Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 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

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 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

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 262 of 356 (466855)
05-17-2008 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by RAZD
05-17-2008 9:49 AM


Scientific Tentativity
Hello RAZD,
I am still trying to figure out this scientific language.
RAZD writes:
The real issue is {{{what}}} are we repeating. Let's use the "evolutionary event" of the domestication of wolf into dog. We know what is actually possible from dogs, but we don't know the actual pre-historic event or how it actually happened. Now we have repeated this "evolutionary event" with foxes
RAZD writes:
From this controlled experiment Belyaev repeated the evolutionary event of the dogs evolving from wolves.
What evolutionary event? Dogs are wolves, and wolves are dogs, are they not? We crossbreed them all of the time in Arkansas.
RAZD writes:
In addition we now see that the domesticated foxes overlap the traits of the domesticated wolf, and this shows that a common ancestor population linking wolf and fox is not only possible but highly probable - without even looking into the fossil record or genetics to ascertain how recent this division occurred. That the fossil and genetic information confirm and validate this just increases the degree of reliability for this having occurred (maintaining scientific tentativity).
Does that help?
To be quite honest. No.
It appears you have now thrown another term into this mix of scientific communication (miscommunication). What is “scientific tentativity?”
I looked up the word tentative (because I could not find tentativity):
quote:
1. Not fully worked out, concluded, or agreed on; provisional.
2. Uncertain; hesitant.
If I understand you correctly then you are telling me that the theories that scientists have about these “evolutionary events” that have occurred in the past based upon observable scientific evidence (from the past) are tentative. In other words, they are uncertain, or not fully worked out or agreed upon. Therefore, they are not facts! They are only hypotheses (educated guesses) with some “degree of reliability (as you say).”
I think we may be starting to see eye to eye after all. I was beginning to give up hope but I now see a glimmer in the distance. As I said a number of posts back, it could be that we are using different words to communicate similar ideas.
Here are some thoughts that I had about your analysis of Belyaev’s experiment.
As I said, I don’t know what you mean by dogs evolving from wolves. Folks in Arkansas crossbreed dogs with wolves all of the time therefore I would not think this would be an “evolutionary event.”
Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
At least, that is not what I have in mind when I think of an “evolutionary event.” An “evolutionary event” could be the explanation of where these dogs (wolves) originated. Is that a repeatable event? How do scientists say this fossil is an ancestor of that fossil when the organisms are no longer around, and the type of environment can only be assumed. There is no way that the event can be repeated!
For example with your dogs (wolves), it appears that scientists would theorize that they have evolved from an early carnivore known as the Miacidae which supposedly evolved about 50 million years ago from some insectivores which lived during the time of the dinosaurs. When scientists find fossils of these organisms and place them in some sort of order then it would not appear to me that they could test their conclusions. They can never repeat the event to confirm that the order is correct. To state that the theory that "dogs (wolves) evolved from a totally different animal (Miacidae)" is an “evolutionary fact” based upon scientific evidence would seem to be incorrect. I am not sure that the theory (that dogs evolved from Miacidae) is even scientific since it does not appear that it can be falsified. However, it may be that this is a “theory with scientific tentativity.” If that is the case then I need to come to a better understanding of what is meant by that term.
There is a big difference between stating that Belyaev’s experimental results are a fact based upon repeatable scientific evidence, and stating that evolution between two totally different animals millions of years ago is a fact based upon repeatable scientific evidence. It appears that to use the Belyaev experiment to attempt to confirm or deny the evolution of dogs (wolves) is not valid. The only truth that Belyaev’s experiment seems to prove is that it is possible to change the temperament of dogs (wolves) through selective breeding. It does not appear to prove anything else. It does not prove how the temperament of dogs (wolves) changed in the past. It only gives us a possibility. Another possibility would be that domesticated dogs became wild wolves. If scientists tested the theory of whether domesticated dogs through selective breeding can be made wild, they may be surprised to find the experiment works either way. In either event, it is not what I would classify as an “evolutionary event.”
Here is one quote (and link) that I found about the evolutionary history of the dog (wolf) family.
Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
quote:
The evolutionary history and systematics of the Carnivora are clouded in controversy, as the fossil record is patchy and incomplete. In spite of this limitation it is remarkable what paleontologists, evolutionary biologists and geneticists have managed to uncover in the way of the early history of mammals.
I believe that when they say the evolutionary history of Carnivora (dogs/wolves) is clouded in controversy, and patchy, and incomplete, it might be another way of sayinging they need to maintain “scientific tentativity.”
I agree with the quote that the conclusions of scientists seem "remarkable" considering this limitation.

