Evolution as fact...

Okay. I had a disagreement with J the other day about whether or not evolution is a fact. He supports evolution, but claimed that the fact that something is happening doesn't make it a fact. His example was, "if you call someone and tell them I'm at the pizza place, then it's not necessarily a fact to them." (But that doesn't matter because regardless of whether or not that person believed he was at the pizza place, he'd still be at the pizza place)

Another person I talked to agreed with him, stating that the definition of fact mentioned the word truth and she argued that evolution cannot be proven to be an ultimate truth. (But what can? Can't we even argue our own non-existence under this assumption?)

According to Wikipedia, a fact is "something that is the case, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation." It goes on to say, "Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning. In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation."

Evolution is a fact in both cases; generally and scientifically. It is the case. It exists. It can be verified. We have mountains of evidence to support it.

The logic isn't too different from that of gravity. Wikipedia says, "...it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity."

Likewise, it is a fact that a process (evolution) occurs that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. The theory commonly used to describe and explain this is the theory of evolution, which includes Darwinian theory.

I call evolution a fact because it is...but also because calling it a theory leads to statements like "it's just a theory."

Flock of Dodos

I saw Flock of Dodos last night and it brought up a lot of interesting points and prompted some interesting discussion between me and J. I believe this stuff is best dealt with in bullet form:

• Communication: Randy Olson brought up the point that scientists/academics do not communicate well to the public. The poker game in his documentary backed up his idea; though, as a nerd, I secretly wished I could be part of that game Unfortunately, I don't think that this issue is really as simple as it was presented to be. The question is, how much responsibility does the scientific community have in ensuring public understanding of evolution? We could argue that the responsibility lies solely within the scientific community. Or, we could argue that the public should take a more active role in understanding. Of course, depending on the public to do so would be dangerous; we live in a fairly lazy society that likes easy answers. It takes work to understand evolution and most people just aren't up to the task. Part of the problem is that evolution has remained largely marginalized in textbooks and classrooms. I cannot remember studying evolution in any detail in high school or middle school. Even my biology course for my bachelor's degree didn't include anything. Can we expect the public to know anything in light of the absence of evolution from education? Unfortunately, no. Should scientists then pick up the slack and work extra hard to promote understanding? We need better education when it comes to evolution and science...and unfortunately, that's the debated issue.

• Anger: There's a lot of anger on the evolution side of the debate. Is this anger detracting from the argument? I've been wondering how this anger comes across to someone neutral on the debate. Is it seen as condescending? Is it justifiable? There's a great post on it at Greta Christina's blog. She gives a ton of reasons to be angry and explains why the anger is not a negative thing and I agree with her that anger is often the single instigator of action and that it is necessary and not unhealthy. I also believe that it can be misdirected, especially when using it to argue a point in a debate. It seems that the anger evident in the Creationism/ID/Evolution debate is also the reason that the argument goes from one of "this doesn't belong in science education" to "you're wrong, I'm right." What we're debating is the teaching of it in public schools, in science classrooms. Our emotions, namely our anger, lead us to engage in debate that borders on the real issue and therefore weakens our argument.

• Philosophy: J brought up an interesting question about philosophy. His question was, "why do we place more value on science than on philosophy?" I'm not entirely sure what he meant by this, but I think it's something like, "why do we think evolution is correct because it's science and think ID is wrong because it's based in philosophy?" Or, furthermore, "don't humans assign value to science and philosophy?...and if so, how can we say one is more valuable than another?" Perhaps we do value science more (though evidence in this country shows that science isn't necessarily valued by most). If so, I'm inclined to say it's because of the tangible evidence. Where philosophy is pure thought, science is based on the natural world. Regardless, I think his point was that the value we assign is based entirely on our beliefs. This is a slippery-slope. If we can't support one over the other because we can't trust our value-assignments, then what else can we marginalize? In the context of philosophy, we can completely deny our own existence. So what, then, does anything matter? J did bring up the point that philosophy and science are partners more than separate entities, that is has been the precursor for many scientific ideas. So, I do not mean to discount the importance of philosophy.

In all, I thought the movie was pretty fair. It gave a lot of camera time to both sides. It was definitely skewed toward the evolution side, but hell, that's the side that's right. If anything, it made me feel responsibility for eradicating the immense amount of ignorance surrounding the debate. Unfortunately, I've just recently learned enough myself, and I don't feel qualified quite yet to do so.

OOH...GRRR...

If you thought my eyes looked like ancient-person eyes last week, you should see them this morning. I'm functioning on a few crappy hours of sleep, a cup of nasty cafeteria coffee and the hope that one day I will be doing what I want, instead of sitting in this office. I have a headache...which has been tripled in strength by the natural gas main that ruptured over on central campus. Supposedly, the gas didn't reach my building, but the funny smell in our office suggests otherwise.

