Username: Password:
Welcome! Please Sign In or Register

On the Origin of the Species - Charles Darwin

reviewed by kamylienne

kamylienne
02/13/2007

On the Origin of the Species - Charles Darwin 4

The lesson is far from over. This misconception is due to the lack of understanding of what a theory (in scientific terms) is. Saying something is a "theory" in science holds a lot of weight. This is where one reviewer had gotten a definition of "theory": http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory Notice, however, that that was number two out of several definitions. In common usage, "theory" is interchangable with the term "hypothesis", which scientifically is a very different thing. In science, a "theory" is an explanation or mechanism that is tested to the point that is generally accepted in the scientific community until proven false. Wikipedia puts it well: "In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) Beyond that, the "theory" isn't that evolution HAPPENS (it clearly does; it's observable between generations. Between your parents, you, and your children, evolution occurs. You hear about how a baby has "his mommy's eyes" or "her daddy's nose"? That's part of evolution, and, more specifically, natural selection). The question is about which mechanism DRIVES evolution. At the time of "Origin"'s publication, the Lamarkian theory of evolution (best summed up by "use it or lose it") was prevalent. Darwin's THEORY: Darwin (and others in his time) found evidence that inherited traits are the answer, and whether or not those traits survive to be inherited. Problem for Darwin was, he didn't know HOW. Had he known about Gregor Mendel's experiments, he might have hit upon it: with modern discoveries in DNA and genetics, now we know by which mechanism traits are inherited. "Origin of Species" is not the first nor last word in evolution, but it's the most prominent.

Join to vote! 3 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree
Showing 14 Comments
You must be logged in to comment. login now.
Victor83 commented 1012 days ago.
I won't clutter the main screen with yet another post on this issue. You are correct, evolution does exist. However, there is absolutely no PROOF that man "evolved" from apes, etc. There is evolution, fact- people grow both physically and emotionally, for example; and there is evolution, theory- all life evolved from slimy sea life, our ancestors were apes and chimps and so forth. This is a theory, NOT a proven fact, and that was my point.

kamylienne commented 1012 days ago.
. . . the problem with people not reading the "Origin of Species" is that they actually believe that somewhere it says that "man evolves from apes". It doesn't. It suggests that we share a common ancestor. Big difference.

Victor83 commented 1012 days ago.
never read the book....but it was taught in class when I was in school. My point, again, is that while some aspects of the theory have been proven, it remains on balance a theory...not a conclusive, proven fact.

kamylienne commented 1012 days ago.
. . . which is why I have explained the usage of the word "theory" in scientific terms. Again, Wikipedia explains it better than I can: "In science a fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a theory, which is an explanation of or interpretation of facts." Evolution is a fact; how it occurs is the theory. Darwin's theory that the mechanism of biological evolution is driven through natural trait selection has been tested and proven to the point where the scientific community will accept it until it has been proven false. There is strong evidence that suggests that evolution occurs though natural selection (ie. those with less beneficial traits tend not to pass on their traits to the next generation, or at least if they do so, it occurs with less frequency). At this point, no other explanation of how evolution works is prevalent (however, if anyone would be so kind so as to point me to any alternative evolutionary theories, I'd like to read about it).

Victor83 commented 1012 days ago.
Based on your last post, I fail to see how we disagree. I was responding to irishgit, who had responded to me. He indicated that, in science, theory and fact are one and the same. They are not. He ended his post with "Thus endeth the lesson", so I returned the favor.

kamylienne commented 1012 days ago.
Then perhaps I misread your intentions: by your selection of the common-usage definition, I get the feeling that you feel that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is "in contrast to well-established propositions". My argument, and hence the long post about what a "theory" in scientific terms is, is that natural selection IS a well-established proposition in the scientific community, and has been repeatedly and fully verifiable thus far though much testing. Upon reading irishgit's comments in full, I do not see where he has said that fact and scientific theory are one and the same, though his intentions are unknown to me (if I may take a quote from his comment, he states "Thus it follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.") Do I misinterpret your intention, or am I correct in the above statement?

Victor83 commented 1012 days ago.
My only intention was to point out that theory and "scientific truth", while not necessarily an antithesis of one another, are also not necessarily one and the same.

kamylienne commented 1012 days ago.
. . . and this is where I must interject that, in science, due to its nature of repeated testing and retesting, NOTHING is stated as "fact" except definitions (and, even then, definitions are subject to change if evidence is strong enough). EVERYTHING, even that which we consider "natural laws", no matter how tested and proven accurate it is, MUST be left open to falsification if new evidence arises. Science is not static; things must be tested and tested again, despite its apparent solidity, and THAT is what makes "theory" such a strong term: we must always stand open to new ideas, but at present, through decades of testing, there is no empirical evidence that refutes natural selection as a driving force behind evolution.

Victor83 commented 1012 days ago.
Interesting...proof that science is in fact a religion unto itself.

kamylienne commented 1012 days ago.
In what way would constant empirical testing qualify as religion? Religion is, as defined by Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, "Religion: concern over what exists beyond the visible world, differentiated from philosophy in that it operates through faith or intuition rather than reason, and generally including the existence of a transcendent spiritual entity that has created the world, that governs it, that controls the destinies or that intervenes occasionally in the natural course of its history, as well as the idea that ritual, prayer, spiritual exercises, certain principles of everyday conduct, etc., are expedient, due, or spiritually rewarding, or arise naturally out of an inner need as a human response to the belief in such a being, principle, etc.". Through the scientific method, conclusions are reached not on faith, but on empirical data. Science cannot test faith; religion and religious-beliefs are non-empirical, neither able to prove nor disprove, and thus outside the realm of science.

Victor83 commented 1011 days ago.
I was being a little bit obtuse and you are being very analytical. To use the term loosely, some people are "religious" about science.

kamylienne commented 1011 days ago.
In that respect, I would agree that there are many individuals who are "religious" as in "highly fanatical and trusting without basis on proof or reason" in regards to current scientific thought. I agree that I am being (perhaps overly) analytical, but I do feel that, in a subject that is plagued with misinformation (ie. teaching evolution, or, in a broader sense, quality education), I want to provide a much more detailed and helpful explanation than the typical "evolution is wrong because the bible says so" vs "no, you're an idiot" argument.

Victor83 commented 1011 days ago.
kamy, I have enjoyed this discussion. I admire your knowledge and your debating skills. When I said "analytical", I did not mean it as a put-down. As someone who has not set foot in a church since 1989 and sees the Bible as a combination of meataphorical truth and historical record, I can tell you that I find the "war" between science and religion to be innane at best, harmful at worst. If we had all the answers, mankind would have no need for either faith in a higher being or the curiosity and intelligence that leads to science.

kamylienne commented 1010 days ago.
I too have highly enjoyed this discussion. Forgive me if I come off as agressive, as I am highly passionate about the topic of science education. Our public school education, especially with mathematics and science, is not anywhere up to par, and I even hear teachers who teach the subjects incorrectly, which just adds to the frustration. On another note, I do not understand the apparent antagonism between what some people think is science and what some people think is religion, as they encompass two completely different realms of knowledge that are compatable. (As I've heard one person describe it, science attemts to answer the "how" of things, and religion/philosophy attempts to answer the "why" of things).
Showing 14 Comments
About This Reviewer
By the Numbers