Evolution should be taught as one of many theories and not as fact

Only if the competing theories are given the time and respect they deserve. 5 minutes of mockery should suffice.

Saying that the theory of evolution isn't a fact implies a hazy understanding of scientific theory.

Agreed.

Saying evolution is a fact implies that you can prove with out a shadow of a doubt that it is truth.

Insisting that a theory that is far and away the most likely explanation with oodles of evidence to back it up must be proven to be a fact before it can be taught as being a superior theory to something it took 5 minutes with a crayon on a wall to come up with is silly.

Again, I agree with this claim. Evolution is a theory, and should be taught as a theory. Precisely, the theory which is vastly superior to all other current theories.

The implied meaning just sets my teeth buzzing.

Yeah this one is relatively cut and dry--I mean sure, it's not a FACT, but to actively ignore mounds of evidence is closing your eyes.

It's not 'one of many theories'. It should be taught as the main parsimonious scientific theory for how life came to be as it is. Educational discussion of evolution should reflect the scientific consensus: while evolution is not and can never be absolutely proven as fact, it fits the evidence we have better than any other theory, as simply as possible, congruent with what we have discovered about how bacteria evolve drug resistance, etc.

How science works should be taught before specific scientific theories are taught. So, what it means for something to be a theory, and what is actually meant when we say something is a fact is taught. Once people understand that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with calling evolution a fact. It is as much a fact as anything is.

Nothing is actually a "fact" in the usual meaning of absolutely true beyond all possibility of error. But evolution is as true as the "facts" we teach in history class, and thus has as much right to be called that.

Although better to use proper terminology and call it a theory, once the students know what a theory is.

And what else would we teach?

Um... evolution is not taught as a fact, it is taught as one of many "theories" (though, obviously, evolution is explained in much more detail than any others).

This claim is invalid, because it implies that something that is already so should be changed to be the same... that just doesn't make any sense.

No, but the most well-supported of the many competing theories of evolution should be taught. Phyletic Gradualism vs. Punctuated Equilibrium vs. newer theories that combine the two, competing theories on speciation, etc.

Of course, at the high school level we don't even teach any of the dozens of niche theories of chemistry (water alone easily has a dozen theories) or physics (semiconductors have a world of their own, theory-wise). I think students would benefit from those being mentioned as well; it would give students a better idea of how science works.

You can't prove evolution. It's like saying that you found clothes in Saudi Arabia that were better adapted for that area than North America. Therefore there must have been one single ancestor of them both that migrated and adapted. What if there was no single ancestor? Scientists can't find the 1 true ancestor or the spark of life. Btw there will prbably be an error in my comment so dont slap me plzthxkaibai.

Evolution on micro level is observed fact in chemistry (esp. the self organization phenomena), The claim that human evolves from basic building blocks (carbon based molecules etc.) as a self organization phenomenon is theory supported by many such facts. there are no better alternative theories so far.

All arguments from anti-evolution camps so far have been ill-informed and worthless. most people from the camp don't appear to understand the meaning of science itself.

Which other theories that explain the origin of species, except creationism, are there?

Malevolent design!

Sounds like a creationism variant to me.

I made a claim about it.

It's funny, I know that Mr. Breedlove is also a proponent

It is taught as a theory isn't it? The theory of evolution. A theory is not however a hypothesis and should never be taught as a hypothesis. In fact I'm not sure hypotheses should be 'taught' at all.

keep in mind that mutation is not evolution

Viruses and bacteria mutate they do not evolve

Viruses and bacteria do evolve, because they reproduce with modified descent, just like we do. That makes them amenable to natural selection, the other half of evolution.

Adeno-Associated Virus, for instance, is a good example of a virus that's been co-evolving with us humans for a long time. We have a special arrangement with AAV: it agrees to infect us only by inserting its DNA into a reserved location on Chromosome 19, and our bodies agree to hold off most of the immune system response and give it a chance to spread a bit before we clobber it.

No sane Intelligent Designer, even a malevolent one, would deliberately create an arrangement like that. But détente situations like that happen all the time in evolutionary biology. It's the Golden Rule applied at the level of Biochemistry.

