|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joeblow wrote: | Ok, I see your point. In fact, you come to the same conclusion I did at the end of my post, two entries up. Science only goes so far. Once you discuss realities that science is not equipped to address, you have to use a different tool to evaluate.
But the main point is this: there are indeed REALITIES that exist where science is not equipped to address. That concept is what fascinates me the most.
So if we are talking internally, which is to say, all areas in which our science rules hold up, then we can call that 'Science B' for our discussion. For realities that exist outside of this internal universe of ours, and external science if you will, we can describe that as 'Science A'. Is that fair? |
How can we determine things scientifically about it if it's impossible for us to test it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17251
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Surfitall wrote: | | What an amazing place we live. |
It truly is. That's also why I cry a little inside when politicians grandstand against peanuts spent on scientific "pork" research while so much money is spent on killing and preparing to kill each other.
NASA: $17.6 billion
Military spending: ~$1.2 trillion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joeblow
Star Player
Joined: 24 Nov 2008
Posts: 3090
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fan0Bynum17 wrote: |
How can we determine things scientifically about it if it's impossible for us to test it? |
We can't test Science A directly. We can only test Science A with Science A tools, and all we have are Science B tools. However calling them both 'Science' is a way of acknowledging that both are realities. One reality exists within the confines of our universal rules, and the other reality exists outside of it (like your point about the edges of the universe).
We can only be sure of the existence of Science A through the effect it has on that which exists in Science B, but we can't go vice versa it seems to reveal the specifics in the other direction.
As you say, the universe is finite according to Science B, but Science A's reality of existence outside of that finite space is a complete un-observable mystery when using Science B tools.
Last edited by joeblow on Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecksor
Star Player
Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1266
Location: City of Angels
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| REPPIN 818 wrote: | | This thread makes me want to move out of the United States to a European nation such as Sweeden. It's no wonder the rest of the world laughs at our stupidity and educational system as a whole. |
Our education system has failed us. We can't even spell other countries correctly.  
_________________
We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire... Give us the tools and we will finish the job.
- Winston Churchill
Who is my avatar? Kharunisia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
REPPIN 818
Star Player
Joined: 17 Jun 2007
Posts: 5251
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecksor wrote: | | REPPIN 818 wrote: | | This thread makes me want to move out of the United States to a European nation such as Sweeden. It's no wonder the rest of the world laughs at our stupidity and educational system as a whole. |
Our education system has failed us. We can't even spell other countries correctly. |
I fail |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joeblow wrote: | | Fan0Bynum17 wrote: |
How can we determine things scientifically about it if it's impossible for us to test it? |
We can't test Science A directly. We can only test Science A with Science A tools, and all we have are Science B tools. However calling them both 'Science' is a way of acknowledging that both are realities. One reality exists within the confines of our universal rules, and the other reality exists outside of it (like your point about the edges of the universe).
We can only be sure of the existence of Science A through the effect it has on that which exists in Science B, but we can't go vice versa it seems to reveal the specifics in the other direction.
As you say, the universe is finite according to Science B, but Science A's reality of existence outside of that finite space is a complete un-observable mystery when using Science B tools. |
I.E. can't be a science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecksor
Star Player
Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1266
Location: City of Angels
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joeblow wrote: | | Fan0Bynum17 wrote: |
How can we determine things scientifically about it if it's impossible for us to test it? |
We can't test Science A directly. We can only test Science A with Science A tools, and all we have are Science B tools. However calling them both 'Science' is a way of acknowledging that both are realities. One reality exists within the confines of our universal rules, and the other reality exists outside of it (like your point about the edges of the universe).
We can only be sure of the existence of Science A through the effect it has on that which exists in Science B, but we can't go vice versa it seems to reveal the specifics in the other direction.
As you say, the universe is finite according to Science B, but Science A's reality of existence outside of that finite space is a complete un-observable mystery when using Science B tools. |
Sounds like something one would discuss in a Philosophy of Science class....
_________________
We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire... Give us the tools and we will finish the job.
- Winston Churchill
Who is my avatar? Kharunisia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joeblow
Star Player
Joined: 24 Nov 2008
Posts: 3090
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OK, then I'll use 'Reality A' for that which exists beyond what our scientific tools can ever test, and 'Reality B' for everything contained within the rules of the universe. Is that better? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11266
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| non-player zealot wrote: | | Paging Larry and John. |
Yeah, just saw this thread. But I also just returned from a camping trip, and I'm in no shape right now to put together answers to all the complete ignorance I've seen in this thread. Some of it, sure -- it takes some explanation to understand why "What caused the Big Bang?" is actually a nonsensical question. (And even if it wasn't, we have enough evidence that it DID happen to render any argument from ignorance that concludes "therefore it didn't happen" moot.) But some of the things I've seen in this thread -- just wow.
Soon (hopefully tomorrow), I'll go back through this post, pick out all the parts that are wrong, and put together an explanation for each.
But for now, I will post a quick response to whomever brought up the Ben Stein movie. The entire thing is complete, 100%, unadulterated crap. Here's something the National Center for Science Education put together in response:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11266
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, I've had a chance to go back through this thread and pick out selected statements to respond to. I realize another mod had already locked this thread (not sure whom), but with this post I'll re-open it and address some of the issues that were raised. If we can keep the discussion in-bounds, then I see no reason why we can't continue it -- assuming people's motives are legitimately to discuss ideas and information. But if it degenerates, then I have no problem with it being re-locked, either.
As I write this paragraph it's Monday, and I intend to devote some of my lunchtimes this week to writing this response. As such, I have no idea how long this will take to complete – if I’m lucky you’ll be reading it by the end of the week. One of the problems is that a clear explanation can take a great deal of time to craft. I'm not the first one to say something like, "He can throw out more misinformation in one minute than I can fix in an hour." It's easy to throw something out there that's wrong in some respect (logically fallacious, misunderstanding the science, just plain incorrect, etc.), but it takes a lot longer to respond when you have the further burden of making sure you have the facts right and your logic is solid in explaining a concept that’s fairly complicated.
