This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
I'm not sure I get this. Why should I accept the "Established Hypothesis" definition as a definition I should use in general practice? This article seems to be pushing the idea that I should be using the fallacy of equivocation, rather than attempting to use clear, concise language. Why should I attempt to use two senses of the same word, when we have other words clarify the distinctions between the shades of meaning of the words? — CobraA1 21:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
In addition, I really would like a good word to mean "absolute certainty." It's useful to talk about such things, and the idea that we have to muddy up our conversations with less precise meanings just because there's a spat about one area of science seems pretty absurd. — CobraA1 21:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me first set out some brief (and hence sketchy) philosophical issues which this article ignores.
An important difference between the way that 'fact' and 'theory' are used in many scientific contexts relates to causal explanations. That new species have come into existence over time and other species have disappeared is either a true or a false fact. It can be verified by observation (and logical deductions from those observations). Wikipedia does, and should, reflect back the expert consensus that this is a true fact.
The theory of evolution proposes a cause for this fact (along with other facts.) However, as first most clearly set out by David Hume, there's a problem with verifying causal explanations. As scientists we can observe that A has always been followed by B, either naturally or in experiments when we initiate A. But to say that A causes B is to say something more than that A is always followed by B (all other things being equal); it's to say that it's impossible for A to occur without B following, so that for ever in the future, B will always follow A. We can't verify this by observation.
It's for this reason that Popper proposed 'falsificationism' as a better description of scientific activity: we put forward causal explanations (=theories) which can be falsified but never proved/verifiied. However, although this may be a satisfactory account of the 'logic' of the scientific method, as Kuhn showed, it's not what actually happens. The lead to the Kuhn article says that "Scientists can never divorce their subjective perspective from their work; thus, our comprehension of science can never rely on full "objectivity" - we must account for subjective perspectives as well". It's characteristic of the actual behaviour of scientists that they aggressively defend their current theories (=causal explanations); it's been said that scientific theories only disappear with the death of their adherents. Now this is a perspective which I believe is thoroughly verifiable in Wikipedia terms from the literature on the philosophy of science. The problem is that many of those rightly defending the Darwinian theory of evolution seem to want to hide this perspective from view within their 'walled garden', in case it gives comfort to the creationists. The danger is that it just echoes the stridency and distortion of the other side. In as much as the theory of evolution proposes a universal causal explanation, it could in future be replaced by another theory which explains the all the currently known facts and more. There's not the slightest sign at present that it will be, but it could be.
I'm not sure that the current article can be improved, but I'll continue to think about it. Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I am consistently bemused by how wooly the thinking is on evolution, and this article is no exception. It seems futile trying to reason with "believers", but since there is scope for discussion here - this section in the article is worth considering. In my opinion it should be re-written truthfully. It is both misleading and unscientific.
The section compares evolution with gravity.
"for example fruit flies, the process of change from generation to generation — that is, evolutionary change — has been observed in the laboratory.[19] The observation of fruit fly populations changing over time is also an example of a fact. So evolution is a fact just as the observations of gravity are a fact."
- this statement (and the reference given) rests on especially engineered lab processes geared to producing such a result. Fine - but it is no more meaningful to say evolutionary change has been "observed" than it would be to put a load of fruit flies in a box and declare that evolutionary change has NOT been observed. What a scientist should say is, evolutionary change has been engineered. That is true. Back to the excerpt above: evolutionary change has been engineered... "so evolution is a fact". It simply does not follow. The "fact" of evolution requires an engineer to create it, and without the engineer there is no fact. (I am NOT pushing creationism!! To be absolutely clear, I am saying there is NO engineer outside of the lab.)
Is this trivial? No it is profound, due to what flows from it. In the article we have a table sumarising the matter. It reads:
If we are going to be at all scientific in this article then these comments need to be stated properly. To be meaningfully compared to the statement about gravity, what the Evolution statement should say is: "The prevalence of different traits DOES NOT CHANGE from generation to generation in populations of fruit flies, unless engineered to do so."
This is a true statement, and it says the opposite of what the current statement says, which as it stands, is pure speculation.
Where's the rational, scientific thinking? 86.181.45.121 ( talk) 03:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This article does a very brave effort to be neutral, but I do not think it is very successful. Overall, the information it gives is mostly objective, with a few exceptions, but reading between the lines still gives the impression of someone trying to make a point. This is suitable for an amateur blog, but not for an encyclopedia. An article from an encyclopedia should be no more ambitious in trying to convince people than a dictionary, or at least, it should not show such ambitions. Even the Oxford American Dictionaries call it "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed […]".
The quote from Douglas Futyuma represents quite accurately how I think we should regard "fact", as "a hypothesis we may assume to be true." However, this is just one perspective, and is not a dictionary explanation. A fact is "a truth known by actual experience or observation." So far, all our observation shows with regards to evolution is that there have been different species in a pattern which would fit in evolution, but people may always put forward alternate explanations. It is not possible to directly observe evolution.
