Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 241 of 356 (466254)
05-13-2008 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Wumpini
05-13-2008 7:17 PM


Re: A jumbled up mess
I have been trying to understand the way scientists use different words to help me communicate with them. Especially, words like fact and theory.
They don't use those words consistently.
I am trying to study that now.
I have been reading a middle school textbook on evolution which I kind of like even though it probably isn't very accurate. It is only about 100 pages long and mostly pictures (pretty cool pictures) so it is easy to read.
Yeah, I thought we agreed that that book was rubbish.
I have a college textbook I found on evolution but it is a lot longer with more words (big words like transcriptase), and it has less pictures. So if I start using big words about evolution, they are probably coming out of this book. I read the first chapter, and then went back to my little book. I consider that progress.
If the word "transcriptase" was in the first chapter, your college textbook may be poorly organised.
You may be trying to approach this from two wrong ends at once. One book is trying to explain the history of evolution to you, very badly, and the other book appears to be explaing the theory of evolution (i.e genetics) from the bottom up.
Are they ever going to meet in the middle?
I am having a little difficulty in my mind understanding how all of these different eras, and ages, and index fossils came into being. I may have to go look in my big book to figure it out. It kind of seems like that jumbled up mess you are talking about.
Yes, you need a theory to understand it.
I don't know whether your "big book" will tell you anything like that, because books about evolution most often take the geological evidence as read. If I was going to write a textbook about evolution, I'd refer your questions about eras and ages and index fossils to a good textbook on geology, rather than trying to fit that all into my textbook.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 7:17 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 4:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 242 of 356 (466257)
05-13-2008 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by RAZD
05-13-2008 10:12 PM


Re: What am I missing in this comparison?
Yes. The evolution event can be repeated, the result will be evolution. Evolution can be repeatedly tested in the present as well.
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
What are you expecting?
Enjoy.
That was disingenuous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 05-13-2008 10:12 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2008 9:40 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 243 of 356 (466260)
05-13-2008 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Wumpini
05-13-2008 8:03 PM


Re: What am I missing in this comparison?
I am not sure that I understand the comparison between the observation of the effect of an electron in the present, and the inability to observe an evolutionary event in the past.
The electron is unseen, but the effect can be repeatedly tested in the present.
And so can the effects of evolution, whether it happened a million years ago or yesterday, be tested in the present.
The evolutionary event in the past is unobserved, and the event cannot be repeated so that testing can be done at any time.
Am I missing something here?
Yes. You are missing the fact that the predictions of evolution can also be tested at any time.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 8:03 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 5:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 244 of 356 (466276)
05-14-2008 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Dr Adequate
05-13-2008 11:29 PM


Re: A jumbled up mess
DA writes:
Yeah, I thought we agreed that that book was rubbish.
If the word "transcriptase" was in the first chapter, your college textbook may be poorly organised.
I am very limited on any books that I can find on the subject of evolution in this part of the world. I found these only because an orphans' home a hundred miles from where I live received these used textbooks from America to sell to support their orphans. It is very doubtful that I could find a new book on evolution anywhere in this country, and that is including the university level. Most university students here do not buy books anyway. They can't afford them so they copy the parts they need. Copying copyrighted books is big business here.
As for my college level textbook on evolution. It is titled "Evolutionary Analysis" by Scott Freeman and Jon Herron. The first chapter is "A Case for Evolutionary Thinking: Understanding HIV." That is where the Reverse Transcriptase came into play. Actually, I have no problem understanding the mechanisms and process for the evolution of the HIV virus, or anything else for that matter.
In addition to these books, I bought a lot of other textbooks from these people relating to different fields of science that I thought would be helpful. They were cheap so I said why not. I may not read them all but I figured I could use them for reference later. Here is what I have now:
College Level Textbooks (Qty)
1 Evolutionary Analysis ("big book")
5 Life Science or Biology
1 Early Life on Earth
2 Microbiology
1 Implantation Biology
1 Biology of Marine Life
1 Medical Parisitology
2 Chemistry
1 Principles of Biochemistry
1 Basic Neurochemistry
2 Genetics
1 Human Genetics
1 Experimental Methodology
1 Statistics (for Engineers and Scientists)
1 Logic
High School and Middle School Textbooks
1 Evolution ("little rubbish book")
3 Physical Science
Unfortunately, I could not find any books on Geology. Maybe geologists don't sell their used textbooks.
Looking at these books, it may be best for me to start with a life science or biology textbook instead of either of the ones on evolution. It seems that each of these biology textbooks has a section on evolution. Unfortunately, it does not seem that they deal much with Geology.
Other Books and Magazines
At least 50 copies of PNAS from 2004 and 2005 that discuss topics like Binocularity and brain size evolution. I am really not sure that these are going to be very useful to me anytime in the near future.
So I am serious about trying to find out what you guys believe to be true, and how you came to that belief, as it relates to the origins and diversity of life.
DA writes:
Yes, you need a theory to understand it.
I guess I will have to find this information on the internet since it doesn't seem that any of these books will deal with the geological aspects of the geological column in detail. Which creationist website do you suggest I go to for that information?

