Evolution is a Theory
Evolution is a change occurring in organisms over time and the minimum time is one generation. Therefore evolutionary change can only be observed among organisms from the same generation and their descendants. Scholars have defined evolution in a number of contradictory statements. Revolution has therefore been critically defined by many evolutionary biologists to try to eliminate this contradiction. It is the change of the properties of organisms populations transcending the lifetime of one individual. The population changes considered evolutionary are the inheritable populations through the genetic material coming from one generation to the next generation. Biological evolution can be substantial or slight Biological evolution embraces all the things from the smallest changes in the different alleles proportion in a given population to the alterations that are successive, i.e. from the earliest proto-organisms to snags, bees, and dandelions (Moran 1993).
Darwinism is basically a theory about biological evolution which was developed by Charles Darwin, it states that all kinds of organisms species arise and develop through the process of natural selection of the small and inherited variations which increase the ability of an individual to survive, reproduce and survive, Darwinism is also referred to as Darwinian Theory. Charles Darwin also proposed the evolutionary theory which generally explains organic change. He developed and used the concept that evolution is ideally brought about by the existence of only three principles variations present in all life forms, heredity and struggle for existence. The scientific ideas body coming from Darwin specifically his evolutionary theory of all plants and animal species by natural selection.
Richard Dawkin tried to explore the world of evolution by showing evolution powers and profusely attacking the creationists theory. Evolutionary theory does a good job of explaining the impetus of the science and philosophy of evolutionary biology (David et al, 2004). Though the systems of biology has achieved advanced levels of complexity over the many years since Darwins time, one would be hard pressed to find a serious biologists having doubts about the existence of evolutionary explanations, at least scientists rooted in biology as opposed to those rooted in other sciences, such as physics. A number of writers and authors have come out very strongly in support of evolution as a fact and not just mere theoretical ideas. In the following paragraphs we critically analyze some of the effective authors on evolution as a fact.
Nicholas Wade, in his book, Evolution All Round, excellently reviews Dawkins book, The Greatest Show on Earth, specifically applauding Dawkins for criticizing creationists who like to dismiss evolution as just a theory (Wade, 2009). Wade strongly insist that the evolution is a theory, the recognition of science as a theory greater than supposition, but by criticizing Dawkins for calling the evolution a true fact. Wade has left out a discussion on referring to evolution as a law, akin to scientists of other fields of science, such as physics, who talk about the law of gravity. Wade has also stated that, the facts are the facts, the laws summarize the regularities, and the theories explain the laws. This is obviously valid in the context of science, meaning that there are actually no laws that can be mutated. Physics in general (for example, Newtons law of gravity) is now viewed as Einstein relativistic physics subsets. It is evident that the current generation does not speak of gravitation theory, in fact the most common term is the law of gravity, ignoring reference to Einstein. In a similar way, evolutionary scholars can teach and write about the law of evolution concept to effectively and efficiently combat one of the anti-evolutionism underpinnings, which is that evolution is just a theory. In understanding and examining evolutionary biological evidence, from a biological sciences perspective, one can clearly deduct that evolution is a theory which can be best explained through the use of law-like statements.
In the philosophy of evolutionary biology, one starts with a hypothesis, rigorously tests it, and then finds evidence that either supports the hypothesis or refutes it. After extensive long term testing, hypothesis can now be referred to as theories, as explained by Wade, who asserted that theories are well supported and intertwined hypothesis (Wade, 2009). Each of the hypotheses can be further tested and modified using new data, analysis or experiments. These are like the gravitation and evolution cases. As Wade writes, theory, no matter how you believe it, holds inherently a small question mark. This is the fact that really makes biological science unique from other subjects like law, religion or medicine (Wade, 2009). To this end, Wade argues that this is one of the evolutionary glories - he asserts that theory without which nothing in biology makes sense. To add to his explanation on the difference between evolutions as science versus evolution as history, we must understand and know that evolutionary explanations to critics of evolution need a strong argument outside of science journals or classroom. Utilizing what could be called the law of evolution is one way in which to satisfy this requirement (Eric, 2009).
Hazel Thompson has critically analyzed Dawkins- The Greatest Show on Earth, in the book Evolution All Around (Thompson, 2006). She says that Dawkins today would be the worlds evolutionary celebrity if there were to be one. She has promoted Dawkins work in bestselling books The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, The Great Show on The Evident of Evolution and The God Delusion. She has established the Natural History museum Center where one is able to view scientists at work in labs conducting experiments, through enormous glass windows. One of the great points he illustrate in the book- The Greatest Show on Earth is that the proof of existence of any of the animals does not hold, but instead countless variations of the theme (Karl, 1959).
Daniel Dennett is the author of Darwins Dangerous Ideas and Breaking the Spell, he reviewed Dawkins The Greatest Show on Earth and charges Dawkin of making philosophical error. He analyses Wades idea of three types of scientific propositions- theories, laws and facts, he compare this idea to Dawkinss assertion that evolution cannot count as fact, it is plainly systematic theory. He concludes that Wades taxonomy is oversimplified because philosophy of biological science is largely more intricate vocabulary to think about the sciences. He finalizes that Dawkins argument on evolution being a theory is firmer and better way of understanding the philosophical issues, the reason being that Dawkin appreciates differentiating fact from theory in two ways first theory is an overall system of prediction and explanation, on the other hand facts are particular reports about processes and local events. Secondly, theory can be used on broader base to suggest that there is possibility for reasonable doubt, on the other hand facts suggest things amply confirmed on the observed evidence that it could actually be accepted without further debate. According to Daniel it is fallacious for opponents to suppose that evolution is a theory then later they say that it is only a theory in that a number of systematic approaches in the domain of natural phenomena like chemical reactions study in terms of molecules and atomic and the heredity stud in line to nucleic acid- are very well supported that they can only count as theories, the biological scientists and the philosophers who have produced books on evolution have made it clear that contemporary theory from Darwin descent have similar status- it too should count as a theory. Darwin is therefore justified in following them (Daniel, 2009).
