How do you define the word Evolution?

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.

​

A model, to be of any practical value, has to organize facts into a cohesive whole.If there are a lot of facts that contradict a model it is of little value.

Common sense is integral to science. But also remember that common sense it modified by experience so a fungi specialist would apply their common sense differently to a painter when considering fungi.How would you determine what "similar organisms" are? Well the common sense approach would be to compare fungi to other fungi rather than pandas or whales.It's rocket science only if you're a rocket scientist.

So the lucky surviving bacteria, having been exposed to the antibiotic, develop an immunity to it. This sounds similar to how a vaccine works, except instead of becoming immune to a disease (polio, for example), the bacteria become immune to a toxin. It's a demonstrable scientific fact that some organisms develop immunity to certain diseases, but I've never heard of an organism developing immunity to a toxin.

I don't normally do this, but NonStampCollector has a series of cartoon videos. This one, Special Investigation - Evolution at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs, does a good job of demonstrating what it's like to try to discuss anything with a creationist.Comments speculate whether it's based on Richard Dawkins' interview with a creationist, Wendy Wright. Hour-long video of that at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8. First comment there was "Richard Dawkins has literally wasted an hour of his life talking to this woman."If you do not understand the reference in the guy's name, it refers to a common response that a non-theist (or atheist) is like a non-stamp-collector; we just don't do that kind of stuff.Edited by dwise1, : Paragraph about Dawkins video.

{** Major Face-Plant -- sorry, but I haven't accumulated any kind of face-plant graphics library to draw from **}Common sense like if you drop two cannonballs, one twice as heavy as the other, the heavier one should fall faster? That is not what actually happens.Back in the early 1980's, a science magazine published part of a "common sense" physics test someone had administered. In one question, there was a spiral track that a metal ball rolled down before that track ended and the ball continued to move in the air. Four choices were offered for the ball's final trajectory. The majority of response chose the "common sense" choice, that the ball continued to fall in a spiral manner. WRONG! That is not what actually happens.Leading creationists and their minions would constantly appeal to "common sense." Common sense is most often completely wrong. Or as my engineer former brother-in-law would say, "Common sense is anything but common." (ironic, since he was a fundamentalist Christian and most likely a YEC as well). Was that what herbedragons was doing? Not that I can see. Just jumping in with a humorous segment I heard on NPR two to three decades ago (or possibly more). We all know those sayings, "It's not brain surgery!" and "It's not rocket science!" So what do brain surgeons and rocket scientists say? The segment found that brain surgeons would say, "It's not rocket science!" and rocket scientists would say, "It's not brain surgery!", so the two fields would just cross-reference each other.Then there's those lines in that classic 1987 Steve Martin movie, Roxanne, in which two guys, Steve Martin and Rick Rossovich, are both in love with an astronomer, Roxanne, played by Daryl Hannah. Rick is intimidated by a strong woman (quoting from memory):

quote:

---

Rick: After all, it's not as if she's a rocket scientist.
Steve: Welllll, actually she is.

---

Edited by dwise1, : "what", nicht "was"! Verzeihung. I dachte auf Deutsch.

WHAT???Vaccines work because the body has an immune system. The immune system reacts to disease microbes by creating antibodies to fight those disease microbes. Expose the (multicellular!!!) body to disease microbes (thankfully greatly disabled enough to avoid actual infection) and that body's immune system (which implies multiple tissues and hence even more multiple cells) generates the antibodies against that disease. That is basically how vaccines work.Single-cell organisms cannot have any immune system, since by definition a system implies multiple tissues and a tissue implies multiple cells. Basic biology.Therefore, bacterial immunity to certain toxins is something different. Right?