I do not want to get philosophical here. Of course nothing is certain, and indeed everything does point at the fact that evolution occurs. If we can't trust the indications to evolution, we can't trust our own memory either, as the indications are basically the "memories" of the biosphere. The problem is that there's still billions who believe otherwise, and if we want to give them a chance of conquering their bigotry, we need to be exemplary of open-mindedness, and present the theory of evolution to them as nothing but a hypothesis, a thought experiment, as there will otherwise be no way that they will consider it: if we give the impression we try to convince them that evolution is a fact, they will be far too frightened to lose their immortal souls to the fires of perdition to listen. It is demeaning, yes, but it's the only way. If we really care about helping them, then we have to empathize with how they think.
It may feel like a humiliation to represent the theory of evolution as a mere thought experiment, but does it really matter? Basically, we might see everything as a thought experiment. Why should we be so proud as to think we know the truth, even if we do know the truth? Even if it is the truth, seeing even the truth itself as a thought experiment will help us to keep an open mind. At the least, it will expand our imagination by making us consider other possibilities, even if they aren't true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernovic ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, precisely. That apples fall to the ground is an observable fact, the Newtonian model is one theory which explains why and how this occurs. The change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next (one meaning of the term "evolution") is an observable fact. Natural selection, genetic drift and the modern evolutionary synthesis (other meanings of the term "evolution") are theories which explains why and how this occurs. Gabbe ( talk) 10:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm seriously telling you that it is one of the valid responses. The word "theory" in common usage differs from its meaning in science. But the everyday meaning of the word "evolution" also differs from its exact meaning in science. I assume what you're trying to say is that "Evolution (that is, the modern evolutionary synthesis) is not a fact (that is, an incontestable truth), it's a theory—and there's nothing wrong with that". While true, this is only a partial response. The word "evolution" is not exclusively used to refer to the modern evolutionary synthesis, neither in common everyday usage nor in science. This article brings up several aspects of this issue, including what the term "theory" means and what the term "evolution" means. Gabbe ( talk) 14:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
@All. Firstly it it not just my concern but also the concern of Hypernovic and others previously that the tone of this article is wrong.
Maybe there is also some misunderstanding about the point that I am making. According to Gabbe, he word 'evolution' can be used to mean 'The change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next... an observable fact'. Now I do not dispute that, but I doubt than anyone else does either. This is not what I understand that creationists are arguing about, or are there really some people who argue that the observed change in allele frequencies does not actually exist?
Even if there are people who argue that there has never been any observed change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next, it is extremely confusing and unhelpful to call this 'evolution' in the context of this discussion, better just to call it just 'an observed change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next'. Using the word evolution to refer to this specific observation and also to the modern evolutionary synthesis in a discussion about whether evolution is a fact or not is just confusing the issue. That is what creationists thrive on. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 15:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you telling me that this article is just about the fact that the word 'evolution' can be used to mean either one of several theories, such as modern evolutionary synthesis, or it can refer to actual observations such as 'an observed change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next'? That is not what the quotes sources are about.
Regarding specific changes, I would start with the complete removal of the bogus and completely unsourced argument about gravity. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 16:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Please stop bringing up gravity. I told you I do not object if you change the stuff on gravity; who else here has voiced a real objection to your correcting the stuff on gravity? I even suggested a way you could modify it to be accountable to physicists and still to make an important point in the context of this article. Hogbin, at Wikipedia anyone can edit. Please tell me: WHo has reverted your editing the material on gravity? That you keep bringing it up on the talk page rather than editing the article suggests you prefer to argue rather than to edit.
You wrote: "According to Gabbe, he word 'evolution' can be used to mean 'The change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next... an observable fact'. Now I do not dispute that, but I doubt than anyone else does either. This is not what I understand that creationists are arguing about, or are there really some people who argue that the observed change in allele frequencies does not actually exist?" You do not understand what creationists are arguing about. There really are people who question this. I have seen them argue on street corners, and have read their letters to the editor of newspapers. They are real. Now, the basic definition of evolution is a change in allele frequencies. Over time this can lead to speciation. Speciation has been observed and is another one of these "facts." There are different varieties of creationism; one rejects all of this, including changes in gene frequencies. Others (including Intelligent Design) accept that changes in gene frequency exist but that this cannot result in speciation; they call changes in gene frequency "microevolution" and speciation "macroevolution" and say that the former happens but not the latter. However, you would be mistaken if you really concluded from this that this article is arguing over semantics. According to the theory of evolution, species are statistical phenomena; the difference between one species and another is a difference in gene frequencies. Changes in gene frequencies therefore can result in speciation. This is observable and has been observed, and so is part of the "evolution as fact." And this is something that creationists regularly reject. It is highly contentious in the United States and increasingly in the UK. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Not "fine." I specifically wrote that there are people who do not believe that changes in gene frequencies exist. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have just read the article by Gregory, which talks about gravity and evolution and I think it is excellent. If only we could adopt the same scholarly tone in this article I would have no problem with it.