Given the above considerations, and given that nothing here is new -- everything I saw in this thread has been asked and responded to repeatedly, both here and in other venues, I'll probably be relying a lot on the work of others (and my own previous writing). Forgive me if I don't provide specific cites every time I do this (otherwise this response will probably take twice as long to write), but I typically go to talkorigins.org for a lot of great reference material. And since some issues (such as logical fallacies or the misunderstanding of the basic process of science) would be huge posts themselves, I might end up summarizing the high points and referring the reader to other sites for further reading.
I'll also use footnotes when I want to make an ancillary point. I'll number them in square brackets -- look at the end of the post for the text.
Some opening comments:
1. This thread got muddled pretty quickly by conflating three different topics -- evolution (how life changes and has changed over time), abiogenesis (how life got started), and big bang cosmology (what happened at the start of the observable universe). The three are related, but they are still separate and distinct topics. They are also unrelated as far as truth is concerned -- i.e., even if big bang cosmology is completely wrong, that doesn't mean that evolution didn't occur and that our understanding of its processes isn't accurate. Likewise, our incomplete understanding of abiogenesis (although we have a lot more understanding than some give us credit for) also says nothing about whether our understanding of evolution is accurate. I'd prefer that we keep the discussion on a single topic in order to try to avoid some of the confusion that's already occurred, but I'm just responding to what's already written. So I'll answer everything, but keep in mind that you can't -- for example -- disprove evolution by attacking abiogenesis.[1]
2. The opening post in this topic is an example of something that also occurred the last time we discussed this, which I think is pretty disingenuous. While I can't prove it of course, I'm pretty sure that the opening post in this thread isn't a first-person account of the OP's thought processes, as he claimed. It's almost assuredly a regurgitation (either literal or paraphrased) attack on evolution found elsewhere. It's always, "I was taking a class, and the professor talked about X, but when I asked him to explain it further, he couldn't." Or "I was thinking about Y, and this is where it became clear to me that Y is impossible." What follows is always a repeat of the same canards which have been repeatedly answered -- almost verbatim, in thought if not in language. In the last thread we had on this subject (someone else in this thread already linked to it), it was (I'm paraphrasing) "I was just thinking about evolution and thermodynamics, and it occurred to me that evolution violates the first two laws." So you want me to believe that you understand evolution and thermodynamics well enough to recognize a discrepancy, yet at the same time you illustrate that you don't understand either one well enough to recognize why your apparent discrepancy is obviously false. Um, no. How about, "I couldn't even spell 'thermodynamics' if it weren't for cut & paste, but I found this on another site and it sounded good." Why do people insist on making these arguments sound like their own, when they're obviously not?
3. Likewise, I have little tolerance for plain assertions of things that are just plain wrong. It hasn't happened much in this thread, but it's here. The common ones are things like, "there are no transitional fossils," or "we have not actually observed evolution happening" (the latter one did appear in this thread). There are plenty of examples of each, and to continue to claim otherwise is either ignorance (nothing wrong with that, and it can be easily remedied through education) or the equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting "Na na na -- can't hear you!" Another related issue is moving the goalposts, which I -will- cover in this response (e.g., microevolution vs. macroevolution).
4. I'll get more into this when I respond to individual points, but one source of amusement for me is always the cognitive dissonance that must occur in people's minds when they write stuff that says (again paraphrasing), "There are problems with these theories that even I can see, yet the scientists keep ignoring them" (or missing them, or throwing them out, or ostracizing anyone who contradicts them, or whatever). On one side you have the thought process that says, "I don't know much about physics, but I sure know more than all these Nobel Prize winning physicists that spend their careers studying these ideas yet miss the obvious reason their ideas are impossible." On the other side you have the people who think science works like an old-boys' club where they just suppress ideas they don't disagree with -- a staggering misunderstanding of how the process and practice of science actually works.
5. One big problem I see often (including in this thread) is logical fallacies. On full display here is the Argument from Ignorance, False Dichotomy, Strawman Argument, Moving the Goalposts, Weak Analogy, and a few others. I'll point these out when I see them, but a full explanation would make this post three or four times longer than it's already going to be. But still, a working understanding of critical thinking and logical fallacies is absolutely essential in order to be able to discuss topics such as these -- the problem often isn't with the science, its with the logic you use to critique it. So I'll implore everyone to at least read Steve Novella's recent blog post on the subject HERE, which gives an excellent introduction. From there, I'd recommend a site like fallacyfiles.org for a more thorough treatment. The "meat" of the fallacyfiles.org site is this page, which lays out a large number of fallacies in an organized fashion. It'll make my job a lot easier when I can spend less time dealing with things like really bad Strawman arguments and devote more time to legitimate questions that deserve thorough responses.
6. Some of you are making the same points, albeit using different language. I’ll try to answer specific points just once, and refer you to these explanations when the same issues are raised again. But I’m not necessarily responding to these points in order (I’m actually moving from topic to topic as I write this), so sometimes I’ll refer you to explanations that appear later in this response.
Okay, onto individual comments made in this thread.
Points raised by dwonderful
| Quote: | | How did something as complex as our nervous system, which somehow conducts electrical events to maintain our well-being just evolve from nothing? |
I have two responses to this. The first is that it’s simply a fallacious argument, illustrating the Argument from Personal Incredulity. This refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead. Just because you have a hard time believing it, doesn’t make it wrong.
My second response is that the nervous system didn’t “just evolve from nothing.” There is a very long line of evolutionary change leading to the development of the nervous system – HERE are a few references for you.
Summing it all up, complexity only indicates that something is difficult to understand, not that it is difficult to evolve. And we have pretty good knowledge of how the nervous system did evolve.[2]
| Quote: | | The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as law of mass/matter conservation says that the mass of a closed system will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. An equivalent statement is that mass cannot be created/destroyed. These are universally accepted facts. How do scientists disregard these laws when accepting the possibility of evolution? |
This is one of those statements that seems to be fundamentally confused. Conservation of mass might be an argument to make against the Big Bang, but not evolution.
