Evolutionary Tree

[brewer]

The fact that the phylogenetic tree is not as predicted and has problems matching the data to the theory means there is still much to learn and still much to prove to get 'common ancestry' to the point where we know how it works. If we don't know how it works how can you call it a fact? If common ancestry is not a fact and still only a theory, then the big picture of evolution (defined as end-to-end explanation of the diversity of life, common ancestry, decent with modifications) is also not a fact, but only a theory. Is that a fair assessment?

If you want a link:

Antonis Rokas , Sean B Carroll
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/art...io.0040352

Did you even read your own link and understand it? Doubtful, your delusion is in the way.

[The Grand Nudger]

The Theory of Evolution -is- a theory..just as it describes itself to be, there's no need to argue that in Steve.  It's a theory regardless of the above, and for reasons not addressed above.

I didn't use the term 'Theory of Evolution' to argue that it was just a theory. The word 'theory' has multiple meanings. Since I used the words 'fact' and 'theory' in the same sentence, I thought my meaning would be clear. I apologize for the confusion and resulting tangent.

Are you really objecting yourself out of and away from a conclusion that was almost miraculously accurate, for a change....regarding evolution?  

Jesus fucking christ man...I don't know what to say.......

If you think that something which calls into question common ancestry (no point in quibbling, even if I could) calls into question -evolution-...then you've just lost your shit is all.  Common descent, and evolution...are not the same thing.  We can imagine, if we like, that all forms of life had separate origins.  They have still and demonstrably -do- evolve, regardless.

[GUBU]

Could we get a link to the blog with that, for context?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution...ies-today/

It is comment #5 that I am referring to, although I don't know that context is going to help a lot.

You trust a comment written on a creatard website which prescreens comments for ideological purity, accepting creatard comments no matter how bad and rejecting all non-creatard comments?

[GUBU]

Oof..from an intelligent design website?

Worse, from a one created by William Dumbski, and largely run now by Denyse O'Leary which only allows pro creatard comments be made.

[GUBU]

Translation:  We have no idea how science works and think that scientists should consider magic as an answer, so we're going to misrepresent the data and scientific inquiry as a whole.

Here I thought that Science was about finding the truth concerning nature.  Not supporting a priori bias's... my bad

A brief, concise and and complete list of the ways in which uncommon descent is scientific:

[chimp3]

If we don't know how it works how can you call it a fact? If common ancestry is not a fact and still only a theory, then the big picture of evolution (defined as end-to-end explanation of the diversity of life, common ancestry, decent with modifications) is also not a fact, but only a theory. Is that a fair assessment?

No.

Theory : " A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Get it? Theories explain facts. Theories are supported by facts. No problem my friend , your definition of theory is "only" a misunderstanding.

[GUBU]

I didn't use the term 'Theory of Evolution' to argue that it was just a theory. The word 'theory' has multiple meanings. Since I used the words 'fact' and 'theory' in the same sentence, I thought my meaning would be clear. I apologize for the confusion and resulting tangent.

Yeah, but it has only one meaning in science, viz an explanatory framework for a phenomenon or group of phenomena developed by scientists, which agrees with the known facts about the phenomena it is trying to explain, has been empirically tested, the tests themselves being independently verifiable and repeatable, has explanatory and predictive power (either explaining future events, or giving predictions of what we should expect in gaps of current knowledge) which are testable and accurate, and is falsifiable (i.e. that the theory is based well enough of observations of reality that we can devise tests to try and prove it false).

Your definition of theory has no place in science, and your use of your definition is simply a scientific version of dog whistle politics.

[SteveII]

I understand the difference between fact and theory and that the word 'theory' has multiple meanings.  When I use them both in the same sentence however, my meaning is clear. So, when every third atheist tells me evolution is a fact, I should continue to remind them that only parts of it are fact. 

That really depends on what level of evidence you'd need to call something a fact. In my experience, people quibbling over that word, on this subject, are intending to apply an unreasonably rigorous standard for evolution alone, while significantly relaxing their standard for, say, their religious beliefs.

If you don't think that a thing that bears out in all of our recorded observations, and makes predictions that turn out to be dead on the money and would only work if that idea were true, is a fact, then I kinda don't know what to say to that. 

Except that evolutionary theory has not predicted things dead on the money (the fossil record and the tree of life are examples that come to mind). Additionally, as we understand more about the cell factory and complex biological systems, it begins to strain the idea of the mechanism of evolutionary change. The larger Theory of Evolution is a network of other theories and facts that all must tell the same story. They don't as of yet. 

Regarding comparing evolution to gravity, at least we can drop the apple to be sure (deduction) that it is a fact regardless of us not knowing how it works exactly.

You have an observation of a force, but not the cause of that force. How can you be sure invisible pixies didn't take the apple from you and push it down when you dropped it?