Alex Rosenberg deeply share Dawkinss frustrations with those opposing the scientific fact of evolution, he strongly asserts that evolution is a theory only. Since the evolution is a theory, it is impossible also to be a fact. In his explanation Darwin gave a true and convincing evidence for evolution, he theorized a process of natural selection to give explanations to how the evolution occurs. Each and every scientific theory have the following components evidence showing patterns in nature and hypothesized natural processes giving explanations to those patterns therefore when the biological scientists speak of evolutionary theory they are actually referring to theory explaining occurrence of evolution through biological processes of natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and gene flow.
Richard Dawkins in his book, The Greatest Show on Earth, told the story of the whale, hippos long lost cousin and the long tongued moth predicting that the moth had to exist to carry on pollination in the 11 inches long nectar of the Madagascan orchid. He also gives the amazing examples of the unintelligent designs that underwent evolution because it was extinct, need older structures to develop new structure. Darwin intelligently and carefully drafted a beautiful experiment showing the evolution of leopards cousin-ship to rabbit. Dawkin explained that there is chain of generations of rabbit son, daughter, mother, grandmother, great grandmother stretched back to evolutionary time. With time these creatures became lesser and lesser similar to rabbit until they reached the earlier stage of mammalian species from which leopards and rabbits both evolved, one would be left wondering whether the hairpin bend in respect to generations forward in real time down the specie lineage leading to leopards. Both the branches and trunks are long gone, though all the species living are single tree twigs.
A critical area of the subject matter where Dawkins clearly elaborated was the dismissal of evolution theory as just theory. As such, evolutionary theory, in both recent times and for over one hundred fifty years, has been undergoing vigorous scrutiny. A significant controversy lies in whether natural selection has the strength to operate at individual levels as well as a group levels. The aging evolutionary theory, predicting that life span is determined by many genes, collapsed recently when top researchers discovered that laboratory organisms life span can be multiplied by changing one gene, the biological scientists can therefore never call evolution a fact if it is still in such kind of force, befitting all the biological scientific theories at research forefront.
If theories are liable to change by nature, it cannot be considered to be absolutely true, the evolutionary theory have never changed over decades now and thats why we say that it is a theory which have stood the test of time. The evolutionary theory is valid because known biological facts support it, it could turn out to be some general theory if it the evolutionary biologists were referring to the life evolution in other planets
Darwin knows well that people refer to evolution just as a theory. He largely regards
Theory as a loosely defined term, mainly because theory connotes the idea of testing a hypothesis (Darwin, 2009). Hence, from the perspective of historical evolutionary theory, evolution is regarded to be a fact. However, it is a scientific fact that evolution is not and cannot be scientifically tested, as science philosophers view it (Bock, 2007)
Richard Brook gave his contribution to Dawkins work he blindly dismisses Dawkins works as simplistic and anachronistic. He posits that Wade and Dawkins do not explain everything, though evolutionary theory is sound, specifically the human kind magnificence, they need to go further into the history and unearth the truth about man and his brains in line to time difference. He further states that creationists have no point of argument in this, the cultural war they put forward contains truth kernel, that a mystery exists how advanced primates from the human history origin speculating about the man origins, as indicated by the anthropological data. Brook comments that it is inexplicable to a high degree when the human brain, evolution product, an ape becoming an artist.
The approach used by the scientists in evolutionary explanations is formulating the theoretical statements that may be applying to the said phenomena, generate deductions from the theories and eventually test the deductions obtained from the theories against the objectives empirical observations. The most important in the scientific methodology is not actually that the said empirical observations are normally made- this resulted to the use of the word objective science.
It is now important that we understand biological diversity. Evolutionary biologists are not only interested in the diversity of life, but the results contributed to biology by studying numerous organisms. Immense breakthroughs have been achieved through the study of model organisms such as the fruit fly, yeasts and the Escherichia coli, to mention just a few. The study and testing of genes was first elucidated in the bacterium Escherichia coli, and the study of many organisms is important because through that we can learn and discover various aspects like physiological adaptations and social behavior evolution among others. Evolution is studied through hundreds of methods, phylogenetic inference methods, paleontological databases, and generally through observing evolutionary changes, among others. Phylogenetic inferences estimate species relationships recent technological advancement in computational and logical methods have enhanced the technology with which this can be done. The principle behind the method is that species sharing a larger number of advanced features come from a more current common ancestor than those species sharing fewer features (Thomas, 2006). Empirically it is obvious that apes, rats, whales and other mammals must be sharing a more recent common ancestor than with lizards, bards among others (Thomas 2006). Phylogenesis is the diversification and development of evolution of a given species or organism group. Phylogenesis is also referred to as phylogeny (Thomas, 2006).
Deductive-nomological explanations is a model that was developed by Carl Hempel by the end of the Second World War to basically derive working explanations from the laws created from observation of a phenomenon regularly which is later used for successful prediction of the laws subsequent re-application. In effect, these laws are phenomena or laws explanations, when such kinds of explanations are used in new events predictions we can prove their validity successfully.
There are a number of N-DEs (Nomological-deductive explanations) explanations to evolutionary biology, forget the H-NEs (Historical-narrative explanations). The International Congress of Systematic and Evolutions has contributed a lot in asserting that evolution is factual and not just theoretical. According to them biological classifications, evolutionary histories and phylogenies are not just theoretical scientific ideas they have been carefully tested empirically. Popper came up with a new approach to philosophy by using scientific methods which were to build the foundation for systematic cladistic approach. Furthermore, the five Darwinian evolution theories are very significant in the current century evolutionary biology. He clearly shows that evolutionary theory is not only historical it is also nomologically deductive (David, William Peter 2004).