The section on gravity makes a very good job of explaining what a theory is in physics and I agree with it completely. For the most part it uses exactly the same terms that I am suggesting, 'observations' and 'theories'. In this context he uses the word 'fact' to refer to 'observations repeatedly confirmed and considered accurate' and also to refer to theories, such as common descent, which have been universally accepted by the scientific community. I have no argument with any of this.
On the other hand, the paper does not support the table likening evolution to gravity that we have in this article. This does nothing but confuse and I propose to delete it. I will also try some editing of the article to make things clearer. I would support any attempt to make the tone and content of this article conform to the standard set by Gregory. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It has been claimed on this talk page that the word 'evolution' can be used to mean one of the many observations concerning the subject, such as, 'The change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next'.
I believe that this use of the word is not a significant use and concentration on this usage serves only to confuse the reader. It is not the meaning of the word in the quoted sources that I have read. What sources do we have using the word 'evolution' in this way? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Further to what I have said above, the lead currently says, 'The "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in the genetic material of a population of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experiments'. This is not the point being made by the quotes sources. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 13:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have had a look through the archives of this article and, as in addition to my many comments, I have found persistent comments from other editors complaining that the article has the wrong focus. Here are some examples:
1) There is no such thing as a "scientific fact." There are only theories; those which are very likely and those which are less likely. The entire basis of this article is a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Andrew Nutter Talk | Contribs 01:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
2) Of course when we say "evolution is a fact" we do not just mean we can or have observed trait differences in the lab from one generation to the next. Of course something much more profound is meant by this (otherwise why would creationists get upset!). In the article itself Dawkins, Futyuma, Campbell, Muller, National Academy of Sciences are completely clear about this. "Evolution is a fact" implies we are cousins of monkeys and that there is no doubt about it.
That's much more like it. That is what all the fuss about! The opening paragraph is in great danger not reflecting this properly. — Axel147 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
3) The distinction between 'theory' and 'fact' used on this page cannot be sustained, as shown by Duhem, Collingwood, Quine, Kuhn and others. For instance: "The law of gravity is a scientific fact that bodies of mass attract each other..." This 'fact' is entirely dependent upon our current theory of gravity --
Aristotle, for instance, would not have taken this to be a fact at all, but a falsehood! GeneCallahan (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
4) It seems to me that the article mislocates the ambiguity: the ambiguity comes from two different uses of the word "theory", not from two different meanings of the word "evolution". The ambiguity lies in not distinguising between "theory" meaning well established scientific theory and theory meaning unconfirmed theory, or even supposition or idea. Hairhorn (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I actually agree with Hairhorn to the extent that I think historically people have got into a muddle by using all or any of the three words imprecisely. The opening paragraph seems to be trying to paint a picture in which "evolution is fact" applies to a simple uncontroversial definition of evolution on which everyone can agree, while "evolution is a theory" is reserved for a more complex definition involving mechanisms and things that cannot be directly observed.
I do not doubt that is a possible answer to the conundrum but misleadingly it is not the whole story. In support of this explanation we are told "the fact of evolution refers to the changes in populations of biological organisms over time". And it is hard to disagree that these changes do occur. So the implication is that those dumb creationists who have been denying evolution is fact have been using the wrong definition of evolution all along.
I'm afraid this explanation simply will not do. "Evolution is a fact" really does mean something more profound than a few observations of changing characteristics in a lab. The creationists get it which is why they are angry. So do Dawkins and Futuyma who later in the article say respectively "evolution is a fact" implies 'we are cousins of bacteria' and that 'organisms have descended from a common ancestor'. Of course 'evolution is fact' at least sometimes means something profound and worth attacking from a creationist point of view. Maybe the author of the opening paragraph did not 'get it'? — Axel147 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
5) I have to admit I am completely confused by the discussion here. Prejudging? Look, scientists get to define what a scientific fact is. And they define it as data. And scientists get to define what a scientific theory is. And they define a scientific theory as an explanation So what? What is the big deal? --Filll (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
6) Calling the data the "facts of evolution" is a bit disingenuous the data are facts, but not necessarily of evolution. They only become the facts of evolution when used in support of evolution, but for creationists, they are the "facts of creation." For example, if you see a row of fossils, they might just be various dead animals that lived at the same time, in which case they are facts but not of evolution. Somebody who disagrees with the interpretation would disagree with the classification. Ezra Wax (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You can either dismiss all these comments as the ravings of crazy creationists (maybe 6 is a creationist, I do not know) or you can get the message that something is very wrong with this article and work to improve it. As it is, the article does a serious disservice to science and presents a simplified, confused, and over-dogmatic view of the subject that actually weakens the case for evolution rather than strengthening it. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Farsight001, I cannot put it much better than Axel147 did above 'Of course when we say "evolution is a fact" we do not just mean we can or have observed trait differences in the lab from one generation to the next. Of course something much more profound is meant by this.... "Evolution is a fact" implies we are cousins of monkeys and that there is no doubt about it'.