The problem is that you're happy to use the deductive, probabilistic method for gravity, which doesn't threaten your religious beliefs so much, but you're refusing to apply that same standard to evolution despite the much, much higher level of evidence in support of that theory. It's a double standard, is what it is.

You are making a category mistake (and introducing a different subject). We are talking about a scientific theory on one hand that can very much be examined in great detail with repeated testing and observations. On the other hand when talking about religion, we are discussing supernatural entities, limited interaction in the natural world (one time events), metaphysical concepts, and questions of the mind--none of which are subject to any scientific method. It is therefore entirely appropriate to consider the two categories differently--as long as you keep the distinction in mind. 

However, in evolution, we have to infer from our observations that evolution is a fact (or not) -- and unless we figure out at least the major pieces, this inference is based on the assumption that the philosophical position of naturalism is true. I'm not saying this is wrong, just observing the distinction.  

Inference and deduction based on observation is the heart of science. You don't need to use "infer" like it's some dirty word; the fact that our observations- many of them so plainly obvious that they're a better candidate for deduction than your falling apple example- match that inference so consistently and over such a long period of time, even with the advent of new technologies and concepts that would have been unthinkable at the time evolution was first put forward, is a level of support in favor of that theory that gravity simply does not have. And yet you'll accept the one, and question the other. Are you just not aware of the constant, consistent reverification of evolution theory, or... what is the problem here?

And naturalism is not an assumption. All of our observations demonstrate that the natural world exists, and nobody has been able to do the same for the supernatural, even one iota. I know supernature is something you'd really, really like to be true, but you can't blame us for not accepting something out of hand based on no evidence, simply because of that. Do you understand how unreasonable you sound, when you assert that something that aligns with 100% of the observations is an assumption, merely for the crime of not entertaining something that itself has 0% of the evidence?

I am not opposed to methodological naturalism. Just pointing out that the Theory of Evolution is somewhat unique in that it has to be true for those who's philosophical position is naturalism and therefore the confidence in the whole theory is higher than if just methodological naturalism is employed. 

Regarding your closing remark 'Yes, because theories are comprised of constellations of facts. They are, in reality, much much stronger than a fact could ever be.' That would only be the case if there was a constellation of facts. Evolution seems to be missing a couple of core 'facts':

I'll go one by one, if it pleases.  

common ancestry,

A deduction borne out by our consistently upheld observations that genetic similarity corresponds to ancestry, along with the fossil record showing said lineages and the predictions we can make, based on those two facts, producing accurate results.

how could a biological network evolve,

Gradually, over time, based on mutation and natural selection, something we've demonstrated even under laboratory conditions.

evolving traits with a low selection coefficient,

Randomized mutation and long periods of time, along with the obvious fact that a low selection rate is not zero.

convergent genetic evolution,

Certain genetic arrangements are so efficient for given sets of environments that they can repeat and persist, as there's nothing sufficient to drive them to change or select them out of the gene pool.

and more. So...how would you characterize a theory that is comprised of a constellation of theories?

I'd characterize evolution as a theory- in the scientific sense- that is complex and thus roundly misunderstood by those who argue against it.  

Regarding the list, I only wanted to make the observation that these sub-theories are not on par with other parts of the theory which are observable--like basic decent with modification due to mutations and natural selection. But before I can discuss at a productive level, I will research. I will get back to this.

[SteveII]

I didn't use the term 'Theory of Evolution' to argue that it was just a theory. The word 'theory' has multiple meanings. Since I used the words 'fact' and 'theory' in the same sentence, I thought my meaning would be clear. I apologize for the confusion and resulting tangent.

Are you really objecting yourself out of and away from a conclusion that was almost miraculously accurate, for a change....regarding evolution?  

Jesus fucking christ man...I don't know what to say.......

If you think that something which calls into question common ancestry (no point in quibbling, even if I could) calls into question -evolution-...then you've just lost your shit is all.  Common descent, and evolution...are not the same thing.  We can imagine, if we like, that all forms of life had separate origins.  They have still and demonstrably -do- evolve, regardless.

Are you suggesting that Common Ancestry theory is not a component (from the beginning with Darwin) of the overall Theory of Evolution? And hypothetically if Common Ancestry is found to be incorrect, it would not call into question the larger theory? You seem to be intentionally mixing definitions of evolution to preserve 'fact' status.

[GrandizerII]

The fact that the phylogenetic tree is not as predicted and has problems matching the data to the theory means there is still much to learn and still much to prove to get 'common ancestry' to the point where we know how it works. If we don't know how it works how can you call it a fact? If common ancestry is not a fact and still only a theory, then the big picture of evolution (defined as end-to-end explanation of the diversity of life, common ancestry, decent with modifications) is also not a fact, but only a theory. Is that a fair assessment?

If you want a link:

Antonis Rokas , Sean B Carroll
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/art...io.0040352

Steve, first things first, study up on what a scientific theory is.