Creationism isn't a theory, so it shouldn't be taught. I'm fine teaching theories, but they need to be actual theories. Creationism isn't falsifiable, so it is what my philosophy teacher would call "mental masturbation". You can have faith in it, if you want, but there's no evidence for or against it. It's not even something that evidence can apply to. It's just nonsense.

Evolution should be taught on the same basis as all other science, because it reflects the consensus of scientists.

However, what should also be taught is the scientific method and evidence-based thinking.

I have no trouble with evolution, and I'm a practicing Christian.

Creationism may not be falsifiable, but neither is evolution; also: scientific evidence can be applied to both with the same degree of precision (that is none).

Nothing should be taught because it is general consensus, what about the idea that the earth was flat? Everyone used to believe that, but that didn't make it truer, did it?

'Creationism may not be falsifiable, but neither is evolution;'

I've changed my opinion. You are not merely an idiot, you're a lying shitbag.

D'A

Evolution is not falsifiable, because it is based on the concept of uniformitarianism, which can neither be proved nor disproved.

As nic said in another claim, anon, the Logical Fallacy Tag is in another thread.

Anon: uniformitarianism? Is that really a word? You're kidding me right? Ultimately, the theory of natural selection is unprovable for the same reason you can't prove you're not a brain in a jar.

Yes, look it up on Google. (It addresses geology more directly that evolution, but it is still an integral part of evolution.)

Okaaaay. Sure. I'll go do that, as soon as I'm convinced that it matters. Remind me again why you're under the (mistaken) impression that all unprovable assertions are equal?

I never said that.

That's very true, you never said that. You said:
"Creationism may not be falsifiable, but neither is evolution;"

Which under certain circumstances may not mean that you think that there is no difference in the validity of the theories.

However, when you insist that something isn't true because it can't be proven, when there are mounds of evidence suggesting it's true, as you did when you continued with:
"also: scientific evidence can be applied to both with the same degree of precision (that is none)."

The only reasonable thing to think is that you are incapable of accepting evidence of likelihood of truth, and therefore incapable of discriminating between the likelihood of unprovable assertions.

I believe I exist.
I believe in atoms.
I believe the earth is round, and orbits the sun.
I believe you exist.
I believe in that the reason light bulbs glow is because there is a very hot filament in a near vacuum inside them.
I believe that I am not a brain in a jar.
I believe that Jyte is not the product of a billion monkeys jumping up and down on a billion keyboards for a billion years.
I believe that the auroras are the product of high energy particles being propelled through the ionosphere by solar wind.
I believe that George Washington existed.
I believe that language has meaning.
I believe that audible sound is the product of vibrating air waves.
I believe that I am alive because my brain can send signals to my heart to beat.
I believe that the Mayan culture existed.
I believe that if I don't eat I will die.
I believe all men die.
I believe that a radio signal is really just a form of light.
I believe that I will die if I jump off a cliff.
I believe that friction is the product of imperfections in the surfaces being dragged across each other.
These all have likelihood of truth,
But these two statements do not have scientific likelihood of proof:
The earth and all the life on it was created by God in seven days;
The earth and all the life on it was created by billions of years of geologic change and natural selection. The science just isn't there. We can make observations: "there are fossils," but the observation could be explained: an animal died in mud, and over millions of years was turned into rock; or it could be explained as fossilizing in a matter of decades, through rapid burial and high pressure. An analogous example would be this question: "at what temperature does water boil?" A true scientist would not answer that question, because there is no way of knowing. If I were on Mount Everest, water would boil at a much lower temperature than it does at sea level. This is the case with nature. The question is: through what mechanisms did all this come to be? No one can possibly know, because we don't know the conditions under which all this came to be. Granted, evolution is at least a coherent hypothesis, but there is no real evidence for it, because the data that can be found can be interpreted in different ways, giving rise to different, but equally valid hypotheses.

Gah... anon, I hate you right now for making a tautology list.

Meh, I dunno. I'm kind of fascinated by the distortion of his ability to reason critically, and evaluate evidence.