Poppers bold totally rejected theoretical testing methods in phylogeny and classification. Though he did not appreciate H-NEs science details and the relationship to N-Des, ND-Es is the standard model for science explanation, coming under several names like nomological, hypothetical-deductive, covering law etc. This was Poppers model and when the Cladists invited use of Poppers idea, they claimed that they were accepting N-DEs in their conclusions and scientific methods. Biological philosophers have considerably stayed away from historical explanations in their scientific explanations. However, there are several historical aspects that cannot be excluded from specific explanations.
Contrary to the philosophers belief, not all scientific explanations can be considered to be nomological. Physics has played a distinctive part in making its subject scope non-historical, which is the right direction, the main prerogative of physicists, which is extending the nomological deductive systems to historical aspects. Many people still dont take this subject of study as the two bases all the science philosophy in... This gives the clear reason why Popper kept to his words that evolutionary theory was never scientific. The explanations of the historical-narrative give understanding to existing attributes of a specific set of objects at a given point in time all of these explanations are dependent on the absolute history of the objects and for it to be regarded scientific they must involve the use of N-DEs. H-NE explained objects and phenomenon are singular they are never universals and have with them definite spatial temporal positions. The H-NEs are always considered on a probabilistic basis and non-deductive basis, with the aim of reaching probable and reasonable explanations for the study objects. One of the most stressed H-NEs aspects is basing of the test on N-DEs that are well tested and pertinent. If the N-DEs are poorly tested or when N-DEs dont exist then it implies that H-NEs will fail scientific scrutiny. Secondly, the explanations are always historical in character, meaning that later events are affected by earlier events. This means that care should be observed when formulating the analysis within the right chronological order of changes and events. Thirdly, a test on objective empirical observations must be tested against H-NEs, which in some cases may involve numerous successive arguments. Fourth, a particular H-NEs acceptance is provided on the basis of probability. H-NEs are not as universal as the N-Des. Fifthly, H-NEs must be clearly stated, and in the right chronological order because of their complexity. Lastly, the more accurately H-NEs are stated the more it becomes difficult to support and test. The H-NEs historical explanation that human beings have actually evolved from the Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee like ancestors) is very difficult to support compared to the one that asserts human beings evolved from bigger beings which in turn is difficult than the one saying that human beings evolved from primate ancestors, etc (David et al, 2004).
Biological explanations for historical-narrative include phylogeny, organism classification and evolution of their phenotypic attributes or genetic characteristics, meaning all things history life related like historical bio-geography. The H-NEs explanations are very difficult to formulate to a hypothesis and finally test them, and since they are basically dealing with singular events, some historical theories of science cannot be the objects test this applies to any other theory either by historical or nomological tests. Both the H-NEs and nomological-deductive explanationsapproaches are scientific under the demarcation criterion of scientific explanations. This is advocated by many philosophers of science, based upon the fact that they are all available for scientific testing against empirical observations. H-N and N-D explanations have differences in many aspects how they are actually expressed, tested and also how they are used in the testing of other theoretical statements. (David et al, 2004). The H-NE tests may be sometimes weak and there should be a clear distinction between weak or unconvincing tests and the valid tests. Most H-NE tests are valid, though relatively poor in the test results, and should not be rejected as invalid tests. A valid H-NEs test is the test having a high ability to separate the correct hypothesis from the incorrect hypothesis. H-NEs are theoretical scientific statements, they are readily available to the tests being done against empirical observations, and tests like these are usually technical and inconclusive. Generally the H-NEs are never tested through testing the falsification validity like in N-Des cases, but normally through confirmation with adding better corroborating support. H-NEs testing is dependent on the chains of argument involving pertinent N-Des, usually with a larger number of assumptions in the background (hypothesis, most being boundary and initial conditions), and finally they must be tested against empirical observations, that is objective. One should directly proceed to the scientific observations, despite the complexity of the argument. The empirical observations should be clearly designated whether confirming or falsifying.
There are two interrelated systems but with different explanations in biology N-DEs versus H-NEs dichotomy, evolutionary explanations versus functional explanations dichotomy. The latter comes from the biological system to the major areas of evolutionary and functional biology. There is no relationship between the two systems of biology explanations. This means that H-NEs are evolutionary explanations wile N-DEs are functional explanations. It is therefore not only significant to carefully characterize N-HEs and H-NEs properties, but to also identify and show the biological parts, especially in evolutionary biology. The N-HEs and H-NEs properties are characterized through the nomological-deductive and the historical narratives respectively (David et al 2004).
N-DEs are the basic standard forms for science explanations and they take this form. Given a specific number of facts (for example beginning and boundary conditions) and set of laws (whether processes, causes or outcomes), both form the explanatory sentence, and may be explanans, specific conclusion, or explanandum(Bock, p. 97) N-DEs answer the occurrences of a particular phenomena equation (explanandum), it then apply to universals (set of phenomenon that are not limited) and doesnt depend on phenomenal object history. Largely, nomological statements are assumed to be true.
If an explanandum generating from the conjunction of a set of facts (boundary and initial conditions) invoked, then it means that the N-DEs are falsified i.e. it is invalid. One must therefore look for the falsification reason (Bock, 2007) When there is a falsification then it means that an explanandum doesnt agree with the objective, empirical, independent observations, though falsification does not mean that the general laws that were applied or used in the explanation are wrong or errors - this is possible. H-NEs examples include oceanic tides clarification using gravity and calls for phyletic natural selection (reproduction of organisms, nonandrum differential survival).
Not all aspects of biological evolution are historical. Phylogenies, Cladification, classifications, dendrograms, and all other evolutionary history explanations of organism groups of a given attribute are H-NEs, these explanations should be presented and tested in very a different way than N-DEs standard in science. Historical aspects of the investigation of evolutionary biology are very difficult unless we add methods that study claims, and the nature of explanations and the validity of conclusions.