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2008 11:29 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Percy, posted 05-14-2008 8:22 AM Wumpini has replied
 Message 249 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-14-2008 9:34 AM Wumpini has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 245 of 356 (466277)
05-14-2008 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Dr Adequate
05-13-2008 11:57 PM


Re: What am I missing in this comparison?
DA writes:
Yes. You are missing the fact that the predictions of evolution can also be tested at any time.
Let me try to explain where I am having difficulty here.
If you test for the effect of an electron in an atom, you can reapeatedly test over and over again the same element and compare the results. Therefore, you can confirm your theory.
Now let us say we are dealing with an evolutionary event that is supposed to have happened billions of years ago. I would agree that if the earth existed billions of years ago, and if life existed at that time then it is most likely that evolution as it is being observed today would have been taking place at that time. However, it would seem that you could never test your hypothesis related to an evolutionary event that far in the past for numerous reasons.
First, in many instances the organisms that supposedly evolved no longer exist, so you cannot test those organisms today. Second, the environment that existed that long ago cannot be known so its effect upon the evolutionary process could not be simulated. Third, it seems the mechanisms for evolution would allow for evolution to occur in any direction. Life does not always evolve from a less complex form to a more complex form. Actually, I believe I have read somewhere that it would be more logical for life to evolve from the complex to the more simple. If you were only dealing with natural selection then you may be able to theorize a particular path, but with the many different mechanisms which are now believed to be part of the evolutionary process this would not seem to be the case.
That brings me back to my original question. How can we make a conclusion about an evolutionary event that occurred that long ago when the event cannot be repeated in the present. It would appear that whatever evidence appeared in nature, no matter what direction was taken, it would never disprove or falsify the present theory of evolution.
I may not be making myself very clear, but it seems obvious to me that there is not a comparison between making a hypothesis about the effects of electrons in the present, and making a hypothesis about an evolutionary event that occurred billions of years ago.
Has the reality of the scientific world completely escaped me?

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2008 11:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-14-2008 10:50 AM Wumpini has replied
 Message 259 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2008 10:05 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 260 by lyx2no, posted 05-15-2008 12:21 AM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 246 of 356 (466279)
05-14-2008 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Coragyps
05-13-2008 9:16 PM


Re: Biblical Inspiration
RC Foster writes in his book:
quote:
The real basis for the whole present trend in Biblical study is not any flood of light from new facts, but simply the application of the theory of evolution to the facts and problems of the Bible.
Coragyps writes:
Off-topic for this thread, but that statement is absolutely bizarre.
I really have not learned how to stay on topic very well. I appreciate the latitude that the Admins have given me in this area.
I would think that Foster is trying to say that a naturalistic world view has had an effect upon Biblical Criticism. In other words, many are trying to separate the author (God) from the book (The Bible) by ignoring inspiration (because of their preconceived naturalistic view). I would doubt Foster is talking about biological evolution, and I would also doubt that at that time a Bible Professor had much knowledge of the subject anyway. Evolution was probably a much more divisive issue in the intellectual (university) world back in 1966 than it is today.
If anyone wants to discuss this subject more than it would probably be best to start a new thread.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Coragyps, posted 05-13-2008 9:16 PM Coragyps has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 247 of 356 (466283)
05-14-2008 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Blue Jay
05-13-2008 1:41 PM


