What is a Theory and What is Not a Theory

Posted on October 21, 2008 by Michael

Ever since the media (apparently not McCain) decided it would be a good idea to finally vet Sarah Palin, much has come to light. I’ll leave discussion of tax plans and foreign policy to the political boards, but there is one thing which really needs to be noted. Palin has said in the past that she thinks both evolution and creationism should be taught, referring to them as theories. She later backed off that statement. In the past couple of months, she further clarified her position:

Couric: Should creationism be allowed to be taught anywhere in public schools?

Palin: Don’t have a problem at all with kids debating all sides of theories, all sides of ideas that they ever – kids do it today whether … it’s on paper, in a curriculum or not. Curriculums also are best left to the local school districts. Instead of Big Brother, federal government telling a district what they can and can’t teach, I would like to see more control taken over by our school boards, by our local schools, and then state government at the most. But federal government, you know, kind of get out of some of this curriculum and let the locals decide what is best for their students.

To any person remotely familiar with science, there should be a glaring initial error in that statement. It doesn’t have to do with the merits of debating evolution, but with this notion that there are alternative theories to evolution. Given the context of what Palin has said in the past in addition to her beliefs, it’s overwhelmingly clear she has it in her head that creationism is somehow a theory. Insofar as my theory that ice cream is great can be considered a theory, yes, creationism is a theory. But it is not in any way a scientific theory. The requirements to reach this high level are rigorous. For starters, what predictions does creationism make? What experiments can be carried out to falsify the hypothesis? Can others repeat these experiments? Are there other plausible explanations? Are there better explanations?

In the case of evolution, we see predictions a-plenty being made. We could easily falsify the hypothesis by finding a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian. And we can culture any number of species and see how they adapt to their environments. In truth, the evidence is far more overwhelming, far more testable, far more falsifiable, and far more concrete than I’ve just touched on here. But that’s a question for later. The question here is, why doesn’t the daughter of a science teacher know the difference between a layman theory and a scientific theory? Hell, why doesn’t an educated adult know this?

The truth is evolution is the backbone to every field of biology. It is what creates a coherent picture. From nucleic acids to substrates fitting active sites to differential survival of members of a population, evolution provides the only sensical view of life from its beginnings – and it has yet to be falsified to any point that isn’t merely a shaping and strengthening of the theory. Sarah Palin should know better.

Filed under: Evolution | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Beware What You Read

Posted on October 19, 2008 by Michael

It’s quite common for the media to exaggerate claims or to use the tactic of fear to get readers or viewers. At the risk of contradicting my last post on anecdotal evidence, just watch an episode of Dateline. Your mattress may be ridden with bed bugs!

So it comes as little surprise that Yahoo! has an article up noting that triclosan (a pesticide) may do more harm than good.

There are concerns that triclosan may contribute to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. It’s also present in human bodies and breast milk, as well as in streams. The Environmental Working Group says triclosan has been linked to developmental defects, liver toxicity, and cancer in lab studies. It also may affect thyroid and other hormones that are crucial to normal development.

These “concerns” are rather fabricated. It may very well be true that triclosan has horrible, apocalyptic effects that will stunt your growth and give you cancer. But it’s pretty unlikely. And the honest results of the study bear this out.

Further research is clearly needed to assess whether the emergence of antibiotic resistance in the community setting is associated with the growing use of soaps containing triclosan.

The reason for this is that the study had so many variables in it, it’s basically pretty tough make a definitive determination one way or the other. For starters, there is no known baseline resistance for triclosan. That is, no one knows how much triclosan resistance is naturally in bacteria populations and how much is there due to the increased use of triclosan. Then there’s the fact that the studies didn’t bear out higher rates of resistance in these ‘natural’ settings. If you control the environment and allow little to no contaminantion, yes, facing specific bacteria against a pesticide may very well result in an increased resistance. There are no guarantees in evolution, but the effects of natural selection can be a bit exaggerated in the lab. One possible reason no resistance was found in the uncontrolled environments is that any added genetic mutations are too specific and costly to do well.

