RIP Allan SandageFollow

The word you're looking for is hypothesis. Everything we know to be scientifically provable today started out as a hypothesis. The fact that some current hypotheses cannot be tested, and hence, proven, does not make them magical exotic events invented by people with no authority on the matter. It just makes them untested. At least the hypotheses of dark matter, hyper-inflation, etc... are rooted in sound, repeatable scientific observations elsewhere, and do not rely entirely on some 100% faith-based belief in a magical entity that is all-knowing and all-powerful.

Edited, Nov 30th 2010 10:41am by BrownDuck

I'm familiar with the word hypothesis. It's the scientific version of a poo-flinging monkey writing mad libs with a word board and a healthy dose of fiber. The problem is that they are not presented to the public, to schoolchildren, as untested/untestable. They are presented as the way it is. Is it more likely that up to 80% of the mass of the universe is some exotic unobservable substance or that we simply don't know how gravity works on a massive scale? Personally I find it infinitely more likely that we don't know what the f'uck we, as a species, are talking about when it comes to spans of distance on the order we are referring to.

There is no more evidence for Dark Matter/Dark Energy than there is for an all powerful god speaking a universe in to existence. There are observations that can be misinterpreted to come up with a hypothesis in one direction or another, but no direct evidence exists at all, in either case. I know it pains the enlightened mind to consider it, but it is a fact, none the less.

I usually just get by on looks and charm, so making someone smile is a nice change of pace.

Dark energy and dark matter haven't been directly observed, but there are phenomenon that point to some other form out there that we haven't worked out yet. For instance, spiral arms in spiral galaxies don't seem to fall apart. Our current understanding of physics doesn't explain why the rotational motion of spiral galaxies don't continuously stretch the spiral arms until they fall apart: instead, arms "keep up" with the motion of the galactic core in a way that is inexplicable. This is one observation I can name off the top of my head.

However, this doesn't actually prove what dark matter/energy is or how it works, it just shows us that there is a gaping hole in our current science that we need to fill to understand physics at the extremely macro level. Scientists have named those gaps in our knowledge "dark energy" and "dark matter." When we understand them, they will probably have better names.

My whole point in writing out the points for and against the big bang theory was to show how tenuous it is.

Let me put this in betting terms: if all theories of how the universe began were horses, I think most scientists would agree that the big bang is the most likely of all of them to win. Unlike a horse race, however, the theories we have now are NOT the only horses in the race, so to speak. And I think most scientists would agree it is very likely that one which we do not now know will "win".

Hypotheses are the foundation of science. Without establishing a question and potential solution, there is nothing to study, no scientific research to be conducted. But scientists are very rarely confident about any of their own scientific claims-- when they are confident about a claim, it is usually about something that has been studied out the *** by lots of other scientists, people who earn deference even among experts.

Your issue is with the way hypotheses/theories are presented with confidence? You can scarcely blame scientists for that. Scientists talk to eachother with an a priori understanding of what is known or not yet known. It gets tiring to modify every claim with, "Possibly, maybe, it could be, probably..." particularly when everyone already understands that you're operating on assumptions. Scholarly publications state their assumptions explicitly and generally move on, but if the assumptions are standard fare for the profession, they're often taken as given.

So it seems your problem is more with journalists and textbooks anyway. Typically, the best you can expect from them is a "Scientists think" intro to the general idea. It's not considered good or interesting writing to modify every claim with, "Possibly, maybe, it could be, probably...". And when you're a grade school kid who is so far removed from even beginning to understand the complex mechanisms underlying the prominent theories, deferring to the expertise of authorities is simply the best you can ask for.

If the state of things is that our biggest problem is the confidence we instill in the people who we should be most confident in, then I think we're ok.

Because no one has presented a better idea that is supported by enough evidence to make it plausible. On the other hand, we do have records of prehistoric periods of simpler life (with a lack of advanced life) followed by progressively more advanced life and ways to see how today's simpler life forms are connected.

You don't "abandon" something just to prove how open-minded and willing to see new things you are. You do it because there's an actual good reason to change direction.


The eye is a terrible example. It's the sort of thing you find on Christian Creationist blogs next to "the camel has no ancestors!" and "How come we can hold bananas!?" as reasons to discount evolution.



There's more detailed analysis available, of course, but that serves well enough for this. My only immediate critique is that the first eyespots may have been (more likely in my amateur opinion) used to locate light rather than evade predators. Species of euglena (single celled organisms containing chloroplasts) have extremely primitive eyespots which could be used to find locations of maximum sunlight for photosynthetic generation. The reason we don't have fossil chains of evolving eyeballs is because (A) most of the evolution occurred in simpler creatures that don't fossilize well to begin with and (B) Eyeballs in general don't fossilize under the best of circumcstances. We do have a plethora of existing species of varying degrees of complexity and antiquity that show the various phases of ocular development.