Sorry, but that hit a nerve that's been over-sensitized by fucking stupid creationist rhetorics.I've been following this bullshit since 1981. Not only have I ridden around the park a few times, I have worn very deep ruts in that road.One of the stock bullshit creationist complaints is that "evolution" (which they misrepresent grossly, hence the "scare quotes") is somehow "counter-intuitive" and will somehow "confuse the students". All while they appeal to "common sense" explanations.As I have already just explained to CRR (Message 365), there is nothing common sense to "common sense" explanations, plus, those "common sense explanations" are just as likely to be completely wrong.The point is that "common sense" can be and most often is complete bullshit. And exposing students to that fact should not confuse them, but rather make them think! And question. And test.Creationists want students to sit comfortably in their false pre-conceived ideas, but science requires them to test everything. So much of how the world actually works is very counter-intuitive.Students need to understand that, not be locked into dungeons of ignorance as creationists want.

dwise1: "Therefore, bacterial immunity to certain toxins is diferent. Right?"Of course! Keep your hat on! I merely meant that there is a vague similarity between the two - ie, immunity to A develops by exposure to A; immunity to B develops by exposure to B.I've never heard of bacteria (or any organisms) becoming immune to a toxin by exposure to it. Is this a demonstrable scientific fact, or just another baseless Darwinist assumption invented to fit their theory?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Your childish games make debate here a nightmare. Maybe that's your intention.

No, the bacteria evolve to become immune. See, this is exactly why we need to say that the bacteria evolve immunity, rather than just "developing" immunity, so that people don't get misled into imagining some such process as you describe. It's called mithridatism, and you must have heard of at least one example of it --- you must know that a long-term alcoholic can drink alcohol in quantities that would kill a non-drinker. (This is not "immunity" in the sense that the immune system is involved, it's done by the liver.)Another example is that people can become immune to snake venom. In this case antibodies are involved.I know of no instance of it occurring in bacteria.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Since apparently all you want to do is find some way to prove my thrown-together model isn't usable in its present form (which can't be tested under these circumstances anyway), and you are giving me a test in a field you've had experience in for years, which would overcome any problems with YOUR model, I'm bowing out of this set-up. I would like to see how your model operates if you have the time. And if CRR stays in the game, his views too.

Two entirely different mechnicims to my knowledge.And you are stating a Lamarckian assumption, not Darwinian. Please do not misrepresent evolution.Edited by dwise1, : Clean-up in aisle three.

Actually this is what happens. The heavier one has greater mass/surface area and will be less affected by air resistance. Since nobody lives in a vacuum common sense is based on actual experience. But even so it allows a prediction to be made that can be tested and falsified or not. Observing that falling cannonballs APPEAR to fall at the same speed allows us to improve our understanding and predict that in a vacuum all objects will fall at the same speed. This hypothesis can then be tested.Common sense is just as good, and probably better, that the evolutionary hypothesis at making testable predictions that can then be scientifically examined; which is what I said earlier.Yes, herbedragons was comparing similar fungi and I was making the point that the evolutionary hypothesis was not required to follow that line of enquiry.Sorry if you were confused. Probably concussion from your major face plant.

No it's not. As you well know, two balls of the same size will fall at the same speed regardless of their different weights. This is totally counter-intuitive. The heavier one can quite easily be the smaller. But how did you come to know this? Science told you, be grateful for the methodology. And this is why common sense can't be relied upon. Well finally you accept the point being made. This hypothesis testing is the basis of all science and is the antithesis of religious belief. Things like the TOE were built scientifically by testing these hypotheses against observations. By doing so it destroyed the 'common sense' idea that all life on earth was put here all at once as we see it now by a god.There is no evidence to support that 'common sense' idea.

You're wrong Tangle.Consider a soap bubble and a ball of lead, both exactly the same size. Which will fall faster? The difference in weight here is enough to produce an observable difference. The soap bubble falls quite slowly. I have seen this.Have you ever watered the garden? The heavy drops fall quickly but the mist settles slowly. I have seen this too.In air, size and density mean that not everything falls at the same rate; that only happens in a vacuum. Or so I'm told and I believe it to be true.In Galileo's experiment the effects of air resistance was small for both balls and the difference in how fast they fell was not discernible with the experimental equipment used.Evolution has many failed predictions to its credit! See here
.DarwinsPredictions
Depending of course on how you define evolution, and that is the topic of this thread.