired characteristics. That is, something that the parent acquired before it mated. That theory fell to bits when it was found that chopping the tails off generations of mice did not result in mice being born without tails. Or some similar experiment.

In 1859 Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace jointly proposed that evolution proceeded by the inheritance of genetic changes in a POPULATION of organisms if it made the POPULATION survive better and raise more offspring. This is the basis of current evolutionary theory and it is supported by vast amounts of evidence, literally many tons of paper.

The fact that it supported by evidence is why it is called a theory and not an hypothesis or a speculation. The evidence does not "prove" the theory to be correct, it just supports it. If the theory were proved, it would not be called a theory but perhaps a theorem. There is little proof in science.

Evolution as an observed fact cannot describe known species, just as combustion cannot describe fuel, smoke or ash. Neither can it discover new species, unknown before. It is an observed fact, not a person. The theory cannot do these either as it is a set of ideas, not a person. However it can predict that a large POPULATION of organisms will adapt to a small change in environment. This has been observed.

Evolution has been observed in the wild, not just under lab conditions. Look for sites on the American hawthorn and apple grub.

Answer 3

Im guessing you want to see if evolution is "the best option" out of those in biological theories. Im solely basing this off of your belief in the standard model, which you said was taught along w/ other theories (most likely string and/or M). If im wrong tell me and ill helo you out some more.

First off, there is a difference between physics and biology. Physics rests on mathimatical formulas, which can be tested. These formulas predict how things should act. (Relativity, Quantem Mechanics etc.) Biology however is is a science based more on observation. There is no math involved, and when it is it must be a closed system (great example is Hardy Wienberg. Its a formula for finding allele frequncies. But due to ecosystems being open systems the math needs specific never eachable requirements.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy-Weinberg_principle#Assumptions

So evolution can not predict to a "t" what is going to happen. However as many previous answerers have answered it can predict what type of organisms will survive. For example if we know that a certain fly has both brown and orange coloring, if we painted all the trees in the area orange, evolution would predict that the orange flies now being camoflaged would be selected for favorably. So evolution can not predict finite details but it can and has (see Galapagoes Finches) predicted smaller details. (along with eye placement, coat color, size, teeth orangment etc)

Evolution as opposed to the Standard Model/String Theory debate, really has no know counterpart. Originally it was thought that genetics and evolution were conflicting but with the moder synthesis (basically combined the knowlege of the two, and saw they agreed perfectly). Creationism (as in genesis, scientist may be religous and believe in God but not a genesis creation) has NO wieght in the scientific community. A previous answerer gave the talk origins website. That basically shows why Creationism is not valid science. The only other idea out there is Intelligent Design. However this theory is untestable and is considered psuedoscience or Fake Science. Basically any bad word in front of science. Because ID has very little to no science involved yet it is being passed as science. So evolution is the major belief, actually only (if your a true scientist) held among biologist.

So basically theories in biology are not mainly predicting in nature but more observational. biology does not have math to be based on like physics. however physics by being math based can predict outcomes.

Answer 4

Evolution occurs subject to the laws of chaos theory. Small random effects (mutations), affected by small random events (little acts of survival and reproduction) driven by a large non-random force (natural selection).

So just as we know what causes a hurricane or an earthquake, we cannot predict a *specific* hurricane or earthquake ... just as we know what causes evolution, we cannot predict a *specific* species.

Or another way to put it ... evolution is as non-random as gravity. When you flip a coin, you cannot predict whether it will land heads or tails, but you *can* predict with absolute surety that it will not fall "randomly" upwards towards the ceiling. Evolution is the same way ... it cannot predict a specific species, but it does predict that evolution will pull a species in the general direction ... that of 'fitness' for the current environment.

Think of a golf-ball accidentally hit into the top of a tree. The specific path it takes as it bumps its way down the branches is quite unpredictable in any real sense (large sensitivity to small changes in initial conditions ... chaos theory), as is the exact location it will land on the ground ... but gravity does let us predict that the ball will move *downward*. Evolution is much like that process ... the specific path an organism will take, and the final species that will result, is impossible to predict. But just as we know the ball will either fall on the ground somewhere, or get stuck on one of the branches ... we know that evolution will produce a more 'fit' species, or the organism will go extinct.

So yes, absolutely evolution is really a theory. (And I aplaud you for knowing that this does not mean "*just* a theory" but rather that this means an explanatory system verified with evidence.) Just because it does not make the specific predictions you talk about, does not mean it does not make predictions at all. It really does make many predictions, just not of the specificity you describe. It predicts the patterns of fossils we find, the layers in which we should find them, the structures they should contain. It predicts that all sorts of odd, non-optimal designs should be found in nature as a result of relentless trial-and-error, rather than conscious design. It predicts the specific patterns we should see in the genes and DNA of living organisms ... which is particularly impressive considering that the basics of genetics and the discovery of DNA were made *after* Darwin defined the basic principles of evolution.

So yes, evolution is a theory. An extremely predictive one.