Creationist and Truth Seeker
Bluejay writes:
Of all the creationists on this website, I think you've done the best job of this (granted, you seem to not have definitively placed yourself as a creationist, though).
I am definitely a Creationist. I believe with all my heart that God is the Creator of all that we see, and all that we are. Even the New Testament confirms this fact.
quote:
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
However, I am also a truth seeker which means I will seek out the truth.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Blue Jay, posted 05-13-2008 1:41 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 248 of 356 (466288)
05-14-2008 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Wumpini
05-14-2008 4:19 AM


Re: A jumbled up mess
Evolutionary Analysis assumes a deep understanding of evolution and proceeds to illustrate how evolutionary scientists conduct research. You can't use it as an introduction to evolutionary concepts.
You also listed Life Science or Biology, which doesn't sound like the title of a real book. Did you mean Life: The Science of Biology? If so, this is the book you should start with. If you have time, read the whole thing all the way through. If you're short of time, read Part 5, The Patterns and Processes of Evolution.
You say your Internet access is unreliable, but there are plenty of places on the web that introduce evolutionary concepts, let us know if you want links.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 4:19 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 12:54 PM Percy has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 249 of 356 (466294)
05-14-2008 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Wumpini
05-14-2008 4:19 AM


Re: A jumbled up mess
The first chapter is "A Case for Evolutionary Thinking: Understanding HIV." That is where the Reverse Transcriptase came into play.
Ah, I see. That may not be so bad then.
I'm sorry to hear about your book situation.
Looking at these books, it may be best for me to start with a life science or biology textbook instead of either of the ones on evolution. It seems that each of these biology textbooks has a section on evolution. Unfortunately, it does not seem that they deal much with Geology.
Like I say, they'll just take the results of geology as read. If it comes to that, they'll take evolution as read --- they'll tell you some of the stuff we know, but little about how we know it.
I guess I will have to find this information on the internet since it doesn't seem that any of these books will deal with the geological aspects of the geological column in detail. Which creationist website do you suggest I go to for that information?
Is "creationist website" a momentary lapse of your mind?
I wouldn't advise you to look at any creationist website for information about geology, because ... well, because it won't be written by geologists, and 'cos it won't contain information about geology. It'll contain statements such as "there is no such thing as the fossil record, there's just a lot of dirt".
I'll see if I can look you up a good website about geology written by geologists.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 4:19 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 1:12 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 250 of 356 (466299)
05-14-2008 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Wumpini
05-14-2008 5:39 AM


Re: What am I missing in this comparison?
. However, it would seem that you could never test your hypothesis related to an evolutionary event that far in the past for numerous reasons.
First, in many instances the organisms that supposedly evolved no longer exist, so you cannot test those organisms today. Second, the environment that existed that long ago cannot be known so its effect upon the evolutionary process could not be simulated. Third, it seems the mechanisms for evolution would allow for evolution to occur in any direction. Life does not always evolve from a less complex form to a more complex form. Actually, I believe I have read somewhere that it would be more logical for life to evolve from the complex to the more simple. If you were only dealing with natural selection then you may be able to theorize a particular path, but with the many different mechanisms which are now believed to be part of the evolutionary process this would not seem to be the case.
This is such a jumble of misconceptions that I don't know where to start. I can find only one sentence in it that's both meaningful and true, and it was also irrelevant.
I think for now I'll stick to your problems with the scientific method.
That brings me back to my original question. How can we make a conclusion about an evolutionary event that occurred that long ago when the event cannot be repeated in the present.
How can a forensic scientist say: "This man died of gunshot wounds", when this can't be repeated in the present?
How would it help matters if such a hypothesized past event could be repeated? Suppose a forensic scientist says "This man died of gunshot wounds", and then "proves" it by bringing him to life and shooting him, and declaring: "Look, I've repeated it!" Would that prove that the man didn't (the first time around) die of cyanide poisoning? Of course not.
I may not be making myself very clear, but it seems obvious to me that there is not a comparison between making a hypothesis about the effects of electrons in the present, and making a hypothesis about an evolutionary event that occurred billions of years ago.
Has the reality of the scientific world completely escaped me?
Yes.
There is a comparison between the two. They are both hypotheses that lead to deductions that are testable in the present. The only difference is that one is too small to observe directly and one is too long ago to observe directly.
The scientific method doesn't make a difference between the two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 5:39 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 1:18 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 251 of 356 (466307)
05-14-2008 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Percy
05-14-2008 8:22 AM