There are a couple of possible interpretations of your point. One is that you really did mean evolution, in which case it’s a Strawman argument. Evolution certainly doesn’t require that new matter be created. You realize that during pregnancy, brand new atoms aren’t popping into existence to form the baby, right? In fact nowhere in evolution is the creation (or destroying) of matter postulated. If this is what you mean, then perhaps you can clarify what you mean when you say that evolution violates the law of conservation of matter, and I can respond further.
On the other hand, you might really be referring to the Big Bang. But that’s not an issue either. We know from quantum field theory that things DO come out of nothing. In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments (see, for example, Casimir effect).
The common point for all of these effects is that they do not violate any known conservation laws of physics (e.g., the conservation of energy, momentum, and charge). Something can indeed come out of nothing as long as these conservation laws permit it. But people often argue that the Big Bang theory is obviously in violation.
There are several valid counterarguments against this: first, the Big Bang theory is not about the origin of the universe, but rather its development with time. Hence, any statement that the appearance of the universe "out of nothing" is impossible has nothing to do with what the theory actually addresses. Likewise, while the laws of thermodynamics apply to the universe today, it is not clear that they necessarily apply to the origin of the universe; we simply do not know. Finally, it is not clear that one can sensibly talk about time "before the Big Bang". "Time" is an integral part of our universe (hence the General Relativity term "spacetime") - so it is not clear how exactly one would characterize the energy before and after the Big Bang in a precise enough way to conclude it was not conserved.
Assuming we have some way to handle notions of time outside of our spacetime, the universe appearing out of nothing would only violate the first law of thermodynamics if the energy beforehand were different from the energy afterwards. Probably all people will agree that "nothingness" should have an energy of zero; so the law is only violated if the energy of the universe is non-zero. However, the total energy of the universe is exactly zero -- the negative gravitational potential energy of the universe counterbalances the positive energy contained in matter and radiation, leaving a net total energy of zero (see Tryon, 1973 published in Nature).
So scientists don’t “disregard” these laws at all. Unless by “disregard” you mean “understand.”
| Quote: | | I researched this, and the Big Bang, which is also referred to as the "hypothesis of the primeval atom", could HAVE ONLY OCCURRED IF AN ATOM/ATOMS WERE PRESENT |
We’re repeating the same points that are already covered in this response, so I won’t repeat everything. I’ll simply refer you to THIS ARTICLE, which explains it for real.
| Quote: | | I still find evolution not plausible due to these following laws. The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. This again, universally accepted law, which 100% of the time has proven to be factual, would make evolution not possible. |
This is mostly already covered elsewhere, so I won’t repeat the entire explanation. Again, you seem to be confusing Big Bang cosmology with evolution. But briefly, the formation of the universe from nothing does not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it sums to zero (Guth 1997, 9-12,271-276; Tryon 1973).
So that allows for the Universe to exist. Regarding evolution, absolutely nothing in the theory says that energy is created or destroyed in the process, so your point is moot (and a Strawman). You could argue that it violates the second law (and hey, you do below!) but you yourself point out the major flaw in this argument – the 2nd law refers to thermodynamically isolated systems, and the Earth is NOT such a system – it receives energy from the Sun.
| Quote: | | And, even if it had, the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. However, in order for evolution to have truly occurred, this law would have also had to be broken. Imagine confining only atoms to a specific area, and eventually, a human, arising. This could not occur due to the second law of thermodynamics, which is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system, which is not in equilibrium, will tend to increase over time. |
Ah, the second law of thermodynamics – one of the most repeated objections to evolution. This objection is also one of the most easily refuted, which makes me wonder why it’s so often repeated.[3]
The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
For a more thorough treatment of this issue you can look at:
* The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability, which describes the misconception (and why it’s wrong) in detail.
* Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics, which describes how well established scientific principles are twisted into meaningless gibberish.
* Entropy, Disorder and Life, with more of the same.
* Entropy, the 2nd Law, and Thermodynamics, still more, written by a chemist, and intended as an accessible introduction.
It really does make me laugh (hence my more thorough treatment of this issue) that the thermodynamic based arguments continue to be among the most repeated. Forget the fact that they’re so thoroughly refuted – do people really think that thousands of brilliant people would spend their entire careers studying evolution and simply fail to notice that it violates basic laws of Physics? Do these people ever stop to wonder if maybe their own understanding of evolution or physics maybe isn’t on par with that of a Nobel prizewinner’s? Of course not…
| Quote: | | Even if millions of atoms, and energy, had been created, these would not evolve into something more complex, instead something more disorderly. |
This is just another misstatement of the second law of thermodynamics, which I covered above, and will only summarize here. The 2nd law applies only to thermodynamically isolated systems, and the Earth isn’t thermodynamically isolated (look for that bright yellow thing in the daytime sky…). Likewise snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature, yet you fail to decry those as impossible when applying the same standards.
| Quote: | | In order for the theory of Evolution to be true, it would then have to disregard the FOUNDATION of science itself. In my opinion, it is no more than a contradiction. |
This one doesn’t introduce any new false assertions (those were covered in the previous questions), but it does make the same hubristic assertion I addressed above –YOUR understanding of thermodynamics and evolution trumps those of thousands of scientists who spend their careers working on this stuff, and somehow either: 1) They’re missing the contradictions that would make it impossible; or 2) They somehow disregard it in order to advance their pet theory. It couldn’t possibly be a lack of understanding on your part….
| Quote: | | I would like to say this is NOT a Creationism vs. Evolutionism debate!! I merely would like to understand how and why the theory of Evolution was not disregarded as foolish by scientists. |
Because they understand both a lot better than you do?
Points raised by ecksor
| Quote: | | Personally, I wonder if Darwin would've come up with his theory of natural selection as the mechanism for diversity had he lived with today's understanding of medical science. |
What aspect of “today’s understanding of medical science” would make you think that it would do anything other than strengthen the idea of natural selection? The fact is, much of our knowledge of biology makes little to no sense except within the context of evolution.
