Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is evolutions primary mechanism mutation ?
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 141 (249588)
10-06-2005 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by ausar_maat
10-06-2005 2:27 PM


Re: Evolution's primary mechanism
It seems like a contributing factor can be a primary mechanism at the same time. Natural selection can select for certain alleles or combinations of genes, while mutations provide the novelty and variety that natural selection can act upon. They are two parts to the same whole.
I don't know any scientists who treat Darwin the same way Christians treat Jesus. No one I know has a What Would Darwin Do bumper sticker. If they did, that wouldn't be very scientific since Darwin got so many things wrong, even though he got natural selection right. Pangenesis, a model for heredity, comes to mind. It isn't used anymore because the evidence doesn't support it. Many, but not all, Christians are not so open minded about the Bible, and this is where creationism comes from.
Scientists working in fields related to evolution are, however, very cognizant of the contributions made by Darwin as well as the modern version of his theory, which has been modified and improved significantly in the last 150 years as evidence accumulates. There is still a lot of work to be done in biology and many questions to answer, but right now it seems like we've got evolution right for the most part.
What questions about evolution do you feel are not addressed properly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ausar_maat, posted 10-06-2005 2:27 PM ausar_maat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 10-07-2005 4:47 AM Gary has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 47 of 141 (249705)
10-07-2005 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Gary
10-06-2005 5:30 PM


Re: Evolution's primary mechanism
No one I know has a What Would Darwin Do bumper sticker. If they did, that wouldn't be very scientific since Darwin got so many things wrong, even though he got natural selection right
They don't do it as a scientific statement, but they do exist and there's also the Darwin Fish. My apologies - when I started this I had a point, but I totally forgot what it was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Gary, posted 10-06-2005 5:30 PM Gary has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 7:08 AM Modulous has replied

  
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 48 of 141 (249717)
10-07-2005 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Modulous
10-07-2005 4:47 AM


Re: Evolution's primary mechanism
Of course, I didn't mean that litterally. I just meant to say that sometimes, people make you feel uneasy when you question Evolution and Darwinism on a basic level. Yet, say 20 years from now, it is possible that our paradigm may have to change completely in light of a new discovery. It doesn't mean NS won't stand that shift. But all am saying is, the current Evolution grid, in and of it self, seems overly speculative. Although, I reiterate, I'm not one to adhere to the biblical notions of a 6000 year earth. Nor to biblical creationism other then for it's allegorical value. All I'm saying is, the current Evolution model, well, from what I gather, has vast empty spaces between some of it's theorems and axioms. Especially with the hominid evolution question. This doesn't mean I reject NS, I just have a hard time with the paleontological and archeological collage gathered around NS to establish our present view of evolution. Too much speculations. Whereas other areas of science wouldn't allow a theory to be sealed if it had similar flaws. I'm personally more versed in Astrophysics and subatomic physics (with Egyptology and Ancient History as another passion of mine), so then again, maybe my position will change. Maybe it'll just get more firmly rooted also? But that's one of the reasons why I'm here. I'm very open to change. I try not to hold any biases on the subject. Just honest objections

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 10-07-2005 4:47 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 10-07-2005 10:06 AM ausar_maat has not replied
 Message 50 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 10:10 AM ausar_maat has replied
 Message 51 by Modulous, posted 10-07-2005 10:25 AM ausar_maat has not replied
 Message 72 by NosyNed, posted 10-11-2005 5:57 PM ausar_maat has not replied
 Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 10-11-2005 8:59 PM ausar_maat has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 49 of 141 (249748)
10-07-2005 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 7:08 AM


Spaces?
All I'm saying is, the current Evolution model, well, from what I gather, has vast empty spaces between some of it's theorems and axioms.
I'm afraid you'll have to point those out. I don't know what you are referring to. I don't think "theorems and axioms" are the right terms to use but perhaps you'll explain that too.
Especially with the hominid evolution question.
This suggests you mean lack of specific fossil evidence. That is not a space in the "theorems or axioms". The theory is not it's specific supporting evidence. The theory is the model or explanation of mechanisms and their behavior.
Not knowing the tiniest details of a specific lineages evolution isn't a "space" in the theory.
Too much speculations.
You'd have to specify the particular speculations.