Edited, Nov 30th 2010 3:24pm by Jophiel

You have to keep in mind that evolutionary science as a field is all of decades old, aiming to observe something that takes centuries at least. So centuries from now, we'll probably have an answer. But the original researchers will be dead! The researchers of that era will have to use evidence and recorded data from our era to substantiate their findings. And to some extent, that's how we test macro-evolution-- we don't have recorded data, but we do have evidence in the form of fossils and genetic data.



Two things. First of all, we know that micro evolution happens, and that macro evolution is at least possible. It does stand to reason that millenia of micro evolutions will cover a substantial portion of macro evolutions, but we rely on fossil records for most of this data, and the problem with fossil records is that we only get very brief snapshots of the flora and fauna of that time. To use a loose analogy, it'd be like trying to guess how you got to be a middle-aged man based only on a recent picture and a baby picture. We know it happened, but without pictures of every developmental step, we have to wonder, "How can this be the same person? How can we know that it is?"

The other thing is that we have to remember that evolution happens as a result of random mutations, and that those random mutations survive through fitness (but sometimes they don't-- it's just a probability). There is potential for a new species to be created rapidly through crossbreeding and/or mutation. We can never hope to show this in a fossil record because it's not a gradual change. We can only observe it when it happens. Crossbreeding in particular becomes less plausible with time-- most modern species are too differentiated to crossbreed now, but may not have been in an era of less biodiversity. There's the other possibility that (basically) a mother gives birth to a genetically mutated litter who breed and propagate a significantly different offspring. Of course, mutations like these happen all the time-- usually they're bad mutations that don't improve survivability. But occasionally they promote survivability, or at least don't hurt it. Generally this is microevolution, but theoretically it could cause macroevolution-- it would just be such a rare event that there's no way we could hope to see it within our lifetime, a lifetime in which evolutionary science has only just begun.

It could have been better written. I know what they meant (every step of advancement between single-celluar eyespot organelles and the modern "eye" had to be of some advantage) and even that can be nitpicked since neutral changes could just exist without impact, but it was written for laypeople.

Edited, Nov 30th 2010 3:29pm by Jophiel

Of course. We're on the same page here. The problem is that very very few fossil records have been found that support the theory itself. Certainly, far far fewer than what would be predicted. We should be finding tons of fossils showing intermediate stages between various otherwise similar species, but we don't. That's a tremendous problem. How you "test" macro-evolution is you predict that a species with properties X,Y, and Z should have existed between Species A and Species B. Then you look for what you predicted.

We haven't found nearly enough. Not even remotely enough if this has been going on constantly over the time periods in question for every single species that exists now and has ever existed. What we do find occasionally are completely new species, but not with the predicted properties, which makes the puzzle worse since there's now more extinct species we keep finding for which we *also* can't trace sufficient paths back to common ancestors.



No one's doubting micro-evolution (at least not me). And no one's saying that macro-evolution isn't possible. We just don't have sufficient evidence showing it happened. It's like waking up in a field in your car. You can assume you drove your car to get there, but you don't know for sure. Then you walk back and you find that the road is washed out and has been for months. And there are no tire tracks. And the engine doesn't work. And the tires are missing. And a row of undamaged bushes completely covers the only routes you could have driven. And the more you look, no matter how much you assume that you must have driven your car to get here, you keep seeing a complete lack of any indication that you *could* have driven here. You assume you must have because you're in a car, but that's all you have.


That's kinda where macro-evolution is right now. And at some point, you perhaps start to think that maybe you were abducted by aliens and then beamed down to the field or something, because as much as there's no evidence at all for that, it at least explains what you are seeing.



Yup. Still a problem though. Our "snapshots" aren't just start/finish for each species. They are time based. If you took a snapshot only once every 50 years and looked at just the photos of one person, you'd have a huge gap. But not every person is born at the exact same time, in the same way that every member of an evolving species will presumably not be at the same stage at the same exact time. If you looked at all the pictures of all the people taken during each of those picture taking events 50 years apart, you'd have all the evidence of "people" at all stages of age between birth and old age.

We don't see the equivalent in the fossil record. And that's a problem.



That's valid. So if we restrict ourselves only to random mutations, it explains the lack of fossil record. Um... But there are other issues with the random mutation angle as well (as you presumably know).