Most definitions of biological evolution are insufficient and leave out important forms of change like template and social evolution, and further include invalid criterion that evolutionary change should be generic. Evolutionary theory, as originally proposed by Darwin and advocated by the majority of people today, is not one theory but five bundled independent theories. These theories are further not of identical nature, as four of the five are nomological and one is historical (meaning it posits a common descent theory). Many philosophers in the science field have placed more stock in nomologcal science, which has further complicated matters, in that the biologists have done their best in trying to force evolutionary explanations into one mold or the other. Philosophers have boldly declared the theory of evolution as just that as being theoretical instead of scientific, on the basis that evolution is historical, which carries with it all of the problems associated with proving a hypothesis through scientific criteria. Both historical and nomological scientific theories are differently marked in their respective expression, their coverage and tests both of them must be tested using objective empirical observations none of them can be actually proven and none of them is factual.
For historical evolutionary theories to be scientific their tests must be based on the nomological evolutionary theory. Dendgrpams, phylogenies, classifications clarifications and all other evolutionary history explanation of groups of organisms and of their specific attributes, including space and time distribution are all historical theories all of these explanations need to be presented and then tested in a unique manner other than the nomological scientific theories. For the historical theory, explanations and evolutionary historical theories must be realistically presented and then tested with a sensible confidence degree that one can pose in a given explanation. Historical theories testing against the empirical explanations is very difficult than discovered by biologists, many historical theories joys in a lower confidence degree that most of the biologists estimates.
It is very clear today that evolution is inevitable by assessing the ways through which earth organisms are structured. Each and every organism, even the simplest virus, contains a genome, comprised of millions of base pairs. A number of observations have revealed that each of these pairs is subject to mutations. Each population has its own unique mutation, and if the organisms in a population are isolated from one another, these populations of organisms inevitably develop differences that are dissimilar from each other from generation to generation. This simple kind of scenario would clearly illustrate the evolutionary process. If one further adds the biological processes, such as selection and recombination, this would seem to further support the argument for evolutionary theory. Therefore, the simple existence of genetic programs makes invalid the assumption that the world organisms have constant structures and dont evolve, we dont expect that the human being structure today is similar to the human structure several million years ago. From this perspective it would seem that evolution is a theory and not just a theory or an assumption. However, one must also consider nomological factors that explain evolutionary biology as a theory instead of being factual.
Darwins theory, which is singular in his description, contains five independent theories on evolution (Thomas, 2006). Of the four five theories only one is historical, the other four are nomological phyletic process of evolution, gradualism, speciation and evolution causes. It is of great significance to clearly distinguish between evolutionary history and the processes involved to give explanation to this history. Many biologists look at evolutionary history as a proposition that every species descended from, with a lot or minimal modifications, common or same ancestors, as a fact. This is a point that is overwhelmingly supported by evidence and is regarded as true, from the historical perspective. The body of principles describing evolutionary causal processes like mutation, natural selection and genetic drift make up evolutionary theory (Thomas, 2006).
Should the term evolutionary theory be used anymore (Dawkins, 2009) The fact that there have been evolution going on in the organisms in the earlier days and are occurring today and all the time have been established overwhelmingly that it would rather be rational calling it theory. To be specific, the common descent evolution theories, gradualism, origin of life natural selection and speciation have been very vital in proving that evolution is a theory and it is right to use the term- evolutionary theory.
Evolution is therefore a theory and not a fact can be illustrated by the following points as illustrated by Mark Isaac in his book
The word theory in science context dont mean uncertainty, it means general propositions by coherent groups used as explanations principle for a group of phenomena. Some of the phenomena involved are life started spreading on earth for over 2 billion years ago, forms of life have been changing and diversifying over all of life history, species are related to one another through descent from a few or one common ancestor and finally natural selection is very important factor affecting change of species.
The evolutionary theory have proved itself in the real world situation, its applications are being used in drug discovery, and epidemiology among others
If just a theory were real objection or criticism, creationists could be as well be complaining about other theories like the Newton atomic theory and the gravitational theory. The evolutionary theory is not a lesser theory in respect to the other theories, since even gravitational theory is still receiving big challenges.
It is true that launching attack on evolution does not to some big extent does not help intelligent design, as we know intelligent design is a philosophy, there is no probable test that can be run on to check and test intelligence, we can therefore never consider this a scientific theory. Intelligent design should not even be in the science class curriculums, but instead in philosophy classes.
The evolutionary theory and the common descent were controversial in the scientific arena at some point, today this is not the case. There are debates on evolution works aspects for example all patterns of relationships are not worked on fully. However the scientific community considers common descent and evolution as a theory and not a fact. The scientific creationism can be described as 100 crap because they do not base their criticism on data or scientific reasoning. Most of their ideas are basically based on religious assumptions to attack evolution. Their arguments are merely based on dishonest selective data use, appeals to emotions, scientific principles distortion (thermodynamics second law distortion) among others. And most importantly the scientists creationists lack a testable scientific theory in-place of the current evolutionary theory. Furthermore the creationists dont carry out scientific experiments, their output is to preach to the choir. From micro-evolutionary theory we can deduce that natural selection optimize genetic variation existence in a particular population to increase the reproductive process, a good interpretation framework for the various biological traits and their significance. Macro-evolution on the other hand explains many factors about the functioning of living organisms, which are modified as time goes by through cumulative natural selection. The genetically based traits distribution across groups is elaborated through lineages split and the progressive production of the new traits through mutation. The past details also explain the biology power in explanations. All the plants get their carbon by combining gas to a molecule (which is organic) within their cells, a process called carbon fiction. Plants that use C3 photosynthesis are reported to lose between a third and half of the carbondioxide that they fixed originally. RuBP performs better in oxygen absence but poorly in presence of oxygen. This is clearly because photosynthesis evolved when the oxygen gas was still very little in the atmosphere. Photosynthesis efficiency decreased later with the increase in oxygen amount. The photosynthesis organisms therefore had to compensate to through making lots of the enzymes. RuBP carboxylase is today the most abundant protein on earth partly because it is the least efficient. The species, organisms and ecosystems have a lengthy history, any biological trait explanation should have optimal explanation and ultimate explanation, posing the questions how does it work and what was it modified from respectively (Colby, 2009). Only biological scientists have answered these questions effectively, and the most probable question they are asking, How did we get there
Darwinism is basically a theory about biological evolution which was developed by Charles Darwin, it states that all kinds of organisms species arise and develop through the process of natural selection of the small and inherited variations which increase the ability of an individual to survive, reproduce and survive, Darwinism is also referred to as Darwinian Theory. Charles Darwin also proposed the evolutionary theory which generally explains organic change. He developed and used the concept that evolution is ideally brought about by the existence of only three principles variations present in all life forms, heredity and struggle for existence. The scientific ideas body coming from Darwin specifically his evolutionary theory of all plants and animal species by natural selection.