I have no problem with God; It's some of his fan club that I find irritating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 7:08 AM ausar_maat has not replied

  
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 50 of 141 (249750)
10-07-2005 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 7:08 AM


Re: Evolution's primary mechanism
quote:
It seems like a contributing factor can be a primary mechanism at the same time.
Well, mutation is a necessary condition for evolution, so as a contributing factor, yeah, it is a primary mechanism of evolution on second thought. Without it there can be no evolution whatsoever. True

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 7:08 AM ausar_maat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 11:05 AM ausar_maat has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 51 of 141 (249754)
10-07-2005 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 7:08 AM


Natural History uses the Theory, not defines it
But all am saying is, the current Evolution grid, in and of it self, seems overly speculative.
Your problem is with Natural History then, not the Theory of Evolution. Like all history, a certain level of necessary speculation is required in Natural History. So specific lineages and the like are difficult or impossible to specify.
The theory itself is absurdly solid. There is lots to support it, including (but not limited to the nested hierarchy, evidence of transtitional forms and the amazing evidence that is found out the genetic level
to indicate just a few. It is important to really seperate mentally the Theory of Evolution and Natural History. The theory is a scientific one, it has masses of data. Natural History is allied with the Theory in that the Theory explains the hows of the History, and the Natural Historians can use the Theory to propose ideas about what has happened in the past, evolutionary pathways etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 7:08 AM ausar_maat has not replied

  
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 52 of 141 (249767)
10-07-2005 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 10:10 AM


Re: Evolution's primary mechanism
quote:
This suggests you mean lack of specific fossil evidence. That is not a space in the "theorems or axioms". The theory is not it's specific supporting evidence. The theory is the model or explanation of mechanisms and their behavior.
Well, actually, it would seem you are rewording my objections in your last sentence. I specifically referred to a "paradigm" problem. You said "model".
Patato, Potato.
quote:
Not knowing the tiniest details of a specific lineages evolution isn't a "space" in the theory.
Alright, if it doesn't constitute "space", perhaps you could explain to me what does?
Because from my humble vantage point, it seems the Evolution model is telling you what the 10 000 piece puzzle looks like with about a 10th of the pieces assembled and available. I'm not referring to NS, I'm referring to the paleo-collage that serves as our current model. Which in turn, is using prinpicles such as NS, mutation, speciation, etc, in order to show how it all make sense. I suggest, that one of the reasons the creationists (though I'm not a biblical creationist) have some, I repeat, some good points, demonstrates the vulnerability of the model. To say they have absolutely no valid points or any worthwhile observations whatsoever would be narrow at best. This in turn suggest that a new model could have been built based on the same knowledge of principles like NS, mutations, et al. Because if we found say, an H.Sapien 300 million years ago, we would still have to use those same principles to revise the current model. So I'm not attacking the principles, just questioning the model built around the principles. (see my last post in Behold The Hominid thread). The transition would look like the one between the Newtonian mechanistic outlook on physics toward quantuum physics in light of new subatomic observations. The same principles generally apply, but the model had to change in light of additional data. In the evolution model, specifically, the genus Homo model, we don't have that data yet, but we can still see the flaws. Yet, we insist on the model, generally. Don't question the model, the model makes sense. Ok, well, pardon me but there isn't enough to say it does. It's very vulnarable in some aspect. But sometimes, when you say this, or found certain creationists objections to be valid, it's at the risk of heretic scorns it would seem. In this EvC debate, for the most part, it's all either this or either that. Us or them, choose.
At least in Astrophysics, we're not trying to tell you what Dark Energy is for example, there just isn't enough to do so. Although it makes up 73% of the available energy of the cosmos. I would understand the temptation to provide a more detailed explanation, but Astrophysicists have accepted the fact that the pieces aren't there to make a safe guess on what the puzzle should look like. Therefore they don't. It's a broad comparison I admit, but I hope it convays somewhat my essential point.
Also my use of the term "axioms" was simply condusive, at least I felt, to get my point across, in reference to the "paradigm" problem with Evolution. Because by "axioms" we mean propositions selected as the foundations of a field, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 10:10 AM ausar_maat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 11:11 AM ausar_maat has not replied
 Message 64 by NosyNed, posted 10-07-2005 1:15 PM ausar_maat has replied