This is the point that the quoted sources make, for example, Gregory says in his section 'Evolution as Fact', ...it was not long before the contemporary scientific community came to acknowledge the historical reality of evolutionary descent.
This article makes a different and more obvious point, that changes in traits between generations is routinely observable (and thus can be informally called facts) and these changes are sometimes referred to as evolution. Thus evolution is a fact. This is indeed true, but it is not the, more profound, point being made by the sources. If you really insist on using the word fact to describe well verified reproducible observations then I might suggest use of the term 'facts of evolution', although I would much prefer to use proper scientific language. Have a read of Gregory's paper, it makes the point very well. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 19:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the only way forward is an RfC, I do not want to rewrite the article on my own. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Although the statements in this article are generally correct, several editors do not believe that the article accurately reflects the views of the quoted sources. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 16:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
One editor has expressed the problem this, Of course when we say "evolution is a fact" we do not just mean we can or have observed trait differences in the lab from one generation to the next. Of course something much more profound is meant by this.... "Evolution is a fact" implies we are cousins of monkeys and that there is no doubt about it'. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
"I have never ... employed, 'rhetorical shenanigans'" Martin Hogbin
Here, in his own words, are some of the rhetorical shenanigans Martin has used:
Lastly, "I have never claimed scientific rigour" shows an interesting contrast with Martin's earlier "I would much prefer to use proper scientific language."
To restate my argument from above: In biology, the word "evolution" alone means "changes in allele frequencies within a population from one generation to the next". Several sources, many of them quoted in the article, make specifically the point that one proper meaning the phrase "Evolution is fact" is simply that it is a fact that these changes happen. For example, the three biologists quoted in this section of the article, as well as a number of articles on talk.origins (for example [3], [4] and [5]). They all distinguish between "the theory of evolution" and "the fact of evolution". With the latter they do not simply mean "the theory of evolution is widely accepted, hence the theory is fact". Instead they distinguish between the process that changes the frequency in inherited traits ("evolution") and the mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc.) proposed to explain why, when and how this process happens ("the theory of evolution"). The exact mechanisms and their relative influence is a theory, albeit one that is so widely supported among scientists that it is by some referred to as "fact". This ("the theory of evolution is a fact") is one meaning of the phrase "evolution is a fact", but it is not the sole meaning. Gabbe ( talk) 08:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
If I am to understand the controversy, the main "sticking point" is whether or not the quoted sources intend the words "fact" and "theory" in the same sense as defined in the article? I'd back up and ask whether these quotes are even integral to the article? These are mostly quotes of primary sources which may not be particularly appropriate for Wikipedia. Then it wouldn't be so important to decide "does bob mean 'theory' in a colloquial way or a rigorous scientific way?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngaskill ( talk • contribs) 04:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Editors must try to understand all the angles. The whole "evolution, fact and theory" debate is basically summed up as:
Most editors get 1-3 as follows:
But I think a lot of editors struggle with 4. The answers are:
4. "Evolution is fact and theory" because there are 2 different uses of the word evolution as described above ('facts and theories are different things' the Gouldian answer) OR because evolution — in the sense we are cousins of monkeys — has 'graduated' from theory to fact ('theories also become facts when the evidence is overwhelming'). It remains a theory as 'we are cousins of monkeys' explains and predicts. But it simultaneously is a fact as it so well established.
Although I have been slightly critical of the opening paragraph it is really a question of emphasis (and perhaps clarity). I don't think the article is hopelessly flawed. In terms of purpose it has to be put everything on the table in the "evolution, fact, theory" debate for a general audience in an encyclopedic manner.
— Axel147 ( talk) 05:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Bravo to SLR for your 11 April explanation of the two meanings of "theory". This is the clearest account of the matter I've seen in print to date ... anywhere! -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I certainly endorse that paragraph from Slrubenstein. I think it's very clear and very well written. I'm not sure I can improve at all. We could incorporate into an opening paragraph something like this:
Feel free to adapt...
— Axel147 ( talk) 02:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I see we now have monkeys in the lead section, which is probably more relevant to this discussion than saying finches and penguins are cousins, or jellyfish and E. coli ditto.
Next, in the interest of making things bulletproof (i.e. robust in the face of attempts at reasoned refutation) I'd like to know if we have a reference explicitly saying that "all living organisms have descended from a [single] common ancestor" since I believe it is useful to decouple abiogenesis from the evolution discourse.
