Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Are all theories facts?

janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 6:50:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Or just the Theory of Evolution? If so, we can stop doing science, because we already know everything.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 7:12:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 6:50:57 PM, janesix wrote:
Or just the Theory of Evolution? If so, we can stop doing science, because we already know everything.

I doubt you are very sincere with this question, or still have no understanding of theory, the scientific method or what is "known".
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 7:21:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 7:12:23 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/29/2015 6:50:57 PM, janesix wrote:
Or just the Theory of Evolution? If so, we can stop doing science, because we already know everything.

I doubt you are very sincere with this question, or still have no understanding of theory, the scientific method or what is "known".

No, I am merely pointing out the silliness of calling a theory a fact. Theories are open for debate, and are subject to change as new facts are discovered.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 7:24:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 7:21:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/29/2015 7:12:23 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/29/2015 6:50:57 PM, janesix wrote:
Or just the Theory of Evolution? If so, we can stop doing science, because we already know everything.

I doubt you are very sincere with this question, or still have no understanding of theory, the scientific method or what is "known".

No, I am merely pointing out the silliness of calling a theory a fact. Theories are open for debate, and are subject to change as new facts are discovered.

Sorry for being a bit snide. There is nothing more tiresome than trying to work through this definition again and again.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 7:28:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In only one case can I say that the questioner about "theory" got anywhere near understanding or changing their stubborn cling to "evolution is just a theory". They still were unconvinced that the theory was true, but at least they got some understanding of why the objection is wrong.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 8:05:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 6:50:57 PM, janesix wrote:
Or just the Theory of Evolution? If so, we can stop doing science, because we already know everything.

Take a look at this explanatory link: http://www.livescience.com...

Understand the scientific meanings of the words, and the scientific method. The information detailing these is pretty easy to find on the web.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 10:33:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Facts" are not absolute. All facts are subject to review and update. There are different levels of fact.

Laws are observations about how things work.

Conjectures are proposed explanations for how things work.

Hypotheses are proposed explanations that can be experimentally tested.

Theories are explanations that have been tested and confirmed with evidence.

So yes, all theories are fact. They are not foolproof, and must still be modified occasionally, but they are still the strongest type of fact.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 12:47:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 6:50:57 PM, janesix wrote:
Or just the Theory of Evolution? If so, we can stop doing science, because we already know everything.

Scientifically, a fact is an independently-confirmed observation using best-practice empirical methods, while an (established) theory is an accepted, best-practice predictive mechanism.

Evolution is a suite of genetic processes by which a species changes in response to changing environment. These processes and their outcomes have been observed and induced so much that evolutionary change is now accepted as fact. Such changes are known to be very powerful -- they can change organs, introduce new organs, and create whole new species, and this has been observed.

Evolution is also a predictive biostatistical model by which biological diversity itself can be understood. That model is subject to contest and change as new data emerge, however certain parts of the model are very stable. Among them, due to the wealth and correlation of independent observations, the following are accepted beyond reasonable doubt:

* The common ancestry of species;
* The development of complexity and diversity from simpler species;
* The biological origin of humanity from this process; and
* The time over which this has occurred.

'Accepted beyond reasonable doubt' means that arguing contrarian positions based on principle, methodology or conjecture is no longer acceptable. You have to supply a superior, evidenced, fully detailed and more predictive position using best-practice scientific methods, or your position can be dismissed as ignorant, obstructive and irrelevant.

Areas still being explored:
* The rate at which some species developed;
* A comprehensive list of mechanisms by which species can diversify and develop;
* Causes of historical extinctions; and
* The origin of the first species.

I hope that may be useful.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 12:51:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 6:50:57 PM, janesix wrote:
Or just the Theory of Evolution? If so, we can stop doing science, because we already know everything.

Like many phenomena, there is a fact of evolution and there is a theory of evolution. The fact is the observed phenomenon. The theory is a modeled explanation for how the phenomenon happens. The fact of evolution is that the frequency of alleles in a given population changes over time. The theory of evolution explains how this happens: mainly mutation and natural selection. Investigating evolution and the diversity of life has led to numerous important conclusions, the most contentious of which is that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.
8to5
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 5:49:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 6:50:57 PM, janesix wrote:
Or just the Theory of Evolution? If so, we can stop doing science, because we already know everything. : :

Don't worry. No one has ever seen a bowl of primordial soup turn into a chimpanzee before turning into a human being. Without these observations, it's all a guessing game.
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 2:42:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 6:50:57 PM, janesix wrote:
Or just the Theory of Evolution? If so, we can stop doing science, because we already know everything.