Anon, did you ever get around to reading this bit? If so, please debunk the findings which suggest adaptation in response to environment.

(1) The mutations the article speaks of may be (and there is evidence to say they are) reversible.
[Much like the Galapagos birds, whereas, a bird will not give birth to a fish.]

(2) The article only addresses micro-evolution (natural selection) which I do NOT disagree with.

(3) These mutated bacteria are less able to adapt than their predecessors, which means that if you expose a healthy person to these diseases, they are less likely to get sick than someone in the hospital. (This is how a certain strain of cholera was eradicated in South Africa).

Correction: should have said "lay fish eggs" instead of "give birth to fish."

(1) All evolution is reversible, on a large enough time scale. I fail to see how this is relevant, except to suggest that you're misinformed.

(2) Ah, so you're argument is that this does not scale. Please give your reasons for believing this.

(3) What? This is inconsequential. 2 out of three non-sequiters *is* bad, no mater what Meatloaf sings. To impress upon you how annoying this is, allow me to introduce another talking point.

(4) Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Why does evolution even matter? How does it even affect our day-to-day life?

O right, it doesn't.

It is on a micro-level, because it only addresses the changing of DNA within a chromosome; it fails to address how new chromosomes can be added, which is a totally different process. Micro-evolution is like saying we have this thing 'X' and it will evolve to '2X.' macro-evolution is like saying we will take 'X' and it will evolve to 'X^2'. They are on totally different levels.

You are quite mistaken. There is ample evidence of organisms with a nonstandard number of chromosomes. Is this the only reason you think evolution cannot scale?

Your explanation relying upon the metaphor x can become 2x but not x^2 is worse than useless. if x can become 2x, there is no reason to believe that y cannot become 2y, with y being equal to 2x. I ask again, why do you think this cannot scale?

No, I didn't say extra chromosomes couldn't be added, it’s just that there is no evidence to say that added chromosomes has ever or will ever be an advantage to an organism, in fact, it ALWAYS hurts the organism. If my high school biology memory serves me, I believe men with XXY are more likely to be aggressive and end up in jail. In addition, often people with extra chromosomes can't reproduce, so the mutation won't be passed on. This is the scale problem.

In addition, I am not aware that macro-evolution can be undone. If you had a specific example in mind, please tell me.

Macro evolution *can* be undone, it's just (obviously) incredibly unlikely. Regardless, that has nothing to do with your assertion that Macro evolution is impossible. Please consider making a related claim, as it is completely irrelevant to anything we've been discussing here.

Uh huh. So an argument from incredulity, eh? Certainly there has *never* been selective pressure for men to be more aggressive.

Often != never. Therefore, the fact that people with a nonstandard number of chromosomes are often sterile is irrelevant. You are aware that the theory does expect most mutations to not be beneficial, right?

Please explain why you feel evolution cannot scale, or admit that you have no good reason for believing so.

It is possible to take a coin, flip it one billion times, and end up with heads every flip, but this does not suggest it has ever happened. Or to put it another way: just because it is possible for macro-evolution to occur is not evidence to say it has occurred. Since natural selection has *never* been observed to lead to macro-evolution, we cannot scientifically say that macro-evolution has or has not happened.

****please**** note that last part. I am not arguing that it can be scientifically proven that evolution has not occurred, I am merely saying that it can only be scientifically classified as theory, not fact.

Your last paragraph said it all -- it’s about beliefs, not science.

Awww Fuck it!

Who want's pie?

Me!

I'm lactose intolerant... can I still eat pie?

Actually, a large amount of the produce Americans eat contains a non-standard number of chromosomes. Humans have been breeding plants for extra chromosomes for a long time, because in plants it makes them bigger and containing more of the bits we eat.

The problem with the argument here is a) the argument against evolution is based on someone not actually having studied how it works and b) micro evolution is macro evolution - it's what micro evolution turns into when it happens long enough.