Lastly, perhaps a minor nit, but what counts as "direct" observation? Inference from observable similarity of genomes is mighty persuasive... __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 15:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I have modified, more or less reverted the edit of Ezra Wax. The phrase 'resorting to theory' somehow sounds as though theories are bad and somewhat undermines the 'no sharp line' argument later in the article. Also the definition of evolution suggested implies that if a person dies that will be sufficient for evolution. I have a doubt about this as I think more of a trend, a pattern of shift is needed. Finally I think the opening paragraph should stay fairly concise. —
Axel147 (
talk)
00:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
I'm not sure I get this. Why should I accept the "Established Hypothesis" definition as a definition I should use in general practice? This article seems to be pushing the idea that I should be using the fallacy of equivocation, rather than attempting to use clear, concise language. Why should I attempt to use two senses of the same word, when we have other words clarify the distinctions between the shades of meaning of the words? — CobraA1 21:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
In addition, I really would like a good word to mean "absolute certainty." It's useful to talk about such things, and the idea that we have to muddy up our conversations with less precise meanings just because there's a spat about one area of science seems pretty absurd. — CobraA1 21:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me first set out some brief (and hence sketchy) philosophical issues which this article ignores.
An important difference between the way that 'fact' and 'theory' are used in many scientific contexts relates to causal explanations. That new species have come into existence over time and other species have disappeared is either a true or a false fact. It can be verified by observation (and logical deductions from those observations). Wikipedia does, and should, reflect back the expert consensus that this is a true fact.
The theory of evolution proposes a cause for this fact (along with other facts.) However, as first most clearly set out by David Hume, there's a problem with verifying causal explanations. As scientists we can observe that A has always been followed by B, either naturally or in experiments when we initiate A. But to say that A causes B is to say something more than that A is always followed by B (all other things being equal); it's to say that it's impossible for A to occur without B following, so that for ever in the future, B will always follow A. We can't verify this by observation.
It's for this reason that Popper proposed 'falsificationism' as a better description of scientific activity: we put forward causal explanations (=theories) which can be falsified but never proved/verifiied. However, although this may be a satisfactory account of the 'logic' of the scientific method, as Kuhn showed, it's not what actually happens. The lead to the Kuhn article says that "Scientists can never divorce their subjective perspective from their work; thus, our comprehension of science can never rely on full "objectivity" - we must account for subjective perspectives as well". It's characteristic of the actual behaviour of scientists that they aggressively defend their current theories (=causal explanations); it's been said that scientific theories only disappear with the death of their adherents. Now this is a perspective which I believe is thoroughly verifiable in Wikipedia terms from the literature on the philosophy of science. The problem is that many of those rightly defending the Darwinian theory of evolution seem to want to hide this perspective from view within their 'walled garden', in case it gives comfort to the creationists. The danger is that it just echoes the stridency and distortion of the other side. In as much as the theory of evolution proposes a universal causal explanation, it could in future be replaced by another theory which explains the all the currently known facts and more. There's not the slightest sign at present that it will be, but it could be.
I'm not sure that the current article can be improved, but I'll continue to think about it. Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I am consistently bemused by how wooly the thinking is on evolution, and this article is no exception. It seems futile trying to reason with "believers", but since there is scope for discussion here - this section in the article is worth considering. In my opinion it should be re-written truthfully. It is both misleading and unscientific.
The section compares evolution with gravity.
"for example fruit flies, the process of change from generation to generation — that is, evolutionary change — has been observed in the laboratory.[19] The observation of fruit fly populations changing over time is also an example of a fact. So evolution is a fact just as the observations of gravity are a fact."
- this statement (and the reference given) rests on especially engineered lab processes geared to producing such a result. Fine - but it is no more meaningful to say evolutionary change has been "observed" than it would be to put a load of fruit flies in a box and declare that evolutionary change has NOT been observed. What a scientist should say is, evolutionary change has been engineered. That is true. Back to the excerpt above: evolutionary change has been engineered... "so evolution is a fact". It simply does not follow. The "fact" of evolution requires an engineer to create it, and without the engineer there is no fact. (I am NOT pushing creationism!! To be absolutely clear, I am saying there is NO engineer outside of the lab.)
Is this trivial? No it is profound, due to what flows from it. In the article we have a table sumarising the matter. It reads:
If we are going to be at all scientific in this article then these comments need to be stated properly. To be meaningfully compared to the statement about gravity, what the Evolution statement should say is: "The prevalence of different traits DOES NOT CHANGE from generation to generation in populations of fruit flies, unless engineered to do so."
This is a true statement, and it says the opposite of what the current statement says, which as it stands, is pure speculation.
Where's the rational, scientific thinking? 86.181.45.121 ( talk) 03:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This article does a very brave effort to be neutral, but I do not think it is very successful. Overall, the information it gives is mostly objective, with a few exceptions, but reading between the lines still gives the impression of someone trying to make a point. This is suitable for an amateur blog, but not for an encyclopedia. An article from an encyclopedia should be no more ambitious in trying to convince people than a dictionary, or at least, it should not show such ambitions. Even the Oxford American Dictionaries call it "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed […]".
The quote from Douglas Futyuma represents quite accurately how I think we should regard "fact", as "a hypothesis we may assume to be true." However, this is just one perspective, and is not a dictionary explanation. A fact is "a truth known by actual experience or observation." So far, all our observation shows with regards to evolution is that there have been different species in a pattern which would fit in evolution, but people may always put forward alternate explanations. It is not possible to directly observe evolution.
