Not I. I grasp the concept and deny that it proves ToE.
But we are not in the business of proving the ToE on this thread, but proving that it has practical applications in scientific work.
I'm not proving ToE to you Faith, honest. I'm simply stating that the concept you have grasped IS (in essence) the ToE. If, at any time, one was to apply that concept, one is applying the ToE. That's doesn't prove ToE, and I never implied that it did.
You have to prove this, you may not merely assert it.
What does the ToE say? It says that the reason why populations change is because random genetic change and selection pressures change them. In the situation we are examining we have a population that changes (becomes resistant) and we need a reason why. The ToE gives us a reason why. It might be the wrong reason, but the ToE gives us a reason nevertheless.
Do you agree that ToE gives us a reason as to why our population of bacteria has become resistant to our antibacterial agent?
Now we have a reason, we can develop a solution that combats it.
Not so. You also see the mechanisms that bring it about. This is one of the biggest blind spots for evos, that you equate the theory with the processes which have nothing to do with the ToE.
What are the mechanisms that bring it about, Faith. Would they be random mutations in the genome and selective pressures? That is the what the Theory of Evolution is. What processes are you referring to that are nothing to do with the ToE?
No, not the ToE but the principle of mutation or selection or whatever processes apply in the given situation, not the ToE.
The principle of mutation and selection is part of the ToE.
Creationists accept all the processes but not the ToE.
Which is why evolutionists get baffled. The ToE is all the processes. If you accept all the processes you accept the ToE. Its that simple.
When you are working with genetic variation and selection this is NOT the ToE. The ToE is this overarching definition that is supposedly fueled by all these processes.
I don't follow. How is a definition fueled by these processes? The ToE is a theory on how populations change, more specifically how allele frequencies change in a population. You accept that allele frequencies change, you accept how they change. Since you accept the phenomenon (allele frequencies change) and the theory that explains that (random genetic mutations coupled with selection processes) you accept the ToE which is the aforementioned theory.
We know the processes operate but we deny that they ever lead to anything beyond a certain genetic limit.
Which is fine. You believe there is a certain genetic limit. Not going to argue that here, if you believe that you believe that. It is like saying 'I accept the Theory of Gravity which says that spacetime bends but I don't accept that it can bend so much as to form a black hole'. You're still accepting the ToG but you believe it has limits.
But this thread is not supposed to be about the ToE.
Oh, I thought you wanted to discuss the practical applications of ToE. At least that was the impression I got from your
Message 15 and
Message 18, if you want to stop discussing the practical applications of ToE, that's no problem, you can discuss the applications of other theories instead, or whatever else.
I respect all the processes of science but not the ToE, and perhaps you can at least appreciate HOW I arrive at this view whether you agree with it or not.
I'm trying to appreciate it, but I'm having difficulties as to how somebody can accept the theory, but reject it. To turn to Theory oF Relativity, if I said that I accept that spacetime bends, gravity is acceleration, the speed of light is constant, and the mass and speed of other things is relative to observer...but then said that I rejected the Theory of Relativity, people would be very confused.
I am NOT denigrating science or scientists when I reject the ToE. I consider it a superfluity to real science.
Let us pretend I was a Relativistic scientist. If you said that the Theory of relativity was superfluous to REAL science, would that not be denigrating me as a scientist? You are denigrating evolutionary biologists, bioinformaticians, and their kin when you say that they don't their field is superfluous to real science.
This is a BIG mistake and let me TRY finally to answer this thing that keeps coming up. All the processes that are now subsumed under the ToE are perfectly useful for describing VARIATION. Selection and so on. This is useful knowledge but it is NOT dependent on the ToE. You do NOT need the ToE to have this knowledge.
It is a BIG mistake, you're right. If you have this knowledge (variation and selection) you have the ToE. If you want to call it something else, that's fine, but the rest of the world calls it ToE and its probably best you do likewise.
This is like saying that knowing about bacteria causing disease is useful knowledge but you don't need the
Germ Theory to have this knowledge.
The processes by which populations vary ARE necessary and useful and creationism does NOT reduce science to primitive experimentation without regard to these processes.
Excellent. Should I reiterate that these processes by which populations vary are commonly called ToE? Populations vary, right? This means that populations evolve. Evolve doesn't mean heading towards something (it used to, but common usage has changed that), simply 'change' or 'vary'. How do these populations vary? What causes is this variation? One theory is that random mutations of a heritable entity (or a 'genome') coupled with selective pressures leads to this variation.
If you want you can call this theory the Theory of Variation. Everyone else calls it the Theory of Evolution. What's in a name? A theory by any other name would explain the same.
No, you have not demonstrated that antibiotics research is a practical application of the ToE at all, only an application of the principles of variation and selection that creationists also acknowledge, that are presently co-opted to the ToE.
I'm curious as to how you would define the ToE, and how it has co-opted these principles of variation and selection. If the ToE isn't the theory that describes the principles of variation and selection, what the heck is it?
Here is my basic definition
The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how allele frequencies in populations change. The explanation it puts forth is that heritable variations (for example, random mutations in the genome) are acted upon by a selective process (some variations are selected out of the gene pool, some remain). This selective pressure is commonly natural selection, though an artificial selection is possible if conscious intervention is applied.
Corollary:
Assuming a stable population size, and that each organisms produces more offspring than itself then with a suitable selective pressure this can lead to a population becoming better adapted within that environment or niche.
If the above is the Theory of Evolution, then this Theory explains why our population of bacteria are getting resistant to antibacterials.
This could be seen as drifting off topic, but I'd really like to know what you think the Theory of Evolution actually is...otherwise how would we know a practicle application of it when we see one. To help you along, I'm going to finish off with "what a theory is":
Wordnet:
quote:
well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena
quote:
a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
American Heritage Dictionaryquote:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 09-January-2006 01:40 AM
™ Version 4.2