A theory is an explanation of facts. With evolution science, natural selection is the theory that explains the facts of evolution. Theories are regarded as rigorous and true until disproven. They can also be modified as more information (but obviously not info which would disprove it) comes to light.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 1:50:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 7:21:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/29/2015 7:12:23 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/29/2015 6:50:57 PM, janesix wrote:
Or just the Theory of Evolution? If so, we can stop doing science, because we already know everything.

I doubt you are very sincere with this question, or still have no understanding of theory, the scientific method or what is "known".

No, I am merely pointing out the silliness of calling a theory a fact. Theories are open for debate, and are subject to change as new facts are discovered.

You are confused about the difference between facts and theories and how those terms apply to science. Don't feel alone, many people share your confusion...

There are both facts and theories relating to evolution. Some facts related to evolution include:

There is a genetic hierarchy that relates different species. For example humans and chimps share 98% commonality, humans and fish are in the 80% range, and humans and insects are in the 30s.

There is a fossil hierarchy that seems to relate different species both temporal and geographically. Using these fossils we can create a rough outline of the distribution, change, and even extinctions of various life forms.

Organisms adapt to their environment. While difficult to observe in slow reproducing organisms we have numerous examples in life forms such as bacteria.

Random mutations cause changes in organisms.

And on and on...

Now the theories of evolution take these facts and try to come up with general rules that explain them. This is where we get things like natural selection, survival of the fittest, and so on. Together, these form the general "theory of evolution". It currently is the only scientific explanation we have that explains all the observed facts we have gathered. As such it is considered scientifically "true".

Hopefully that clears up some of your confusion.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 6:43:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Evolution is a theory that isn't factual.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 6:49:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 1:50:54 AM, Floid wrote:
At 10/29/2015 7:21:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/29/2015 7:12:23 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/29/2015 6:50:57 PM, janesix wrote:
Or just the Theory of Evolution? If so, we can stop doing science, because we already know everything.

I doubt you are very sincere with this question, or still have no understanding of theory, the scientific method or what is "known".

No, I am merely pointing out the silliness of calling a theory a fact. Theories are open for debate, and are subject to change as new facts are discovered.

You are confused about the difference between facts and theories and how those terms apply to science. Don't feel alone, many people share your confusion...

There are both facts and theories relating to evolution. Some facts related to evolution include:

There is a genetic hierarchy that relates different species. For example humans and chimps share 98% commonality, humans and fish are in the 80% range, and humans and insects are in the 30s.

There is a fossil hierarchy that seems to relate different species both temporal and geographically. Using these fossils we can create a rough outline of the distribution, change, and even extinctions of various life forms.

Organisms adapt to their environment. While difficult to observe in slow reproducing organisms we have numerous examples in life forms such as bacteria.

Random mutations cause changes in organisms.

And on and on...

Now the theories of evolution take these facts and try to come up with general rules that explain them. This is where we get things like natural selection, survival of the fittest, and so on. Together, these form the general "theory of evolution". It currently is the only scientific explanation we have that explains all the observed facts we have gathered. As such it is considered scientifically "true".

Hopefully that clears up some of your confusion.

Crap !
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 8:07:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/30/2015 12:47:56 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/29/2015 6:50:57 PM, janesix wrote:
Or just the Theory of Evolution? If so, we can stop doing science, because we already know everything.

Scientifically, a fact is an independently-confirmed observation using best-practice empirical methods, while an (established) theory is an accepted, best-practice predictive mechanism.

Evolution is a suite of genetic processes by which a species changes in response to changing environment. These processes and their outcomes have been observed and induced so much that evolutionary change is now accepted as fact. Such changes are known to be very powerful -- they can change organs, introduce new organs, and create whole new species, and this has been observed.

Introduction of new organs has been observed? Proof, please.

