Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?

Hi, John. While Chiroptera has provided an excellent web resource for evidence that evolution has been rigorously tested by the scientific method, and that there is a wealth of data that supports it, I thought I would add to this a special prediction reported in a paper by Ahlberg and Clack concerning Tiktaalik, of which you have inevitably heard.Just in case anybody reading is not aware of this fossil, I'll give a bit of a background. Tiktaalik is a fossil fish first reported in 2007, found in Nunavut, Canada, which shows several rudimentary tetrapod features, thus lending support to the theory that land vertebrates (tetrapods) evolved from fish.What I would like to draw to your attention is an interesting tidbit supplied by Ahlberg and Clack in Nature 440: 747-749 (6 April 2006):

quote:

---

So, if Tiktaalik is in effect a better-preserved version of Elpistostege, why is it important? First, it demonstrates the predictive capacity of palaeontology. The Nunavut field project had the express aim of finding an intermediate between Panderichthys and tetrapods, by searching in sediments from the most probable environment (rivers) and time (early Late Devonian). Second, Tiktaalik adds enormously to our understanding of the fish-tetrapod transition because of its position on the tree and the combination of characters it displays.

---

The bolding is mine, and denotes the crux of my argument. (Sorry: this article is not freely available to the public, and I can only get access to it through my former institution, which requires a log-in. But, you can go to Nature and find the article using the citation data provided above).The expedition that discovered Tiktaalik was specifically looking for transitional fish-tetrapods in Nunavut, because Nunavut's rocks were of the the correct date to bridge the gap between the most advanced fish and the most primitive tetrapods, and because its geography at that date was believed to have had the correct habitat for a transitional fossil to live in.In other words, understanding of evolutionary theory PREDICTED that a transitional fossil could be found in this location, before the people had even chipped into a rock. And, they found exactly what evolutionary theory and natural history theory predicted they would find.Two options:(1) Evolutionary theory is highly accurate.
(2) These palaeontologists just got lucky.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, John 10:10.You present an experiment run by nuclear physicists on uranium, and cite this as a perfect example of your "true science." Please explain how the experiment you mention is any different in terms of the scientific method from the experiment Rrhain provided you in message #151, involving E. coli and the T4 phage, which I have personally seen repeated in a classroom.Both involved exposing a test subject (uranium and E. coli, respectively) to some treatment (neutron bombardment and T4 phage, respectively) and observing the end result. In both cases, further investigation/testing yielded a theoretical framework that gave a good explanation to the observed phenomenon (nuclear fission and evolution by natural selection, respectively).How can you rationally accept one as "true science" while simultaneously rejecting the other as "speculation"? What "start-to-finish" model, John? Rrhain's E. coli just proved evolution: we don't need anything else to prove that ToE works in the real world. Evolution is as easily observed and well-founded as nuclear fission, and we've seen it work just as many times as you've seen nuclear fission work. Here is bluegenes's thread about one of many hundreds of examples of evolution being observed in action.Perhaps you're referring to natural history, and not evolution? To clarify, natural history is the history of life on Earth inferred from the principle of evolution in conjunction with millions of fossil and geological evidences. Note that natural history is a separate entity from evolution, even though it is based mostly upon the ToE. So, even if we can't prove that the natural history we've compiled from ToE and the fossil record is correct "from start to finish," as you demand, you've still got no commentary on ToE whatsoever: it still stands, supported by the exact same kind of evidence you presented for nuclear fission.But, we're just applying what we've learned about biology from our laboratory observations to the real world, just as nuclear physicists and engineers are applying what they've learned about nuclear fission from their laboratory observations to the real world. Nuclear fission leads to A-bombs and nuclear power plants, while evolution leads to natural history. Yet, for some reason, you're willing to trust one line of reasoning, but not the other, even though they have the exact same foundation and have followed the exact same pattern from start to finish.You also make claims about "applying for the benefit of mankind." I'll have you know that science is not all philanthropism: it's not just a tool for engineers to make new technologies with. It is also the world’s only truly honest search for truth.Edited by Bluejay, : Didn't push the space bar when I should have.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, Coyote. And I say that as a religious person, too. I'm a devout Christian and an elder in my church. When I was first learning about my religion by myself, it was an honest and simple (if non-objective) search for God through prayer and scripture study and all that. Now, after having received my "special witness," the search is essentially over. All the other truth that I can learn now is little details that just fill in how I'm supposed to live my life and exactly what is the best analogy for God's love toward me.I honestly feel that we would be better off having no knowledge of anything except of the tools for learning than we would be having been given all the answers. Intelligent Design would have us ignore these tools in favor of the "sure thing," which essentially stifles our ability to learn and, frankly, makes us more stupid. If God is opposed to my honest attempts to learn, I am opposed to Him, even if He's real, and I personally wouldn't want to live for eternity in heaven with the people such a God would prefer.