An example – Darwin postulated that some mechanism must exist for traits to be passed on from generation to generation, but he did not know what that mechanism was. It wasn’t until the following century that DNA was isolated. It was half a century after that until the human genome was sequenced. We now have a thorough understanding of how genetics works, and exactly how traits are passed on from parent to offspring. You’re saying that if Darwin had full knowledge of what DNA does and how it works, he would be LESS likely to recognize natural selection? Huh?
| Quote: | | I can agree that scientific theories are never "proven" correct. But that theories stand until proven wrong? Theories shouldn't be accepted unless there is some evidence to support the notion. But science continues, in theory, to attempt to find more evidence than will either support or disprove a proposed hypothesis. |
It looks like you at least understand that science doesn’t deal with proof – that’s mathematics. However, you don’t indicate an understanding of how science does work. Specifically, what makes you think theories are accepted without “some evidence to support the notion?” In order for a theory to be accepted, it has to explain all available evidence, and do so in a way that is superior to any competing theories. When scientific work is done, the results are published in peer reviewed journals. The process of peer review means that experts around the world do everything within their power to find flaws in your work, and tear you a new one for coming up with a bad idea. It’s a brutal process – but one that’s essential to ensure scientific validity. Only when work passes rigorous scrutiny is it accepted. And every bit of new evidence that comes along is held up against the theory to ensure that it holds.
Want to disprove evolution? Easy – just find clearly disconfirming evidence. Show solid evidence, for example, that horses existed in the Cambrian, and the entire idea will be flushed down the toilet.
You should know, however, that millions of pieces of evidence have been found, and they all confirm the theory. Any debate that remains focus on specific mechanisms within evolution, and not the fact of evolution.
The idea that scientific theories exist without supporting evidence exists only in your mind.
| Quote: | | And just to satisfy my own curiosity, when you talk of scientific experiments supporting evolution, what exactly are you talking about? Are you referring to the Miller–Urey experiment? Haeckel's work with embryos? Darwin's tree of life? |
Hmm, Miller-Urey was for abiogenesis, not evolution, and I already covered that those are two different topics.
Haeckel’s idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is false, and our evolutionary understanding doesn’t rely on it in any way, shape or form (although some woefully out-of-date texts might still repeat his drawings). Haeckel's biogenetic law was never part of Darwin's theory and was challenged even in his own lifetime. Haeckel himself did not necessarily advocate the strict form of recapitulation commonly attributed to him (Richardson and Keuck 2002).
“Darwin’s tree of life” is not a scientific experiment. That said, its underlying idea of common descent was first suggested by Darwin, and abundant experiments and evidence support the idea. Reality is actually a lot more complex than our explanatory mechanisms, but that doesn’t invalidate the tree of life idea, especially as a didactic instrument.
Having addressed the above, I’ll also point out that there are literally thousands upon thousands upon thousands of scientific experiments that have been carried out, and millions of pieces of evidence which support evolution. Your very question above implies that the entire idea rests on a few isolated pieces of work, which couldn’t be farther from the truth. The work done and evidence in favor of evolution is abundant and overwhelming.
| Quote: | | Have we observed evolution in action? (And by this I mean one species evolving into a new one) No, we haven't (unless I'm missing something.) What we have seen is small variations which we, as a scientific community have extrapolated over time. |
A few of you make the same points, and I’m already covering this one in my responses to Mark_in_Tulsa and Mongo. I’ll refer you to those responses for a more complete explanation. But the short answer is yes we have, and apparently you are missing something. And while our direct observations on the small timescale in which we have been observing them DO extrapolate over time, there’s plenty of slam-dunk confirming evidence that shows that large-scale evolution occurred exactly like our small-scale observations would lead us to believe.
| Quote: | | But scientists are trying constantly trying to find better and better evidence for it. I can't find the link, but there was a story recently about scientists working backwards on the evolutionary tree starting with birds and trying to go back to a dinosaur-like creature. If I find that article easily, I'll post it. |
I’m not sure what you mean by “scientists working backwards on the evolutionary tree starting with birds and trying to go back to a dinosaur-like creature” exactly means. What you describe sounds more like someone’s high school report than actual primary research. The link between theropod dinosaurs and birds is already well understood – it essentially looks like this (in chronological order):
* Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001).
* Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx had a body covering of tufted feathers and had feathers with a central rachis on its wings and tail (Ji et al. 1998). Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus (Xu et al. 1999a). Several other birdlike characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongated wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs and brooding habits (Clark et al. 1999).
* Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds. Sinovenator, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to Archaeopteryx (Xu et al. 2002). Byronosaurus, another troodontid, had teeth nearly identical to primitive birds (Makovicky et al. 2003). Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003). Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001).
* Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus and Avimimus. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs are. Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing) (Ji et al. 1998). Yixianosaurus has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds (Xu and Wang 2003). Alvarezsaurids (Chiappe et al. 2002) and Avimimus (Vickers-Rich et al. 2002) have other birdlike features.
* Archaeopteryx. This famous fossil is defined to be a bird, but it is actually less birdlike in some ways than some genera mentioned above (Paul 2002; Maryanska et al. 2002).
* Shenzhouraptor (Zhou and Zhang 2002), Rahonavis (Forster et al. 1998), Yandangornis and Jixiangornis. All of these birds were slightly more advanced than Archaeopteryx, especially in characters of the vertebrae, sternum, and wing bones.
* Sapeornis (Zhou and Zhang 2003), Omnivoropteryx, and confuciusornithids (e.g., Confuciusornis and Changchengornis; Chiappe et al. 1999). These were the first birds to possess large pygostyles (bone formed from fused tail vertebrae). Other new birdlike characters include seven sacral vertebrae, a sternum with a keel (some species), and a reversed hallux (hind toe).
* Enantiornithines, including at least nineteen species of primitive birds, such as Sinornis (Sereno and Rao 1992; Sereno et al. 2002), Gobipteryx (Chiappe et al. 2001), and Protopteryx (Zhang and Zhou 2000). Several birdlike features appeared in enantiornithines, including twelve or fewer dorsal vertebrae, a narrow V-shaped furcula (wishbone), and reduction in wing digit bones.
* Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and yanornithids (Chiappe 2002; Clarke and Norell 2002). More birdlike features appeared in this group, including changes to vertebrae and development of the sternal keel.
* Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and Limenavis. These birds are almost as advanced as modern species. New features included the loss of most teeth and changes to leg bones.
* Modern birds.
Points raised by Mark_in_Tulsa
| Quote: | | Nothing slammed into nothing, and it caused a big BANG. |
Mark_in_Tulsa’s arguing style is akin to graffiti tagging. He won’t stick around to actually make points and discuss issues. Instead, he’ll write a short comment that’s incredibly wrong, and move on. The above comment suffers from being a Strawman and a Reductio ad Absurdum.
In fact, the Big Bang theory has plenty of compelling evidence going for it. There is an excellent discussion of the evidence to be found HERE. Of course, it can’t penetrate Mark’s airtight logic of “Nothing slammed into nothing, and it caused a big BANG,” but I guess it’ll have to do.
Needless to say, the article thoroughly covers why everything Mark_in_Tulsa thinks about the Big Bang is wrong.
| Quote: | | We can see micro evolution all day long. That isn't a big deal. |
Ah, one of the people who will admit that 1 + 1 = 2, but won’t concede that 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10.
There is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. In fact, the distinction isn't even a scientific one -- it was coined by creationists as a way of moving the goalposts (a logical fallacy). "Okay, evolution can go here, but it can't go HERE." What they refer to as macroevolution is exactly the same process as microevolution -- just more of it. We observe these processes going on all the time. We have directly observed speciation as a result of this (contrary to what some have claimed in this thread). Given more time, what they refer to as macroevolution is exactly what occurs.
Remember, DNA determines what species a zygote develops into. The differences in DNA between ourselves and our closely-related species are very small -- on the order of 1%. By allowing for microevolution, you're allowing for some change in DNA to occur -- but apparently less than 1%. But by denying that macroevolution can occur, you're saying that a 1% change CAN'T occur. So what barrier do you propose exists between, say, 0.5% and 1%, which would stop macroevolution from happening?
We understand the process of genetic mutation very well. We know the rate at which it happens. We know the rate at which it happens in germ cells, and is therefore passed onto offspring. We therefore know how long it takes to accumulate enough genetic change to qualify as macroevolution. Now, keep in mind that all this genetic stuff was worked out long after evolution and common descent was theorized -- Darwin was around 1860, and Watson & Crick weren't until the 1950s. We had already worked out much of the Tree of Life. Now when genetics came along, it could have done one of two things. It could have had no correlation to our concept of common descent -- after all, if macroevolution were false, then the pattern of accumulated genetic change would have to reason to correlate to the tree of life. Or, it could confirm it -- species that split a few million years ago would have a few million years' worth of genetic difference, and species that split 65 million years ago would have 65 million years' worth of accumulated difference, for example.
Guess how it turned out? Genetics not only confirmed our understanding, it confirmed it so well as to completely lay to rest the likelihood of any alternate explanation. Not only did the genetic similarities match our Tree of Life understanding, other things like endogenous retroviruses remove any inkling of a doubt. History exactly matches what you would expect to find if you take current processes -- which we observe happening -- and allow them to happen over the range of time we know they have been happening.
So not only is there no barrier that would allow microevolution but not macroevolution (which means your distinction is arbitrary), genetics exactly matches up with it, and the fossil record confirms our explanations. There is absolutely no basis for claiming that macroevolution can't or doesn't happen.
There is an excellent article discussing the evidence for macroevolution HERE, although it’s pretty long and can be hard to read for those who aren’t scientifically literate. From its introduction: “This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.”
Points raised by Mongo
| Quote: | | The evolutionary process has never been observed. |
This one is simply false. First point: the origin of new species by evolution has been directly observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). This is one of those topics that I can’t adequately cover here. Fortunately THIS ARTICLE covers it very well, giving a thorough discussion, many examples, and detailed references.
Second point: even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
Third point: What has NOT been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. There’s also a guy who claims he’ll believe evolution is real as soon as someone shows him a “Crocoduck.” This is all a Strawman argument – evolution doesn’t propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever did observe something like that, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.
| Quote: | | Evolution is a theory because it is science's best guess as to how everything came about based on what they can observe. |
No – you don’t understand what the word “theory” means in a scientific context. It doesn’t mean what you think it means, and it absolutely doesn’t mean a best guess based on what we can observe.
Just like gravity[4], evolution is considered to be both a fact and a theory. The fact of gravity is that mass attracts other mass, depending on how massive it is and how far away – i.e., things fall. The theory of gravity is the framework of ideas that explain the mechanisms of gravity. Note that we’re still not sure of which theory of gravity is actually correct, or if any of them are. But just because we’re still working on the theory of gravity doesn’t make the fact of gravity untrue.
Likewise, the fact of evolution is that it can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. The theory of evolution is the framework of ideas that explain the mechanism of evolution. Many of the finer details of the theory are still being worked out, and new discoveries are being made every year. But the fact of evolution is, to quote Steven J. Gould, “. . .confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.”
Scientific theories share certain characteristics: 1) They provide a cogent explanation for all the available data; 2) They can be used to make predictions[5]; 3) Such predictions are testable, and subject to falsification. As new data are produced, they are held up against the theory, and are either consistent with it; require refinement of the theory; or require that the theory be discarded.
So “theory” does NOT mean the same thing in a scientific context as it does in lay speech.
Your “based on what they can observe” is also potentially misleading, depending on what you mean when you say that. Perhaps you can clarify.
| Quote: | | The scientific establishment begins with the assumption that evolution is true and strives to prove that. Those that question its validity (even those that are not creationists) are usually ostricized. |
Okay, before I get to the serious response, you have to watch THIS, which is strikingly similar.
Your statement suffers from a lot of problems. Your “[we begin] with the assumption that evolution is true and [strive] to prove that” is simply wrong. A theory is accepted when it provides the best available explanation for all our observations and data; makes predictions about future observations, with those predictions being tested and subject to scrutiny; and is subject to falsification, with every effort made to provide such falsification. I talk a little more about this idea in one of my responses to Mongo.
