Evolution: Science or Philosophy

[_ID_]

Didn't really see a question in the post. So I will go with the title of the thread.

"Evolution: Science or Philosophy"

Personally I feel anything that is provable falls into the realm of science, not philosophy. I feel this because it doesn't fit the description of a theory as I would understand the definition. I say evolution is science because the results of tests can be proven in separate testing scenarios.

I have a friend of the family that is a biologist. He studies frogs. He has studied why limbs and eyes and organs grow into the spots that they do. For instance; why do your arms grow at your shoulders rather than at your hips? We know it works pretty well for them to be there, so that's where they are. But why (this would lead to your intelligent design theory)? My friend researched the notion that you could find out the point in the growth process when the division of cells decides what parts of the body will go where. He tried to figure out if he could make the arms of the frog grow on other parts of the body.

Evolution comes into all this when we think about the traceable history of the frog. Frogs start as tadpoles correct? This makes them a water born organism at that time. They have evolved to move onto land. Why did they do this? For what purpose? Perhaps for the very same purpose that your arms are on your shoulders rather than your hips. It just works best that way.

In my opinion the watch example that you have given is a very pour illustration of the Intelligent Design theory. A watch is an inanimate object subject to the inputs of the one who posses it. If we are to believe along those lines of Intelligent Design then we must also believe that all of our actions are predestined the same as the watch. Shoots the notion of freedom of choice right out the window if you ask me.

Lets think of another example of evolution in action that is provable. This one will surprise you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example...n#Hawthorn_fly

Hawthorn fly

An interesting example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation.[7] Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A distinct population emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were introduced. This apple-feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. The current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples. Scientists are investigating whether or not the apple-feeding subspecies may further evolve into a new species.

Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen allozyme loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that this is occurring. The emergence of the new hawthorn fly is an example of evolution in progress.

There are more examples on the page I posted, this just happens to be one of them.

In summary. Either evolution is a fact, and provable, or you are purposing that all newly discovered species and subspecies are a direct result of some benevolent being putting them here on earth at specified times throughout history. Personally I don't know to what extent evolution exists, but I do know that it is there. As far as some greater force having influence on the happenings of the earth. I don't doubt that either. Couldn't it be a mix of the two?

[Rhabbi]

My apologies for the lack of a question, I was interuppted and never got back to edit my post.

This is actually an interesting article, though incomplete. I did not know of this observed phenomenon, and was delighted to add to my trove of knowledge. I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not the best source to use in research, but I will deal with this article on its merites.

First, this article actually disproves speciation:

there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that this is occurring.

Different species are always sterile, that is how we know they are different species, and not just different sub-types of the same species.

Second, although I am a believer that genetic drift would be the best evidence of speciation, this article points out that the drift is not consitent in any way. there are differences from year to year in the same poulation group, in other words, the same tree. http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/119/2/445 I would expect that gentic drift would need some type of consistency to cause speciation.

Third, althoughsympatric speciation is not as controversial as it was in the 1980's, there is still much debate concerning its value and existence.

There have been ongoing experiments in laboratory settings using radiation to cause speciation in fruit flies. These studies are also augmented by studying fruit flies in natural environmnets, yet not onsce has anyone anounced evidence of speciation. Many theorists are moving away from evidence of speciation as proof of evolution because it is so hard to find. Juist something to think about.