(no subject)

[tinpra]

So while icon trolling (have I mentioned that I have a "problem" when it comes to icons?) I ran across this one: . I don't know who it's by. I admit that I don't particularly care or think that knowing its maker is relevant.

Correct me if I'm wrong (b/c I know someone will) but evolution, macro-evolution to make things absolutely plain, is a theory. A theory, as described by Meriam-Webster online is, among other things: "5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena" You can check out the other definitions, but I believe this is the one that fits best. On the other hand, gravity is a scientific law, or fact (if you look up law, I suggest definition 6a.). Now, admittedly, micro-evolution happens every day. Micro-evolution is also a fact, or a law. But just because micro-evolution is true does not necessarily mean that macro-evolution is true. I think that, in any other case, if you were to make a statement like "Because tinpra's uses lj to do quizzes and memes, all other people with the prefix tin- us lj to do quizzes and memes" you'd be laughed out of serious discussion, not unless you had proof. And, yes, I know there is "proof" Trust me, I've never failed a science test when it comes to the subject, and I can fight a pro-evolutionary stance with the best of them.

But then why isn't it a law? What keeps macro-evolution and micro-evolution from being flat-out the Law of Evolution, capital L capital E? Any scientists/science geeks on my flists or just floating by who can answer that for me in a clear, concise (or even rambly, quite honestly) non-ranty way? Ask lieueitak, I'll give thoughtful, calm discussion to the most hot-button topics, above min-rant notwithstanding, if we can be civilized about it.

Comments

How Appropriate!

[lieueitak.livejournal.com]

This is perfect, given that I've been writing a House fic based on scientific laws and concepts. :o)

I think the idea of a law vs. a theory at this point in the scientific world is a... fuzzy one at best. These days, Einstein's theory of general relativity is used more often than Newton's Law of universal gravitation. Newton's Law is still used though because it's a). simple and b). is a great approximation in most cases. In this case, the theory is the more accurate concept.

So why isn't that made into law? I would say there are two things at work. One, there are scientists out there who don't want to somehow... lessen what Newton did. They are deeply rooted in tradition -- and like the scientists who wanted to keep Pluto a planet, they didn't want to change what they'd grown up learning to be true.

And two, there are scientists who are extremely cautious about calling things "law." With our technological capabilities as they are, we are aware of the other galaxies and what not out there - even though we can't really study them as well as we want. And I think people are more hesitant to call things laws now, because, simply put, who knows what might hold true in other parts of the universe?

Of course, those things - tradition and caution - are not mutually exclusive. And with evolution, in some ways, I think all of these little factions within the scientific community are amplified. If only because it brings in issues of people's faith and it's something that would take a looooooooong time to test in order to prove always true.

Personally, I don't see the problem with the icon. I know you're taking it from a religious viewpoint, but that's not to say the person who created the icon or used the icon is thinking that way. You said it yourself -- evolution on a small scale, like say in fruit flies from one generation to the other, is a fact. Just as the apple falls from the sky, this observation is a fact, making the concept of evolution not just a theory but also a reality in that circumstance. Does that make sense at all?

Re: How Appropriate!

[tinpra.livejournal.com]

This is perfect, given that I've been writing a House fic based on scientific laws and concepts. :o)

That's me, always soapboxing on the issues that interest you most, Katya :D

Anywho...I don't have a problem with the icon, per se. When I mentioned my icon problem, I meant it in more of an addiction kind of way. Like how I have 448 icons (two short of 500!). My problem-problem was with the idea behind the icon, and the, perhaps perceived, condescension applied to anyone who doesn't agree. It's as if to say that by taking it "from a religious viewpoint," as you said, I have simultaneously taken my brain out of my head and put it on a shelf.

Part of my point, and I admit I left this more question-raising than point-making, is that there is more out there than evolution even if you're not particularly religious. There has to be. If there's not then what is the scientific world shuffling its feet about? Why not take the rules and laws that apply to micro-evolution and press them upon macro-evolution?

I really should have bugged my coworker who's going into grad school for evolutionary psychology. If anyone should be an expert on the macro-evolution side of things, t'is he.

But to round out....yes your points do make sense. I don't think they're enough for a whole, though.

Re: How Appropriate!

[lieueitak.livejournal.com]

there is more out there than evolution even if you're not particularly religious. Of course there is, and I don't think the theory of evolution tries to explain everything. Even if you accept that we all evolved from basic, single celled organisms, there's still the question of how those cells came to be and exist, etc. Obviously there's more to a science-based theory than evolution itself. Which is why the whole creationism vs. evolution is sort of... problematic, because the latter doesn't necessarily try to explain everything. Where as creationism obviously does set out to explain planets and what not.

Why not take the rules and laws that apply to micro-evolution and press them upon macro-evolution? Well, for me, anyway, that answer is pretty obvious. While we can observe changes in fruit flies from generation to generation, it's kind of hard to look at evolution on an incredibly large scale. Even if 5 or 6 generations of scientists could see evolution throughout their lifetimes, it would still be hard to say definitively that that mechanism was at work throughout the earth's existence. After all, 5 or 6 generations of scientists could show that the earth has a favorable climate for organisms to thrive. But obviously, it would be wrong to extrapolate from that and say the earth had never been through an ice age.

I'm not saying that religious beliefs of the scientists themselves don't have any part in keeping evolution from being a "law." I'm sure it does for some of them. But I think there are other reasons, rooted solely in the science itself, that makes them cautious as well.

I don't think they're enough for a whole, though. You have me confused now. My points aren't enough for a whole what?

Re: How Appropriate!

[tinpra.livejournal.com]

brain still no function. reply later.

Re: How Appropriate!

[lieueitak.livejournal.com]

Okey dokey. Although I hope you're talking about your brain and not mine. :-P

Re: How Appropriate!

[tinpra.livejournal.com]

lol...my brain of course. I was lucky to get that lackluster sentence out. we'll see what I can must tomorrow although, since I did in fact look at your reply before I decided there weren't enough functioning brain cells to reply, I don't think I have a whole lot to comment on. we'll see what I think tomorrow. :)

Re: How Appropriate!

[tinpra.livejournal.com]

Finally the stars, my brain cells, and my guilty conscious have aligned:

Which is why the whole creationism vs. evolution is sort of... problematic, because the latter doesn't necessarily try to explain everything. Where as creationism obviously does set out to explain planets and what not.
I've never gotten the impression from evolutionaries (now isn't that a strange term) that they weren't trying to explain everything, or felt that given enough time and study the theory could be broadened to explain everything. I agree that a creationist point of view says that we have all of how everything happened figured out in one package. I don't know...is that what's bothersome to folks? That creationist say that "This is how it is." and scientific folks, despite using definite language, feel like there's no way of knowing such a Big Thing? Then again, how does such a Big Thing happen out of, essentially, nowhere?

I really feel like I need to get a better standpoint on how scientists view evolution from my coworker. Especially since he's going to grad school after this week. If I haven't spoken to him the next time you see me, poke me.

Even if 5 or 6 generations of scientists could see evolution throughout their lifetimes, it would still be hard to say definitively that that mechanism was at work throughout the earth's existence
I can see what you're saying there. And I had a point to make but I've lost it. Argh! Someday this will come back to me. Probably at an inopportune moment. Like in the bathroom.

You have me confused now. My points aren't enough for a whole what?
Honestly, this far removed from it, I don't know what I was trying to say either, but I wasn't commenting on your points, per se. I think I was alluding back to evolutionary theory not being big enough to cover all its bases. Like where did the primordial ooze come from, or the stuff that stars are made of, or who/what made space, etc. At least that's where I think I was going with that last one.