Richard Dawkin tried to explore the world of evolution by showing evolution powers and profusely attacking the creationists theory. Evolutionary theory does a good job of explaining the impetus of the science and philosophy of evolutionary biology (David et al, 2004). Though the systems of biology has achieved advanced levels of complexity over the many years since Darwins time, one would be hard pressed to find a serious biologists having doubts about the existence of evolutionary explanations, at least scientists rooted in biology as opposed to those rooted in other sciences, such as physics. A number of writers and authors have come out very strongly in support of evolution as a fact and not just mere theoretical ideas. In the following paragraphs we critically analyze some of the effective authors on evolution as a fact.
Nicholas Wade, in his book, Evolution All Round, excellently reviews Dawkins book, The Greatest Show on Earth, specifically applauding Dawkins for criticizing creationists who like to dismiss evolution as just a theory (Wade, 2009). Wade strongly insist that the evolution is a theory, the recognition of science as a theory greater than supposition, but by criticizing Dawkins for calling the evolution a true fact. Wade has left out a discussion on referring to evolution as a law, akin to scientists of other fields of science, such as physics, who talk about the law of gravity. Wade has also stated that, the facts are the facts, the laws summarize the regularities, and the theories explain the laws. This is obviously valid in the context of science, meaning that there are actually no laws that can be mutated. Physics in general (for example, Newtons law of gravity) is now viewed as Einstein relativistic physics subsets. It is evident that the current generation does not speak of gravitation theory, in fact the most common term is the law of gravity, ignoring reference to Einstein. In a similar way, evolutionary scholars can teach and write about the law of evolution concept to effectively and efficiently combat one of the anti-evolutionism underpinnings, which is that evolution is just a theory. In understanding and examining evolutionary biological evidence, from a biological sciences perspective, one can clearly deduct that evolution is a theory which can be best explained through the use of law-like statements.
In the philosophy of evolutionary biology, one starts with a hypothesis, rigorously tests it, and then finds evidence that either supports the hypothesis or refutes it. After extensive long term testing, hypothesis can now be referred to as theories, as explained by Wade, who asserted that theories are well supported and intertwined hypothesis (Wade, 2009). Each of the hypotheses can be further tested and modified using new data, analysis or experiments. These are like the gravitation and evolution cases. As Wade writes, theory, no matter how you believe it, holds inherently a small question mark. This is the fact that really makes biological science unique from other subjects like law, religion or medicine (Wade, 2009). To this end, Wade argues that this is one of the evolutionary glories - he asserts that theory without which nothing in biology makes sense. To add to his explanation on the difference between evolutions as science versus evolution as history, we must understand and know that evolutionary explanations to critics of evolution need a strong argument outside of science journals or classroom. Utilizing what could be called the law of evolution is one way in which to satisfy this requirement (Eric, 2009).
Hazel Thompson has critically analyzed Dawkins- The Greatest Show on Earth, in the book Evolution All Around (Thompson, 2006). She says that Dawkins today would be the worlds evolutionary celebrity if there were to be one. She has promoted Dawkins work in bestselling books The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, The Great Show on The Evident of Evolution and The God Delusion. She has established the Natural History museum Center where one is able to view scientists at work in labs conducting experiments, through enormous glass windows. One of the great points he illustrate in the book- The Greatest Show on Earth is that the proof of existence of any of the animals does not hold, but instead countless variations of the theme (Karl, 1959).
Daniel Dennett is the author of Darwins Dangerous Ideas and Breaking the Spell, he reviewed Dawkins The Greatest Show on Earth and charges Dawkin of making philosophical error. He analyses Wades idea of three types of scientific propositions- theories, laws and facts, he compare this idea to Dawkinss assertion that evolution cannot count as fact, it is plainly systematic theory. He concludes that Wades taxonomy is oversimplified because philosophy of biological science is largely more intricate vocabulary to think about the sciences. He finalizes that Dawkins argument on evolution being a theory is firmer and better way of understanding the philosophical issues, the reason being that Dawkin appreciates differentiating fact from theory in two ways first theory is an overall system of prediction and explanation, on the other hand facts are particular reports about processes and local events. Secondly, theory can be used on broader base to suggest that there is possibility for reasonable doubt, on the other hand facts suggest things amply confirmed on the observed evidence that it could actually be accepted without further debate. According to Daniel it is fallacious for opponents to suppose that evolution is a theory then later they say that it is only a theory in that a number of systematic approaches in the domain of natural phenomena like chemical reactions study in terms of molecules and atomic and the heredity stud in line to nucleic acid- are very well supported that they can only count as theories, the biological scientists and the philosophers who have produced books on evolution have made it clear that contemporary theory from Darwin descent have similar status- it too should count as a theory. Darwin is therefore justified in following them (Daniel, 2009).