Your idea that those who question its validity are ostracized is equally wrong. The entire scientific method is built around vigorous critique of published work – this is how we make sure it’s correct. And the best way to make a name for yourself is to overturn a previously accepted idea, replacing it with a better one of your own. See, for example, Einstein. See also how & why Nobel prizes are awarded, unless you consider that award to be a form of ostracism.
The central theme here is that you’re confusing quality control with censorship. It’s not censorship – it’s not heresy if you don’t believe in evolution. Evolution is a well established scientific theory with a mountain of evidence behind it, and if you have a problem with evolution, then there is likely a problem with your scientific understanding of it, or you are someone who places ideology above science. Either one of these would get you dismissed quickly as a crackpot by mainstream science, but that would be because of the poor quality of your work, and not because you’re not one of the cool kids.
On the other hand, maybe you really are capable of overturning evolution. Here the idea that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” rules. In a specific case like this, if you have compelling evidence that falsifies evolution, or if you have a new theory that would replace evolution because it better explains all the evidence, then you will be far from ostracized – you will become one of the most celebrated scientists in history.
That silly Ben Stein movie made the claim that scientists are “expelled” for questioning evolution. The National Center for Science Education deals with those claims on THIS PAGE, which details what really happened with each of the “expelled” scientists in the movie, along with all the other false and misleading claims the film made.
Points raised by joeblow
| Quote: | | Even 100,000 years from now, I wonder how science can literally throw out all the rules of the universe (throw away the laws of physics, throw away time, start with zero atoms or sub-atomic particles etc.) to replicate the appearance of something (anything) coming from absolutely nothing. |
I’ve already covered a lot of this one in other responses, so I won’t repeat most of it here. Science doesn’t throw out the laws of physics. It’s a misunderstanding of Big Bang cosmology that the universe came from absolutely nothing, as detailed HERE.
And to repeat a central theme of this post, “did X happen?” and “how do we explain it?” are two separate and distinct questions. Even if we don’t have a complete and cogent explanation for all of the big bang (although what we do know is pretty detailed), we have a lot of evidence that the big bang actually happened.
| Quote: | | Add to that his further point of everything coming together in randomly accidental ways to bring about the incredibly complex yet orderly system of the universe and life we have today for no particular scientific reason is truly beyond mind-boggling. I mean, what is the chance that you can take all the letters of the alphabet a million times each, put it in a large container to shake them up in some random fashion, then spill them on to the ground in a way that replicates the works of William Shakespeare? If you did that exercise a google amount of times (1 followed by a million zeroes), just forming actual words randomly is an accomplishment, but could entire plays be formed by this method? Proper spacing and well formatted? Plays with a plot, moral conflict themes, character development, a logical progression of a beginning, middle, and end? That is just an activity involving text only, but how much more complex is the logic exhibited in our universe as well as the intricate development of the human condition? These are all questions I've come to wonder on my own, especially recently. I know religions offer various angles on it... ok, put that completely aside because that is a wholly different topic. This is truly an area in science that (while understanding there are no answers at this point) I constantly look for some sort of logical response that can somehow bring an ounce of understanding to how it all could be possible (lol, it is possible since we are here) when it clearly appears to be scientifically IMpossible. |
You’re grossly misrepresenting how evolution works, and applying a false analogy to illustrate it.
First let’s talk about evolution and why your Shakespeare analogy is actually disanalogous. You wrote, “I mean, what is the chance that you can take all the letters of the alphabet a million times each, put it in a large container to shake them up in some random fashion, then spill them on to the ground in a way that replicates the works of William Shakespeare?” This analogy is only analogous to evolution if evolution actually works that way – strictly by random processes. But evolution doesn’t work that way. Some parts ARE random (such as individual genetic mutations), but you completely ignore the effects of natural selection, which means you’re ignoring the part that makes all the difference.
If instead of just repeating separate trials of mixing up & spilling letters over and over, let’s change your thought experiment a little to make it more like how evolution really works. After each trial, instead of picking them all up and starting over from scratch, let’s save the parts that are more Shakespeare-like, and re-roll the rest. Repeat THIS process a number of times, and how long do you think it will take to end up with Shakespeare? Actually, it’s not very long.
Here’s a comparable experiment someone recently did. Instead of random letters and Shakespeare, it was random triangles and the Mona Lisa. To phrase it the way you phrased it above, it’d be “what’s the chance you can take a bunch of random triangles a million times each, put them in a large container, shake them up in some random fashion, then spill them onto a canvas in such a way that replicates the Mona Lisa?” Equivalent concept, right? Now let’s change this analogy into one that’s actually analogous to how evolution works: “If we draw a bunch of random triangles, save the mutations that make the resulting image slightly more Mona Lisa-like, and repeat the experiment from there, how many cycles would it take to form something that actually looks like the Mona Lisa?”
Take a look HERE for the results. When applying a system that actually works similar to evolution, by applying both random mutation AND natural selection, the experiment produces a very recognizable image in fewer than a million iterations. (Side note: The page I just linked to is really cool, and you should check it out in detail.)
A similar (and easier to understand) analogy can be made with coin flips. If you flipped 100 coins, what are the chances they’ll all land heads? One in 2^100, which a pretty freaking huge number – a number 31 digits long. If you repeat the experiment until the end of the Earth, chances are you’ll never get 100 heads. Now let’s change the experiment by adding natural selection. Flip 100 coins. Save the heads, and flip the rest. Save the heads and flip the rest again. Repeat until you have all heads. How many cycles do you need? Only eight or nine. A truly evolution-like process produces results in very few generations.[6]
So you committed a Strawman fallacy by describing something that DOESN’T work like evolution, and then attacking that.
