Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 136 of 198 (202887)
04-27-2005 12:34 AM


MagDev writes:
So now you're saying that I'm motivated out of a sociopathic love of cruelty for suggesting that an experiment like this would verify that humans could be descended from lesser primates?
crashfrog writes:
Did I say that? For one who constantly bristles that his arguments are being twisted around, you sure do a lot of it yourself.
Well...I did suggest the experiment...and I did think it was a good idea...so it stands to reason that you're implicating me as one of those who are "motivated out of a sociopathic love of cruelty, etc.
etc..."
I would also like to point out that I never did ask for reasons not to do the experiment. I mentioned that many times I was asking for how one could do it.
The majority of answers given don't really answer my question. Probably the only real attempt to answer my questions were interjected by PaulK when he said this:
PaulK writes:
Now I don't see how your experiment could be done without reversing any inconvenient genetic changes in the chimp line and then trying to duplicate the changes that happened in the human line. Which means you would already need a plausible pathway for both
lines of evolution, to even do the experiment. Yet that in itself would be sufficient counter to the assertion that humans could not be descended rom "lesser primates".
I'll personally admit that this is a very good answer.
However, aside from this response, the majority of responses just seems to be throwing veiled ad hominems at me without actually adressing my question.
And, actually, it does sound like Godwin's Law in being invoked with the reference to Nazi experiments.
Wikipedia writes:
There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly. Godwin's law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. Many people understand Godwin's law to mean this, although (as is clear from the
statement of the law above) this is not the original formulation.
The article goes on to say:
Wikipedia writes:
Godwin's law is named after Mike Godwin, who was legal counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in the early 1990s, when the law was first popularized.
Finding the meme of Nazi comparisons on Usenet illogical and offensive, Godwin established the law as a counter-meme. The law's memetic function is not to end discussions (or even to classify
them as "old"), but to make participants in a discussion more aware of whether a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is appropriate, or is simply a rhetorical overreach.
Many people have extended Godwin's law to imply that the invoking of the Nazis as a debating tactic (in any argument not directly related to World War II or the Holocaust) automatically loses the argument, simply because the nature of these events is such that any comparison to any event less serious than genocide or extinction is invalid and in poor taste.
Richard Sexton maintains that the law is a formalization of his October 16, 1989 post [1]
You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the participents (sic) drags out Hitler and the Nazis.
Strictly speaking, however, this is not so, since the actual text of Godwin's law does not state that such a reference or comparison makes a discussion "old," or, for that matter, that such a reference
or comparison means that a discussion is over.
MagDev writes:
What we don't see, however, is exactly how evolution did it. We know that evolution was responsible for this, but we don't know how it did it.
crashfrog writes:
Random mutation and natural selection. How else would it do it?
Yes. We know that random mutation and natural selection "did it". But we don't know exactly how it did it. My suggestion of this experiment was some attempt to go beyond the theory and actually demonstrate that it could be done on a larger scale. Although I agree that the experiment would've been highly unethical, it still would've been interesting to hear a good answer as to why it could or couldn't be done based on our current knowledge.
It also would've been interesting to note some advice on how it could be modified further so as to be more ethical and more inclined to definitively prove evolution.
There's an interesting article at About.com that addresses a lot of things that I talked about in this thread:
Evolution FAQ: Is Evolution Science? Observing Evolution writes:
In addition to understanding the basic mechanisms, there is another major piece of direct evidence for evolution. Specifically, evolution has been observed numerous times: not high-order changes, but significant changes within species as well as speciation (changes leading to descendant organisms being classified as different species).
So, it is not just theory that changes in organisms can occur over time - it has been directly observed. Given this, it is logical to think that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.
What's more, the observed instances of evolution demonstrate that the idea of natural selection is a workable one. The environment can exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature. The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we woiuld expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)
There is also a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related
species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.
Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the
starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same
kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.
Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid.
Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order
taxonomic differences between species.
As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than
evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.
Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.
The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large
scale. To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.
As before, there is not enough space here to do justice to the documented instances of evolution, but the information is there for those who want to find it. The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection.
I think answers like this provided at About.com were what I was looking for. Or maybe I was thinking about articles like this when I was talking about "unlimited plasticity". I'm honestly not sure exactly, but I think I was trying to ask questions related to this very subject.
When someone asks in detail how something is done, answering something like this:
You're asking what steps you would need to take to perform your experiment. The techniques of genetic manipulation are immediately accessable to anyone who cares to look. It's no great secret.
or this...
If you want to know how modifications to the genes of organisms are performed, just search the web. Wikipedia will lay it all out for you. Exactly what questions do you have for us?
...it seems to indicate that the listeners have generally blown off anything the person was previously trying to expand on.
Why didn't someone just try to suggest critical advise on how to better the perform an experiment like this?
Why was the major focus of my questions met with a series of ethical denouncements and scoffing followed by a bare smattering of genuine scientific advise?
When someone asks in detail how something could be done, answering something like, "Random mutation and natural selection. How else would it do it?," doesn't really cut it at all.
In fact, I think answers like this at least partially indicate what I was saying about the pseudoscientific aspects of evolutionary theories earlier.
For example, if there is an abundance of fossils displaying morphological changes, it's considered evidence for evolution. Conversely, if there is an absence of fossils displaying morphological changes, it's considered evidence for evolution.
I've quoted Darwin on Trial. I've read this book and really enjoyed it. There's one section in the book starting on page 153 going to page 154 that seems to directly relate to my questions. It's
paraphrased in the indentations below:
"Evolution" in Darwinist usage implies a completely naturalistic mechanical system, a system in which matter evolved to its present state of organized complexity without any participation by a Creator.
But "evolution" also refers to much more modest concepts.
Examples of this could include the changing of alleles and biological relationships. The tendency of dark moths to preponderate in a population when the background trees are dark therefore deomnstates evolution -- and also demonstates, by semantic transformation, the naturalistic descent of human beings from bacteria.
If critics are sophisiticated enough to see that population variations have nothing to do with major transformations, researchers can disavow the argument from changing alleles and point to relationship as the "fact of evolution".
Or they can turn to biogeography, and point out that species on offshore islands closely resemble those on the nearby island.
Because "evolution" means so many different things, almost any example will do. The trick is always to prove one of the modest meanings of the term, and treat it as a proof of the complete evolutionary system.
Manipulation of the terminology also allows natural selection to appear and disappear on command.
When unfriendly critics are absent, researchers can just assume the creative power of natural selection and employ it to explain whatever change (or lack of change) has been observed.
When critics appear and demand empirical confirmation, researchers can avoid the test by responding that scientists are discovering alternative mechanisms, particularly at the molecular level, which relegate selection to a less important role.
The fact of evolution therefore remains unquestioned, even if there is a certain amount of healthy debate about the theory.
Once the critics have been distracted, however, the Blind Watchmaker can reenter by the back door.
Researchers will then explain that no biologist doubts the importance of Darwinian selection, because nothing else was available to shape the adaptive features of the phenotypes.
When disconfirming evidence cannot be ignored altogether, it is countered with ad hoc hypothesis.
For example, Douglas Futuyama's texbook tells college students:
Darwin more than anyone else extended to living things...the conclusion that mutubility, not stasis, is the natural order.
So he did, and in consequense paleontologists over-looked the prevalence in the fossil record of stasis.
Stasis could not come to public attention until it was dressed up as evidence for "punctuated equilibrium," which at first sounded like a new theory but turned out to be a very minor variation of Darwinism.
Researchrs can also explain away stasis as an effect of stabilizing selection, or developmental constraints, or mosaic evolution -- and so, like mutubility, it is just what a Darwinist would expect to find.
In short, researchers sometimes find confirming evidence, just as Marxists found capitalists exploiting workers and Freudians analyzed patients who said they wanted to murder their fathers and marry their mothers.