Alex Rosenberg deeply share Dawkinss frustrations with those opposing the scientific fact of evolution, he strongly asserts that evolution is a theory only. Since the evolution is a theory, it is impossible also to be a fact. In his explanation Darwin gave a true and convincing evidence for evolution, he theorized a process of natural selection to give explanations to how the evolution occurs. Each and every scientific theory have the following components evidence showing patterns in nature and hypothesized natural processes giving explanations to those patterns therefore when the biological scientists speak of evolutionary theory they are actually referring to theory explaining occurrence of evolution through biological processes of natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and gene flow.
Richard Dawkins in his book, The Greatest Show on Earth, told the story of the whale, hippos long lost cousin and the long tongued moth predicting that the moth had to exist to carry on pollination in the 11 inches long nectar of the Madagascan orchid. He also gives the amazing examples of the unintelligent designs that underwent evolution because it was extinct, need older structures to develop new structure. Darwin intelligently and carefully drafted a beautiful experiment showing the evolution of leopards cousin-ship to rabbit. Dawkin explained that there is chain of generations of rabbit son, daughter, mother, grandmother, great grandmother stretched back to evolutionary time. With time these creatures became lesser and lesser similar to rabbit until they reached the earlier stage of mammalian species from which leopards and rabbits both evolved, one would be left wondering whether the hairpin bend in respect to generations forward in real time down the specie lineage leading to leopards. Both the branches and trunks are long gone, though all the species living are single tree twigs.
A critical area of the subject matter where Dawkins clearly elaborated was the dismissal of evolution theory as just theory. As such, evolutionary theory, in both recent times and for over one hundred fifty years, has been undergoing vigorous scrutiny. A significant controversy lies in whether natural selection has the strength to operate at individual levels as well as a group levels. The aging evolutionary theory, predicting that life span is determined by many genes, collapsed recently when top researchers discovered that laboratory organisms life span can be multiplied by changing one gene, the biological scientists can therefore never call evolution a fact if it is still in such kind of force, befitting all the biological scientific theories at research forefront.
If theories are liable to change by nature, it cannot be considered to be absolutely true, the evolutionary theory have never changed over decades now and thats why we say that it is a theory which have stood the test of time. The evolutionary theory is valid because known biological facts support it, it could turn out to be some general theory if it the evolutionary biologists were referring to the life evolution in other planets
Darwin knows well that people refer to evolution just as a theory. He largely regards
Theory as a loosely defined term, mainly because theory connotes the idea of testing a hypothesis (Darwin, 2009). Hence, from the perspective of historical evolutionary theory, evolution is regarded to be a fact. However, it is a scientific fact that evolution is not and cannot be scientifically tested, as science philosophers view it (Bock, 2007)
Richard Brook gave his contribution to Dawkins work he blindly dismisses Dawkins works as simplistic and anachronistic. He posits that Wade and Dawkins do not explain everything, though evolutionary theory is sound, specifically the human kind magnificence, they need to go further into the history and unearth the truth about man and his brains in line to time difference. He further states that creationists have no point of argument in this, the cultural war they put forward contains truth kernel, that a mystery exists how advanced primates from the human history origin speculating about the man origins, as indicated by the anthropological data. Brook comments that it is inexplicable to a high degree when the human brain, evolution product, an ape becoming an artist.
The approach used by the scientists in evolutionary explanations is formulating the theoretical statements that may be applying to the said phenomena, generate deductions from the theories and eventually test the deductions obtained from the theories against the objectives empirical observations. The most important in the scientific methodology is not actually that the said empirical observations are normally made- this resulted to the use of the word objective science.
It is now important that we understand biological diversity. Evolutionary biologists are not only interested in the diversity of life, but the results contributed to biology by studying numerous organisms. Immense breakthroughs have been achieved through the study of model organisms such as the fruit fly, yeasts and the Escherichia coli, to mention just a few. The study and testing of genes was first elucidated in the bacterium Escherichia coli, and the study of many organisms is important because through that we can learn and discover various aspects like physiological adaptations and social behavior evolution among others. Evolution is studied through hundreds of methods, phylogenetic inference methods, paleontological databases, and generally through observing evolutionary changes, among others. Phylogenetic inferences estimate species relationships recent technological advancement in computational and logical methods have enhanced the technology with which this can be done. The principle behind the method is that species sharing a larger number of advanced features come from a more current common ancestor than those species sharing fewer features (Thomas, 2006). Empirically it is obvious that apes, rats, whales and other mammals must be sharing a more recent common ancestor than with lizards, bards among others (Thomas 2006). Phylogenesis is the diversification and development of evolution of a given species or organism group. Phylogenesis is also referred to as phylogeny (Thomas, 2006).
Deductive-nomological explanations is a model that was developed by Carl Hempel by the end of the Second World War to basically derive working explanations from the laws created from observation of a phenomenon regularly which is later used for successful prediction of the laws subsequent re-application. In effect, these laws are phenomena or laws explanations, when such kinds of explanations are used in new events predictions we can prove their validity successfully.
There are a number of N-DEs (Nomological-deductive explanations) explanations to evolutionary biology, forget the H-NEs (Historical-narrative explanations). The International Congress of Systematic and Evolutions has contributed a lot in asserting that evolution is factual and not just theoretical. According to them biological classifications, evolutionary histories and phylogenies are not just theoretical scientific ideas they have been carefully tested empirically. Popper came up with a new approach to philosophy by using scientific methods which were to build the foundation for systematic cladistic approach. Furthermore, the five Darwinian evolution theories are very significant in the current century evolutionary biology. He clearly shows that evolutionary theory is not only historical it is also nomologically deductive (David, William Peter 2004).
Poppers bold totally rejected theoretical testing methods in phylogeny and classification. Though he did not appreciate H-NEs science details and the relationship to N-Des, ND-Es is the standard model for science explanation, coming under several names like nomological, hypothetical-deductive, covering law etc. This was Poppers model and when the Cladists invited use of Poppers idea, they claimed that they were accepting N-DEs in their conclusions and scientific methods. Biological philosophers have considerably stayed away from historical explanations in their scientific explanations. However, there are several historical aspects that cannot be excluded from specific explanations.
