Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is a good question. One of the things they are doing to test Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is to put it under extreme conditions. That was the biggest failing with Newton's Law of Gravitation. It was never tested under strong gravitational fields. Recently, however, they discovered the ideal laboratory to put Einstein's theory to the test under extreme conditions.
The millisecond pulsar is rotating at nearly 366 times per second, which makes for a perfect clock. So we should find out in short order whether Einstein's theory will hold up under extreme conditions.
Cool links by the way. I have to say when you start having to look outside the solar system for a means to disprove a theory, that says a lot for the theory. To think that it was proposed over 100 year ago.
It would be interesting if you could put evolution to the same test. Find an other planet with life and see what happened there.
26% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth...
And about 90% of people think that the world revolves around them, so what.
This is nothing new - how stupid people are. People like to bash on Americans, but the fact is, you can find plenty of ignorant twits just about anywhere on the globe.
While evolution is a good theory, it is still a theory. For the theory to be proven, we would have to be able to preform scientific testing with control groups and control variables. We currently do not have that ability. The time scale is too long and there are too many variables. Until such time that such tests can be preformed to validate the premise, it will remain a theory.
There is a possibility that it could be proven mathematically, however such a proof would be an amazing accomplishment on its own. In addition, mathematical proof still require some sort of real world validation.
Even so evolution appears to address many questions, it still is an unproven theory. Anyone that states differently is talking based on emotions and not science.
"A Scientific Theory is a "well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions."
"In science, a Theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct."
The scientific Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for all the observable evidence from the fossil records, from comparative anatomy, taxonomy, from DNA analysis etc. It fits all the observations of genetic changes in populations and diversity of life on earth. It ties together all the facts, and it's predictions remain true. It's is also consistent with other fields of science. It's been rigorously tested and questioned for over 150 years and it still stands.
As a scientific theory, the Theory of Evolution could be falsified by evidence that contradicts the Theory. So far, in more than 150 years, that has not happened.
There is no other explanation that even comes close to explaining all the evidence like the Theory of Evolution does.
You might want to learn what the word "theory" means in the context of science.
Not all scientific evidence requires a "control group." Much is observational. Studies of population genetics provide the mathematical confirmation you are seeking, very much in the real world.
Taken together, the body of evidence -- from fossils to DNA -- confirms the validity of the scientific theory of evolution.
Then there is the Lenksi study. Almost 60,000 generations of E. coli observed over 25 years, where one population acquired the ability to metabolise citrate.
"A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.
Twenty years ago (now over 25 years), evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.
The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations (now almost 60,000), while Lenski watches what happens.
Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.
But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.
Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity."
I think gravity is a good point. We know if a ball is dropped in a vacuum it will fall. Conduct the same experiment in the same place with the same equipment and you will get very consistent results. Outside factors like the moon and sun can be factored in to get even better and more consistent result. We can observe the planets and other bodies as see how gravity effects them. However, we have only recently glimpsed at why the ball falls.
Actually, when it comes to the planets, that is where Newton's Law of Gravitation breaks down. It is only applicable for weak gravitational interactions. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity modified Newton's Law of Gravitation to include strong gravitational interactions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealrm
With evolution, we are in a different boat. We can only observe what nature has allowed us to see. We can't test it directly, all the evidence is by observation that are flashes in time. It is like watching a ball fall down a peg board under a strobe light with part of the board hidden. We see the ball drop, a few million years later we see what appears to be the same ball part way down and then millions of years later we see a ball at the bottom. We have seen this happen enough times that we assume the ball at the top and the bottom are the same ball, but we have no way to directly prove it. Nor can we see all the pegs on the board, so to trace the path back. And just to make things interesting, some times the ball disappears or splits into more balls.
We can test evolution directly as well. All it takes is an extremely fast reproducing organism, like Escherichia coli for example, which has a reproduction rate of about 30 minutes. If you introduce an antibiotic, you will kill the vast majority of the E-coli initially, but after about 10 to 12 hours (20 or so generations) a strain of antibiotic resistant E-coli will have evolved.
"A Scientific Theory is a "well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions."
"In science, a Theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct."
The scientific Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for all the observable evidence from the fossil records, from comparative anatomy, taxonomy, from DNA analysis etc. It fits all the observations of genetic changes in populations and diversity of life on earth. It ties together all the facts, and it's predictions remain true. It's is also consistent with other fields of science. It's been rigorously tested and questioned for over 150 years and it still stands.
As a scientific theory, the Theory of Evolution could be falsified by evidence that contradicts the Theory. So far, in more than 150 years, that has not happened.
There is no other explanation that even comes close to explaining all the evidence like the Theory of Evolution does.
I find it interesting that calling the theory of evolution a theory gets such a response. Even calling it a good, strong theory generated many postings trying to refute that comment. As you stated above, a theory is a "rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world'. So let apply that definition to evolution. First rigorously tested - we have one test on a simple bacteria that supported the theory. That is a test, but it would be a very long stretch to call it rigorously tested. Next Observable aspects: have we repeated observed species evolving into new species. No - we have observed the end result and some intermediate stages that suggest species evolve, but we have not direct observed it happening. The time scale is to long. How about recorded aspects. Fossils are records of the past and from that standpoint evolution does explain what appears to be happening. But the fossil records are not complete with millions of years better records and many pages missing.
You stated that prediction from the theory of evolution remain true. What prediction would those be??
As I stated before, The theory of evolution is a theory.
Actually, when it comes to the planets, that is where Newton's Law of Gravitation breaks down. It is only applicable for weak gravitational interactions. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity modified Newton's Law of Gravitation to include strong gravitational interactions.
We can test evolution directly as well. All it takes is an extremely fast reproducing organism, like Escherichia coli for example, which has a reproduction rate of about 30 minutes. If you introduce an antibiotic, you will kill the vast majority of the E-coli initially, but after about 10 to 12 hours (20 or so generations) a strain of antibiotic resistant E-coli will have evolved.
Is that a test?? You start with a mixed group of e-coli, some that are killed by an antibiotic some that are not. You kill off the e-coli that are not immune to the antibiotic leaving the immune e-coli. You started with e-coli and ended with a subset of e-coli. It's still e-coli. The trait was already present in the initial population of e-coli. If you started with e-coli and end with an algae then you could say that the the e-coli evolved into another species.
The prior post about the bacteria metabolizing a different food was a better example. Continue that test for another 50 years and see if they develop into a completely different type of bacteria, then you will start to have some tests with meaning. It will also need to be repeated with a number of different bacteria and higher life forms.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
26% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth...