I got into a fight with J last night about the presidential candidates. I HATE politics. I really really hate talking about politics...which is funny, because I'm the one who brought them up last night. I did some research yesterday after hearing that three of our candidates do not believe in evolution...and then I ended up researching Ron Paul, because he fascinates me (also because I was curious to see if he believes in evolution). I took my findings home, presented them and then preceded to get all bugged out when J asked me a few questions. And of course, when I want to talk about dinosaurs and rocks, he listens and is supportive and wonderful. When he wants to talk about politics and conspiracy theories, I am mean and defensive and irrational. I don't know why I get so upset. Maybe I just don't like stating an opinion without facts to back it up because I'm terrible at arguing. The thing is, he says he doesn't want to argue...just discuss, but I seem to be incapable of doing that, since I treat our discussions as if they were arguments. Maybe it's my whole no-information thing...I really don't know. But it makes talking about 9-11 unbearable. Anyone else get all bugged out?

I had my chem lab last night and I am utterly blown away by the stupidity of some of my classmates. The girls that use the bench next to mine didn't seem to understand that anything to the left of the bench divider was my space. Apparently, the also didn't understand that the glass pipe was supposed to be above water level to avoid poisoning the whole room with bromine gas, because they laughed when I asked them to fix it. I don't think I was out of line...I just didn't want to inhale bromine gas. And the kid next to me that thinks it's fun to light unknown chemicals on fire near the hydrogen generator...he's also the one who publicly announced that he farted. I can't stand him. My lab partner may be the worst of all. She's nice enough, but she's got this high-pitched, squeaky voice and acts like a 7-year old. She seems to think our lab TA is there for us, and only us, because if she has any questions she immediately waves her hand and shouts, "hey, 'scuse me Mr. TA Guy," no matter what he's in the middle of. He has a name. He also has thirty other students. And seriously, she needs to stop calling me "Ms. Perfectionist" and following it up with "but there's nothing wrong with that." I HATE that. I prefer to be thorough when working with dangerous substances...and I like earning good grades. If there's one thing I'm going to be a perfectionist about, it's school. I'm certainly not a prudish rule-follower anywhere else.

I began painting a picture of a Triceratops skeleton last night. It’s coming along nicely and I only have one complaint: it’s not original. Paleo art is tough because there’s no way to photograph the subject and in order to paint something with skin and hair and feathers, you need to be able to visualize what a skeleton would look like with all that stuff attached. And to do that, you need an understanding of how muscle attaches to bone. I work mostly from photos because my visual memory sucks. All the photos I have of dinosaur skeletons have been taken by someone else. It looks like a trip to the museum (generic, since I have to travel a few hours to get to one) is in order. I’d love to paint some close-up skulls. Close enough to see the little details and fill the canvas, but not so close that the dino is unrecognizable. For now, pictures from books will have to do.

Back to Basics #1 - Punctuated Equilibrium

Today, in a desperate attempt to find a hint of paleontological research at OPU, I typed "paleontology" into the search field on the university's home page. Though there wasn't much in the way of dinosaur research, I was surprised to find a few interesting articles on evolution, which is something I don't know much about, but should.

My favorite article was "Opus 200" by Stephen Jay Gould, published in Natural History, August 1991, 100 (8):12-18. You can read the paper here.

I was SO impressed with the article. I don't know what the current opinion of punctuated equilibrium is, but it's a fascinating concept. Gould's article has done something that Julia over at The Ethical Palaeontologist has done; it has turned science into something less superhuman and more accessible while maintaining its complexity. When I decided to go back to school, I was overwhelmed by the amount of information that presented itself to me. I was even more overwhelmed by the nature of the information; it was in a different language and in order to read a paragraph in a journal, I had to use a dictionary. I felt hopelessly stupid and incapable. After reading this article and some of Julia's posts, I feel capable of grasping the "impossibly" complex concepts of paleontology.

Punctuated equilibrium suggests an alternative to the gradual evolution of species. It suggests that speciation occurs rapidly (but only in a geological time frame) and reaches a point of stasis in which a species remains stable and fairly unchanged. The rapid speciation occurs as a result of small populations becoming isolated from larger populations. The small population undergoes change much more rapidly than a small population, speeding up the process (Gould, 1991).

What fascinates me about punctuated equilibrium (p.e.) is that it attempts to explain the "gaps" in the fossil record. If speciation occurred as the p.e. model suggests, then the "gaps" are not gaps at all, but evidence of equilibrium and rapid change (Gould, 1991).

I also like the history of Gould's theory. It fascinates me that his theory was used by Creationists to disprove the theory of evolution...that they could conclude from his argument that no intermediary specimens existed and therefore evolution was a lie. Gould refutes this well, saying "punctuated equilibrium...is a different theory of intermediacy for evolutionary trends—pushing a ball up an inclined plane for gradualism, climbing a staircase for punctuated equilibrium" (Gould, 1991). Either way, the ball is heading up the hill...

This, of course, just confirms my belief that creationists are experts at using rhetoric to argue science, rather than science itself.

I'm going to continue searching for articles, but meanwhile, I'd like to know what you all think about punctuated equilibrium.

References:
Stephen Jay Gould, "Opus 200," Natural History 100 (August 1991): 12-18.