Contrary to the philosophers belief, not all scientific explanations can be considered to be nomological. Physics has played a distinctive part in making its subject scope non-historical, which is the right direction, the main prerogative of physicists, which is extending the nomological deductive systems to historical aspects. Many people still dont take this subject of study as the two bases all the science philosophy in... This gives the clear reason why Popper kept to his words that evolutionary theory was never scientific. The explanations of the historical-narrative give understanding to existing attributes of a specific set of objects at a given point in time all of these explanations are dependent on the absolute history of the objects and for it to be regarded scientific they must involve the use of N-DEs. H-NE explained objects and phenomenon are singular they are never universals and have with them definite spatial temporal positions. The H-NEs are always considered on a probabilistic basis and non-deductive basis, with the aim of reaching probable and reasonable explanations for the study objects. One of the most stressed H-NEs aspects is basing of the test on N-DEs that are well tested and pertinent. If the N-DEs are poorly tested or when N-DEs dont exist then it implies that H-NEs will fail scientific scrutiny. Secondly, the explanations are always historical in character, meaning that later events are affected by earlier events. This means that care should be observed when formulating the analysis within the right chronological order of changes and events. Thirdly, a test on objective empirical observations must be tested against H-NEs, which in some cases may involve numerous successive arguments. Fourth, a particular H-NEs acceptance is provided on the basis of probability. H-NEs are not as universal as the N-Des. Fifthly, H-NEs must be clearly stated, and in the right chronological order because of their complexity. Lastly, the more accurately H-NEs are stated the more it becomes difficult to support and test. The H-NEs historical explanation that human beings have actually evolved from the Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee like ancestors) is very difficult to support compared to the one that asserts human beings evolved from bigger beings which in turn is difficult than the one saying that human beings evolved from primate ancestors, etc (David et al, 2004).
Biological explanations for historical-narrative include phylogeny, organism classification and evolution of their phenotypic attributes or genetic characteristics, meaning all things history life related like historical bio-geography. The H-NEs explanations are very difficult to formulate to a hypothesis and finally test them, and since they are basically dealing with singular events, some historical theories of science cannot be the objects test this applies to any other theory either by historical or nomological tests. Both the H-NEs and nomological-deductive explanationsapproaches are scientific under the demarcation criterion of scientific explanations. This is advocated by many philosophers of science, based upon the fact that they are all available for scientific testing against empirical observations. H-N and N-D explanations have differences in many aspects how they are actually expressed, tested and also how they are used in the testing of other theoretical statements. (David et al, 2004). The H-NE tests may be sometimes weak and there should be a clear distinction between weak or unconvincing tests and the valid tests. Most H-NE tests are valid, though relatively poor in the test results, and should not be rejected as invalid tests. A valid H-NEs test is the test having a high ability to separate the correct hypothesis from the incorrect hypothesis. H-NEs are theoretical scientific statements, they are readily available to the tests being done against empirical observations, and tests like these are usually technical and inconclusive. Generally the H-NEs are never tested through testing the falsification validity like in N-Des cases, but normally through confirmation with adding better corroborating support. H-NEs testing is dependent on the chains of argument involving pertinent N-Des, usually with a larger number of assumptions in the background (hypothesis, most being boundary and initial conditions), and finally they must be tested against empirical observations, that is objective. One should directly proceed to the scientific observations, despite the complexity of the argument. The empirical observations should be clearly designated whether confirming or falsifying.
There are two interrelated systems but with different explanations in biology N-DEs versus H-NEs dichotomy, evolutionary explanations versus functional explanations dichotomy. The latter comes from the biological system to the major areas of evolutionary and functional biology. There is no relationship between the two systems of biology explanations. This means that H-NEs are evolutionary explanations wile N-DEs are functional explanations. It is therefore not only significant to carefully characterize N-HEs and H-NEs properties, but to also identify and show the biological parts, especially in evolutionary biology. The N-HEs and H-NEs properties are characterized through the nomological-deductive and the historical narratives respectively (David et al 2004).
N-DEs are the basic standard forms for science explanations and they take this form. Given a specific number of facts (for example beginning and boundary conditions) and set of laws (whether processes, causes or outcomes), both form the explanatory sentence, and may be explanans, specific conclusion, or explanandum(Bock, p. 97) N-DEs answer the occurrences of a particular phenomena equation (explanandum), it then apply to universals (set of phenomenon that are not limited) and doesnt depend on phenomenal object history. Largely, nomological statements are assumed to be true.
If an explanandum generating from the conjunction of a set of facts (boundary and initial conditions) invoked, then it means that the N-DEs are falsified i.e. it is invalid. One must therefore look for the falsification reason (Bock, 2007) When there is a falsification then it means that an explanandum doesnt agree with the objective, empirical, independent observations, though falsification does not mean that the general laws that were applied or used in the explanation are wrong or errors - this is possible. H-NEs examples include oceanic tides clarification using gravity and calls for phyletic natural selection (reproduction of organisms, nonandrum differential survival).
Not all aspects of biological evolution are historical. Phylogenies, Cladification, classifications, dendrograms, and all other evolutionary history explanations of organism groups of a given attribute are H-NEs, these explanations should be presented and tested in very a different way than N-DEs standard in science. Historical aspects of the investigation of evolutionary biology are very difficult unless we add methods that study claims, and the nature of explanations and the validity of conclusions.
Most definitions of biological evolution are insufficient and leave out important forms of change like template and social evolution, and further include invalid criterion that evolutionary change should be generic. Evolutionary theory, as originally proposed by Darwin and advocated by the majority of people today, is not one theory but five bundled independent theories. These theories are further not of identical nature, as four of the five are nomological and one is historical (meaning it posits a common descent theory). Many philosophers in the science field have placed more stock in nomologcal science, which has further complicated matters, in that the biologists have done their best in trying to force evolutionary explanations into one mold or the other. Philosophers have boldly declared the theory of evolution as just that as being theoretical instead of scientific, on the basis that evolution is historical, which carries with it all of the problems associated with proving a hypothesis through scientific criteria. Both historical and nomological scientific theories are differently marked in their respective expression, their coverage and tests both of them must be tested using objective empirical observations none of them can be actually proven and none of them is factual.
