4 ms·

Evolution is routinely proven in laboratories around the world as scientists perform experiments on microbial resistance, insect behaviour, and numerous other e

Evolution is routinely proven in laboratories around the world as scientists perform experiments on microbial resistance, insect behaviour, and numerous other experiments involving species with very short lives. These short lived living things, routinely "evolve" in predictable and unpredictable ways, in front of the researchers proverbial eyes. Evolution has been proven to be much more than a "hypothesis".

Cyph0n 10y ago
There are certain aspects that are proven beyond a doubt, such as microevolution. But to say that all of life is proven to have undergone both biological and chemical evolution because some microbes were seen evolving in a lab is a bit optimistic in my view. Take the example of DGRNs (mentioned in my previous comment). It is proven that even a slight change in the structure of a GRN completely breaks embryonic development. In other words, if a random mutation is introduced during gene development, the embryo will simply die. So how do entirely new species form if embryonic development is basically impossible? The same applies to protein evolution. I would be more accepting of chemical evolution if the time scale we were considering was much longer. Many people have computed the approximate probabilities required to get a functioning protein from random mutations, and it turns out that it simply isn't feasible given the age of the universe, and this planet.
- pdonis 10y ago
  > to say that all of life is proven to have undergone both biological and chemical evolution because some microbes were seen evolving in a lab is a bit optimistic in my view. You're ignoring a huge body of evidence: the fact that all living organisms on Earth use the same genetic material and the same genetic code. This is strong evidence for common descent, and common descent is an obvious prediction of the theory of evolution and requires highly implausible ad hoc hypotheses on any other assumption. > how do entirely new species form if embryonic development is basically impossible? It isn't impossible; it's just unlikely, because beneficial mutations are rare. But this is part of evolutionary theory. > Many people have computed the approximate probabilities required to get a functioning protein from random mutations These computations ignore the fact that natural selection is not random. That means the sequence of events from one functioning protein to another is not a random walk through the space of all possible proteins, as the computations assume. (Computations based on permutations and combinations of atoms also ignore the fact that chemical reactions are not random; only a vanishingly small fraction of all possible mathematical combinations of atoms actually occur, the rest are chemically impossible.)
- simonh 10y ago
  Science advances two ways. On the one hand you come up with a hypothesis and test it to see if it matches the evidence you have and usefully predicts behaviour you've not yet seen. I.e. That it has predictive power. Evolution through natural selection has passed this test with flying colours. It successfully predicts outcomes in a vast field of experiments and observations in the wild. This process builds up a cumulative pile of evidence supporting the theory. On the other hand you construct a test of the theory that can disprove it. So far no such test has been found to disprove evolution. It's true that we don't yet understand every single biological mechanism and every single facet of developmental biology and how they relate to natural selection. However that's not sufficient to 'disprove' evolutionary theory. To do that you'd need to actually prove that evolutionary theory could not explain them - not that it's unlikely it could explain them, but that it's impossible. As it happens the number of thing evolution has not explained is getting smaller as we find the connections and demonstrate them. So on the one hand we have vast troves of experimental and observational results successfully explained by evolution and this trove is increasing rapidly. On the other hand, we have some mechanisms or results where it's not yet completely clear if or how evolution explains them, but this number is decreasing. Finally we have no tests that have disproven evolution. At this point this makes Evolution through natural selection one of the most practically successful and predictive theories science has ever produced, right up there with quantum mechanics. Has it predicted and explained everything in its domain? No. but few theories have yet done that. Even quantum mechanics still has some odd edge cases that are tricky to figure out. So the thing about 'proving' scientific theories is that it's morevlike 'proving' a piece of forged metal. You test it to see if it breaks. Science is really about usefulness. It's test show whether a theory is useful in solving some call of problems. Evolution through natural selection has so far passed every test it's been given in which a colclusuon has been reached. That's encouraging evidence that it will pass the others as well. Meanwhile ID has nothing to show whatsoever. It's an intellectual dead end. Personally, I'm very glad my Christian faith doesn't hinge on it.
  - mbrock 10y ago
    What does your faith hinge on?
    - 10y ago
- hsitz 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure the fact of microevolution goes a long way in justifying our belief in evolution generally. As far as I'm aware, the theory of evolution was developed by observing macro phenomena. Once the theory developed, the idea that evolutionary principles should apply to all levels of living organisms suggested -- in fact predicted -- that if we observed micro-organisms we would see the same principles at work. This became a prediction which could be tested, and which, once confirmed, greatly increased our justification for holding the entire theory (i.e., that evolutionary principles apply to all living organisms) true. That's the way (or one of the ways) that science works.