  
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 53 of 141 (249768)
10-07-2005 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 11:05 AM


Re: Evolution's primary mechanism
quote:
The theory itself is absurdly solid. There is lots to support it, including (but not limited to the nested hierarchy, evidence of transtitional forms and the amazing evidence that is found out the genetic level
to indicate just a few. It is important to really seperate mentally the Theory of Evolution and Natural History. The theory is a scientific one, it has masses of data. Natural History is allied with the Theory in that the Theory explains the hows of the History, and the Natural Historians can use the Theory to propose ideas about what has happened in the past, evolutionary pathways etc.
right, and this produces a model by which we explain evolution as it pertains to hominid in particular. However, that model is flawed, I find, in light of a number of observations.
But I guess my preceding post will perhaps clarify what I mean by that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 11:05 AM ausar_maat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 10-07-2005 11:39 AM ausar_maat has replied
 Message 55 by Modulous, posted 10-07-2005 12:00 PM ausar_maat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 54 of 141 (249775)
10-07-2005 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 11:11 AM


Re: Evolution's primary mechanism
But I guess my preceding post will perhaps clarify what I mean by that.
No it didn't. I started to respond to your post but then changed my mind because the more I reread it the less sure I became of what you are trying to say.
Let me try rewording and see if I'm close.
Are you saying fossil evidence is scanty? If that's the case, could you consider a few things for me?
First, fossil evidence is not scanty. Even the fossil collections here in the US contain tens of millions of specimens.
Second, fossils are only one part of the supporting base for the TOE. It has also been supported by genetic discoveries, geology, even astrophysics. In fact, just about every advancement in science over the last century has simply strengthened the TOE.
Are you saying it's wrong to dismiss Creationists out of hand? If so, consider the fact that that doesn't happen. There are many creationists like myself who have no issues whatsoever with the TOE. All that is dismissed out of hand are two small subsets of creationists.
First, Classical Biblical Creationists are dismissed out of hand because they have been proven wrong. No matter what happens in the future regarding the TOE, we know for a fact that the Universe was not created 6000 years ago or that life, any life, hominid and otherwise, was all created in a short span 6000 years ago. That's just plain wrong.
The other dismissal are creationists that try to treat the act of creation as science rather than belief. I believe GOD created the universe. But I also know that to state that as a fact I need to provided replicable evidence that GOD is a fact. Until I can do that, all I have is a belief.
If those are not the issues you were raiseing, perhaps you can try rewording what it is you see as flaws and we can give it another go.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 11:11 AM ausar_maat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 12:14 PM jar has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 55 of 141 (249781)
10-07-2005 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 11:11 AM