Evolution is also a predictive biostatistical model by which biological diversity itself can be understood. That model is subject to contest and change as new data emerge, however certain parts of the model are very stable. Among them, due to the wealth and correlation of independent observations, the following are accepted beyond reasonable doubt:

* The common ancestry of species;
* The development of complexity and diversity from simpler species;
* The biological origin of humanity from this process; and
* The time over which this has occurred.

'Accepted beyond reasonable doubt' means that arguing contrarian positions based on principle, methodology or conjecture is no longer acceptable. You have to supply a superior, evidenced, fully detailed and more predictive position using best-practice scientific methods, or your position can be dismissed as ignorant, obstructive and irrelevant.

Areas still being explored:
* The rate at which some species developed;
* A comprehensive list of mechanisms by which species can diversify and develop;
* Causes of historical extinctions; and
* The origin of the first species.

I hope that may be useful.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 8:09:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 2:42:22 AM, Fly wrote:
At 10/29/2015 6:50:57 PM, janesix wrote:
Or just the Theory of Evolution? If so, we can stop doing science, because we already know everything.

A theory is an explanation of facts. With evolution science, natural selection is the theory that explains the facts of evolution. Theories are regarded as rigorous and true until disproven. They can also be modified as more information (but obviously not info which would disprove it) comes to light.

I agree. Theories are explanations, not facts.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 8:17:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 1:50:54 AM, Floid wrote:
At 10/29/2015 7:21:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/29/2015 7:12:23 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/29/2015 6:50:57 PM, janesix wrote:
Or just the Theory of Evolution? If so, we can stop doing science, because we already know everything.

I doubt you are very sincere with this question, or still have no understanding of theory, the scientific method or what is "known".

No, I am merely pointing out the silliness of calling a theory a fact. Theories are open for debate, and are subject to change as new facts are discovered.

You are confused about the difference between facts and theories and how those terms apply to science. Don't feel alone, many people share your confusion...

There are both facts and theories relating to evolution. Some facts related to evolution include:

There is a genetic hierarchy that relates different species. For example humans and chimps share 98% commonality, humans and fish are in the 80% range, and humans and insects are in the 30s.

There is a fossil hierarchy that seems to relate different species both temporal and geographically. Using these fossils we can create a rough outline of the distribution, change, and even extinctions of various life forms.

Organisms adapt to their environment. While difficult to observe in slow reproducing organisms we have numerous examples in life forms such as bacteria.

Random mutations cause changes in organisms.

And on and on...

Now the theories of evolution take these facts and try to come up with general rules that explain them. This is where we get things like natural selection, survival of the fittest, and so on. Together, these form the general "theory of evolution". It currently is the only scientific explanation we have that explains all the observed facts we have gathered. As such it is considered scientifically "true".

Hopefully that clears up some of your confusion.

Not confused at all. A theory is not "true", it is just an educated guess/explanation of known facts.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 8:41:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 8:07:35 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/30/2015 12:47:56 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Evolution is a suite of genetic processes by which a species changes in response to changing environment. These processes and their outcomes have been observed and induced so much that evolutionary change is now accepted as fact. Such changes are known to be very powerful -- they can change organs, introduce new organs, and create whole new species, and this has been observed.

Introduction of new organs has been observed? Proof, please.

In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Thirty years later, international team of researchers has shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com...]

These changes are attributable to different food source availability. Pod Kopiste has few plants, and the lizards mostly ate insects. But Pod Mrcaru, which had never seen these lizards before, has abundant nutritious plants, and the lizards switched diet. Thirty-five years later, their stomachs now featured fermentation chambers to assist with plant digestion. These chambers are created by new structures called cecal valves -- structures not found in the control population, so this is a morphological innovation. Other less innovative but still significant changes included greater size and bigger bite strength; and changes to socialisation were also reported -- all consistent with evolutionary adaptation.

That a carnivore's stomach could become a herbivore's stomach so rapidly is rare, and invited scientific commentary.

However it's attributable to what's called a Founder Effect [https://en.wikipedia.org...], whose principles have been understood for some 70 years. A Founder Effect can sometimes cause evolution to proceed more rapidly than usual, and that seems to have occurred in this case, due to the small number of breeding pairs. A Founder Effect doesn't increase the changes that can occur, but can reduce the time needed for them to occur, and so it can accelerate genetic drift, and produce speciation in itself.