The other issues are that a) evolution is falsifiable, it just hasn't been falsified because there are mountains of evidence and b) if any part of it were proved wrong, it'd be adapted to more accurately reflect reality because that is what science ~is~. We make the best model that we can to fit reality and then keep refining it. That means not every detail of evolution is expected to be accurate, but it's the best model that exists. And it is. And the micro evolution bits and the macro evolution bits have been so well proven that it is ridiculously unlikely there is anything wrong with them. There may be issues with the specifics of how some animals are believed to have evolved, tiny details, but nobody here knows enough to figure that out, most likely.

Let the records show that the belief that won the day was that "pie is pretty damn tasty."

All hail CB and his world-changing "pie is pretty damn tasty" campaign.

I think he may just win the Nobel Prize for Peace. He certainly deserves it more than Al Gore.

(1) Plants that have a non-standard number of chromosomes (navel oranges) do *not* reproduce.
info here

(2) Micro involves keeping the number of chromosomes constant, and macro involves changing them, and there is no record of micro leading to macro; hence, there is no evidence for it.

(3) By definition, if something is falsifiable, it is a theory; so you proved my point.
info here

"(1) Plants that have a non-standard number of chromosomes (navel oranges) do *not* reproduce. "

*Some* plants, with specific non-standard chromosomes.

"(2) Micro involves keeping the number of chromosomes constant, and macro involves changing them. . ."

No it doesn't. Cite please.

"(3) By definition, if something is falsifiable, it is a theory; so you proved my point. "

Can be falsifiable != reasonable to expect it to be falsified.

I hope that those "nose and ears" prostitutes don't smell or shriek, Rolies. Otherwise there would be widespread suicides....

If something is potentially falsifiable it is a hypothesis. If the evidence supports it, we tend to call it a theory.

If something cannot be falsified under any circumstances then it is completely beyond rationality. You can accept it based on faith, but there is no reason to believe something that isn't potentially falsifiable. Usually we refer to things that cannot be falsified as nonsense.

So you are saying what I've been saying, evolution (putting aside all questions of evidence for the moment) should be taught as theory, because that's what it is.

In case you forgot what you originally said, Anon:
"Creationism may not be falsifiable, but neither is evolution; also: scientific evidence can be applied to both with the same degree of precision (that is none)."

Yes. Evolution should be taught as a theory which is falsifiable, *unlike* creationism, which isn't a theory.

Yes. Evolution should be taught as a theory, a theory with a staggering amount of scientific evidence applied to it with a good degree of precision.

Maybe you forgot what we've been going back about, but I haven't.

About the plants -- there's something called grafting. Most plants we eat today have been grafted, NOT bred. And Most of them cannot reproduce.

I didn't feel I needed to go through and list every single plant. I do know that fruit bearing plants that are seedless don't reproduce. As for the others, science has proven that mutations can occur that are desirable (to humans) but these are not desirable for the plants. Just because I like how banana's taste does not mean that banana's are healthier than they were two hundred years ago, banana's were not all clones of each other, and less likely to get diseases. (I read this in a Popular Science article a few years back, I'm sure if you looked for it you'd find it.)

We have never found any evidence to support the conjecture that random mutations can lead to a better organism.

In summary, evolution holds that an organism (at some point in time) develops a non-standard number of chromosomes that will make it more likely for the organism to survive and reproduce.

This very point has not been supported by our observations; in fact, we have only observed cases where the opposite is true.

I am not saying evolution is not a valid scientific theory. I am ONLY saying that like all other scientific theories, it has its MAJOR flaws, and for this reason, to be academically honest, we must teach it as it is.

I am calling only for academic honesty.

hahahahah.

Pull the other one, it has bells on.

Seriously? Your position is that there has never been scientific study showing a mutation in plants that benefits the plant more than humans? Perhaps you mean that plants are rarely bred(by humans) for things which are not beneficial to humans. I should point out that this is evolution by *artificial* selection.

"We have never found any evidence to support the conjecture that random mutations can lead to a better organism."
If I find a study that proves *exactly* that, will you acknowledge it, or will you only be happy with a mutation which improves the reproductive success of an organism where the mutation involves adding chromosomes? Neither?

