Talk:Evolution/Archive 23

message: "Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones."  The article describes evolution as natural or artificle selection leading sometimes leading to the creation of a new species.  Is this strictly correct?  Seems a bit misleading.  I thought evolution and evolutionary origin of species was the same thing.
In any event, the quote "Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones" should have a reference, if possible, to a new species being created in the lab.
::::Why the lab, better examples of speciation in nature. Evolution is not synonymous with speciation. Evolution can lead to speciation, but evolution occurs without it. Speciation is a by product of evolution. Plenty of examples of speciation in plants, insects, birds, and mammals in nature. GetAgrippa 18:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The stickleback fish has become a supermodel of evolution studies. Here is a good review by Elizabeth Pennisi:Science 18 June 2004:Vol. 304. no. 5678, p. 1736 Changing a Fish's Bony Armor in the Wink of a Gene. More recent articles determine that shifts in ectodysplasin alleles correlate with speciation within decades time frame. There is also a good Science paper on genomic change and speciation in Siberian warblers as I recollect, and a large number of plant examples. The review article has some dramatic images demonstrating the changes in spines and lateral plates with speciation in marine and freshwater fish populations. I always thought the images of lateral plate loss was dramatic evidence of evolution. 
Here is a recent plant paper from Science:Science 29 August 2003: Vol. 301. no. 5637, pp. 1211 - 1216 Major Ecological Transitions in Wild Sunflowers Facilitated by Hybridization Loren H. Rieseberg,1* Olivier Raymond,2 David M. Rosenthal,3 Zhao Lai,1 Kevin Livingstone,1 Takuya Nakazato,1 Jennifer L. Durphy,1 Andrea E. Schwarzbach,4 Lisa A. Donovan,3 Christian Lexer1. 
Here is a Science bird paper that is interesting:Science 21 January 2005:Vol. 307. no. 5708, pp. 414 - 416 Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species Darren E. Irwin,1* Staffan Bensch,2 Jessica H. Irwin,1 Trevor D. Price3. 
Here is another Science review paper by Pennisi. Science 10 March 2006:Vol. 311. no. 5766, pp. 1372 - 137.Speciation Standing in Place.Elizabeth Pennisi. 
Here is heritable phenotypic plasticity and evolution in birds Science 14 October 2005:Vol. 310. no. 5746, pp. 304 - 306. Selection on Heritable Phenotypic Plasticity in a Wild Bird Population Daniel H. Nussey,1,2* Erik Postma,1 Phillip Gienapp,1 Marcel E. Visser1 
These are just some Science article the tip of a very large iceberg.GetAgrippa 19:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  speciation 

message: Darwin's theory is not the only so-called scientific theory to not meet the following criteria, but I think this point needs to be addressed.
1.  A scientific theory does have to be consistent with observable facts.  Evolution is consistent with observable facts.
2.  A scientific theory does have to have a conceivable experiment that would *prove* it wrong.  For example, Ohm's law states that V=I*R, where V is voltage, I is current, and R is resistance.  This is a scientific theory that is not only consistent with observable facts, but has an experiment that would prove that it were wrong.  For example, if you measure 20 volts across a 1 ohm resistor that that has 1 Amp of current running through it, this would prove that Ohms Law is wrong.  Another example is the kinetic energy of an object in motion at speeds well below the speed of light.  One theory might be that the kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v^2.  Another hypothesis might be that the kinetic energy is m*v.  Both hypotheses are scientific, in the sense that each has a conceivable experiment that would prove either one of them wrong.  And, of course, one of them is actually correct, which is why it is part of Newton’s laws (or theories, if you prefer).
Does any such experiment exist for the theory of evolution, specifically, with regard to the origin of new species?  That is, an experiment that if it failed would prove evolution to be wrong?  And if such an experiment does not exist (an experiment that would prove it were wrong if it were), is the Darwinian theory on the origin of species really just a tautologous pseudo-scientific story?  Or do Darwiniacs claim that the existence of an experiment that would show a scientific theory to be false is all well in good for the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, and so-on, but such an experiment is not required of scientific theories from the softer sciences?—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:199.62.0.252
|199.62.0.252
]] ([[User talk:199.62.0.252
|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/199.62.0.252
|contribs]]) 19:14, 20 December 2006 
:Please log in and sign your posts.--Filll 20:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is preferable for all scientific theories to be "falsifiable" for them to be taken seriously. There are theories in physics which we do not know how to test yet, or can test only very indirectly, and they are not taken nearly as seriously. In the case of creationism, it is true by fiat, so there is no test. No matter what evidence is presented, there is always an escape valve like "God made the earth appear old when it really isnt to test man's faith" or "The Devil makes the earth appear old when it really isnt to tempt men away from God" or "The fossils were put there by the Devil for wicked purposes to support evolution" or "God is just testing our faith with the 3 degree background radiation and the red shifts" and on and on and on. You can never pin down creationism because at its root is a core belief that the facts will be bent to accommodate no matter what. The same is not true of a theory in science. What we call The Theory of Evolution has been through numerous changes over the years to accommodate the data better, just as the Theory of Gravity has. In science, the theory changes to fit the data. In creationism, the data are explained away to fit the hypothesis (not calling it a theory because it is so poorly supported by the data).--Filll 20:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A famous example of a test for evolution is, show me a fossil of a rabbit that is 100s of millions of years old. If that is true, it is all over. Biology is a hard science like physics and chemistry. A soft science is something like anthropology or sociology.--Filll 20:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I will also point out that your examples of "Ohm's law" and "Kinetic Energy" are not that reasonable.  That expression for Kinetic Energy is only approximately true with bodies of a certain size at low velocity etc. That expression for Ohm's law is only approximately true for certain materials for certain ranges of the relevant variables.--Filll 20:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific theory, existence of experiment that could prove theory incorrect