"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 261 by RAZD, posted 05-17-2008 9:49 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Perdition, posted 05-17-2008 3:16 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 264 by Percy, posted 05-18-2008 7:56 AM Wumpini has replied
 Message 265 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2008 4:02 PM Wumpini has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 266 of 356 (466920)
05-18-2008 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Percy
05-18-2008 7:56 AM


Facts and Theories
Thanks for your reply.
I am beginning to see why there is so much confusion in the world today about evolution (and possibly science in general). I am having a difficult time even coming to a simple understanding in simple English terms about how scientists view the process of evolution. I believe that I understand what you are saying about a theory. The theory of evolution would be that framework that explains all of the evidence (facts) that have been gathered in this field. This theory can never become final because there is always the possibility that new evidence will require an adjustment. Maybe you can help me to understand what is meant by "evolution is a fact."
Here is a quote from the Talk Origins website by RC Lewontin:
quote:
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a FACT, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution.
It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
Can you see where I can become confused?
Is it a fact or a theory that the earth is 3.6 billion years old?
Is it a fact or a theory that cellular life has been around for half of that time?
Is it a fact or a theory that multi-cellular life is at least 800 million years old?
Is it a fact or a theory that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past?
Is it a fact or a theory that there were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago?
Is it a fact or a theory that all living forms come from previous living forms?
Is it a fact or a theory that birds arose from non-birds?
Is it a fact or a theory that humans arose from non-humans?
He ends the quote by stating that you can no more deny these facts then you can deny that the earth is round. I know that the earth is round. I have seen pictures of the earth.
Am I missing something here? Can you understand why I am confused? Are these facts based upon evidence? How can you prove by evidence that something did not exist? I have been told that you cannot prove that God does not exist, how can you prove that birds did not exist 250 million years ago?
Maybe you can give me a link where I can examine one evolutionary event to see how scientists go through this process.
For example, Lewontin says it is a fact that birds came from non-birds. What is the evidence? Is it fossils or something else? How was the evidence evaluated? What conclusions were reached regarding the evidence? At what time did the evidence or theory become a fact?

"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 264 by Percy, posted 05-18-2008 7:56 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2008 8:13 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 269 by Percy, posted 05-18-2008 9:36 PM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 267 of 356 (466931)
05-18-2008 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by RAZD
05-18-2008 4:02 PM