Answer 5

Some good discussions up there, but I must point out: evolution is cannot predict in the same sense that the laws of physics predicts things. This presumes that the laws of evolution point to a "direction" of change. But we know that evolution is not teleologigal (it is not directed towards any goal). So it won't tell us what humans will look like in another hundred millions year. BUT it will rule out things like "Will we grow gills, as a result of global flooding that will come with the melting of the glaciers?".

What evolution *did* predict was the existence of intermediate species, for which fossil evidence hadn't yet been found -- the "missing links". This is how we recognize the power of this theory.

Answer 6

Part of evolution is science. The record of modern taxonomy, fossils, and genetics supports isolated clusters of genetically related organisms. Evolution is most likely an accurate explanation of how a given cluster developed from a single ancestor. Any extension beyond this departs from science. We have no evidence whatsoever, taxa DNA or fossil, that mammals and fish developed from a common genetic source. It's plausible that few transition forms would be found; it's implausible that none would be found.

It's perfectly reasonable and good science to evaluate a hypothesis and decide that there's not enough evidence to support it, even if you don't have an alternative hypothesis. And if you do, deciding one is false doesn't make the other true.

Answer 7

Every time we are artificially selecting we are predicting our outcomes on evolutionary theory. When a new species of Drosphillia was speciated in the lab evolutionary theory predicted it. When we knock out genes, or insert genes into a genome, evolutionary theory predicts this and the outcome of this.
Evolutionary theory is as robust as anything in physics and more so than some things I hear coming out of physics.
Go here and learn.

http://www.talkorigins.org

You may, or may not explore the site. They are the bulwark of evolutionary theory, as it is under attack from several quarters; all incoherent. I suggest you go deeper into the site than the first page. It is a premier Internet site on the subject.

It is evidence, but it is not " extra " evidence?!?! You have totally lost me. Perhaps the philosophy section would be a better place for you metaphysical inquiries.

Answer 8

Evolution is about as much of a fact as is any other theory. There is absolutely no doubt that animals have changed over time. The best argument against that is "It was put there to confuse us".

"Does it describe known species?:"
Yes, evolutionary relationships are used to classify organisms.

"Did it discover new species"
Yes, in a sense. There was a flower that had a very deep chamber. It was theorized that it would only evolve in response to a symbiotic relationship with something with a very long proboscis or mouth part of a moth. The moth was discovered many years later.

Answer 9

There are so many proofs that most of the theory is accepted as fact. That said the Pope recognised evolution but pointed out that as it took place over millions of years final proof would probably never be foud.

It certainly explains the known species and new species are being found daily.

The Human Family Evolution:

Primates are mammals that include lemurs, monkeys, apes and humans.

The Strepsirrhini, or “wet-nosed” primates, which include lemurs and lorises, branched off around 63 million years ago .

Old World monkeys and apes divided from New World monkeys about 40 million years ago.

Aegyptopithecus zeuxis, which probably resembles the common ancestor of New World monkeys and apes, lived about 29 million years ago.

The apes split from Old World monkeys about 25 million years ago.

Humans and chimpanzees diverged 5-7 million years ago.

Answer 10

I desire I had the source for this, despite the fact that it became a college textbook (in all likelihood not even intense college), and that i've got not got it anymore. yet they noted that if evolution occurred simply by fact the thought states, then we might assume one form of existence (say, guy) to be greater heavily proper interior the DNA to the kind from which it developed. That is sensible, and that's not not ordinary to purpose scientifically. the certainty is, despite the fact that, that DNA exhibits random links. Like snake venom is proper to a minimum of something different than what we might assume, or mice are greater heavily proper to 3 kind that even an evolutionist might have a not ordinary time bearing on evolutionally. Does this make sense? I desire i ought to bear in thoughts the existence varieties they indexed (yet that became better than 10 years in the past, so provide me a injury, ok?), however the thought caught. Now, on occasion that's authentic. In different circumstances, that's not. i got here across 2 articles that it quite is beneficial to verify. enable's placed it this sort: If I confirmed you my kind new Mercedes interior the driveway (i've got not got one, yet for the sake of argument...), and you suggested, "Wow! How ought to you have the money for the kind of intense high quality automobile!" properly, think I instructed you, "Oh, i did not purchase it. I in simple terms went down and blew up the landfill, and all of the aspects for the automobile in simple terms fell jointly interior the fallout, and the main landed precise next to my feet. It became sooooo cool!" you may ask your self what psychological scientific institution I had escaped from and is often sort sufficient to take me lower back to it! yet that's what evolution says. If we blow up sufficient landfills, at last something usefil would be created. valuable, the percentages are super, yet sometime we will hit gold. that's lots much less confusing to have self assurance in sensible layout, whether you do not have self assurance in God the way I do, than to have self assurance in a mathematical impossibility. of course, if there is not any God, there is not any sin, meaning you're able to do despite the fact which you sense like. that's area of the super charm of atheism.