Books
Percy writes:
You also listed Life Science or Biology, which doesn't sound like the title of a real book. Did you mean Life: The Science of Biology? If so, this is the book you should start with. If you have time, read the whole thing all the way through. If you're short of time, read Part 5, The Patterns and Processes of Evolution.
The list I gave were not titles of books but subjects. I have five college level biology or life science textbooks with the following titles and dates.
Biology: A Custom Edition for Anoka-Ramsey Community College - 2005 - (Campbell; Reece)
Inquiry Into Life - 2003 - (Sylvia Madder)
Life: The Science of Biology - 2001 (Pruves; Sadava; Orians; Heller)
Biology: Exploring Life - 1994 - (Brum; McKane; Karp)
Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life - 1992 - (Starr; Taggart)
Like I said, they were cheap, and I did not know which, if any, were any good.
The Community College textbook is the newest and the shortest. I do not know how dated evolutionary material would be.
I am very short of time so it would be best if I could spend my time wisely. Do you still recommend "Life: The Science of Biology?" It does not appear that the book I have is the same as the one you are talking about. Part Three is "Evolutionary Processes." Maybe your book is a different edition, this is the Sixth Edition.
As for web links, sometimes I can spend five minutes or more just bringing up one page on your website. The fastest my link would ever be is about 6 or 7kbs. It is possible if one website has a lot of unbiased information that I could attempt to find a faster link and download the website.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Percy, posted 05-14-2008 8:22 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Coragyps, posted 05-14-2008 8:36 PM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 252 of 356 (466309)
05-14-2008 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Dr Adequate
05-14-2008 9:34 AM


Fossils and Dirt
DA writes:
Is "creationist website" a momentary lapse of your mind?
No. I wanted to see how you would respond. I mentally gather all of these responses and attempt to falsify any theories that I have put together about scientists. My theories are still valid.
(It could also be my attempt at humor which is very dry.)
Da writes:
I wouldn't advise you to look at any creationist website for information about geology, because ... well, because it won't be written by geologists, and 'cos it won't contain information about geology. It'll contain statements such as "there is no such thing as the fossil record, there's just a lot of dirt".
Would the same conclusion apply to websites like talkorigins.org?
DA writes:
... they'll tell you some of the stuff we know, but little about how we know it.
Does this mean that you are a geologist if it is any of my business?

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-14-2008 9:34 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 253 of 356 (466310)
05-14-2008 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Dr Adequate
05-14-2008 10:50 AM


Re: What am I missing in this comparison?
Wumpini writes:
Has the reality of the scientific world completely escaped me?
DA writes:
Yes.
I think I will leave it at that for now before I confuse you more than I already have.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-14-2008 10:50 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-14-2008 7:31 PM Wumpini has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 254 of 356 (466366)
05-14-2008 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Wumpini
05-14-2008 1:18 PM


Re: What am I missing in this comparison?
No. I wanted to see how you would respond. I mentally gather all of these responses and attempt to falsify any theories that I have put together about scientists. My theories are still valid.
(It could also be my attempt at humor which is very dry.)
Evidently.
No, I can't recommend a creationist website that'll teach you geology because none of them will. It is not in their interest to do so.
Would the same conclusion apply to websites like talkorigins.org?
While their statements about geology are usually sound and well-referenced, I don't think there's anything they've produced that could be used as a geology textbook.
Does this mean that you are a geologist if it is any of my business?
No, I'm a mathematician. I have, however, read up on geology.
I think I will leave it at that for now before I confuse you more than I already have.
I take it that that was more dry humor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 1:18 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 8:19 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 255 of 356 (466369)
05-14-2008 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Dr Adequate
05-14-2008 7:31 PM


Re: What am I missing in this comparison?
Wumpini writes:
I think I will leave it at that for now before I confuse you more than I already have.
DA writes:
I take it that that was more dry humor.
It made me laugh.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-14-2008 7:31 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-14-2008 8:25 PM Wumpini 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