A question for you physics guys

[Cymew]

"anything more than a theory" is nonsense. I think you mean "anything more than a hypothesis".

A theory is a technical term, meaning something that have been empirically tested and found to be able to explain and predict phenomena.

A theory means it's considered a fairly good explanation. A hypothesis is what you start out with.

Evolution is e.g. not a hypothesis, it's a theory and this tested and accepted by empirical evidence. "Theory" means it's solid. Nothing else.

 

[travlar]

Actually, I think that evolution doesn't technically count as even a hypothesis. And even if it does, it isn't really al that solid I don't think.

 

[Anthony]

Technically, evolution is neither a theory nor a hypothesis, it's a fact. The theory part comes from discussion about why evolution occurs (Darwin's theory being natural selection).

 

[travlar]

When was it proven?

 

[Anthony]

The Origin of Species was written to explain an observed fact. Some general proofs of evolution:
*Can be observed, trivially, in the wild, among viruses.
*Can be observed (forced evolution) in any selective breeding program. This has been a known technology for millennia, though calling it evolution is relatively new terminology.
*Can be observed in the fossil record. This is a late 19th century discovery.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Google on "Process physics". Relativity may be a crock, aether may be back. BTW, this does not affect time dilation or the c speed limit. Not sure what this does to Alcubierre or Mach's principle.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
Google on "Process physics". Relativity may be a crock, aether may be back. BTW, this does not affect time dilation or the c speed limit. Not sure what this does to Alcubierre or Mach's principle.

Probably nothing. Assuming process physics isn't just yet another theory to wind up on the junkheap of history (the vast majority of revolutionary theories are wrong), it has to behave just like relativity within the regimes we have already tested.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Kaale Dasar:
When was it proven?

can be experimentally proven with a large number of microbes in the lab; fruit-flies as well. This is due to extremely short generation times.

Foxes to dog-like canids: Russia, 1st half of the 20th century. 6 generations from "obviously a fox" to "What do you mean when you say 'This is a fox!'"

Genetics have shown commonality at known mutation rates matching the fossil records for several dozen species. Some real surprises in the genetic clock, however... Chimps and Humans genetic clock times back 6 MYA, while hominids fossil record goes back 7 MYA, and one of the gender chromosomes shows commonality by genetics at 4 MYA...

radiative adaptation and graduated speciation of newts around (IIRC) Long Lake, CA.

So it's past hypothesis, past working theory, to near-law theory; were it not for religious extremism (Mostly Judaic and Christian, but Moslem as well), that evolution occurs.

There are several major theories about the details.

Darwin: The unit of selection is the species and individual.
Dawkins: The unit of selection is the genetic trait; the organism is a collective replicator for the genetic trait collections, and speciation is a way for rarer traits to encourage their own reproduction.
(Don't recall the name): Selection is individual, but generates speciation by progressive degrees as multiple individuals have similar selection pressures. Referenced in one of Dawkins' works.

Another current study is finding speciation adaptation in brown bears, specifically contrasting Kodiak (Grizzly), and Yellowstone Brown bears.

Yet another current or recent study is examining the speciation of squirrels in isolated pockets of forest.

 

[aramis]

Re Process Physics: It's monodirectional time excludes FTL negative time, and opens a plausibility for FTL particles... and possibly more...

nifty... thanks for the pointer, Bob... It's a far sight more intelligible than some of the high-brane string theory.

Tho' I suspect the term Aether might be unwelcome...

 

[travlar]

Originally posted by Anthony:
The Origin of Species was written to explain an observed fact. Some general proofs of evolution:
*Can be observed, trivially, in the wild, among viruses.

That is micro-evolution, which I know has been proven. It is a big step between micro and macro-evolution, which is what I was asking about.

*Can be observed (forced evolution) in any selective breeding program. This has been a known technology for millennia, though calling it evolution is relatively new terminology.

Still micro-evolution.

*Can be observed in the fossil record. This is a late 19th century discovery.

Um? What do you mean?

 

[travlar]

Originally posted by Aramis:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kaale Dasar:
When was it proven?

can be experimentally proven with a large number of microbes in the lab; fruit-flies as well. This is due to extremely short generation times.

Foxes to dog-like canids: Russia, 1st half of the 20th century. 6 generations from "obviously a fox" to "What do you mean when you say 'This is a fox!'"</font>[/QUOTE]This is only micro-evolution, and the foxes probably bred with some dogs as well.