You didn’t directly do it, but this sort of argument is also used to claim the odds are infinitesimal for the first cell to have evolved randomly. This makes the same mistake – it ignores that the first cells were themselves the end products of a long evolutionary process (and the same goes for DNA). It also misapplies the trial analogy. Instead of a single trial going on at a time and the experiment being repeated over and over sequentially, there were actually an ocean full of trials all going on at once.
| Quote: | | How can science explain a pre-science existence if science hadn't yet been invented, and therefore those scientific concepts clearly wouldn't apply? |
Huh? So are you saying that we can’t use, say, anthropology to study Roman culture, because the Romans hadn’t invented anthropology? We can’t use linguistics to study ancient languages, because the ancients hadn’t invented linguistics? We can’t use spectrometry to study light from distant stars, because when the light left those starts spectrometry hadn’t been invented? I can’t use a chisel on a rock that’s older than the chisel is? If we could look at a perfectly preserved fish skeleton in a rock, we have to throw up our hands and say “I have no idea what this could possibly be!” because the fish died long before humans came along and invented science? What exactly are you claiming?
Science is a tool, and that tool is perfectly capable of being used to examine evidence that was left before science was invented. I don’t know why you would think otherwise.
Footnotes:
[1] A common retort here is, "Evolution can't happen without abiogenesis, so if we prove abiogenesis is wrong, then the whole thing comes crashing down -- evolution along with it." The response here is not to confuse the fact of something happening with our understanding of the mechanisms for how it happened. In addition, don't confuse "unknown" with "unknowable," and don't confuse either one with "impossible." No matter what you believe, whether it's the best scientific explanation, the seven-day Genesis creation story, or anything in between, you'll agree that at one point there was no life, and at some later point there was life, right? Well, since evolution documents what happens to life once it got here, it doesn't need any particular explanation for life getting here to be correct -- as long as it gets here, which you've already conceded it has.
[2] But it’s at least refreshing that you picked the CNS rather than the usual target for this argument: the eye. But in case you were wondering about how the eye evolved, one such discussion is HERE.
[3] Actually, I don’t wonder at all why it’s so often repeated. As I wrote in the introductory material, anyone who understands thermodynamics at all could easily see why it’s not an issue for evolution. Therefore anyone who thinks thermodynamics conflicts with evolution doesn’t understand either thermodynamics or evolution, but has mastered the art of cut & paste.
[4] And a number of other things like the atomic theory of matter, germ theory of disease, plate tectonics, relativity, quantum field theory, etc.
[5] For example, with the theory of gravity I can predict what will happen if I drop a rock off a tall building or where Jupiter will be a week from today. The theory of evolution also has predictive power. I’ve already mentioned a simple one – we will not find horse fossils in Cambrian strata. Darwin’s original version predicted that there will be some biochemical mechanism for inheritance, even though he didn’t know what it would be. A hundred years later, DNA was isolated. Another great example is Tiktaalik – evolution would predict that in a certain part of the Devonian, there would be transitional species halfway between fish and amphibians. We know where geological formations exist that are the right age. The prediction was that these formations should contain such creatures. We went looking, and sure enough, that’s exactly what we found. See HERE.
[6] A detail I glossed over here, but which makes this work even MORE in evolution’s favor, is that natural selection isn’t teleological. Natural selection doesn’t select for traits that lead to any specific end target. Rather, it selects for any traits that lead to any increase in survivability and reproductive success. When you consider all the possible random mutations that could occur, the ones that could help in ANY way outnumber the ones that lead you toward some specific end target. So the evolutionary process is actually far more efficient and successful than these teleological experiments are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillmatic
Star Player
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 4701
Location: Tarzana
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Larry, you weren't kidding about explaining everything. Thanks so much for taking the time to write all that. I've read a quarter of it but have to get back to studying so I'm going to save it for when I can really take some time to absorb it all.
::bows down:: Gonna edit this post later and drop thoughts on it after I've read every single word you wrote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ziggy
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 12722
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I just finished the "opening comments". I'm not gonna sleep until I finish the rest. This should be good. I sense some epic ownage coming  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecksor
Star Player
Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1266
Location: City of Angels
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the reply, Larry.
| Quote: | What aspect of “today’s understanding of medical science” would make you think that it would do anything other than strengthen the idea of natural selection? The fact is, much of our knowledge of biology makes little to no sense except within the context of evolution.
An example – Darwin postulated that some mechanism must exist for traits to be passed on from generation to generation, but he did not know what that mechanism was. It wasn’t until the following century that DNA was isolated. It was half a century after that until the human genome was sequenced. We now have a thorough understanding of how genetics works, and exactly how traits are passed on from parent to offspring. You’re saying that if Darwin had full knowledge of what DNA does and how it works, he would be LESS likely to recognize natural selection? Huh? |
Excellent points. I have no response to the above but to agree.
| Quote: | | Your very question above implies that the entire idea rests on a few isolated pieces of work, which couldn’t be farther from the truth. The work done and evidence in favor of evolution is abundant and overwhelming. |
My point was to ask for something more specific. (I thought I made this clear in this post.)In the discussion going on, saying that evidence for evolution is abundant and overwhelming is not the most helpful thing. What you did when you listed the progression from Sinosauropteryx prima to modern birds was. And I appreciate that. In many of these arguments/discussions, both sides just spout off. If we are going to discuss scientific data, then lets offer up something more than saying "abundant evidence exists" -- which was what I was responding to. Bring the evidence to the table. Anyone who thinks that the evidence is presented clearly in a high school or undergraduate biology course has too high a regard for our educational system.
| Quote: | | I’m not sure what you mean by “scientists working backwards on the evolutionary tree starting with birds and trying to go back to a dinosaur-like creature” exactly means. What you describe sounds more like someone’s high school report than actual primary research. The link between theropod dinosaurs and birds is already well understood – it essentially looks like this (in chronological order)... |
LOL. Sorry for making it sound like a high school report. I was referring to this article that I briefly skimmed days before I posted that comment.
| Quote: | | Specifically, what makes you think theories are accepted without “some evidence to support the notion?” |
I don't. Maybe I should've used "aren't" rather than "shouldn't" in my post. I wasn't complaining about something I think is happening. I was responding to a post by spflakers where he said "Scientific [theories] are never proven correct, they stand until they are proven wrong." That statement made me think that he was claiming that theories are accepted without evidence and I was disagreeing.
| Quote: | | In order for a theory to be accepted, it has to explain all available evidence, and do so in a way that is superior to any competing theories. When scientific work is done, the results are published in peer reviewed journals. The process of peer review means that experts around the world do everything within their power to find flaws in your work, and tear you a new one for coming up with a bad idea. It’s a brutal process – but one that’s essential to ensure scientific validity. |
Great summary. And it is because of the peer review process that I get lazy and often times just read the abstract and conclusion sections.
| Quote: | | The idea that scientific theories exist without supporting evidence exists only in your mind. |
It actually doesn't exist in my mind. In another post I made, which you responded to, I thought this was pretty clear. Maybe you are confusing me with the poster I was disagreeing with.