They find further instances of minor morphological changes, or additional examples of natural relationships, or a fossil group that might have contained an ancestor of modern mammals.
What they never find, however, is evidence that contradicts the common ancestry thesis, because to Darwinists such evidence cannot exist.
The "fact of evolution" is true by definition, and so negative information is uninteresting, and generally unpublishable.
Popper's conclusion, by the way, should remind us that Darwinism could not be tested by science's trial and error methods -- which is an aspect of pseudoscience. Although attracted to it as a philosophy, he was thus forced to admit that Darwinism is not testable scientific theory but is no more than a metaphysical research program. This being so it is not part of natural science within Baconian principles.
Adverting to Popper's view of the distinction between science and non-science, Dr. Colin Patterson, a leading paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, also pointed out that the theory of organic evolution is concerned with a series of (alleged) unique historical events, which, because they are unrepeatable, cannot be part of science because they cannot be scientifically tested.
Two other scientists, both at the relevant time professors of biology, also drew attention to the untestable nature of the evolution hypothesis.
Neither Popper nor the scientists mentioned above could be accused of any bias in favor of creationism in making the above admissions. But perhaps even more to the point, the late S.
J. Gould, arguably one the world's best known evolution polemicists, had also admitted that Darwinism and other historical theories cannot be tested experimentally.
Gould, who taught biology, geology and the history of science at Harvard University in the United States, stated in 1986 that the theory of evolution relies heavily upon inference and "not on steel balls rolling down inclined planes in a laboratory," but he still criticized creation scientists who claimed it was not part of (natural) science.
He later returned to this theme when he wrote a hypercritical review of Professor Phillip E. Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial (which I've quoted and am now picking up on more). In that review Gould claimed that Johnson held "a narrow and blinkered view of science" because he had claimed that Darwin had "started his theory on the wrong road" by never proposing an experimental test for it.
However, in stating that, "...Darwin's method is not generally experimental, for singular and complex events are not so explained by any historical science," Gould tacitly admitted that Darwinism is outside of the Baconian concept of natural science. Notwithstanding this, Gould claimed that Darwinism is "science" because of the methodology Darwin used in arriving at his conclusions.
Personally, although I give more credence to the theory of evolution that I personally should, I think I captured these thoughts very well when I wrote this:
MagLev writes:
As others have observed, Darwin constructed a theory of nature that, in its every particular, reinforced the operating assumptions of the Industrial Age he lived in.
For example, he saw the same principles of division of labor at work in nature. After reading Malthus, he came to realize that, as in human society, populations bred beyond their means, leaving survivors and losers in the effort to exist.
Likewise, in the first volume of A System of Synthetic Philosophy, entitled First Principles (1862), Spencer argued that all phenomena could be explained in terms of a lengthy process of evolution in things. This account of evolution provided a complete and 'predetermined' structure for the kind of variation noted by Darwin -- and Darwin's respect for Spencer was significant.
Darwin's descriptions relied heavily on machine imagery. He came to personally view livings things as the sum total of parts assembled. Even the origins of life were seen within the biological equivalent of nature’s assembly line (morphology from micro-organisms straight up to humanity).
In short, as others have pointed out, Darwin borrowed just about everything he experienced from the popular culture of his time and transposed them onto nature.
I confess that, as Sylas has pointed out, evolution is no longer percieved within the 19th century concept of linear progress -- the assembly line of life if you will. Rather, it seems to be a long-term tendency and a trend.
Yet it still in no way precludes crisis and lengthy setbacks. In fact, such crisis seem to be an unavoidable part of evolution. Although life continues to expand, it has also suffered repeated
crisis and mass extinctions which continue to occur when one global ecosystem has reached its limits and collapses.
Obviously the theory has changed since Darwins' time. Yet, to some extent, people are still consistently seeing a pattern where our origins of life are seen within the similar context of the biological equivalent of the scientific method. In other words, the theory of evolution seems to be a mirror image of the scientific method broadcast over the origins of species -- noting an analogy between "trial and error" in contrast to "prediction and modification" or even "natural selection and mutation" -- it appears to be, at least on some level, exactly what a scientifically minded person would expect to find.
Like Otto Rank's observation noted before, I too suspect that Darwin's theory was in some ways the English bourgeosie looking into the mirror of nature and seeing their own behavior reflected there. In many ways, the theory of evolution seems to be evolving right along with the various cultures it has been accepted in the most. It has been held up as a product of societal thinking rather than a reflection of mind-independent reality.
Gould himself had written before passing on:
S.J. Gould writes:
Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to
absolute truth, but the alternative of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bit of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it.
He had also said:
S.J. Gould writes:
Theories are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts, the source of imagination is also strongly cultural.
The key debate is this discourse is that grey area between objectivity and subjectivity:
Does science obey certain disinterested norms or rules, designed or guaranteed to tell us something about the real world, or is it a reflection of personal preference, the things in culture that
people hold dear?
After reading through the answers given in this thread, I'm quite sure of that those who hold evolutionary views are not immune to this personal preference which they hold so dear. While genuine science is indeed being conducted within evolutionary circles, I too will note that it is also seems combined somewhat with a reflection of their personal preference as well. No one is immune to this -- and only time will tell how much of either is true.
crashfrog writes:
You think there is good reason, but you don't actually have any good reasons.
I think I've laid out enough recent scientific history to indicate that science does indeed usually move from pre-science to true science, with the larger claims of the "older" paradigm often being discarded in favor of newer evidence much later. At least, I think I've laid out enough to indicate that no scientific paradigm is immune to this pattern, and that the theory of evolution could still fall prey to this as well in the future.
What you erroneously label "the fallacy of the inversed slippery slope" is actually a epistomological method called "induction", where generalities are generated from repeating specifics. It's not a slippery slope to suggest that what is happening now will continue to do so; it's an entirely valid induction, and the basis of scientific knowledge.
True enough. That's why I have encouraged further research into the theory of evolution.
However, that's not all though.
I've noted the paradigm shifts that have often occured in the past of science. Everyone here admitted that Galileo's mistake was only due to his limited knowledge of the universe and his carrying over his data from within the older astronomical paradigm (center of universe vs. center of solar system). Although I still think that pseudoscience played a key role in his inspiration to search for truth (and that this wasn't bad per se), I do admit that his "actual work" was also emerging from pre-science into authentic science as all here have noted -- and not pseudoscience as I claimed.
In short, the pattern is still there.
Simply pointing out that induction doesn't guarantee an outcome is insufficient basis to propose a limit; that's a fallacious argument from ignorance. You'll have no success trying to build
an argument on the holes in empiricism.
Fair enough. However, what if one were to claim that the mechanisms of evolution might simply not be powerful enough to achieve what is claimed?
We know that natural selection and random mutation can provide a great variety of speciations, but what is the central current that drives natural selection and random mutation in the first place?
Do random mutations and natural selection simply drive themselves along through earth's history?
Or is some other central current pumped into these mechanisms to carry along the process?
I know this sounds wierd, but these are my thoughts on the matter.
Consider the similarities between the development of the theory of continental drift and the development of the theory of evolution for example.
1st analogy
When Alfred Wegener first conceived of his theory it came from a simple observation that most of the continents seemed to fit together like a puzzle.
This is very similar to Darwin's observation that the fossil record, also like a puzzle, seemed to display a consistent pattern of
gradual morphology.
2nd analogy
Consequently, the continental fit was even more striking when the submerged continental shelves were compared rather than the coastlines.
This seems to fit the genetic record in DNA which appears to again strikingly match with many current morphologies -- leading many to believe that a virtual fossil record lay submerged within the genetic material of each creature.
3rd analogy
As a result of these observations, Wegener proposed that the continents were once compressed into a single protocontinent which he called Pangaea (meaning "all lands").
Similarly, carrying on with thoughts of others before him, Darwin proposed that all life could be retraced back through the fossil record to primitive organisms from which all life came forth.
4th analogy
Searching for further evidence, Wegener came across a paleontological paper suggesting that a land bridge had once connected Africa with Brazil. This proposed land bridge was an attempt to explain the well known paleontological observation that the same fossilized plants and animals from the same time period were found in South America and Africa. Many of these organisms could not have traveled across the vast oceans that currently exist. Wegener's drift theory seemed more plausible than land bridges connecting all of the continents.