Cyph0n 10y ago

There are certain aspects that are proven beyond a doubt, such as microevolution. But to say that all of life is proven to have undergone both biological and chemical evolution because some microbes were seen evolving in a lab is a bit optimistic in my view. Take the example of DGRNs (mentioned in my previous comment). It is proven that even a slight change in the structure of a GRN completely breaks embryonic development. In other words, if a random mutation is introduced during gene development, the embryo will simply die. So how do entirely new species form if embryonic development is basically impossible? The same applies to protein evolution. I would be more accepting of chemical evolution if the time scale we were considering was much longer. Many people have computed the approximate probabilities required to get a functioning protein from random mutations, and it turns out that it simply isn't feasible given the age of the universe, and this planet.

pdonis 10y ago
> to say that all of life is proven to have undergone both biological and chemical evolution because some microbes were seen evolving in a lab is a bit optimistic in my view. You're ignoring a huge body of evidence: the fact that all living organisms on Earth use the same genetic material and the same genetic code. This is strong evidence for common descent, and common descent is an obvious prediction of the theory of evolution and requires highly implausible ad hoc hypotheses on any other assumption. > how do entirely new species form if embryonic development is basically impossible? It isn't impossible; it's just unlikely, because beneficial mutations are rare. But this is part of evolutionary theory. > Many people have computed the approximate probabilities required to get a functioning protein from random mutations These computations ignore the fact that natural selection is not random. That means the sequence of events from one functioning protein to another is not a random walk through the space of all possible proteins, as the computations assume. (Computations based on permutations and combinations of atoms also ignore the fact that chemical reactions are not random; only a vanishingly small fraction of all possible mathematical combinations of atoms actually occur, the rest are chemically impossible.)
simonh 10y ago
Science advances two ways. On the one hand you come up with a hypothesis and test it to see if it matches the evidence you have and usefully predicts behaviour you've not yet seen. I.e. That it has predictive power. Evolution through natural selection has passed this test with flying colours. It successfully predicts outcomes in a vast field of experiments and observations in the wild. This process builds up a cumulative pile of evidence supporting the theory. On the other hand you construct a test of the theory that can disprove it. So far no such test has been found to disprove evolution. It's true that we don't yet understand every single biological mechanism and every single facet of developmental biology and how they relate to natural selection. However that's not sufficient to 'disprove' evolutionary theory. To do that you'd need to actually prove that evolutionary theory could not explain them - not that it's unlikely it could explain them, but that it's impossible. As it happens the number of thing evolution has not explained is getting smaller as we find the connections and demonstrate them. So on the one hand we have vast troves of experimental and observational results successfully explained by evolution and this trove is increasing rapidly. On the other hand, we have some mechanisms or results where it's not yet completely clear if or how evolution explains them, but this number is decreasing. Finally we have no tests that have disproven evolution. At this point this makes Evolution through natural selection one of the most practically successful and predictive theories science has ever produced, right up there with quantum mechanics. Has it predicted and explained everything in its domain? No. but few theories have yet done that. Even quantum mechanics still has some odd edge cases that are tricky to figure out. So the thing about 'proving' scientific theories is that it's morevlike 'proving' a piece of forged metal. You test it to see if it breaks. Science is really about usefulness. It's test show whether a theory is useful in solving some call of problems. Evolution through natural selection has so far passed every test it's been given in which a colclusuon has been reached. That's encouraging evidence that it will pass the others as well. Meanwhile ID has nothing to show whatsoever. It's an intellectual dead end. Personally, I'm very glad my Christian faith doesn't hinge on it.
- mbrock 10y ago
  What does your faith hinge on?
  - 10y ago
hsitz 10y ago
I'm pretty sure the fact of microevolution goes a long way in justifying our belief in evolution generally. As far as I'm aware, the theory of evolution was developed by observing macro phenomena. Once the theory developed, the idea that evolutionary principles should apply to all levels of living organisms suggested -- in fact predicted -- that if we observed micro-organisms we would see the same principles at work. This became a prediction which could be tested, and which, once confirmed, greatly increased our justification for holding the entire theory (i.e., that evolutionary principles apply to all living organisms) true. That's the way (or one of the ways) that science works.