I do not want to get philosophical here. Of course nothing is certain, and indeed everything does point at the fact that evolution occurs. If we can't trust the indications to evolution, we can't trust our own memory either, as the indications are basically the "memories" of the biosphere. The problem is that there's still billions who believe otherwise, and if we want to give them a chance of conquering their bigotry, we need to be exemplary of open-mindedness, and present the theory of evolution to them as nothing but a hypothesis, a thought experiment, as there will otherwise be no way that they will consider it: if we give the impression we try to convince them that evolution is a fact, they will be far too frightened to lose their immortal souls to the fires of perdition to listen. It is demeaning, yes, but it's the only way. If we really care about helping them, then we have to empathize with how they think.
It may feel like a humiliation to represent the theory of evolution as a mere thought experiment, but does it really matter? Basically, we might see everything as a thought experiment. Why should we be so proud as to think we know the truth, even if we do know the truth? Even if it is the truth, seeing even the truth itself as a thought experiment will help us to keep an open mind. At the least, it will expand our imagination by making us consider other possibilities, even if they aren't true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernovic ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, precisely. That apples fall to the ground is an observable fact, the Newtonian model is one theory which explains why and how this occurs. The change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next (one meaning of the term "evolution") is an observable fact. Natural selection, genetic drift and the modern evolutionary synthesis (other meanings of the term "evolution") are theories which explains why and how this occurs. Gabbe ( talk) 10:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm seriously telling you that it is one of the valid responses. The word "theory" in common usage differs from its meaning in science. But the everyday meaning of the word "evolution" also differs from its exact meaning in science. I assume what you're trying to say is that "Evolution (that is, the modern evolutionary synthesis) is not a fact (that is, an incontestable truth), it's a theory—and there's nothing wrong with that". While true, this is only a partial response. The word "evolution" is not exclusively used to refer to the modern evolutionary synthesis, neither in common everyday usage nor in science. This article brings up several aspects of this issue, including what the term "theory" means and what the term "evolution" means. Gabbe ( talk) 14:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
@All. Firstly it it not just my concern but also the concern of Hypernovic and others previously that the tone of this article is wrong.
Maybe there is also some misunderstanding about the point that I am making. According to Gabbe, he word 'evolution' can be used to mean 'The change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next... an observable fact'. Now I do not dispute that, but I doubt than anyone else does either. This is not what I understand that creationists are arguing about, or are there really some people who argue that the observed change in allele frequencies does not actually exist?
Even if there are people who argue that there has never been any observed change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next, it is extremely confusing and unhelpful to call this 'evolution' in the context of this discussion, better just to call it just 'an observed change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next'. Using the word evolution to refer to this specific observation and also to the modern evolutionary synthesis in a discussion about whether evolution is a fact or not is just confusing the issue. That is what creationists thrive on. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 15:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you telling me that this article is just about the fact that the word 'evolution' can be used to mean either one of several theories, such as modern evolutionary synthesis, or it can refer to actual observations such as 'an observed change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next'? That is not what the quotes sources are about.
Regarding specific changes, I would start with the complete removal of the bogus and completely unsourced argument about gravity. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 16:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Please stop bringing up gravity. I told you I do not object if you change the stuff on gravity; who else here has voiced a real objection to your correcting the stuff on gravity? I even suggested a way you could modify it to be accountable to physicists and still to make an important point in the context of this article. Hogbin, at Wikipedia anyone can edit. Please tell me: WHo has reverted your editing the material on gravity? That you keep bringing it up on the talk page rather than editing the article suggests you prefer to argue rather than to edit.
You wrote: "According to Gabbe, he word 'evolution' can be used to mean 'The change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next... an observable fact'. Now I do not dispute that, but I doubt than anyone else does either. This is not what I understand that creationists are arguing about, or are there really some people who argue that the observed change in allele frequencies does not actually exist?" You do not understand what creationists are arguing about. There really are people who question this. I have seen them argue on street corners, and have read their letters to the editor of newspapers. They are real. Now, the basic definition of evolution is a change in allele frequencies. Over time this can lead to speciation. Speciation has been observed and is another one of these "facts." There are different varieties of creationism; one rejects all of this, including changes in gene frequencies. Others (including Intelligent Design) accept that changes in gene frequency exist but that this cannot result in speciation; they call changes in gene frequency "microevolution" and speciation "macroevolution" and say that the former happens but not the latter. However, you would be mistaken if you really concluded from this that this article is arguing over semantics. According to the theory of evolution, species are statistical phenomena; the difference between one species and another is a difference in gene frequencies. Changes in gene frequencies therefore can result in speciation. This is observable and has been observed, and so is part of the "evolution as fact." And this is something that creationists regularly reject. It is highly contentious in the United States and increasingly in the UK. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Not "fine." I specifically wrote that there are people who do not believe that changes in gene frequencies exist. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have just read the article by Gregory, which talks about gravity and evolution and I think it is excellent. If only we could adopt the same scholarly tone in this article I would have no problem with it.