Wolves and Foxes
Hey RAZD,
RAZD writes:
There are several good websites that might help, they are run by universities as part of their information for teaching evolution:
Thanks for the links. I have also been doing a lot of reading in some biology textbooks. Maybe eventually some of it will sink into my brain.
Well that's the issue isn't it? What do you think an "event" involves?
If I had to answer this question right now, I guess I would say it would involve a significant genetic mutation that became a continuing part of the population.
It appears that you keep saying that the changes are all gradual. What gives you that idea? Could the changes not have been abrupt? Could there not have been long periods of no change, and then a few significant mutations that brought about major changes? It seems that I have read about some different theories that support this idea (Punctuated equilibrium or hopeful monster). I am not sure that any experiments that are done today can give us anything more than supposition about what happened in the past.
I have been many places in the world, and seen many different human beings. Some of these people live in places where they may have never seen a white man. They may have never left the area where they live. The people are different colors, they are different sizes, they have different characteristics, and they have different temperaments. However, they are all people. None of them are turning into anything else. I could move into one of these villages and begin reproducing, and in a few generations there would be different colored people, but they would still be people.
Yet you asked for an example of a repeatable "evolutionary event" -- and the experiment on the foxes duplicated the types of changes found in dogs. In this way the "domestication of the wolf" event was repeated with the fox.
The wolves did not become dogs. Those wolves with a gentle temperament were selectively breeded to produce gentle wolves. However, they were still wolves weren't they? The same is true of the foxes. I am trying to get all the way from abiogenesis to diversified complex life. Wild wolves to gentle wolves seems a far cry from what I need to get there.
Is the theory supposed to be that dogs evolved from wolves? Could the theory not just as easily be that wolves evolved from dogs? I am not trying to be contrary or difficult. I am really curious. Maybe as I study more about the subject, and learn more about how these changes take place, and what scientists believe happened in the past, then I can understand why you say these experiments are a repetition of some past evolutionary event.
... anything are regarded as tentative conclusions.
I think Percy explained this very well. You may want to see my post about "Evolution is a fact." I think I understand what a theory is supposed to be. However, I do not understand why some are saying that many different things that could never be proven are "facts."
But you don't ever have "evolution between two totally different animals" ... you have evolution within species, you have speciation division of populations, and you have various degrees of deviation of daughter populations from parent or sibling populations through continued evolution within each species. The dogs and foxes show you how much deviation is possible in relatively short periods of time.
Maybe when I spend some time with the links that you gave me it will become clearer. It seems if dogs mate with dogs they will always be dogs. If wolves mate with wolves then they will always be wolves. Maybe dogs and wolves and foxes are really like different races of people all over the world. Natural selection, sexual selection, or genetic drift will not change that fact. You would seem to need lasting mutations, and these mutations need to be positive. If you had significant positive mutations that became a part of the population, then I could see the potential for lasting change. The dog and wolf experiments do not seem to show that can take place.

"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 265 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2008 4:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by RAZD, posted 05-22-2008 9:56 PM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 271 of 356 (466995)
05-18-2008 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Dr Adequate
05-18-2008 8:13 PM


Winged Pigs?
Hello DA,
DA writes:
How can you prove that there are no winged pigs if you haven't looked everywhere?
Nonetheless, if you were to say: "It's a fact that there are no winged pigs", then I wouldn't cavil.
What do you have against winged pigs?
You probably would have been among those who would have thought like these scientists a while back:
quote:
The British scientists were at first convinced that the attributes must have been a hoax. George Shaw, who produced the first description of the animal in the Naturalist's Miscellany in 1799 stated that it was impossible not to entertain doubts as to its genuine nature, and Robert Knox believed it may have been produced by some Asian taxidermist. It was thought that somebody had sewn a duck's beak onto the body of a beaver-like animal. Shaw even took a pair of scissors to the dried skin to check for stitches.
You mention the critter later so I guess you would not have been fooled.
http://www.animaltrial.com/platypus.html
Really, what do winged pigs have to do with the existence of birds before 250 million years ago? You seem to be arguing that because scientists have not found something that contradicts their theory that it could not exist.
Well, let's have a look at that shall we?
Hypothesis: modern birds are the product of evolution.
Thank you for the example on the evolution of the bird. I think this will give me a better idea of how this way of thinking works.
Do scientists ever consider the possibility that a bird could come from a chemical soup like some other organisms supposedly did? You know through the process of abiogenesis? (Not a full grown bird, but a cell that develops into a bird.)
I have not studied what scientists believe about the orgin of life (abiogenesis), so I could be way off base on what I am suggesting.

"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 268 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2008 8:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Coragyps, posted 05-18-2008 11:06 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 275 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2008 2:01 PM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 273 of 356 (467081)
05-19-2008 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Coragyps
05-18-2008 11:06 PM