---

Darwin loves you.

I have already answered this point, John: applying evolution to the real world yields natural history, in exactly the same manner that applying the 1930's nuclear fission studies to the real world yields the Manhattan Project.You say: "You haven't proven it, nor can you ever."I say: "We've done just as much as you have, and have done it in the same flippin' way: therefore, if evolution isn't 'true science,' neither is nuclear fission."You respond, "You haven't proven it, nor can you ever."Please also note that I did not say natural history is "proven" (natural history is apparently your "start-to-finish" evolutionary model), so you don't have a point even in that regard. You've completely ignored the issue that I've brought up (and that at least eight other people have also brought up), which is that you're discrediting only one of two theories that have the exact same type of background support and discovery process, while fully supporting and lauding the other.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, John 10:10. And, if you had read the rest of my earlier posts (here and here), you would notice that I (with the help of Rrhain and Bluegenes) provided evidence showing that this is not the case. In order to make a debate out of this, you now have to provide evidence to show that there is a difference between proving fission and proving evolution, or at least show how my evidence is faulty. Yet, all you did was repeat your previous assertion, which is not only a bad argument that does not agree with any of the evidence so far presented, but is also a violation of Forum Guideline #4.

---

Darwin loves you.

I'm saying that, in order for your theory of nuclear fission to be proven true, you must be able to see an atomic nucleus fragment into two pieces.Since you have never seen an actual nucleus, your theory of atomic fission is off-limits to true scientific research.-----Do you see the problem with this?Since we have no hope of seeing something directly, we must completely abandon our attempt to understand it scientifically. If your 1930's physicists had applied your reasoning, we never would have discovered the enormous power supply available from nuclear fission.

---

Darwin loves you.

I guess this is the case. But, please note that there are actual scientists working in several different fields who are posting on this very thread, and all of them are among the number who disagree with you.Seeing how every scientist on this thread has disagreed with your statement that "science is proving to a high degree of accuracy," you should probably admit that this is not the definition of science. The scientific consensus has spoken against you.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, John 10:10. Here's the problem:How do you know what elements are there before and after, and how many neutrons each one has? You certainly have never seen them or their neutrons. And, even if you had, how could you tell a neutron from a proton just by looking? Are there little “+” signs on the protons? Maybe neutrons are blue and protons are stripey? No, you can’t say this because you don’t actually see protons and neutrons: all you ever see is a suite of real-world effects that physicists theorize are correlated with sub-microscopic particles. The particles, themselves, have never been seen or otherwise recorded.The only way to distinguish between different elements is by observation of physical properties and/or analyses by burning, reacting, hyper-sensitive mass measurements, etc. In other words, all you ever get to see is secondary effects, indirect measures, not the actual thing. So, you can't rule out the possibility that some other process or material produces the same observable effects.And that is exactly the objection you're bringing up against evolution: despite the fact that all the fossil record, radiometric dating, stratigraphy, and molecular and morphological phlyogenetics so far observed line up behind ToE, we can't actually be certain that God's creative process doesn't just happen to produce evidence that looks like evolution. You go farther to say that, because we can't prove that there isn't some other process that we can’t yet distinguish from evolution, the entire science of evolutionary biology is unscientific.But, you're right: maybe Creation just coincidentally looks like evolution. Of course, then, an equally valid and supported argument could be made that some miraculous chemical process just coincidentally looks like nuclear fission to our current instruments and understanding. Your logic supports both arguments equally well. That means that you can make both arguments together, or neither of them, but you can't make one without the other. Science demands consistency, and your argument doesn't have it.You don't have a case here, John. Back off.

---

Darwin loves you.