Anyways, thanks again for taking the time to put this post together.
_________________
We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire... Give us the tools and we will finish the job.
- Winston Churchill
Who is my avatar? Kharunisia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecksor
Star Player
Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1266
Location: City of Angels
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's another story about "Reverse Evolution". It was referenced in the story I linked to in my previous post.
Link
_________________
We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire... Give us the tools and we will finish the job.
- Winston Churchill
Who is my avatar? Kharunisia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks Larry! I couldn't sleep and I've been waiting for your thoughts and they exceeded what I was expecting, your time taken to write this is very appreciated. I'm going to make a point to check out your references to expand my knowledge on the subject since I normally refrain from these arguments in real life since I'm ill-equipped in scientific education, I never really got past college level intro classes. So again, thanks for taking the time and un-locking an interesting thread and making it 10 times more interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shnjb
Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Oct 2002
Posts: 13320
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I never read any of these posts carefully enough to do what Larry just did, but wow, did the OP really start off with the nervous system?
Seriously, I should buy a "Slay the Ignorance" poster like my professor (who, by the way, works on the development of the nervous system using model organisms.
Why do you think people study the brains of dumb (bleep) like Caenorhabditis elegans, Drosophila melanogaster, Danio rerio, Mus musculus and various non-human primates?
Because they really really want to know about how flies have sex and how 1 mm worms smell?
Maybe this was Sarah Palin's brilliant angle- why study something SO dumb like fruit flies?
It's because studying these stupid non-human things gives us valuable insight into how we work.
Most of what we know about ourselves- how we see, how we smell, how we taste, how we hear, how we remember, etc, we got from these organisms.
Our disease processes- cancer, diabetes, neurological disorders, spine disorders, we learned from these organisms.
Even more fundamentally, how cells divide, how cells move, how inheritance works, how the DNA is copied, how sex is determined- we got from even dumber organisms, like Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Escherichia coli.
And finally, studying how these stupid things' brains work gives us valuable insight into how our own work, as the late Seymour Benzer has taught us.
Please read before you make ignorant comments.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it doesn't make you right.
If you want to spew nonsense, go ahead, but if you are interested in the truth, please try to pick up a book (not a Bronze age collection of allegories), and READ.
And if you want to discount evolution, please also feel free to also stop the use of the benefits of evolution- all modern drugs that came after Darwin.
No serious biologist (and I mean none; not even Christian ones) has ever operated since Darwin without assuming complete validity of evolution.
As Dobzhansky once said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shnjb
Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Oct 2002
Posts: 13320
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fan0Bynum17
Franchise Player
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 15436
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tinyurl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecksor
Star Player
Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1266
Location: City of Angels
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fan0Bynum17 wrote: | | Tinyurl |
No need for tinyurl.... the URL button below the subject line works just as well
_________________
We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire... Give us the tools and we will finish the job.
- Winston Churchill
Who is my avatar? Kharunisia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144475
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | Mark_in_Tulsa wrote: | | shnjb wrote: | Seriously?
Take more basic science courses (not anatomy and physiology) and you'll understand. |
This is true. If you take some more science you will come to realize that evolution is impossible. |
I wish I could use a facepalm gif here. Evolution is indisputable; we see it happening all the time. Why do you think Penicillin no longer works as well as it used to? Because bacteria evolves. |
We are seeing it now. Faced with shrinking habitat, polar bears are evolving by mating with grizzly bears. Perhaps one day there will be no polar or grizzly bears and only their offspring.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Larry.
I just want to say that your post was magnificent and worth reading and re-reading. I studied evolution while a biochemistry major and your understanding of the subject is outstanding. I especially like that you really took it to task to explain the importance n what the scientific community means when it uses the word "Theory."
Americans suffer from not only the self-righteousness of "common sense," but from a basic and fundamental suspicion of intellectualism and indeed expertism itself. The attack on the Theory of Evolution is simply ground zero as far as that particular battle is concerned.
This is an excellent article on the subject
http://www.aboyandhiscomputer.com/Greetings_from_Idiot_America.html
I think one thing that is an issue and one that we don't seem to want to admit is that an understanding of Evolution requires way above average intelligence. I have an IQ of 140 or so and I remember being overwhelmed by the science that I learned when I studied the field. It all made so much sense and was so beautifully put together. that it fundamentally changed my life and how I thought of all science from then on out, even today as I read clinical papers in my field of medicine.
I also remember that even though I understood the math behind quantum mechanics, I could never really grasp the concepts of quantum theory well enough to feel the same about it as I do about evolution. It took me a long time to accept that I'm simply not smart enough to conceptualize it fully. I think for the vast majority of people, Evolution is like that to them.
Difference being is that I don't go onto public websites and argue with physicists about quantum theory, I just try to get it as best as my limited mind can. In effect, you're crashing your head against the simple notion that you can't turn a Sow's ear into a Silk Purse. Good fighting and good luck my man. You'll be needing it.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laker_Town
Retired Number
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 25604
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nice.. Whether wrong or correct (an Im certainly not the one to decide), I have to say that this thread is by far the most interesting one Ive read.
Food for the brain. Me likey.
Thanks to everyone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Montana
Star Player
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 2962
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
42.
Oh, and props to Larry for the greatest post in LG history  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Teamof2000
Star Player
Joined: 15 Apr 2001
Posts: 2292
Location: San Francisco, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Epic post, Larry.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