For historical evolutionary theories to be scientific their tests must be based on the nomological evolutionary theory. Dendgrpams, phylogenies, classifications clarifications and all other evolutionary history explanation of groups of organisms and of their specific attributes, including space and time distribution are all historical theories all of these explanations need to be presented and then tested in a unique manner other than the nomological scientific theories. For the historical theory, explanations and evolutionary historical theories must be realistically presented and then tested with a sensible confidence degree that one can pose in a given explanation. Historical theories testing against the empirical explanations is very difficult than discovered by biologists, many historical theories joys in a lower confidence degree that most of the biologists estimates.
It is very clear today that evolution is inevitable by assessing the ways through which earth organisms are structured. Each and every organism, even the simplest virus, contains a genome, comprised of millions of base pairs. A number of observations have revealed that each of these pairs is subject to mutations. Each population has its own unique mutation, and if the organisms in a population are isolated from one another, these populations of organisms inevitably develop differences that are dissimilar from each other from generation to generation. This simple kind of scenario would clearly illustrate the evolutionary process. If one further adds the biological processes, such as selection and recombination, this would seem to further support the argument for evolutionary theory. Therefore, the simple existence of genetic programs makes invalid the assumption that the world organisms have constant structures and dont evolve, we dont expect that the human being structure today is similar to the human structure several million years ago. From this perspective it would seem that evolution is a theory and not just a theory or an assumption. However, one must also consider nomological factors that explain evolutionary biology as a theory instead of being factual.
Darwins theory, which is singular in his description, contains five independent theories on evolution (Thomas, 2006). Of the four five theories only one is historical, the other four are nomological phyletic process of evolution, gradualism, speciation and evolution causes. It is of great significance to clearly distinguish between evolutionary history and the processes involved to give explanation to this history. Many biologists look at evolutionary history as a proposition that every species descended from, with a lot or minimal modifications, common or same ancestors, as a fact. This is a point that is overwhelmingly supported by evidence and is regarded as true, from the historical perspective. The body of principles describing evolutionary causal processes like mutation, natural selection and genetic drift make up evolutionary theory (Thomas, 2006).
Should the term evolutionary theory be used anymore (Dawkins, 2009) The fact that there have been evolution going on in the organisms in the earlier days and are occurring today and all the time have been established overwhelmingly that it would rather be rational calling it theory. To be specific, the common descent evolution theories, gradualism, origin of life natural selection and speciation have been very vital in proving that evolution is a theory and it is right to use the term- evolutionary theory.
Evolution is therefore a theory and not a fact can be illustrated by the following points as illustrated by Mark Isaac in his book
The word theory in science context dont mean uncertainty, it means general propositions by coherent groups used as explanations principle for a group of phenomena. Some of the phenomena involved are life started spreading on earth for over 2 billion years ago, forms of life have been changing and diversifying over all of life history, species are related to one another through descent from a few or one common ancestor and finally natural selection is very important factor affecting change of species.
The evolutionary theory have proved itself in the real world situation, its applications are being used in drug discovery, and epidemiology among others
If just a theory were real objection or criticism, creationists could be as well be complaining about other theories like the Newton atomic theory and the gravitational theory. The evolutionary theory is not a lesser theory in respect to the other theories, since even gravitational theory is still receiving big challenges.
It is true that launching attack on evolution does not to some big extent does not help intelligent design, as we know intelligent design is a philosophy, there is no probable test that can be run on to check and test intelligence, we can therefore never consider this a scientific theory. Intelligent design should not even be in the science class curriculums, but instead in philosophy classes.
The evolutionary theory and the common descent were controversial in the scientific arena at some point, today this is not the case. There are debates on evolution works aspects for example all patterns of relationships are not worked on fully. However the scientific community considers common descent and evolution as a theory and not a fact. The scientific creationism can be described as 100 crap because they do not base their criticism on data or scientific reasoning. Most of their ideas are basically based on religious assumptions to attack evolution. Their arguments are merely based on dishonest selective data use, appeals to emotions, scientific principles distortion (thermodynamics second law distortion) among others. And most importantly the scientists creationists lack a testable scientific theory in-place of the current evolutionary theory. Furthermore the creationists dont carry out scientific experiments, their output is to preach to the choir. From micro-evolutionary theory we can deduce that natural selection optimize genetic variation existence in a particular population to increase the reproductive process, a good interpretation framework for the various biological traits and their significance. Macro-evolution on the other hand explains many factors about the functioning of living organisms, which are modified as time goes by through cumulative natural selection. The genetically based traits distribution across groups is elaborated through lineages split and the progressive production of the new traits through mutation. The past details also explain the biology power in explanations. All the plants get their carbon by combining gas to a molecule (which is organic) within their cells, a process called carbon fiction. Plants that use C3 photosynthesis are reported to lose between a third and half of the carbondioxide that they fixed originally. RuBP performs better in oxygen absence but poorly in presence of oxygen. This is clearly because photosynthesis evolved when the oxygen gas was still very little in the atmosphere. Photosynthesis efficiency decreased later with the increase in oxygen amount. The photosynthesis organisms therefore had to compensate to through making lots of the enzymes. RuBP carboxylase is today the most abundant protein on earth partly because it is the least efficient. The species, organisms and ecosystems have a lengthy history, any biological trait explanation should have optimal explanation and ultimate explanation, posing the questions how does it work and what was it modified from respectively (Colby, 2009). Only biological scientists have answered these questions effectively, and the most probable question they are asking, How did we get there
Categories:
0 коммент.:
Отправить комментарий