Similarly, Darwin observed that many animals seemed to be descended with modification from earlier descendants. Prior to Darwin's time, Lamarckism proposed that biological evolution was caused by the inheritance of traits acquired or modified through the use or disuse of body parts. Darwinism, proposing natural selection, theorized instead that when members of a species become separated, such as geographically, they face different environments, and tend to develop
in different directions. After a long period of time, their traits will have developed along different paths to such an extent that they can no longer interbreed, at which point they are considered separate species.
5th analogy
Wegener noted that another observation favoring continental drift was the presence of evidence for continental glaciation in the Pensylvanian period. Striae left by the scraping of glaciers over the land surface indicated that Africa and South America had been close together at the time of this ancient ice age. The same scraping patterns can be found along the coasts of South America and South Africa.
Similarly, Darwinism notes genetic drift as a mechanism of evolution that acts in concert with natural selection to change the characteristics of species over time. It is a stochastic effect that
arises from the role of random sampling in the production of offspring. Like selection, it acts on populations, altering the frequency of alleles and the predominance of traits amongst members of a population, and changing the diversity of the group.
6th analogy
Wegener's drift hypothesis also provided an alternate explanation for the formation of mountains (orogenesis). The theory being discussed during his time was the "Contraction theory" which suggested that the planet was once a molten ball and in the process of cooling the surface cracked and folded up on itself. The big problem with this idea was that all mountain ranges should be approximately the same age, and this was known not to be true.
Similarly, Darwinism, when examining the fossils within the geological strata, essentially provided a date for the appearance of the species along the time-line of earth's geological history. Many of the reigning theological theories of the day proposed some form of young earth (creationism), suggesting that life was formed relatively recently. The big problem with this idea was that all life should be be approximately the same age, and this was known, according to uniformitarian observations of the geological strata which the lifeforms were found in, not to be true.
7th analogy
It should also be noted, with the further advancement of the geological sciences, that various geological disasters have been detected in strongly molding and shaping the surface of the earth from within over it's vast history. For example, the Dacan Traps lavas of northwest India cover 120,000 square miles and have a thickness of up to 1.2 miles. This unimaginable expulsion of lava occured 65 million years ago, and is held responsible by some for the demise of the dinosaurs.
Similarly, there have been major mutations thought to have occured within DNA. For example, the genetic markers in the DNA for growing scales are in precisely the same spot in both birds and, say, crocodiles. However, there is an extra set of genes in birds that have been shown to control the formation of feathers which crocodiles, obviously, lack. Some would say that feathers
arising initially from reptiles scales defies analysis* (although part of this problem is probably due to the fact that skin, feather, and hair impressions only fossilize under certain rare conditions, I still think that major changes like this require a very precise rapid alterations of genetic material that classical mechanics may not be able to explain).
8th analogy
Ultimately, Wegener's inability to provide an adequate explanation of the forces responsible for continental drift and the prevailing belief that the earth was solid and immovable resulted in the scientific dismissal of his theories. Similarly, even though evolution's descriptive ability is simply phenomenal, some would still argue that it ultimately fails to provide an adequate explanation of the forces responsible for it.
This is to say, although all the above cases for evolution (natural selection, genetic drift, random mutation, etc.) provides an extraordinary description of evolution, the central most important
mechanism (in my opinion) still remains elusive and yet to be discovered.
Coming back to continental drift, however, about the time Wegener's ideas began to be dismissed, Arthur Holmes elaborated on one of Wegener's many hypotheses; the idea that the mantle undergoes thermal convection. This idea is based on the fact that as a substance is heated its density decreases and rises to the surface until it is cooled and sinks again. This repeated heating and cooling results in a current which may be enough to cause continents to move. Arthur
Holmes suggested that this thermal convection was like a conveyor belt and that the upwelling pressure could break apart a continent and then force the broken continent in opposite directions
carried by the convection currents.
While this idea received very little attention at the time, in the 1960's Holmes' idea received more attention. Greater understanding of the ocean floor and the discoveries of features like mid-oceanic ridges, geomagnetic anomalies parallel to the mid-oceanic ridges, and the association of island arcs and oceanic trenches occurring together and near the continental margins, suggested convection might indeed be at work. These discoveries and more led Harry Hess (1962) and R.Deitz (1961) to publish similar hypotheses based on mantle convection currents, now known as "sea floor spreading". This idea was basically the same as that proposed by Holmes over 30 years earlier, but now there was much more evidence to further develop and support the idea.
Bearing these mechanisms in mind, it seems as though continental drift now has a central mechanism from which all other observations can be traced back to.
*Similarly, as I've said before, I think that the evolution of life on earth will probably have some kind of extra-dimensional component perhaps involving string theories. Or maybe it might have something to do with quantum mechanic related mutations of DNA.
In other words, what is the convective process of evolution?
Classical physics is a flawed theory, but it is only dramatically flawed when dealing with the very small (atomic size, where
quantum mechanics is used) or the very fast (near the speed of light, where relativity takes over).
For everyday things, which are much larger than atoms and much slower than the speed of light, classical physics does an excellent job. Plus, it is much easier to use than either quantum mechanics or relativity (each of which require an extensive amount of math).
Specifically, I think that quantum mechanics will someday be found to be highly involved within the transcription of molecular data found in DNA and RNA.
I really don't know: it's just a risky prediction.
However, I do feel that I've at least explained my own position regarding the possible limitations of evolutionary theory (via using analogies to continental drift) to the point that I shouldn't be considered to have no reason to suspect that there isn't more that we need to learn regarding evolution.
I simply think there's another mechanism of DNA to be found, and that all other evolutionary phenomena will be found to be a result of it's input -- and that natural selection os more of a descriptive process than a mechanism in and off itself.
As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes in regrads to Quantum Mechanics:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy writes:
Quantum mechanics is, at least at first glance and at least in part, a mathematical machine for predicting the behaviors of microscopic particles or, at least, of the measuring instruments we use to explore those behaviors and in that capacity, it is spectacularly successful: in terms of power and precision, head and shoulders above any theory we have ever had.
Mathematically, the theory is well understood; we know what its parts are, how they are put together, and why, in the mechanical sense (i.e., in a sense that can be answered by describing the internal grinding of gear against gear), the whole thing performs the way it does, how the information that gets fed in at one end is converted into what comes out the other. The question of what kind of a world it describes, however, is controversial; there is very little agreement, among physicists and among philosophers, about what the world is like according to quantum mechanics.
Minimally interpreted, the theory describes a set of facts about the way the microscopic world impinges on the macroscopic one, how it affects our measuring instruments, described in everyday language or the language of classical mechanics.
Disagreement centers on the question of what a microscopic world, which affects our apparatuses in the prescribed manner, is, or even could be, like intrinsically; or how those apparatuses could themselves be built out of microscopic parts of the sort the theory describes.
After reviewing this, I susspect the following things may yet be proven true given time:
1: Quantum mechanics is, at least at first glance and at least in part, a mathematical machine for predicting the behaviors of microscopic particles. As such, even though it is much samller, I still think quantum mechanics does have direct effect of the development of life on a microscopic level.
2: Mathematically, I think that quantum mechanics will an aspect to the theroy of evolutioin that has formerly ben overlloked. As such, I think that quantum mechanics will allows us to know what evolutions parts are, how they are put together, and why, in the mechanical sense (i.e., in a sense that can be answered by describing the internal grinding of gear against gear) the whole thing performs the way it does, how the information that gets fed in at one end is converted into what comes out the other.
3: Minimally interpreted, the quantum theory will be able to describe a set of facts about the way the microscopic world impinges on the macroscopic one in the evolution of life.
4: Finally, adding quantum theories to the "apparatuses" of evolution could potentially display that evolution itself was orchestrated out of microscopic parts of life that the theory itself further describes.
Information about continental drift was gathered from Plate Tectonics: The Rocky History of an Idea on-line from Berkely.
Information about natural selection, evolution, Darwin, and Lamarckism was gathered from various Wikipedia sources.
*phew*
Editted to correct formatting problems.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-28-2005 06:06 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2005 2:31 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 138 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-27-2005 3:17 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 139 by Admin, posted 04-27-2005 9:23 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 143 by crashfrog, posted 04-28-2005 6:47 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 137 of 198 (202901)
04-27-2005 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-27-2005 12:34 AM


Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
Because "evolution" means so many different things, almost any example will do. The trick is always to prove one of the modest meanings of the term, and treat it as a proof of the complete evolutionary system.
This is JOHNSON'S trick. It is certainly relevant to produce examples of "small scale" evolution as EVIDENCE for evolution - even in the wider senses - because it establishes that the mechanisms proposed by evolution do operate as claimed. Indeed the examples are often used only to rpove evolution in the smaller sense - examples of specitiation are trotted out to show that speciatin happens. The peppered moth demonstrates that natural selection happend. The trick is to jump on such an example, claim it is being used as pr oof of something more and then dismiss the evidence on that pretext. This quote or paraphrase is both dishonest and hypocritical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-27-2005 12:34 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-28-2005 7:19 PM PaulK has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 138 of 198 (202907)
04-27-2005 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-27-2005 12:34 AM


Message needs much reformatting!
Mr. Ex Nihilo - Welcome to .
For better or worse, that was a monster of a message. The one thing that stood out to me is that the message had a LOT of formatting problems, that makes for a painful reading experience.
Apparently you were doing "enters" at the end of your individual lines. Unless you are starting a new paragraph, such is a very bad thing, as it causes line breaks in the wrong places. Just type your paragraphs without using the "enter" key, and the line breaks will automaticly be put in the correct place. Please do "double enters" (as you have been doing), to put in a blank lines between the paragraphs.
Please go back and use the "edit" feature, to TRY clean up the formatting. Unfortunately, once the mess is made, it takes a lot of work to fix it. You can use the "Preview" button to check on the fixes you do, as you do them. Just don't forget to click on "Submit Now" when you are done editing.
In the future, you may wish to use a word processor to compose messages, especially large or complex ones. Also do saves of those messages as they are created. That way you will have a copy of the message if for some reason the message does not post correctly (and that sometimes does happen!).
Further messages with such massive formatting problems might well tend to cause "Cranky Moose Syndrome". You don't want to here be facing a cranky Moose.
Also, if you are replying to a specific message, please use the "reply" button at the bottom of that message. Then "reply to" and "reply from" links are automaticly put in place.
AdminneMOOSEus
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-27-2005 03:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-27-2005 12:34 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-28-2005 6:10 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 139 of 198 (202956)
04-27-2005 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-27-2005 12:34 AM


Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Well...I did suggest the experiment...and I did think it was a good idea...
This was your very first post, yet you start your message as if you were already part of the discussion. I lack the time to research this properly, but the IPs of these members indicate the possibility that they're the same person:
  • Magisterium Devolver
  • Mr. Ex Nihilo
Registering more than one ID is a violation of the Forum Guidelines. I'm suspending the posting privileges of these two accounts until this is straightened out. Anyone with helpful information can send email to Admin.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-27-2005 12:34 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-28-2005 6:11 PM Admin has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4976 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 140 of 198 (203120)
04-27-2005 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-14-2005 6:58 PM


sorry, i misunderstood

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-14-2005 6:58 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 141 of 198 (203432)
04-28-2005 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Adminnemooseus
04-27-2005 3:17 AM


Re: Message needs much reformatting!
Adminnemooseus, thank you for pointing the formating problems out.
I had originally typed out this on a html editer that ad a "fixed with". When I cut and pasted it, it retained the "return" breaks as you noted.
I'll be more careful in the future about formatting issues like this.
The message is now mostly corrected, although there still appear to be some spots where I missed the "breaks".
Special note: About the reply button, I usually do use that. However, in this long message, I was replying to more than one person and felt that incorporating them into one message would be more prudent.
When I read through a thread, I usually assume that the information given in each post is to be compared and contrasted to everyone's points where applicapble.
In other words, I read the entire thread -- and not just the messages that are replies to my own messages. As such, I usually write in a style that speak in genral terms so that anyone who read my messages will be able to connect with them.
In the future, I will not do this and instead break down information so that it applies to each individual message. In doing so, however, I also hope that I will not have to restate duplicates of previously explained information so as to address each persons questions -- especially when I've already answered or addressed their thoughts by replying to someone else's message which expressed the same idea or question.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-28-2005 06:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-27-2005 3:17 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-28-2005 8:01 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 142 of 198 (203433)
04-28-2005 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Admin
04-27-2005 9:23 AM


Thank you for helping me with this issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Admin, posted 04-27-2005 9:23 AM Admin has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 143 of 198 (203441)
04-28-2005 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-27-2005 12:34 AM


