tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post125372890135522478..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: What Is Evolutionary Theory? Futuyma vs CoyneLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18043067593535094792010-04-27T11:20:58.341-04:002010-04-27T11:20:58.341-04:00"They'll also be happy to learn from a pr..."They'll also be happy to learn from a prominent evolutionary biologist that design is part of modern evolutionary theory."<br /><br />Only because they won't pay attention to the difference between "the illusion of design" and "design".Mike from Ottawanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34758927121238594392010-04-26T13:26:37.920-04:002010-04-26T13:26:37.920-04:00"Of course evolution is a fact. Evolution is ..."Of course evolution is a fact. Evolution is change in the genetic composition of populations, something that occurs in the real world. Not "an attempt to explain" something."<br /><br />It's also a completely uncontroversial fact, since, in those terms, even the young Earth creationists accept it.Mike from Ottawanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19499354767810782942010-04-26T08:19:10.525-04:002010-04-26T08:19:10.525-04:00Evolution is something that happens all the time i...Evolution is something that happens all the time in the world of life as we know it.<br /><br />That is a fact. That is the sense in which "evolution is a fact".<br /><br />There are theories which explain how and why evolution happens. They tell us that "X explains evolution". That is one sense in which "evolution is (part of) a theory". <br /><br />And there are theories which explain features of the world of life by invoking evolution in the explanation. They tell us that "evolution explains Y". That is another sense in which "evolution is a theory".<br /><br />TomSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4510633139799732062010-04-25T04:03:41.800-04:002010-04-25T04:03:41.800-04:00Of course evolution is a fact. Evolution is change...Of course evolution is a fact. Evolution is change in the genetic composition of populations, something that occurs in the real world. Not "an attempt to explain" something.El PaleoFreakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11323149141956089390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35412060377039134782010-04-24T14:58:31.025-04:002010-04-24T14:58:31.025-04:00The relationships between living things are facts....The relationships between living things are facts. Evolution is an attempt to explain the origins of those relationships. That's a theory, not a fact.Larry Fafarmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01840916980486608228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55659293684275838382010-04-24T10:41:38.671-04:002010-04-24T10:41:38.671-04:00Is evolution a *fact*?
Or would it be better to s...Is evolution a *fact*?<br /><br />Or would it be better to say it is a *finding of fact*, as in a court of law.<br /><br />In this sense evolution is one of the findings of modern science and hence a fact, but not a fact directly.paul01https://www.blogger.com/profile/06306440944379183875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83665781857323339762010-04-24T07:35:45.097-04:002010-04-24T07:35:45.097-04:00In my opinion:
Common descent is fact.
Branching d...In my opinion:<br />Common descent is fact.<br />Branching diversification of life is a fact.<br />Speciation is a fact.<br />Adaptation is fact.<br />All evolution being adaptive is of course not a fact.<br />Gradual evolution is a fact ("gradual" meaning accumulative, "by steps"). <br />All evolution being gradual is not a fact.<br />Appearance of design is not a natural fact itself, but it's a real scientific "problem" (that has been solved).<br />Natural selection is a fact. <br />That natural selection explains a lot of evolution, including adaptation, is not a fact. It's part of the Evolutionary Theory.<br />Evolutionary Theory is not a fact. It's a theory that explains facts (Gould's classic distinction).<br /><br />I think in his book Coyne fails at telling apart fact of evolution and evolutionary theory. <br /><br />In the Spanish translation of the book, its title is "Por qué la teoría de la evolución es verdadera" (Why evolution theory is true). Strange.El PaleoFreakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11323149141956089390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70444597499339848142010-04-24T03:23:34.254-04:002010-04-24T03:23:34.254-04:00prominent? maybe among adaptationistsprominent? maybe among adaptationistsA. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26532762945530152332010-04-24T00:21:21.015-04:002010-04-24T00:21:21.015-04:00Coyne also said this almost a the beginning of his...Coyne also said this almost a the beginning of his article:<br /><br />"But that's fiction, right? Well, not entirely, for it applies precisely to another "theory" that is also a fact: the theory of evolution. "Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14830823042387115502010-04-23T18:47:17.153-04:002010-04-23T18:47:17.153-04:00I think you could give a more charitable interpret...I think you could give a more charitable interpretation of Coyne's statement (though he could have put it better than that): 1. gradual descent from an ancestral species, and further branching, are the patterns of evolution predicted by the theory, not at the same level of "fact" as evolution itself; 2. replace "illusion of design" with "adaptation" and you get a valid statement describing a theory (though I guess you would disagree with such a theory, which you can <i>because it's not a fact</i>).<br /><br />Re-read the beginning of Coyne's article. He says of the germ theory of infectious diseases that "although it's called germ theory, the idea that infections are spread by small creatures is also a fact, supported by mountains of evidence." Instead of relying on the dichotomy of fact and theory, Coyne shows that some theories are so much supported by evidence to make some of their statements count as facts. Being a fact in this sense depends on the degree of support from evidence.<br /><br />The bottom line is: you cannot say that evolution is a fact unless you can show that the theory of evolution (broadly conceived, descent with modification and branching) is true, supported by evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.Marcello Pucciarellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00200354980868168566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52366860686442639812010-04-23T16:22:16.713-04:002010-04-23T16:22:16.713-04:00Based on examples such as this, it's a wonder ...Based on examples such as this, it's a wonder science journalists get anything correct isn't it.gilltnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90106608946853160022010-04-23T15:48:19.780-04:002010-04-23T15:48:19.780-04:00Have you read Coyne's book? He commits the sam...Have you read Coyne's book? He commits the same sin in few places, and at greater length. (However, I have to make clear that on the whole WEIT is excellent).Eamon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262012749524758120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18304120323290874252010-04-23T15:32:04.447-04:002010-04-23T15:32:04.447-04:00I'm not sure this distinction carries a lot of...I'm not sure this distinction carries a lot of weight. Unless you exclude historical hypotheses from your definition of theories, I don't see how common descent isn't a theory. Common descent is a set of propositions about the history of life that accounts for certain facts about genetic homologies, geographical distribution, etc etc. It's a theory because the truth of common descent isn't directly observable but is inferred because it makes sense out of a wide range of superficially disparate facts.<br /><br />But if you for some reason want to exclude well-confirmed historical hypotheses from being theories and consider them facts, then I guess you're right. But I think the analogy between historical theories and scientific theories is close enough to warrant using the same terminology.Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01908428123363294967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4782606317001807522010-04-23T14:56:16.056-04:002010-04-23T14:56:16.056-04:00I posted this to my facebook account. I understan...I posted this to my facebook account. I understand what is going on, but alas, many of the creationist/ID pinheads won't. They'll exclaim: "see, I told you that evolution was just a theory and not a fact"....<br /><br />This is the yin/yang of the internet age. Still, I love having this window of access to a field other than my own (mathematics).Harriethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17953435368705942387noreply@blogger.com