Lateral Gene Transfer
Wumpini writes:
Do scientists ever consider the possibility that a bird could come from a chemical soup like some other organisms supposedly did? You know through the process of abiogenesis? (Not a full grown bird, but a cell that develops into a bird.)
Coragyps writes:
That appears to be exactly what happened! It's just that those same first cells also have flatworms and nematodes and trilobites and humans as descendants, too. That's why the DNA of everything alive on Earth looks so very similar, and why all of life here uses the same twenty amino acids.
The only organisms that hopped out of that primordial soup have been dead and gone for about 4,000,000,000 years now: the very difficult task of figuring out what they were like can only be done by comparing the life forms we still can see - the fossils and the biochemical clues in living things.
That is not exactly what I had in mind. I have come to understand that the theory of evolution proposes that all living things came from a common ancestor that lived billions of years ago.
What I am asking is something different. It appears that a vivid imagination could be helpful in the area of science dealing with origins. We are talking about situations like the entire universe arising with no prior cause. That takes imagination. Then life is proposed to have developed from non-living matter. That takes imagination. Then complex changes in organisms seem to have taken place through natural means. That takes imagination. What I am asking does not appear to contradict present evolutionary theory. Is it possible that the bird came from some sort of chemical soup? It seems that with the original abiogenesis event (or events), scientists have a significant hurdle to overcome with the beginning of life. In this situation, that hurdle would have already been jumped.
If I understand correctly, then it is accepted scientifically that genes can transfer laterally between living matter. It appears that this is occurring today, and that it has been proposed as a scientific theory that instead of one universal ancestor, there may have been many as a result of this process. This would obviously change the tree of life that scientists generally use to explain the theory of evolution. It would not seem to change the theory of evolution, but it could add another mechanism that possibly would mean that we need to look at it in another fashion.
It appears to have been proven that an organism can survive and possibly prosper with the merger of genes from different sources. I think this may be called chimerism in humans. I think it has even been proposed that all of us are chimeras of one sort or another.
Therefore, I raised the question. Is it possible that in some sort of chemical soup through a combination of abiogenesis (if necessary), lateral gene transfer (between living cells), and whatever else scientists know about these things, for an organism such as a bird to come about? Is this an alternative theory to a bird arising through the normal reproductive processes of non-birds?

"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 272 by Coragyps, posted 05-18-2008 11:06 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Perdition, posted 05-19-2008 1:51 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 276 by Blue Jay, posted 05-19-2008 2:18 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 277 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2008 2:34 PM Wumpini has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 278 of 356 (467092)
05-19-2008 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Blue Jay
05-19-2008 2:18 PM


A Bit of Confusion
Bluejay writes:
You're essentially positing a separate evolutionary history for each type of animal.
Not really. When scientists suggest the concept of abiogenesis, I assume they are not trying to say there is a separate event for each single cell organism. I was only considering whether it is possible for a multi-cell organism to be formed in a similar manner. I guess I have a lot of concepts in my mind that I know very little about, and that is why I was asking. Like cloning, lateral gene transfer, chimerism, abiogenesis, primordial soup, etc.
Bluejay writes:
I think this shows a bit of confusion on your part. Birds arose through the normal reproductive processes of birds.
My confusion is that obvious! I think I am beginning to understand the concept of evolution. I did a lot of reading last night. I was looking at the processes, and it seemed very improbable to me that something like the journey from dinosaurs to birds could take place with these natural processes. There would be a lot of roadblocks along the way. That is why I brought up the question.
Bluejay writes:
... you could only target the DNA within a single cell at once, and the change would not likely be spread to other cells in the organism.
This could also be part of my confusion. I was thinking that multi-cell organisms started out as single cells with the instructions to produce different kinds of cells.

"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 276 by Blue Jay, posted 05-19-2008 2:18 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Perdition, posted 05-19-2008 3:07 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 283 by Blue Jay, posted 05-19-2008 4:01 PM Wumpini has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 280 of 356 (467097)
05-19-2008 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Dr Adequate
05-19-2008 2:34 PM


Re: Lateral Gene Transfer
DA writes:
What you're proposing contradicts the fossil record
Are there not many instances in the fossil record where organisms seem to appear without significant fossil evidence of the transition? Maybe I am misinterpreting some (or a lot) of the things I am reading.
DA writes:
Not sure I'm following you. If it involved abiogenesis, that would be jumping the hurdle, and if it involved lateral gene transfer between living cells, that requires the hurdle to have already been jumped.
Actually, I was trying to imply that there were possibly certain processes that took place during abiogenesis whereby matter was organized by chance, and this random process could be applied to the organization of living matter. Therefore, the hurdle from non-living to living would have already been jumped.
DA writes:
You'd need something else to have the genes for being a bird first
This is probably my lack of scientific understanding also. There seems to be an endless supply. I was under the impression that these genes were coded information. A specific arrangement of DNA that tells the organism what it is and how to become that organism. So, when someone argues there is no difference between living matter and non-living matter (only arrangement), could you argue there is no difference between bird genes and other genes (only arrangement).