Well...I did suggest the experiment...and I did think it was a good idea...so it stands to reason that you're implicating me as one of those who are "motivated out of a sociopathic love of cruelty, etc.
etc..."
Look, I'm not trying to call you names, but if you're determined to call yourself a sociopath, well, go nuts. (Er, maybe you shouldn't follow that suggestion.)
Your experiment has a catastrophic, abhorrent human cost. I'm comfortable ignoring that as part of a hypothetical thought experiment, but if you're convinced that this experiment has any practical value and that actually doing it would be a good idea, then you need to address that ethical aspect. Just so we're clear on that. If we are then we need not press on in regards to the ethics.
I mentioned that many times I was asking for how one could do it.
And, again, the techniques of genetic manipulation in animals are no secret. The tools and chemicals and equipment you would need are publically avaliable.
Yes. We know that random mutation and natural selection "did it". But we don't know exactly how it did it.
Via random mutation and natural selection. I mean, you do know how these processes work, right? It's no secret how mutation changes genes; it's no secret how selection changes allele frequency. I mean, are you trying to split some kind of epistomological hair about knowledge? If so I simply don't understand. Are you talking about the precise sequence of mutations, environment, and all-around general happenstance that led to the development of the species we observe today? That's something we won't ever be able to know, absent the invention of time travel. We can sometimes fill in the blanks thanks to fossil and genetic evidence, but much of what you want to know simply didn't leave any evidence when it happened besides the eventual result of what we have now.
Although I agree that the experiment would've been highly unethical, it still would've been interesting to hear a good answer as to why it could or couldn't be done based on our current knowledge.
It could certainly be done, we can pretty much re-write animal genetics anyway we like. It's certainly hard to get any specific phenotypical outcome, but we can pretty much insert or delete any sequence we choose.
...it seems to indicate that the listeners have generally blown off anything the person was previously trying to expand on.
What it should indicate to you is that you need to re-frame your question if you want a better answer. I've been trying as hard as I can to try to understand you. Why is it that you aren't interested in helping me with that?
When someone asks in detail how something could be done,
You didn't ask for details. Is that what you want? Details? How to use a micropipette? How to run a PCR-RFLP? How to order primers from a biotech supply house? I mean, what is it that you're asking? Step-by-step instructions? You can find those online. Do you want a more general overview of the techniques and tools of genetic manipulation? Also online.
I keep asking you what you want, because your question is insufficiently specific. It's like you're asking me how to build a house. Well, you have to be more specific. Are you asking how to design a floorplan? Or how to lay a foundation? Plumbing/electrical advice? Or are you asking how to swing a hammer? Or are you just asking because you have literally no idea how houses are made?
The fact that you can't, or won't, get specific about what you're asking for suggests to me that you don't know what you're asking. You don't know how genetic experiments are conducted. If that's what you're asking, then your first stop should be a graduate genetics program, not an internet discussion board.
What are you asking for?
You think there is good reason, but you don't actually have any good reasons.
I think I've laid out enough recent scientific history to indicate that science does indeed usually move from pre-science to true science, with the larger claims of the "older" paradigm often being discarded in favor of newer evidence much later. At least, I think I've laid out enough to indicate that no scientific paradigm is immune to this pattern, and that the theory of evolution could still fall prey to this as well in the future.
How great for you.
Now, could you actually address my statement? Since that's not in the least what I was talking about. Did you not understand my post? I could attempt to clarify if you like.
Fair enough. However, what if one were to claim that the mechanisms of evolution might simply not be powerful enough to achieve what is claimed?
They would have to have considerable new evidence for that position, because it's contradicted by the evidence we have. The evidence shows us that RM+NS is more than powerful and creative enough to generate the genetic changes required to derive all living things from a single ancestor.
We know that natural selection and random mutation can provide a great variety of speciations, but what is the central current that drives natural selection and random mutation in the first place?
What current? There's no current. RM+NS operate because there's no other possibility. You can't escape mutation in a system that relies on chemistry; you can't escape selection in a system where death is possible. The laws of physics necessitate that mutation and selection will operate. There's no need to "drive" them anywhere.
Similarly, even though evolution's descriptive ability is simply phenomenal, some would still argue that it ultimately fails to provide an adequate explanation of the forces responsible for it.
The laws of physics are more than sufficient explanation for the existence and influence of these forces.
I simply think there's another mechanism of DNA to be found, and that all other evolutionary phenomena will be found to be a result of it's input -- and that natural selection os more of a descriptive process than a mechanism in and off itself.
Well, it is. Natural selection is a description of the fact that organisms generally die and reproduce differentially; in other words that survival and success in mating are not random. Which genes are passed on and which are extinguished is not random. Natural selection is the name we give to that phenomenon, which results in changes in allele frequencies over time by eliminating or reducing some alleles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-27-2005 12:34 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-28-2005 9:13 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 144 of 198 (203455)
04-28-2005 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by PaulK
04-27-2005 2:31 AM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Because "evolution" means so many different things, almost any example will do. The trick is always to prove one of the modest meanings of the term, and treat it as a proof of the complete evolutionary system.
PaulK writes:
This is JOHNSON'S trick. It is certainly relevant to produce examples of "small scale" evolution as EVIDENCE for evolution - even in the wider senses - because it establishes that the mechanisms proposed by evolution do operate as claimed.
Yes, but the issue of raw power becomes an issue when doing so.
For example, if I point to a model rocket capable of flying high into the air, I can point to the basic mechanics of rocket propulsion and claim (accurately) that one could use these same basic mechanics, albiet slightly modified, to build a larger rocket that will get us to the moon.
However, in doing so, I'm also noting that the power source of the model rocket when compared to the Saturn V rocket for example is significantly less powerful.
In a small model rocket engine or in a tiny bottle rocket the burn might last a second or less.
The Saturn V, on the other hand, was the largest operational launch vehicle ever produced. Standing over 363 feet high with its Apollo Spacecraft payload, it produced over 7.5 million pounds of thrust at lift-off.
In the most basic sense:
quote:
power equals work divided by time.
If I'm to derive some basic formula for the theory of evolution like one can do for power (as noted above), are the two factors of evolution considered solely mutation and natural selection so that we could express it this way?
quote:
evolution equals natural selection divided by random mutation.
Or, would it be expressed oppositely as follows?
quote:
evolution equals random mutation divided by natural selection.
In other words, what is the basic mathematical formlua for evolution?
Furthermore, how would we test it to make predictions that could accurately be compared to the the fossil record?
PaulK writes:
Indeed the examples are often used only to rpove evolution in the smaller sense - examples of specitiation are trotted out to show that speciatin happens. The peppered moth demonstrates that natural selection happend.
It also demonstrates that researchers can make at least some hasty generalizations within the framework of their experimental methods which were designed to proove natural selection happens in the first place.
For example, although I disagree with various creationists who claim that the peppered moth story is "faked," or is "known to be wrong," I would still nonetheless agree with Ken Miller that we have to be cautious about is attributing 100% of the work of natural selection in this case to the camoflage of the moths and their direct visibility to birds.
For example, in The Peppered Moth - An Update (From Ken Miller's Evolution Page), I read the following:
For evolutionary biologists, the question behind the rise and fall of the carbonaria form is "Why?" Why should the dark phenotype have appeared so suddenly, come to dominate the population in industrial areas, and then have declined just as sharply when levels of pollution declined? To many biologists, the answer seemed obvious. In areas where pollution had darkened the landscape, the darker moths were better camoflaged and less like to be eaten by birds. Under less-polluted conditions, the light-colored moths prevailed for similar reasons.
But was the obvious answer correct? That's what Kettlewell set out to check in a series of classic studies carried out in the 1950s. As described in Chapter 14 of the text, his results seemed to confirm that background camoflage was the key:
However, in 1998, Michael E. N. Majerus of the Department of Genetics at the University of Cambridge carefully re-examined Kettlewell's studies, as well as many others that have since appeared. What he reported, first of all, was that Kettlewell's experiments, indicating that moth survival depends upon color-related camoflage, were generally correct:
" Differential bird predation of the typica and carbonaria forms, in habitats affected by industrial pollution to different degrees, is the primary influence on the evolution of melanism in the peppered moth."
(P. 116, Melanism - Evolution in Action, M. E. N. Majerus, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998).
However, Majerus also discovered that many of Kettlewell's experiments didn't really test the elements of the story as well as they should have. For example, in testing how likely light and dark moths were to be eaten, he placed moths on the sides of tree trunks, a place where they rarely perch in nature. He also records how well comoflaged the moths seemed to be by visual inspection. This might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but since his work it has become clear that birds see ultraviolet much better than we do, and therefore what seems well-camoflaged to the human eye may not be to a bird. In addition, neither Kettlewell nor those who checked his work were able to compensate for the degree to which migration of moths from surrounding areas might have affected the actual numbers of light and dark moths he counted in various regions of the countryside.
These criticisms have led some critics of evolution to charge that the peppered moth story is "faked," or is "known to be wrong."
Neither is true. In fact, the basic elements of the peppered moth story are quite correct. The population of dark moths rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution, and the percentage of dark moths in the population was clearly highest in regions of the countryside that were most polluted. As Majerus, the principal scientific critic of Kettlewell's work wrote, "My view of the rise and fall of the melanic form of the peppered moth is that differential bird predation in more or less polluted regions, together with migration, are primarily responsible, almost to the exclusion of other factors." (p. 155).
So, what's going on here?
Well, the best way to put it is that what we are seeing is the scientific process at its best. Majerus and other ecologists have carefully examined the details of Kettlewell's work and found them to be lacking. As Majerus explains, to be absolutely certain of exactly how natural selection produced the rise and fall of the carbonaria form, we need better experiments to show that birds (in a natural environment) really do respond to camoflage in the ways we have presumed, that the primary reason the dark moths did better in polluted areas was because of camoflage (and not other factors like behavior), and that migration rates of moths from the surrounding countryside are not so great that they overwhelm the influence of selection in local regions by birds. Until these studies are done, the peppered moth story will be incomplete. Not wrong, but incomplete.
What we do know is that the rise and fall of dark-colored moths, a phenomenon known as "industrial melanism," remains a striking and persuasive example of natural selection in action. What we have to be cautious about is attributing 100% of the work of natural selection in this case to the camoflage of the moths and their direct visibility to birds.
PaulK writes:
The trick is to jump on such an example, claim it is being used as proof of something more and then dismiss the evidence on that pretext.
And yet, some do claim that the peppered moth experiment is at least partially flawed in how the evidence was gathered. The experiments were, at least in some senses as noted above, designed to find exactly what the researcher wanted to find in the first place.
This quote or paraphrase is both dishonest and hypocritical.
How so?
Are you saying that the peppered moth experiment, when combined with the claim that there is no reason to suspect there are "barriers" to speciation, is not evidence for the major claims of evolution?
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-28-2005 07:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2005 2:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2005 2:45 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 145 of 198 (203474)
04-28-2005 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-28-2005 6:10 PM