The section on gravity makes a very good job of explaining what a theory is in physics and I agree with it completely. For the most part it uses exactly the same terms that I am suggesting, 'observations' and 'theories'. In this context he uses the word 'fact' to refer to 'observations repeatedly confirmed and considered accurate' and also to refer to theories, such as common descent, which have been universally accepted by the scientific community. I have no argument with any of this.
On the other hand, the paper does not support the table likening evolution to gravity that we have in this article. This does nothing but confuse and I propose to delete it. I will also try some editing of the article to make things clearer. I would support any attempt to make the tone and content of this article conform to the standard set by Gregory. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It has been claimed on this talk page that the word 'evolution' can be used to mean one of the many observations concerning the subject, such as, 'The change in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to the next'.
I believe that this use of the word is not a significant use and concentration on this usage serves only to confuse the reader. It is not the meaning of the word in the quoted sources that I have read. What sources do we have using the word 'evolution' in this way? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Further to what I have said above, the lead currently says, 'The "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in the genetic material of a population of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experiments'. This is not the point being made by the quotes sources. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 13:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have had a look through the archives of this article and, as in addition to my many comments, I have found persistent comments from other editors complaining that the article has the wrong focus. Here are some examples:
1) There is no such thing as a "scientific fact." There are only theories; those which are very likely and those which are less likely. The entire basis of this article is a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Andrew Nutter Talk | Contribs 01:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
2) Of course when we say "evolution is a fact" we do not just mean we can or have observed trait differences in the lab from one generation to the next. Of course something much more profound is meant by this (otherwise why would creationists get upset!). In the article itself Dawkins, Futyuma, Campbell, Muller, National Academy of Sciences are completely clear about this. "Evolution is a fact" implies we are cousins of monkeys and that there is no doubt about it.
That's much more like it. That is what all the fuss about! The opening paragraph is in great danger not reflecting this properly. — Axel147 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
3) The distinction between 'theory' and 'fact' used on this page cannot be sustained, as shown by Duhem, Collingwood, Quine, Kuhn and others. For instance: "The law of gravity is a scientific fact that bodies of mass attract each other..." This 'fact' is entirely dependent upon our current theory of gravity --
Aristotle, for instance, would not have taken this to be a fact at all, but a falsehood! GeneCallahan (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
4) It seems to me that the article mislocates the ambiguity: the ambiguity comes from two different uses of the word "theory", not from two different meanings of the word "evolution". The ambiguity lies in not distinguising between "theory" meaning well established scientific theory and theory meaning unconfirmed theory, or even supposition or idea. Hairhorn (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I actually agree with Hairhorn to the extent that I think historically people have got into a muddle by using all or any of the three words imprecisely. The opening paragraph seems to be trying to paint a picture in which "evolution is fact" applies to a simple uncontroversial definition of evolution on which everyone can agree, while "evolution is a theory" is reserved for a more complex definition involving mechanisms and things that cannot be directly observed.
I do not doubt that is a possible answer to the conundrum but misleadingly it is not the whole story. In support of this explanation we are told "the fact of evolution refers to the changes in populations of biological organisms over time". And it is hard to disagree that these changes do occur. So the implication is that those dumb creationists who have been denying evolution is fact have been using the wrong definition of evolution all along.
I'm afraid this explanation simply will not do. "Evolution is a fact" really does mean something more profound than a few observations of changing characteristics in a lab. The creationists get it which is why they are angry. So do Dawkins and Futuyma who later in the article say respectively "evolution is a fact" implies 'we are cousins of bacteria' and that 'organisms have descended from a common ancestor'. Of course 'evolution is fact' at least sometimes means something profound and worth attacking from a creationist point of view. Maybe the author of the opening paragraph did not 'get it'? — Axel147 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
5) I have to admit I am completely confused by the discussion here. Prejudging? Look, scientists get to define what a scientific fact is. And they define it as data. And scientists get to define what a scientific theory is. And they define a scientific theory as an explanation So what? What is the big deal? --Filll (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
6) Calling the data the "facts of evolution" is a bit disingenuous the data are facts, but not necessarily of evolution. They only become the facts of evolution when used in support of evolution, but for creationists, they are the "facts of creation." For example, if you see a row of fossils, they might just be various dead animals that lived at the same time, in which case they are facts but not of evolution. Somebody who disagrees with the interpretation would disagree with the classification. Ezra Wax (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You can either dismiss all these comments as the ravings of crazy creationists (maybe 6 is a creationist, I do not know) or you can get the message that something is very wrong with this article and work to improve it. As it is, the article does a serious disservice to science and presents a simplified, confused, and over-dogmatic view of the subject that actually weakens the case for evolution rather than strengthening it. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Farsight001, I cannot put it much better than Axel147 did above 'Of course when we say "evolution is a fact" we do not just mean we can or have observed trait differences in the lab from one generation to the next. Of course something much more profound is meant by this.... "Evolution is a fact" implies we are cousins of monkeys and that there is no doubt about it'.