Other examples of Founder Effect-based speciation have been observed -- though not all produce new organs. It's possible that the vestigial organs found in man and other animals may have also occurred in this way.

I hope that may be useful.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 8:51:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 8:17:26 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/1/2015 1:50:54 AM, Floid wrote:
Now the theories of evolution take these facts and try to come up with general rules that explain them. This is where we get things like natural selection, survival of the fittest, and so on. Together, these form the general "theory of evolution". It currently is the only scientific explanation we have that explains all the observed facts we have gathered. As such it is considered scientifically "true".

Hopefully that clears up some of your confusion.

Not confused at all. A theory is not "true", it is just an educated guess/explanation of known facts.

Actually, Jane, in a field constantly improving best practice, evolution is the best, most consistent, coherent, comprehensive, accurately predictive and precise explanation of biodiversity and biological history humanity has ever produced. So it's a reliable, actionable, standard model -- i.e. operationally true, unless and until a more comprehensive and accurate model comes along.

And the components of the model themselves have all been observed, so the foundations are factual even if the model details change in future. So any future model will have to include mutation, selective reproduction, founder effects, known causes of speciation, and morphological and genetic nesting. So it's likely to look a lot like modern evolutionary theory regardless.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 9:05:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 8:41:07 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/3/2015 8:07:35 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/30/2015 12:47:56 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Evolution is a suite of genetic processes by which a species changes in response to changing environment. These processes and their outcomes have been observed and induced so much that evolutionary change is now accepted as fact. Such changes are known to be very powerful -- they can change organs, introduce new organs, and create whole new species, and this has been observed.

Introduction of new organs has been observed? Proof, please.

In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Thirty years later, international team of researchers has shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com...]

These changes are attributable to different food source availability. Pod Kopiste has few plants, and the lizards mostly ate insects. But Pod Mrcaru, which had never seen these lizards before, has abundant nutritious plants, and the lizards switched diet. Thirty-five years later, their stomachs now featured fermentation chambers to assist with plant digestion. These chambers are created by new structures called cecal valves -- structures not found in the control population, so this is a morphological innovation. Other less innovative but still significant changes included greater size and bigger bite strength; and changes to socialisation were also reported -- all consistent with evolutionary adaptation.

That a carnivore's stomach could become a herbivore's stomach so rapidly is rare, and invited scientific commentary.

However it's attributable to what's called a Founder Effect [https://en.wikipedia.org...], whose principles have been understood for some 70 years. A Founder Effect can sometimes cause evolution to proceed more rapidly than usual, and that seems to have occurred in this case, due to the small number of breeding pairs. A Founder Effect doesn't increase the changes that can occur, but can reduce the time needed for them to occur, and so it can accelerate genetic drift, and produce speciation in itself.

Other examples of Founder Effect-based speciation have been observed -- though not all produce new organs. It's possible that the vestigial organs found in man and other animals may have also occurred in this way.

I hope that may be useful.

Thank you. Another great example of how an organism gets exactly the right mutation it needs to survive and adapt.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 9:06:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 9:05:42 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/3/2015 8:41:07 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/3/2015 8:07:35 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/30/2015 12:47:56 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Evolution is a suite of genetic processes by which a species changes in response to changing environment. These processes and their outcomes have been observed and induced so much that evolutionary change is now accepted as fact. Such changes are known to be very powerful -- they can change organs, introduce new organs, and create whole new species, and this has been observed.

Introduction of new organs has been observed? Proof, please.

In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Thirty years later, international team of researchers has shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com...]

These changes are attributable to different food source availability. Pod Kopiste has few plants, and the lizards mostly ate insects. But Pod Mrcaru, which had never seen these lizards before, has abundant nutritious plants, and the lizards switched diet. Thirty-five years later, their stomachs now featured fermentation chambers to assist with plant digestion. These chambers are created by new structures called cecal valves -- structures not found in the control population, so this is a morphological innovation. Other less innovative but still significant changes included greater size and bigger bite strength; and changes to socialisation were also reported -- all consistent with evolutionary adaptation.