Genetics have shown commonality at known mutation rates matching the fossil records for several dozen species. Some real surprises in the genetic clock, however... Chimps and Humans genetic clock times back 6 MYA, while hominids fossil record goes back 7 MYA, and one of the gender chromosomes shows commonality by genetics at 4 MYA...

radiative adaptation and graduated speciation of newts around (IIRC) Long Lake, CA.

What does that mean? I'm not sure what MYA stands for.

So it's past hypothesis, past working theory, to near-law theory; were it not for religious extremism (Mostly Judaic and Christian, but Moslem as well), that evolution occurs.

What you are talking about is only micro-evolution, which as far as I know isn't disputed at all.

Another current study is finding speciation adaptation in brown bears, specifically contrasting Kodiak (Grizzly), and Yellowstone Brown bears.

Yet another current or recent study is examining the speciation of squirrels in isolated pockets of forest.

Still only micro-evolution. Anyway, even if it is proved that macro-evolution can happen, you cannot prove that it actually caused life.

 

[Anthony]

The entire micro-evolution/macro-evolution division is garbage. They are not separable concepts. What, if you have 10 discernible traits differ it's micro, and 11 traits differ it's macro? As for the fossil record, the entire field of paleontology makes no sense unless you accept evolution.

If you want more evidence (more recent), tracking mutations rates of mitochondrial DNA can tell you how recent the most recent common shared maternal lineage ancestor is (variants can be used for other types of ancestry). It can be confirmed to work for minor variations based on conventional ancestor tracking, and is trivially extended. The results are generally similar to the fossil record.

There is no identifiable difference between 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution'. There's just evolution.

 

[parmasson]

“…you cannot prove that it actually caused life.”

The cause of life is a philosophical argument not scientific.
Do keep in mind the time frame involved as well. Millions of years are involved here.

Most of the evolution bashers are people that have a theological reason to dispute it. Much like the geo-centrists of a previous age.

 

[travlar]

Originally posted by Anthony:
The entire micro-evolution/macro-evolution division is garbage. They are not separable concepts. What, if you have 10 discernible traits differ it's micro, and 11 traits differ it's macro? As for the fossil record, the entire field of paleontology makes no sense unless you accept evolution.

If you want more evidence (more recent), tracking mutations rates of mitochondrial DNA can tell you how recent the most recent common shared maternal lineage ancestor is (variants can be used for other types of ancestry). It can be confirmed to work for minor variations based on conventional ancestor tracking, and is trivially extended. The results are generally similar to the fossil record.

There is no identifiable difference between 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution'. There's just evolution.

Micro-evolution is quite different from macro-evolution. You can have micro-evolution and still have it incapable of producing variety beyond a certain point. Also, I seem to remember hearing somewhere (reletivly recently) that none of the known mutations in fruit flies are beneficial

 

[Anthony]

So, if you micro-evolve something a hundred times, you still can't get any further? As for the beneficial nature of fruit fly mutations, they are generally beneficial for the ability of the fruit fly to survive in the environment it's placed in.

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

I strongly have to agree with Anthony here.
The division is viewpoint driven, but the underlying process is the same.
So, you would be able to artificially set up a unlimited number of evolution subtypes, e.g. by narrowing time scale or environmental aspects.

"incapable of producing variety" is a zero probability concept, thats not included in a process, which is largely driven by complex statistical effects.

Anyway, it surely makes no sense to start/continue just another "Creationists" style debate here.

If so, this is likely to be OFF-TOPIC.

Best regards,

TE

 

[aramis]

The limits on micro-evolution are based upon, IIRC, limited rates of mutation, not differential process. (See Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale and Bakker, The Dinosaur Heresies.)

Modern genetics realizes that most mutations do not express, unless and until triggered by recombination during reproduction (ie, most are not dominant)... in short, not until at least the third generation to possess it. Many of these traits can in short term be rapidly expressed by selective breeding... thinning out the chaff as it were.... Most dominant mutations are rapidly weeded out... either by speciation or by non-survival, or as is the case on Shemya with their foxes, by becoming nigh-universal. Little buggers have absolutely no fear of humans, since those who don't are able to get human refuse, and thus have better diets and reproduce more.

Selection pressures on short terms tend to bring out recessives.
Long term can result in no competition for a recessive but useful trait.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
Anyway, it surely makes no sense to start/continue just another "Creationists" style debate here.

If so, this is likely to be OFF-TOPIC.

Very true. We're watching...