"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 277 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2008 2:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2008 4:34 PM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 281 of 356 (467102)
05-19-2008 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Perdition
05-19-2008 3:07 PM


Re: A Bit of Confusion
Perdition writes:
The current understanding of how multi-cellular organisms arose starts with a single celled organism, in this you are right,...
I had not even been thinking about where and how multi-cell organisms originally arose. I was only thinking about the origin of my bird.
I wonder if this process is continuing today? I think this is where I need to look next.

"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 279 by Perdition, posted 05-19-2008 3:07 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Perdition, posted 05-19-2008 3:58 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 286 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2008 5:03 PM Wumpini has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 285 of 356 (467120)
05-19-2008 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Blue Jay
05-19-2008 4:01 PM


I hope this clears things up
Bluejay writes:
So, perhaps I misunderstood you. You wanted a bird to start out as a single-celled organism, which could exchange DNA freely with other single-celled organisms, then develop into a multi-celled bird. Is this correct?
That is what I was thinking, I think. My limited understanding of abiogenesis is that the elements for life randomly came together. I guess I was wondering if a bird could come together in a similar fashion based upon the theories of science. Not through design, but randomly. It appears from the comments that I have received that the complexity would be too great for this to occur by chance.
I guess what I was trying to determine is where science draws the line between possible and miracle. From the comments I would think abiogenesis is possible, single-cell to multi-cellular is possible, dinosaur to bird is possible through reproduction, but complex life from single-cell is approaching impossible in the eyes of science.
I was interpreting this as having each multi-celled organism arise independently from out of the soup of germs. To me, it sounded like intelligent design without a designer.
Please tell me where I'm not following you.
I really do not know exactly what Intelligent Design people believe. If God wanted to create a bird, he would not have to use a chemical soup for that purpose. He would make the bird.
Someone said in another post that what matters is how honestly your religion deals with the facts of science. Well there is no conflict between my religion and the truth, because my religion is the truth. There is no religious organization who defines truth for me. So, there can be no conflict between science and my religion if science is truly attempting to understand the truth. I know what I believe to be true. I am only trying to find out what science believes to be true and why.

"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 283 by Blue Jay, posted 05-19-2008 4:01 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Blue Jay, posted 05-19-2008 5:58 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 289 by Perdition, posted 05-19-2008 6:01 PM Wumpini has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 287 of 356 (467123)
05-19-2008 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Dr Adequate
05-19-2008 5:03 PM


Possible Origin of Multicellularity
DA writes:
If you mean evolution from single-celled to multi-celled, we can see that happening in the lab.
Of course, we don't know if the particular mechanism discovered was how it started in nature, hence the use of the word "possible" in the title:
Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity
The website wants $32 for me to download the file. I don't think I need it that bad.

"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 286 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2008 5:03 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 290 of 356 (467135)
05-19-2008 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Perdition
05-19-2008 6:01 PM


Re: I hope this clears things up
Perdition writes:
Single-cell to complex is predicted by science, not approaching impossible. If you can see that single-cell to multi-cell is possible, where does it follow that complex is impossible? Multi-cell is already more complex than single cell. Complexity is just a matter of degree, once you get the multi-celled organism, mutation, reproduction, and natural selection would begin driving more and more complexity.
I am not sure that you have been following this conversation. The close to impossible was science's view of a complex muti-cellular organism such as a bird being formed randomly from single-cell organisms.
The process of single-cell to multi-cellular to dinosaur to bird was viewed as possible in the eyes of science.
As for my eyes, I am a little more skeptical. I need to study the number of positive mutations that would be necessary to be introduced into a population over a given period of time to achieve this transition from reptile to bird. It is going to take a lot more than natural selection to accomplish this change.

"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 289 by Perdition, posted 05-19-2008 6:01 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Perdition, posted 05-19-2008 7:26 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 292 by Coragyps, posted 05-19-2008 8:09 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 293 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2008 8:29 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