That a carnivore's stomach could become a herbivore's stomach so rapidly is rare, and invited scientific commentary.

However it's attributable to what's called a Founder Effect [https://en.wikipedia.org...], whose principles have been understood for some 70 years. A Founder Effect can sometimes cause evolution to proceed more rapidly than usual, and that seems to have occurred in this case, due to the small number of breeding pairs. A Founder Effect doesn't increase the changes that can occur, but can reduce the time needed for them to occur, and so it can accelerate genetic drift, and produce speciation in itself.

Other examples of Founder Effect-based speciation have been observed -- though not all produce new organs. It's possible that the vestigial organs found in man and other animals may have also occurred in this way.

I hope that may be useful.

Thank you. Another great example of how an organism gets exactly the right mutation it needs to survive and adapt.

More than that, it's another example of how adaptation occurs through natural processes.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 9:12:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 8:51:25 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/3/2015 8:17:26 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/1/2015 1:50:54 AM, Floid wrote:
Now the theories of evolution take these facts and try to come up with general rules that explain them. This is where we get things like natural selection, survival of the fittest, and so on. Together, these form the general "theory of evolution". It currently is the only scientific explanation we have that explains all the observed facts we have gathered. As such it is considered scientifically "true".

Hopefully that clears up some of your confusion.

Not confused at all. A theory is not "true", it is just an educated guess/explanation of known facts.

Actually, Jane, in a field constantly improving best practice, evolution is the best, most consistent, coherent, comprehensive, accurately predictive and precise explanation of biodiversity and biological history humanity has ever produced. So it's a reliable, actionable, standard model -- i.e. operationally true, unless and until a more comprehensive and accurate model comes along.

And the components of the model themselves have all been observed, so the foundations are factual even if the model details change in future. So any future model will have to include mutation, selective reproduction, founder effects, known causes of speciation, and morphological and genetic nesting. So it's likely to look a lot like modern evolutionary theory regardless.

That's beside the point. It is still a theory, regardless of how "good" you think it is.
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 9:21:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 9:06:52 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/3/2015 9:05:42 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/3/2015 8:41:07 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/3/2015 8:07:35 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/30/2015 12:47:56 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Evolution is a suite of genetic processes by which a species changes in response to changing environment. These processes and their outcomes have been observed and induced so much that evolutionary change is now accepted as fact. Such changes are known to be very powerful -- they can change organs, introduce new organs, and create whole new species, and this has been observed.

Introduction of new organs has been observed? Proof, please.

In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Thirty years later, international team of researchers has shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com...]

These changes are attributable to different food source availability. Pod Kopiste has few plants, and the lizards mostly ate insects. But Pod Mrcaru, which had never seen these lizards before, has abundant nutritious plants, and the lizards switched diet. Thirty-five years later, their stomachs now featured fermentation chambers to assist with plant digestion. These chambers are created by new structures called cecal valves -- structures not found in the control population, so this is a morphological innovation. Other less innovative but still significant changes included greater size and bigger bite strength; and changes to socialisation were also reported -- all consistent with evolutionary adaptation.

That a carnivore's stomach could become a herbivore's stomach so rapidly is rare, and invited scientific commentary.

However it's attributable to what's called a Founder Effect [https://en.wikipedia.org...], whose principles have been understood for some 70 years. A Founder Effect can sometimes cause evolution to proceed more rapidly than usual, and that seems to have occurred in this case, due to the small number of breeding pairs. A Founder Effect doesn't increase the changes that can occur, but can reduce the time needed for them to occur, and so it can accelerate genetic drift, and produce speciation in itself.

Other examples of Founder Effect-based speciation have been observed -- though not all produce new organs. It's possible that the vestigial organs found in man and other animals may have also occurred in this way.

I hope that may be useful.

Thank you. Another great example of how an organism gets exactly the right mutation it needs to survive and adapt.

More than that, it's another example of how adaptation occurs through natural processes.