Re: Message needs much reformatting!
I didn't really know how you did it, all I could see was that it turned out a mess. Thanks for the repairs (I assume they're done, I didn't look back at the message yet).
I didn't realize you were replying to multiple messages. People generally reply to specific messages, and thus the specific reply button in usually called for. Perhaps you could have lead off the message by saying "This is a reply to a number of previous messages".
I personally like consolidated replies rather than a bunch of individual messages (I've made issues about such things in the past), but I seem to be in the minority in that area.
I'll now get back to the message in question, now that it's in a more readable format.
Again, welcome -
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-28-2005 6:10 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 146 of 198 (203495)
04-28-2005 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by crashfrog
04-28-2005 6:47 PM


Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Well...I did suggest the experiment...and I did think it was a good idea...so it stands to reason that you're implicating me as one of those who are "motivated out of a sociopathic love of cruelty, etc.
etc..."
crashfrog writes:
Look, I'm not trying to call you names, but if you're determined to call yourself a sociopath, well, go nuts. (Er, maybe you shouldn't follow that suggestion.)
Don't worry about it.
Your experiment has a catastrophic, abhorrent human cost.
If succesful...it might yet be found that it simply cannot be done.
I'm comfortable ignoring that as part of a hypothetical thought experiment, but if you're convinced that this experiment has any practical value and that actually doing it would be a good idea, then you need to address that ethical aspect. Just so we're clear on that. If we are then we need not press on in regards to the ethics.
Fair enough.
Is there any way an experiment like this could be modified so as to be less unethical?
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
I mentioned that many times I was asking for how one could do it.
crashfrog writes:
And, again, the techniques of genetic manipulation in animals are no secret. The tools and chemicals and equipment you would need are publically avaliable.
I guess I was looking for some kind of genetic map displaying the pathways that would need to be modified, added or deleted in order to perform some kind of experiment like this.
I'm not expecting for anyone here to do the actual work. But it would be interesting if someone could at least point me in the direction of someone who has actually engaged in a thought experiment like this -- someone who has actually made an attempt to map the genetic pathways so that "if" some genetic material from a supposed ancestor were actually discovered, we could then look at our "predictions" and see if we were at all correct in our assumptions.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Yes. We know that random mutation and natural selection "did it". But we don't know exactly how it did it.
crashfrog writes:
Via random mutation and natural selection.
But this sounds like a circular answer.
If I were to look at the astronomical applications of gravity I would see that:
Gravity results in weight
Gravity causes precession of the Earth's axis
Gravity causes tides
Gravity explains orbits
We can determine the mass of an object if it has an orbiting body
Gravity leads to our detection of other planetary systems
All these things can be expressed in mathematical formulae, tested thousands of times, and result in very accurate predictions as to where the planets, comets and other objects in the solar system will be in the past or in the future.
Can I do the same thing with the theory of evolution so as to express random mutations and natural selections in mathematical formulae, test them thousands of times, and result in very accurate predictions as to where the species, alleles and other objects in the evolutionary heirachy will be in the past or in the future?
I mean, you do know how these processes work, right? It's no secret how mutation changes genes; it's no secret how selection changes allele frequency. I mean, are you trying to split some kind of epistomological hair about knowledge?
Yes and no.
In the discussion about what pseudoscinece is, I've noted some elements within evolutionary theories which some would claim as such.
As I noted before:
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Popper's conclusion, by the way, should remind us that Darwinism could not be tested by science's trial and error methods -- which is an aspect of pseudoscience. Although attracted to it as a philosophy, he was thus forced to admit that Darwinism is not testable scientific theory but is no more than a metaphysical research program. This being so it is not part of natural science within Baconian principles.
Adverting to Popper's view of the distinction between science and non-science, Dr. Colin Patterson, a leading paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, also pointed out that the theory of organic evolution is concerned with a series of (alleged) unique historical events, which, because they are unrepeatable, cannot be part of science because they cannot be scientifically tested.
Two other scientists, both at the relevant time professors of biology, also drew attention to the untestable nature of the evolution hypothesis.
Neither Popper nor the scientists mentioned above could be accused of any bias in favor of creationism in making the above admissions. But perhaps even more to the point, the late S.
J. Gould, arguably one the world's best known evolution polemicists, had also admitted that Darwinism and other historical theories cannot be tested experimentally.
Gould, who taught biology, geology and the history of science at Harvard University in the United States, stated in 1986 that the theory of evolution relies heavily upon inference and "not on steel balls rolling down inclined planes in a laboratory," but he still criticized creation scientists who claimed it was not part of (natural) science.
He later returned to this theme when he wrote a hypercritical review of Professor Phillip E. Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial (which I've quoted and am now picking up on more). In that review Gould claimed that Johnson held "a narrow and blinkered view of science" because he had claimed that Darwin had "started his theory on the wrong road" by never proposing an experimental test for it.
However, in stating that, "...Darwin's method is not generally experimental, for singular and complex events are not so explained by any historical science," Gould tacitly admitted that Darwinism is outside of the Baconian concept of natural science. Notwithstanding this, Gould claimed that Darwinism is "science" because of the methodology Darwin used in arriving at his conclusions.
In short, I'm looking to move past the assmumptions and actually attempt to produce a viable experiment that will move the theory past these observations.
crashfrog writes:
If so I simply don't understand. Are you talking about the precise sequence of mutations, environment, and all-around general happenstance that led to the development of the species we observe today? That's something we won't ever be able to know, absent the invention of time travel. We can sometimes fill in the blanks thanks to fossil and genetic evidence, but much of what you want to know simply didn't leave any evidence when it happened besides the eventual result of what we have now.
Then why sould I be expected to accept the greater claims of evolution if they are something we won't ever be able to know?
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Although I agree that the experiment would've been highly unethical, it still would've been interesting to hear a good answer as to why it could or couldn't be done based on our current knowledge.
crashfrog writes:
It could certainly be done, we can pretty much re-write animal genetics anyway we like. It's certainly hard to get any specific phenotypical outcome, but we can pretty much insert or delete any sequence we choose.