No. You have most definitely *not* been calling for academic honesty. You've been calling for a complete disregard of evidence, such that the theory of evolution has as much evidence to back it up as creationism. Unless you've changed your position. Have you changed your position? I didn't expect it, and if so, I would like to congratulate you on your ability to absorb new information.

The term 'better' I used must mean 'more reproductive success,' because this is in fact, what evolution conjectures.

Great. It must be.

So, if I find this study, will we be done? Will you be in any way convinced? I'll level with you, I don't generally dig through studies for fun, and I'm not really willing to, unless I get a confirmation that you will be in some way benefited if I do so.

Grafting is a form of reproduction. It is not sexual reproduction, but it is reproduction.

Also, not all bananas are clones of each other. There is a particular species of banana that is the one basically all grocery stores sell, and those are all clones of each other. But just as there are multiple forms of apples, there are multiple forms of bananas. We just don't usually eat the less popular ones.

Yes, seedless fruits reproduce through grafting. On a side note, most redwood trees do not grow from seed. Spreading through non-sexual reproduction is very common among many plants.

*sighs* Oh it's not worth the time to keep going over every detail to educate someone who is clearly too lazy to do the work himself.

Study. Study what you're talking about.

And I have no problem teaching evolution as a theory, because theory is what it is. The point is that we should only teach theories and laws in science classrooms, because that ~is~ science. I'm fine with philosophy classrooms teaching epistomology, and then you can bring up other ideas for how to explain the world. And science classrooms should teach what science is. Which seems to be the fundamental thing people don't understand when they attack evolution.

I actually know a fair bit about bananas. All bananas that people eat nowadays are from triploid plants that have three copies of each of their chromosomes. Bananas from these trees have no seeds. Diploid bananas are much more common in the wild, and do produce fruit with seeds. Banana trees (although they aren't, strictly speaking, trees) reproduce asexually. Little banana trees sprout from the base of the older tree. The older tree dies after producing its bunch of bananas, and the smaller trees take its place. By producing several of these 'daughter plants', the triploid banana reproduces itself even though its fruit has no seeds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid

Oh cool. And the only cool banana fact ~I~ know is that bananas are berries. One of the few berries I enjoy eating.

Jumping into the conversation quite a bit late, there are plenty of plants with non-standard numbers of chromosomes that reproduce sexually. It's just that those non-standard numbers are even instead of odd.

Examples:

The wheat family has x=7 unique chromosomes. Most wild species are normal diploids, having 2n=2x=14 chromosomes. Durum wheat is tetraploid and thus has 2n=4x=28 chromosomes. Bread wheat is hexaploid and has 2n=6x=42 chromosomes. All varieties of wheat are propagated by seed.

Strawberries are even more extreme. They also have x=7 basic chromosomes, but most cultivated species are octaploid (2n=8x=56), and a few are decaploid (2n=10x=70). Although strawberries propagate mostly through runners and cuttings, they are still capable of producing fertile seeds.

Pansies are also octaploid (couldn't find a reference on chromosome count) and propagate entirely by seed.

The mustard/cabbage family Brassica is just completely screwed up. I've mentioned Brassica oleracea elsewhere, but Brassica napus (2n=4x=38) counts rapeseed (Canola) and rutabagas as cultivars. Another, Brassica juncea (2n=4x=36), produces Indian mustard (and thence mustard greens). These are all propagated by seed.

Most crop maize is diploid (2n=2x=20), but some varieties are tetraploid (2n=4x=40). All varieties propagate by seed.

Most crop potatoes are tetraploid (2n=4x=48). They're normally propagated by eye budding, but they can still reproduce sexually.

In animals, polyploidy is much rarer, but occasionally happens. Animals tend to be touchier about such things, due to a much more intricate and fragile gene regulation system than the one plants have.

Chronos Tachyon, we miss you when you're gone. It takes a lot of time and ability to develop a detailed understanding of biology and genetics. I've dabbled, but I just haven't invested in the field to be able to make comments like the above. It's so nice to have someone who really knows what he's talking about able to comment. Some people who have barely dabbled don't recognize that they don't know what they're talking about, and then we need people like you with information.