This is the point that the quoted sources make, for example, Gregory says in his section 'Evolution as Fact', ...it was not long before the contemporary scientific community came to acknowledge the historical reality of evolutionary descent.
This article makes a different and more obvious point, that changes in traits between generations is routinely observable (and thus can be informally called facts) and these changes are sometimes referred to as evolution. Thus evolution is a fact. This is indeed true, but it is not the, more profound, point being made by the sources. If you really insist on using the word fact to describe well verified reproducible observations then I might suggest use of the term 'facts of evolution', although I would much prefer to use proper scientific language. Have a read of Gregory's paper, it makes the point very well. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 19:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the only way forward is an RfC, I do not want to rewrite the article on my own. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Although the statements in this article are generally correct, several editors do not believe that the article accurately reflects the views of the quoted sources. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 16:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
One editor has expressed the problem this, Of course when we say "evolution is a fact" we do not just mean we can or have observed trait differences in the lab from one generation to the next. Of course something much more profound is meant by this.... "Evolution is a fact" implies we are cousins of monkeys and that there is no doubt about it'. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
"I have never ... employed, 'rhetorical shenanigans'" Martin Hogbin
Here, in his own words, are some of the rhetorical shenanigans Martin has used:
Lastly, "I have never claimed scientific rigour" shows an interesting contrast with Martin's earlier "I would much prefer to use proper scientific language."
To restate my argument from above: In biology, the word "evolution" alone means "changes in allele frequencies within a population from one generation to the next". Several sources, many of them quoted in the article, make specifically the point that one proper meaning the phrase "Evolution is fact" is simply that it is a fact that these changes happen. For example, the three biologists quoted in this section of the article, as well as a number of articles on talk.origins (for example [3], [4] and [5]). They all distinguish between "the theory of evolution" and "the fact of evolution". With the latter they do not simply mean "the theory of evolution is widely accepted, hence the theory is fact". Instead they distinguish between the process that changes the frequency in inherited traits ("evolution") and the mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc.) proposed to explain why, when and how this process happens ("the theory of evolution"). The exact mechanisms and their relative influence is a theory, albeit one that is so widely supported among scientists that it is by some referred to as "fact". This ("the theory of evolution is a fact") is one meaning of the phrase "evolution is a fact", but it is not the sole meaning. Gabbe ( talk) 08:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
If I am to understand the controversy, the main "sticking point" is whether or not the quoted sources intend the words "fact" and "theory" in the same sense as defined in the article? I'd back up and ask whether these quotes are even integral to the article? These are mostly quotes of primary sources which may not be particularly appropriate for Wikipedia. Then it wouldn't be so important to decide "does bob mean 'theory' in a colloquial way or a rigorous scientific way?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngaskill ( talk • contribs) 04:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Editors must try to understand all the angles. The whole "evolution, fact and theory" debate is basically summed up as:
Most editors get 1-3 as follows:
But I think a lot of editors struggle with 4. The answers are:
4. "Evolution is fact and theory" because there are 2 different uses of the word evolution as described above ('facts and theories are different things' the Gouldian answer) OR because evolution — in the sense we are cousins of monkeys — has 'graduated' from theory to fact ('theories also become facts when the evidence is overwhelming'). It remains a theory as 'we are cousins of monkeys' explains and predicts. But it simultaneously is a fact as it so well established.
Although I have been slightly critical of the opening paragraph it is really a question of emphasis (and perhaps clarity). I don't think the article is hopelessly flawed. In terms of purpose it has to be put everything on the table in the "evolution, fact, theory" debate for a general audience in an encyclopedic manner.
— Axel147 ( talk) 05:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Bravo to SLR for your 11 April explanation of the two meanings of "theory". This is the clearest account of the matter I've seen in print to date ... anywhere! -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I certainly endorse that paragraph from Slrubenstein. I think it's very clear and very well written. I'm not sure I can improve at all. We could incorporate into an opening paragraph something like this:
Feel free to adapt...
— Axel147 ( talk) 02:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I see we now have monkeys in the lead section, which is probably more relevant to this discussion than saying finches and penguins are cousins, or jellyfish and E. coli ditto.
Next, in the interest of making things bulletproof (i.e. robust in the face of attempts at reasoned refutation) I'd like to know if we have a reference explicitly saying that "all living organisms have descended from a [single] common ancestor" since I believe it is useful to decouple abiogenesis from the evolution discourse.
Lastly, perhaps a minor nit, but what counts as "direct" observation? Inference from observable similarity of genomes is mighty persuasive... __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 15:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I have modified, more or less reverted the edit of Ezra Wax. The phrase 'resorting to theory' somehow sounds as though theories are bad and somewhat undermines the 'no sharp line' argument later in the article. Also the definition of evolution suggested implies that if a person dies that will be sufficient for evolution. I have a doubt about this as I think more of a trend, a pattern of shift is needed. Finally I think the opening paragraph should stay fairly concise. —
Axel147 (
talk)
00:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)