You think it's an accident that it got just he right mutation it needed?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 9:34:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 9:21:51 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/3/2015 9:06:52 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/3/2015 9:05:42 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/3/2015 8:41:07 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Thirty years later, international team of researchers has shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com...]
Thank you. Another great example of how an organism gets exactly the right mutation it needs to survive and adapt.
More than that, it's another example of how adaptation occurs through natural processes.
You think it's an accident that it got just the right mutation it needed?
You'd have to ask the lizards who didn't. :p
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 11:11:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 6:50:57 PM, janesix wrote:
Or just the Theory of Evolution? If so, we can stop doing science, because we already know everything.

do you even know what are the differences between a scientific theory and a fact?
have you ever heard of the theory of gravity?
i would recommend looking them up and actually learning about things before you continue to show off your ignorance
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 3:02:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 8:17:26 PM, janesix wrote:
Not confused at all. A theory is not "true", it is just an educated guess/explanation of known facts.

1. A scientific theory is not just an educated guess. A hypothesis might be considered an educated guess but a scientific theory has been examined in light of observations and demonstrated correct as best we know. It started as an educated guess but has moved on to the only known explanation we have of a range of observations.

2. A theory is "scientifically" true which means while not absolute, it is true as best we know. You are attempting to apply the idea of "absolute" true to science which has no use for the "absolute" part.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 3:26:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 6:49:06 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 11/1/2015 1:50:54 AM, Floid wrote:
At 10/29/2015 7:21:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/29/2015 7:12:23 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/29/2015 6:50:57 PM, janesix wrote:
Or just the Theory of Evolution? If so, we can stop doing science, because we already know everything.

I doubt you are very sincere with this question, or still have no understanding of theory, the scientific method or what is "known".

No, I am merely pointing out the silliness of calling a theory a fact. Theories are open for debate, and are subject to change as new facts are discovered.

You are confused about the difference between facts and theories and how those terms apply to science. Don't feel alone, many people share your confusion...

There are both facts and theories relating to evolution. Some facts related to evolution include:

There is a genetic hierarchy that relates different species. For example humans and chimps share 98% commonality, humans and fish are in the 80% range, and humans and insects are in the 30s.

There is a fossil hierarchy that seems to relate different species both temporal and geographically. Using these fossils we can create a rough outline of the distribution, change, and even extinctions of various life forms.

Organisms adapt to their environment. While difficult to observe in slow reproducing organisms we have numerous examples in life forms such as bacteria.

Random mutations cause changes in organisms.

And on and on...

Now the theories of evolution take these facts and try to come up with general rules that explain them. This is where we get things like natural selection, survival of the fittest, and so on. Together, these form the general "theory of evolution". It currently is the only scientific explanation we have that explains all the observed facts we have gathered. As such it is considered scientifically "true".

Hopefully that clears up some of your confusion.

Crap !

Such a compelling argument. Did you think of it all by yourself?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 3:31:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 6:50:57 PM, janesix wrote:
Or just the Theory of Evolution? If so, we can stop doing science, because we already know everything.

Facts are points of data that are indisputable.

Theories are collections of substantiated, well evidenced and predictive models that explain the facts.

In this respect; it is indisputable that things evolve. And Evolution is also a well substantiated, well evidenced and predictive model that explains this, and much more evidence in a wider and more all encompassing explanation of life on earth.

Why is this even an issue?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 3:48:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 6:50:57 PM, janesix wrote:
Or just the Theory of Evolution? If so, we can stop doing science, because we already know everything.

A theory is a proposed natural law that is offered as a subject for scientific testing. If it passes scientific testing, then it becomes a fact -- or at least as close to a certainties as science ever determines. So Newton's Laws are theories proposed by Newton which have withstood scrutiny. The problem is that scientists are not consistent about renaming "theories" into "laws" after they have been verified. Einsteins General Theory of Relativity is still called a theory, even though it passed tests that should have elevated it to being the Law of General Relativity. Darwin's Theory of Evolution should have been renamed the Law of Evolution, but "theory" happened to stick. On the other hand, String Theory really is just a theory.

All the named laws of nature have only been proved within certain bounds, because it is impossible to test them under all possible circumstances. Newton's Laws are valid for ordinary use, but they turned out not to work at speeds approaching the speed of light. So no scientific "fact" is proved to be universally true, only true under the conditions tested. Lack of 100% certainty does not make them equivalent to theories that cannot even be tested, like creationism. One distinction is that tested theories are useful for design and prediction, while untestable ones are not useful for those purposes.