Natural History uses the Theory, not defines it
It gets confusing when you reply to yourself.
right, and this produces a model by which we explain evolution as it pertains to hominid in particular.
Well...kind of. We can see from the fossil record that life on earth has changed through time (Natural History). The theory of evolution explains how it went through this change. The Natural Historians can use the Theory to postulate the evolutionary paths of certain organisms (eg hominids), guided by what physical evidence there is. We can never be sure of the exact route taken, but we can be confident of what 'direction' it headed in.
At least in Astrophysics, we're not trying to tell you what Dark Energy is for example, there just isn't enough to do so.
Interestingly this happens in evolution. If you look at what the scientists are saying, they don't say "This is what happened, full stop, end of story". When evolutionists suggest that an extinct organism is ancestral, they are using convenient short 'hand' much like cosmologists might say 'big bang', when you really examine what is being said it is 'this extinct organism shared a recent common ancestor with x". It might be the case that it is an ancestor, it might just be an extinct branch.
However, Natural Historians have a different job. Their job is to try and construct, as best they can, a picture of the Natural World for the past several billion years. This, it could be argued, isn't science in the strictest sense - it uses science, so is basically scientific - but sometimes it has to join some dots over wide gap of knowledge based on educated opinion. These opinions change as more evidence is unearthed. If you think this makes Natural History flawed, then that is fine, but when you look at Natural History from the point of view that it is not absolute, it stops being quite so flawed. After all, there are many ideas of Natural History out there, contradicting one another but that doesn't matter.
In the evolution model, specifically, the genus Homo model, we don't have that data yet, but we can still see the flaws. Yet, we insist on the model, generally.
When you say model, do you mean the History that Natural Historians are working on? From what I've seen the absense of data is admitted with frustration, but the existence of other data is observed with glee. Whilst Natural History is a model that relies on science, sometimes it has to use educated guesses (or rather, hypotheses) to fill in the gaps. Natural History is not a scientific model like the Big Bang, Natural History is more of a history like archaelogy, but without written documentation left behind to help things out.
If an archaelogists excavates ruins of a building which is Roman in design, incorporating styles from 50BC and some evidence of styles that came into use around 1AD the archaelogists can assume it was a) built by Romans and b) built somewhere around 50BC-1AD
This is a flawed model, by your standards but that doesn't mean that there are problems with the 'Theory of cultural evolution'.
The question really should be, since this thread is about the Theory of Evolution (ie mutations) why bring up your objections about Natural History?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 11:11 AM ausar_maat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 10-07-2005 12:08 PM Modulous has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 56 of 141 (249783)
10-07-2005 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Modulous
10-07-2005 12:00 PM


Somewhat OT but perhaps enlightening.
Natural Historians and Astrophysicists face similar problems but seen in the reverse direction. When the astrophysicist look through a telescope at a star, he is actually seeing the star as it existed in the past. It's a veritable time machine. The astrophysicist can then interpolate to describe what that star might look like in the present.
The Natural Historian though looks at the remains as they exist today and must then interpolate how they might have looked in the past.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Modulous, posted 10-07-2005 12:00 PM Modulous has not replied

  
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 57 of 141 (249784)
10-07-2005 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
10-07-2005 11:39 AM


Re: Evolution's primary mechanism
quote:
Are you saying fossil evidence is scanty?
No, not at all. The number of fossiles isn't the problem here. Nor is Evolution. NS selection is verifiable of course, but the paleo-collage is insatisfactory. Number of fossils don't dertermines the quality of the observations neither. So flaws have been pointed out by certain creationsts in reference to the model. It doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not they thinnk the earth was created 6000 years ago. It has to do with whether the observations have significance. Some of them do. It's not an all this, all that scenario. But regardless for prior motives, I find some of these observations undermine the model significantly enough to be taken seriously.
Also, nor to say I was strickly talking about Natural History accurate. I would have specified.
more later..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 10-07-2005 11:39 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 10-07-2005 12:17 PM ausar_maat has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 58 of 141 (249786)
10-07-2005 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 12:14 PM


Re: Evolution's primary mechanism
It has to do with whether the observations have significance. Some of them do. It's not an all this, all that scenario. But regardless for prior motives, I find some of these observations undermine the model significantly enough to be taken seriously.
What observations?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 12:14 PM ausar_maat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 12:30 PM jar has replied

  
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 59 of 141 (249794)
10-07-2005 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by jar
10-07-2005 12:17 PM


Re: Evolution's primary mechanism
creationist observations

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 10-07-2005 12:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 10-07-2005 12:33 PM ausar_maat has replied
 Message 66 by Gary, posted 10-08-2005 1:06 AM ausar_maat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 60 of 141 (249796)
10-07-2005 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 12:30 PM


Re: Evolution's primary mechanism
Which creationist observations? Unless we know what observations we're talking about it's hard to discuss.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 12:30 PM ausar_maat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 1:01 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024