Then, to restate the inital outcome of the experiment, is it possible to design an experiment (on paper) that would essentially validate that human could indeed be descended from another "species" of primate?
Certainly, had the process of mutation and natural slection gone differently in the past, the evolution of humanity from a semi-upright chimpanzee could've been a possibility.
As I noted before, the oldest members of family Hominidae is considered to have diverged from the common human-chimpanzee ancestor. Admittedly, family Hominidae can simultaneously be considered to be monophyletic and to exclude all of the chimpanzees. However, it still seems like a good place to start for me on a theoretical level -- at least based on what species we have available today.
At the very least it would prove that a human could be descended from another "species" of primate -- something which has never been empirically demonstrated in the lab.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
...it seems to indicate that the listeners have generally blown off anything the person was previously trying to expand on.
crashfrog writes:
What it should indicate to you is that you need to re-frame your question if you want a better answer. I've been trying as hard as I can to try to understand you. Why is it that you aren't interested in helping me with that?
I am trying.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
When someone asks in detail how something could be done,
crashfrog writes:
You didn't ask for details. Is that what you want? Details? How to use a micropipette? How to run a PCR-RFLP? How to order primers from a biotech supply house? I mean, what is it that you're asking? Step-by-step instructions? You can find those online. Do you want a more general overview of the techniques and tools of genetic manipulation? Also online.
I keep asking you what you want, because your question is insufficiently specific. It's like you're asking me how to build a house. Well, you have to be more specific. Are you asking how to design a floorplan? Or how to lay a foundation? Plumbing/electrical advice? Or are you asking how to swing a hammer? Or are you just asking because you have literally no idea how houses are made?
The fact that you can't, or won't, get specific about what you're asking for suggests to me that you don't know what you're asking. You don't know how genetic experiments are conducted. If that's what you're asking, then your first stop should be a graduate genetics program, not an internet discussion board.
What are you asking for?
Well...I did note some specific details before -- and was hoping someone could provide a possible explanation of how this could be done.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
1: Fuse two of the smaller chimpanzee chromosomes to genetically produce a new species that has 23 chromosomes like humans do (instead of 24 like chimpanzees).
2. Reduce the 23 kilobases of repeating DNA sequences on the chimpanzee telomere to 10 kilobases of repeating DNA like that of the human telomere.
3. Although 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’ between humanity and chimpanzees, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘modified.’ in some way. It would be interesting if genetisists could manipulate the chimpanzee generations so that the markers on these chromosomes would go in the same order as in the human -- the Y chromosome in particular would have to made into a different size and have many markers line up where ordinarilly they do not do so.
4. Genetically re-engineer chromosome 21 in particular so as to remove the large, non-random regions of difference between the two different types of genomes.
5. Determine the regions that might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage -- and attempt to reproduce them genetically as appropriate.
PaulK started to answer #1 very well.
However, I also did ask for this informatio below in that very same massage 101:
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Has anyone ever tried to predict (or reconstruct) what our hypothetical prehistoric ancestor's DNA would've been like -- based on the information about genes that we have now about us and other primates?
Perhaps this would be a better direction to go.
Could someone point me to anyone ever trying to predict (or reconstruct) what our hypothetical prehistoric ancestor's DNA would've been like -- based on the information about genes that we have now about us and other primates?
In other words, could someone point me toward a theoretical genetic map of what our anscester's DNA would've been like?
crashfrog writes:
You think there is good reason, but you don't actually have any good reasons.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
I think I've laid out enough recent scientific history to indicate that science does indeed usually move from pre-science to true science, with the larger claims of the "older" paradigm often being discarded in favor of newer evidence much later. At least, I think I've laid out enough to indicate that no scientific paradigm is immune to this pattern, and that the theory of evolution could still fall prey to this as well in the future.
crashfrog writes:
How great for you.
Now, could you actually address my statement? Since that's not in the least what I was talking about.
But it does relate to the whole discussion of what I've been talking about since the beginning of this discussion.
I've been consistently effecitlvey asking, "How can we tell the theory of evolution from some aspects of pseudoscience?"
One of the important distinctions between science and pseudoscience is that aspect that pseudoscience makes claims tha cannot be empirically tested.
Or, more specicially, one engages in pseudoscience when the major tenets and principles of the field are often not falsifiable, and are unlikely ever to be altered or shown to be wrong.
When I ask questions like how can we empirically proove that evolution produced humanity from other species of primates, and some answers that we cannot empirically proove this, then it begins to have at least some form of pseudosceince to it.
I've also been trying very hard to think up of some experiment that would push the theory of evolution past the assumption that it "must have" happened because there is no other way in which it "could have" happened.
crashfrog writes:
Did you not understand my post? I could attempt to clarify if you like.
Have I clarified my question better?
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Fair enough. However, what if one were to claim that the mechanisms of evolution might simply not be powerful enough to achieve what is claimed?
crashfrog writes:
They would have to have considerable new evidence for that position, because it's contradicted by the evidence we have. The evidence shows us that RM+NS is more than powerful and creative enough to generate the genetic changes required to derive all living things from a single ancestor.
Fair enough.
Then I'll ask you the same questions I ask PaulK:
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Yes, but the issue of raw power becomes an issue when doing so.
For example, if I point to a model rocket capable of flying high into the air, I can point to the basic mechanics of rocket propulsion and claim (accurately) that one could use these same basic mechanics, albiet slightly modified, to build a larger rocket that will get us to the moon.
However, in doing so, I'm also noting that the power source of the model rocket when compared to the Saturn V rocket for example is significantly less powerful.
In a small model rocket engine or in a tiny bottle rocket the burn might last a second or less.
The Saturn V, on the other hand, was the largest operational launch vehicle ever produced. Standing over 363 feet high with its Apollo Spacecraft payload, it produced over 7.5 million pounds of thrust at lift-off.
In the most basic sense:
quote:
power equals work divided by time.
If I'm to derive some basic formula for the theory of evolution like one can do for power (as noted above), are the two factors of evolution considered solely mutation and natural selection so that we could express it this way?
quote:

evolution equals natural selection divided by random mutation.

Or, would it be expressed oppositely as follows?
quote:

evolution equals random mutation divided by natural selection.

