Evolutionary Tree

[SteveII]

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

[brewer]

Nope.

[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.

[Esquilax]

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.

Learn your philosophy of science: science is a probabilistic field, it accepts and rejects explanations for the available evidence based on probabilities, not sure fire truths. There are holes in every theory, but the fact that we can't explain gravity- and in fact, a lot of our science is demonstrably wrong regarding that particular force- does not grant you license to slyly assert that maybe gravity doesn't exist, and angels hold us all down to earth.

If we don't know how it works how can you call it a fact?

The same is true of gravity. The problem here is that you're committing the "99% = 0%" fallacy: just because we don't know everything about something does not mean that all of our observations don't pan it out anyway.

If common ancestry is not a fact and still only a theory,

Learn your basic scientific terminology: theories are not "only" theories and not facts, theories are explanatory frameworks made up of multiple facts working in concert. Does it... trouble you at all, that you don't understand even how extremely elementary scientific terms are defined?

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?

Yes, because theories are comprised of constellations of facts. They are, in reality, much much stronger than a fact could ever be.

It's your conclusion that isn't a fair assessment.

[RobertE]

Is the implication that we would not share common ancestry with primates?  I think that is what I am reading.  Our resident biologist TheRocketSurgeon could probably inject some wisdom on the matter.  I haven't seen him around lately.

If you are wanting to say that the implication is that we do NOT share common ancestry with primates, then you read it correctly. Not every human being has the same DNA gene code, and even when we go back to our ancestors, is it incredibly small. Looking at an article online just now, and it shows that if we go back to a 7th generation grandparent, our genetic relationship to this ancestor is only 0.78%, and the further we go down the line, the less it gets, and (I am only guessing at this stage) I am sure it cannot get to 0%. Here is the relatively small article:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ance...egree.html

http://www.genetic-inference.co.uk/blog/...e-our-dna/

This is simply evolution in progress where the biological processes are, over many generations, mixing up various DNA sequences, which are mixed with other DNA sequences from other ancestors, which gets us to who we are today. For example, unfortunately, I am 6ft 2 inches tall, I have a brother who is 5feet 10. My mother was only 5ft tall and father 5ft 6inches tall. So, looking back at my ancestry, I am finding it very difficult to see where I could have got my genes from. Most of my cousins are shorter than me, and a couple shorter than my father. My grandad was a couple of inches shorter than my father, my great-grandfather was the same height as my grandfather. My G-grandfather had 8 children and I have seen a family photo from 1911 and there is nothing there to suggest that anyone was tall.

[SteveII]

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.

Learn your philosophy of science: science is a probabilistic field, it accepts and rejects explanations for the available evidence based on probabilities, not sure fire truths. There are holes in every theory, but the fact that we can't explain gravity- and in fact, a lot of our science is demonstrably wrong regarding that particular force- does not grant you license to slyly assert that maybe gravity doesn't exist, and angels hold us all down to earth.

If we don't know how it works how can you call it a fact?

The same is true of gravity. The problem here is that you're committing the "99% = 0%" fallacy: just because we don't know everything about something does not mean that all of our observations don't pan it out anyway.

If common ancestry is not a fact and still only a theory,

Learn your basic scientific terminology: theories are not "only" theories and not facts, theories are explanatory frameworks made up of multiple facts working in concert. Does it... trouble you at all, that you don't understand even how extremely elementary scientific terms are defined?  

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?

Yes, because theories are comprised of constellations of facts. They are, in reality, much much stronger than a fact could ever be.

It's your conclusion that isn't a fair assessment.

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. 

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. 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.  

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': common ancestry, how could a biological network evolve, evolving traits with a low selection coefficient, convergent genetic evolution, and more. So...how would you characterize a theory that is comprised of a constellation of theories?

[SteveII]

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.

[Minimalist]

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.

He also needs to learn what a scientific theory is but I am tired of trying to educate morons who think their fucking bible is real.

[RoadRunner79]

Oh I see. I don't know whether that is true, but if I had to guess - it *might* make sense that maybe paternity tests deliberately use sequences which differ particularly strongly among the human gene pool in order to more clearly see family relations pop out. These samples then artificially overstate the differences between individuals, and so would return an falsely exaggerated distance in the relationship to chimps, if one used them naively for a comparison. But that's really just a guess, I don't know how paternity tests are done.

That seems like a reasonable hypothesis, and I appreciate the disclaimer that it is only a guess. It would be interesting to find out if the section tested, is just outside of the small percentage of DNA that is said to be nonsimilar in humans and chimps.

[Esquilax]

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.

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.

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?

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.