So essentially, it is inconclusive whether there is any added danger to using soaps with triclosan in them. Bacteria is unlikely to become resistant outside a lab, especially when there is more than one species at a time vying for survival against this pesticide. Again, there are no guarantees in evolution, but I’m betting your livers and thyroids are safe.

But to be fair, the Yahoo! article is initially focused on pointing out that anti-bacterial soaps are no more effective at hand hygiene than traditional soap and water. This is an accurate description of the findings of this study. I just hope Yahoo! is more careful next time when they want to elicit fear from readers. I won’t hold my breath.

Filed under: Evolution, News | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Anecdotal Evidence

Posted on October 17, 2008 by Michael

One thing people often give undue weight is anecdotal evidence. This is usually the telling of a notable story or event. It is not necessarily representative of anything typical. In science, anecdotes may be good for developing a hypothesis, but absolutely nothing beyond that, I’m afraid. Say, for example, I’m looking at some stratum in the Appalachians and I notice in one area a large, distinctive band of coloration. This gives me some good reason to investigate a bit further. Perhaps my hypothesis can be that I have just discovered a new layer of sediment that marks a particular time period in geological history. But I don’t know anything at the time of discovery. The coloration may just be some Kool Aid a hiker spilled in the area, or maybe there is an interaction between bird droppings, tree sap, and acidic rain. I won’t know until I test this hypothesis rigorously. As it stands, my hypothesis has use in propelling me toward finding actual evidence, but it isn’t evidence itself.

This brings me to the blog of Michael Heath. He made a post on homosexuals being intolerant.

The “gay” issue is always portrayed in the media as one of tolerance. People don’t realize that the so-called “tolerance” goes only one way. I have never experienced true tolerance with homosexuals. The minute they realize that I am not going to budge on my morals they become insistent, mean, hard-hearted and sometimes vicious.

This may very well be true. But Heath has no idea if it is. He has no studies which demonstrate a correlation between homosexuality and a lack of cordiality. He has no statistical samples which prove out or lend credence to his claim. He may as well conclude a Kool Aid stain on Mount Katahdin links it to the blood of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous Period.

Heath continues.

There is no better example of this reality than this recent account from the streets of San Franciso. sic

He then links to an article which cites homosexual rights supporters outshouting a conservative news conference in front of the San Francisco city hall building. This is anecdotal support for an anecdote. It doesn’t help that Heath is accussing homosexuals of being hateful on the whole when it isn’t necessarily true that all the counter-protesters were gay.

It’s best to learn from the errors of Heath. Ignore your stance on homosexuality. That isn’t the point. Just don’t judge what might be a Kool Aid stain to be anything more until you have sufficient evidence.

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , , | Leave a comment »

Great New Tiktaalik Research

Posted on October 16, 2008 by Michael

Details of Evolutionary Transition From Fish to Land Animals Revealed

So the jist of this new research is that Tiktaalik roseae has been vetted a bit better. Researchers viewed several Tiktaalik fossils and discovered some interesting new information on its internal anatomy. Of specific interest is the hyomandibula. Its function has changed significantly from its early arrival in fish to its current use in mammals. As it stands, this bone functions as part of the ear for mammals. It also functions as part of cranial motions for fish, namely it is very important to gill respiration. In Tiktaalik, it had a transitional function. That isn’t to say it acted as a sort of ear-gill. It didn’t. It had a function that resulted in better cranial movement, inherently giving it less importance toward gill respiration.

What’s really important here is to realize that this is the exact same bone in mammals as it is in fish. If Tiktaalik lies somewhere between fish and most land animals, we should see quite a few features lying in between. That’s precisely what we see. What’s further, this should help to demonstrate that when scientists speak of transitional features, they do not mean hybrid phenotypes like ear-gills or the silly crocoduck

Filed under: Evolution | Tagged: , , | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page