Just back from the DMV!

The trip to “The New DMV” the “MVC” wasn’t as bad as I expected. I was in and out in an hour. Everyone smelled okay and no one vomited. I guess they’ve changed a bit in the past four years. I was guilted into becoming an organ donor by the woman clerk, which I thought I already was but apparently was not. Here’s a tip though: bring your passport & birth certificate if you have ‘em. I did “just in case”, but since I did not bring multiple credit cards (I have only one), a social security card (which I misplaced years ago), a utility bill, my high school diploma, a DNA sample, an RNA sample, a urine sample, a stool sample, etc., I would have never made the six-point ID verification system requirements. They have these new post 9/11 “digital” driver licenses to prevent forgeries, . . . hang on, the ice cream truck just pulled up . . . . . . (mmm, chocolate jimmies!) . . . yeah “digital” ID’s made from some kind of a digital printing machine. But the resolution is really low! It looks like it was printed on “draft” mode on my Epson C82! The photo is very blurry!!! Maybe the ink cartridges were low. The brochure describing the features of the new licenses looked better than the actual license itself! Oh well. Anyway, I decided that since driver license photos always look bad, I went in there unshaven and decided not to smile. I was going for the whole Colin Farrell/Mohammad Atta look, and boy did I nail it! It makes a nice match to my passport; I’m sure to get cavity-searched the next time I travel abroad or get another speeding ticket.

Theories and The Theory of Evolution

Non-scientist, like me, often misinterpret the terms scientist use. This sometimes causes people, like me, to come to incorrect conclusions about what the scientific terms actually mean, and to the extent to which an idea has been proven. I was forced to check out a few things to get my shit straight.

Let’s look at the word theory, which is used in casual conversation in a far different way than scientists use it. Conversationally, when someone says, “it’s just a theory” or “theoretically speaking” they usually mean they are just guessing, they don’t expect things to follow in the manner they just described to you, or they are questioning the validity of something. A scientist would use the word “hypothesis” to convey such meanings, for theory packs more punch in the scientific world than it does out on the street.

“Scientific Law”, “Theory”, and “Hypothesis” are often used interchangeably, but are three very distinct things.

A Scientific Law is a statement of fact used to explain in concise terms an action or a small set of actions. It is generally accepted as universally true, and often can be expressed in a single mathematical equation, or often closely resembles a mathematical postulate (remember those from geometry class?). Scientific Laws do not need complex external proofs or data; they are accepted at face value since they have always been observed in real-world experience as being true.

An example is the law of gravity. Bits of matter are attracted to other bits of matter, with the attraction being greater the greater the mass of the bits. (Sorry Isaac, I know it’s not the most eloquent sentence.) There is a mathematical equation, which expresses this dynamic. And we see it occurring out in the real world all the time, as things fall to the ground, as the moon creates tides, as the earth orbits the sun, etc.

An Hypothesis is an educated guess (remember that term from junior high?) based on observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event based on what is observed, but which still remains unproven. An Hypothesis is tested by applying the scientific method; by continued observation and experimentation to attempt to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

A Theory is more like a Scientific Law than a Hypothesis. Theories generally explain events that are too complex and broad to be summed up neatly and mathematically like a Scientific Law can. A Theory is rational explanation of a (usually large) set of similar events or observations based upon proven hypotheses and verified many times by independent sets of research scientists. (A single scientist cannot create a theory, but rather only a hypothesis.) To be created, a Theory requires multiple scientists or multiple groups of scientists from multiple research facilities to agree based on shared and extensive experimentation and/or observation. It’s hard to make the cut.

A Scientific Law and a Theory are both accepted as true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions and advance technology. The only real difference between the two is that a Scientific Law explains a single action or a small set of similar actions whereas a Theory explains a large series of related actions.

An example of a theory is the Atomic Theory, which is used to explain a wide variety of physical events (including the nature and makeup of all matter, which includes you and I) and forms the foundation of chemistry. Chemistry being an extremely large field of study. Atomic Theory also expalins Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, & Three Mile Island!

So when we talk of the Theory of Evolution, we are not talking about a best guess or an unsure thing. It is not an hypothesis. It has been proven time and again by many different scientists over a broad spectrum of time. It is not something that Charles Darwin merely speculated as being a possible reason to describe all the various permutations of life on this planet. It is something he put forth that has been proved and expanded upon by generations of scientists. Today the Theory of Evolution is about as sound as science gets, with Darwin’s natural selection being the underling mechanism driving Evolution.

Evolution exists and can be observed in species over long expanses of time, or in very short periods of time as one watches bacteria and/or viruses mutate in a Petri dish. Species evolve and adapt to their environment; it is a fact that we observe. There is no denying that this mechanism is in effect. Apples fall from trees; this is a fact that we observe. And the apple falls from the tree under the law of gravity, not by magic. A recessive gene in a species will become dominate if environmental conditions enhance the survivability of the particular organism(s) within that species with that trait, and the species adapts to the environment over subsequent generations because of the Theory of Evolution, not because of magic.

Today the modern theory of DNA based Evolution has been tested and proven time and time again and forms the core of modern biology, grounded by thread upon thread of evidence and observation that connects it to nearly every area of human knowledge, including: Agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, zoology, animal husbandry, hybridism, medicine, biopharmacology, genetic engineering, ecology, archeology, paleontology, etc.

So the big question is this: Given the facts that we observe day in and day out, is there really any room to debate the validity of the Theory of Evolution?

And the big answer is: No. The debates have been played out to the fullest by application of the scientific method and the conclusions have been drawn. To refute these findings is to disgrace the power of the human intellect as well as to part ways with logic, reason, and sensibility. But if you feel that you must, can you please keep it to yourself and not ask our woefully under-educated youth to believe you?

Of course theories can evolve themselves as new observations and experiments are made! So keep an open mind!!!! No one said knowledge was easy to obtain or understand!