In other words, what is the basic mathematical formlua for evolution?
Furthermore, how would we test it to make predictions that could accurately be compared to the the fossil record?
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
We know that natural selection and random mutation can provide a great variety of speciations, but what is the central current that drives natural selection and random mutation in the first place?
crashfrog writes:
What current? There's no current. RM+NS operate because there's no other possibility. You can't escape mutation in a system that relies on chemistry; you can't escape selection in a system where death is possible. The laws of physics necessitate that mutation and selection will operate. There's no need to "drive" them anywhere.
I guess I'm thinking of a gravitational assist when I think of this.
For example (as noted in the on-line article: How does gravity assist work with interplanetary satellites?), the idea behind a gravity assist is to use a planet's motion to accelerate a satellite.
The article goes on to say:
How does gravity assist work with interplanetary satellites? writes:
For example, a satellite heads toward Jupiter -- in the process, it accelerates because it is "falling toward" Jupiter. Then, it passes fairly close to the planet and starts speeding away from it. However, at that point, the satellite starts slowing down because gravity is pulling it back toward the planet.
Note analogy: Is there any indication in the fossil record that as a species is falling toward some kind of energy equilibrium within its respective biosphere, that it's evolution then takes on added energy? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
From that description, it would seem like the net effect of gravity assist is zero -- the satellite gains speed as it falls toward the planet but then loses it as it heads away.
Note analogy: Again, is there any indication in the fossil record that as a species is falling toward some kind of energy equilibrium within its respective biosphere, that it's evolution then takes on added energy? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
The thing that makes gravity assist work is the fact that the planet is in motion in its orbit. Jupiter, for example, is about 500,000,000 miles (806,000,000 kilometers) away from the sun, which means that the circumference of its orbit is 3,140,000,000 miles (5,060,000,000 kilometers).
Note analogy: Is there any indication in the fossil record that as a species respective bioshpere is itself evoliving the species also evoloves in accordance within its respective biosphere? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
Jupiter travels that distance in about 12 years, so it is moving through space at about 30,000 mph (48,000 kph). If the satellite is moving in the same direction as Jupiter in its orbit, it can actually increase its speed by 30,000 mph! That is a huge speed increase, and it's completely free.
Note analogy: Looking thorugh the fossil record, is there a consistant pattern of various species matching the pace of their biosphere's evolution? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
The problem with gravity assist is that you have to wait for the planets to line up correctly for it to work. That is why missions have to fly within certain time windows.
Note analogy: Looking thorugh the fossil record, is there a consistant pattern where specific biospheres are lined up corretly for evoltution to work? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Similarly, even though evolution's descriptive ability is simply phenomenal, some would still argue that it ultimately fails to provide an adequate explanation of the forces responsible for it.
crashfrog writes:
The laws of physics are more than sufficient explanation for the existence and influence of these forces.
Admittedly the evidence of the earth's geologival history is seriously eroded over time -- something which some would claim undermines the theory of evolutions overall value in the first place.
However, going past this observation, can at least some mathimatical formulae be "glimpsed" in the eroded fossil record, a formula which could at least partially lead to predictive statements which could then be validated with new discoveries?
Mr. Ex nihilo writes:
I simply think there's another mechanism of DNA to be found, and that all other evolutionary phenomena will be found to be a result of it's input -- and that natural selection os more of a descriptive process than a mechanism in and off itself.
Well, it is. Natural selection is a description of the fact that organisms generally die and reproduce differentially; in other words that survival and success in mating are not random. Which genes are passed on and which are extinguished is not random. Natural selection is the name we give to that phenomenon, which results in changes in allele frequencies over time by eliminating or reducing some alleles.
So, is evolution random or is it not random?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by crashfrog, posted 04-28-2005 6:47 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by coffee_addict, posted 04-28-2005 9:23 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 04-28-2005 9:32 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 152 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2005 12:38 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 147 of 198 (203497)
04-28-2005 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-28-2005 9:13 PM


Mr.Ex writes:
Can I do the same thing with the theory of evolution so as to express random mutations and natural selections in mathematical formulae, test them thousands of times, and result in very accurate predictions as to where the species, alleles and other objects in the evolutionary heirachy will be in the past or in the future?
Just one thing. You can't compare biology with physics. 2 completely different fields of science.
What you are implying is like saying, "since the germ theory of disease can't be mathematically modeled, germs don't cause diseases."
Get my drift?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-28-2005 9:13 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-28-2005 9:42 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 148 of 198 (203504)
04-28-2005 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-28-2005 9:13 PM


A Suggestion
If everyone else is reading your posts and length is not a problem then just ignore this comment, but your posts are way too long for me to read. Brief, clear and succinct catches my eye. I can't comment about whether your longer posts are on-topic since I haven't read them.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-28-2005 9:13 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-28-2005 10:00 PM Percy has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 149 of 198 (203508)
04-28-2005 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by coffee_addict
04-28-2005 9:23 PM


Yes, but germ theory is something which we can definitelty measure in the lab -- it is definitely empirical proof of evolution.
Furthermore, germs can be expressed mathematically in regards to the notion of an quivalence class of function.
For example, as Answers.com notes, in mathematics, a germ is an equivalence class of continuous functions from one topological space to another (often from the real line to itself), in which one point x0 in the domain has been singled out as privileged. Two functions f and g are equivalent precisely if there is some open neighborhood U of x0 such that for all x ∈ U, the identity f(x) = g(x) holds. All local properties of f at x0 depend only on which germ f belongs to.
For further information, you can look here at these links:
http://www.answers.com/main/...Equivalence...
http://www.answers.com/main/...Continuous...
http://www.answers.com/main/...Topological...
{Shortened display form of the 3 links. - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-28-2005 11:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by coffee_addict, posted 04-28-2005 9:23 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 150 of 198 (203515)
04-28-2005 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Percy
04-28-2005 9:32 PM


Re: A Suggestion
To be succinct, this is basically what I'm covering in this thread.
We've been discussing a distinction between science, psuedoscience, and a mixture of both -- and what damage has or has not resulted from these distinctions. I've also been effecitlvey asking how can we tell the theory of evolution from some aspects of pseudoscience -- which is not to say it's a bad thing "if" it was.
One of the important distinctions between science and pseudoscience is that aspect that pseudoscience makes claims tha cannot be empirically tested. Or, more specicially, one engages in pseudoscience when the major tenets and principles of the field are often not falsifiable, and are unlikely ever to be altered or shown to be wrong.
When I ask questions like how can we empirically proove that evolution produced humanity from other species of primates, and some answers that we cannot empirically proove this, then it begins to have at least some form of pseudosceince to it. However, others have correctly interjected that words such as pseudoscience may be wrong in some instances. Pre-sceince is probably a better word to use in other instances -- although I have traced where pseudoscientic "inspirations" should be acknowledged.
I've also been trying very hard to think up of some experiment that would push the theory of evolution past the assumption that it "must have" happened because there is no other way in which it "could have" happened. One current topic that we're discussing is the possibility of genetically altering a chimpanzee through several generations to make it into a human being -- so as to prove that humans could be descended from another "species" of primates (and display empirical evidence of it, instead of just a powreful inference for its possibility)
I apologize if this response was also long. But that's bascially this entire thread in a nut shell. The question of pseudoscience itself seems to cover a broad categoy of topics, so a lot of overspill seems inevitable (even ethical questions such as crashfrog has rightly pointed out).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 04-28-2005 9:32 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024