Yeah. Here's the problem though. We can't really find eras with "less biodiversity". Obviously conditions affect which sorts of species are dominant over time, but within those time frames there's still a hell of a lot of diversity. So we're left with the problem that in order to "miss" the formation of that much diversity, it must happen really really fast. But if it happened that fast, we'd see far more evidence of it happening all around us all the time. But all we can see is relatively minor changes to existing species (adaptations mostly). Nothing that would make something no longer be identifiably a member of the same species.



Sure. Absolutely possible. But still basically just a guess, right?

Edited, Nov 30th 2010 2:30pm by gbaji

Sure. If someone says it's "proven science", they're wrong to do so. It's definitely supported by a shit-ton of data and, as a broad framework, is as close as you're going to get without restarting the planet and watching a lot of television as you want for otters to evolve.


I don't know what you even think this means. Yeah, the idea supported by the evidence to be, by far, the most plausible answer is indeed treated as the idea which has the overwhelming support of evidence behind it. Including a stronger body of evidence than that possessed by "A wizard did it".


Based on what, exactly? This is the sort of empty rhetoric you get when you just want to whine and *****, not make a real point. Yeah, sure, there's been falsified "finds" in the field of evolutionary science. But aside from getting some headlines and make some guys breathless, stuff like Piltdown Man or Brontosaurus haven't actually changed the direction the science was already headed in based on the enormous wealth no non-"falsified" (or false) data. Making vague claims of "There's false data and they all cling to it!" doesn't help your case, it just makes you sound ignorant and petulant.


I fully admit that I was bored with your post by that point and was skimming. My error.

I note, with great amusement, that threads on the topic back in the day never had you saying "Yeah, but what about...?" until fairly recently. To wit, from 2004,

No comments there bout how it's propped up by dogmatic scholars using falsified data and is little more than the default aside from "musta been God". I have my own theories on this but, sadly, they'll never be tested well enough to satisfy my critics.

Edited, Nov 30th 2010 5:29pm by Jophiel

I'm not going to argue the problem of gaps in the fossil record (at least that it is a problem)-- I think most wouldn't, certainly no evolutionary biologist I know or know of. I only ever hear about how we might be able to test these hypotheses.

However, when it becomes ID vs. evolution, we're not pitting one problematic explanation versus another equally problematic explanation. We're pitting one problematic explanation versus one with more holes than a sponge.



It's funny you should mention that, because I'm one of few on this side of things (that being the educated, nonreligious side) who has the belief that ID is perhaps more plausible than evolution. The difference being that I think ID by a god is absurd, but ID by aliens is totally plausible. There are probably worlds hundreds of thousands of years more advanced than us with plenty of reason for having colonized a planet either purposefully or accidentally, and this explains away every problem of evolutionary theory (on this planet, at least-- we would expect to see it on a "home" planet) without relying on the floundering religious explanations. However, I also accept that there's much more value and possibility for studying evolutionary biology, anthropology, etc. at this point in history than in looking for or to our alien progenitors.

I have consistently supported evolution as a science Joph. I have even consistently argued that it should be taught in school and that creationism should *not* (at least not in science class). However, I have *also* argued that using evolution as a means to debunk or attack people's religious beliefs is equally absurd. Science doesn't work that way.

My point here is that evolutionary theory absolutely is the best explanation we currently have that is itself derived by and supported by scientific method. But that's not to say that it is perfect, or that is has all the answers, or that it means that other alternative explanations must be wrong. Specifically (and I agree with Kachi completely here) once you get past the elements who use ID as just another way to push creationism (from both sides btw), there is an actual legitimate purpose to the study. While I've always argued the Occam's Razor counter to the assumption of planet seeding instead of evolution (ie: to debunk it), there's nothing to discount the possibility that life evolves as predicted, but just not on this planet.


As I alluded to earlier, if you can't find any obvious explanation as to how you got somewhere, then you must at least entertain the possibility of a non-obvious means. So even though you can't see the helicopter that transported you to said field (or alien spaceship), something must have transported you and your car to that field without having traveled along the ground. There are lots of possible explanations, and dogmatically insisting that since you can't see an aircraft you must have gotten there by ground doesn't really help.


Obviously, the danger with any sort of ID research is that creationists will jump on it as support for "their" beliefs. However, that alone doesn't invalidate the research. And you never know. One day they might just find some alien genetic programmer's signature scrawled out in a DNA sequence somewhere. Wouldn't that be interesting!

Edited, Nov 30th 2010 6:36pm by gbaji