Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

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


Message 16 of 32 (529918)
10-11-2009 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by slevesque
10-08-2009 6:07 PM


Hockey tonight though, I can't continue discussing this right now. I'll drop by tomorrow hopefully to see how it has progressed. (Although if calypsis4 jumps in I'll have 57pages to read)
Bumpity-bump.
If you'll try to justify the claims you made about "assumptions and interpretations" quoted in the OP, this could be the best thread ever.
I've heard a zillion creationists talk like that, but questioned on this subject they didn't know what they were talking about, they were just reciting stuff they'd read on some creationist website. You, on the other hand, will have thought somewhat about what you are saying, and will be able to put together a coherent argument.
C'mon. Let's go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 6:07 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 10-12-2009 10:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


(1)
Message 17 of 32 (530301)
10-12-2009 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate
10-11-2009 4:22 AM


Please do not make meaningful edits to the body of a post after more than a few minutes have passed. If you need to make a major addition, do it at the bottom in a section that you designate as "Added by Edit" or "AbE" for short. --Admin
Sorry people, my weekend why pretty occupied.
Ok, so since I'm the one who claimed that the ToE had assumptions, I guess I should back it up a bit.
First off I'll start by saying that assumptions, even in the scientific method, is not negative at all. It is in fact an essential component. Scientists do not go around collecting random data and then theorize on it. They think of something, and develop an hypothesis on it. This hypothesis sometimes plays the role of an assumption (not always). Only after this do they start collecting data to try and validate this hypothesis.
Now, when I developed the idea of assumptions on the other thread, and that I said that it was perfectly normal that the ToE had assumptions, Subbie replied that it only had two assumptions: our senses provide us with accurate information about the real world behind us, and our intellect allows us to come to reliable conclusions based on the evidence we see. These are in fact the two assumptions of scientific inquiry. Surely, if the ToE had but those two, it would be the purest of all scientific theories, unaffected by biase.
I find this not only a bit pretentious, but also unrealistic. As a matter of fact, considering the role assumptions take in science, I consider that subbie's claim is much more extraordinary, if true, than mine, and so any realistic person on this forum should agree that it most probably at least has 1 other assumption, if not more.
One of the hints that can lead us to some of those assumptions is that the theory of evolution is not about operational science, but about historical science. Even more, it is about how things became to be, in the oh-so-distant past, full of ponctual events that are for the most part unrepeatable. THis only should make us doubt subbie's claim. (Note that I am not saying that the ToE is strictly non-operational science. I am merely saying that it primarily explains what things happened in the past, and not how they happen in the present)
With all this said, let me try and tackle a bit this question:
The first assumption is the one that I have mentioned in the other thread, and it is also the one that Darwin made in his time. That the small changes in today's species from generation to generation can accumulate, with enough time, as to produce major changes such as new organs, new proteins, etc. This was very much an assumption in his time, and it was what permitted him to construct his famous 'tree of life'. I think it is still an assumption today, and here is why. When is the last time someone asked a question like this: can the small changes that we observe today be extrapolated to big changes with enough time ?
Or when the new field of genetics was being discovered, did anyone ask if their was a barrier between species or families, that would prevent such thing from happening ? Personnally, I do not think that any question of the sort was ever adressed, and so the answer was assumed to be yes for both questions. My personnal opinion was that it was assumed to be yes because the 'fact' of evolution was a certainty.
A second assumptions is that the earth is old. Once again, this was done by Darwin in his time, since he assumed uniformitarianism as to believe that the earth was old, so that evolution could have had enough time to take place. Today, uniformitarianism is no longer a serious assumption in geology, and as of such it has been replacer by the current dating methods. As of such, the same assumptions that are being used in the current radiometric dating methods are sustaining the possibility of the ToE.
Got to go, if you can hold unto your replies for the moment, I will edit this message to continue later.
AbE I think I'll stop here, and discuss the first two assumptions. If we ever get to an agreement, I will add a third, than eventually a fourth etc. as long as I can think of some.
Edited by Admin, : Add moderator comment at top.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-11-2009 4:22 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by greyseal, posted 10-13-2009 2:37 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 19 by Perdition, posted 10-13-2009 11:17 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 22 by Peepul, posted 10-13-2009 12:51 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 27 by subbie, posted 10-13-2009 5:18 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 28 by bluegenes, posted 10-13-2009 5:34 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 29 by Dr Jack, posted 10-13-2009 5:39 PM slevesque has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 18 of 32 (530334)
10-13-2009 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by slevesque
10-12-2009 10:05 PM


Scientists do not go around collecting random data and then theorize on it. They think of something, and develop an hypothesis on it. This hypothesis sometimes plays the role of an assumption (not always). Only after this do they start collecting data to try and validate this hypothesis.
They don't collect data to prove or validate so much as to work out whether their hypothesis is potentially true or definitely false.
As I and many others have said, a definite negative is in many ways better than a weak positive. As long as you meant that then I think there's no real issue there.
Subbie replied that it only had two assumptions: our senses provide us with accurate information about the real world behind us, and our intellect allows us to come to reliable conclusions based on the evidence we see. These are in fact the two assumptions of scientific inquiry. Surely, if the ToE had but those two, it would be the purest of all scientific theories, unaffected by biase.
If you haven't read the origin of species, you should make the effort. It's surprisingly readable.
What led Darwin to his theory isn't that things change - because they did and do - but the idea behind how this change could occur.
The theory has nothing to do with the origin of life and everything to do with how come nature could effect change on the scale that it was apparent it already had.
In that respect, that's all Darwin needed - that the data he collected was true and that the logic he used to come to his conclusion was without fault.
He didn't know about genetics, he didn't know about the mechanism behind mutation and adaptation. He DID know about breeding, selection and the facts of the animal kingdom that he went out there to examine.
So where in there is the assumption? Besides the product of his theory?
If you want to say he assumed this theory was true, then sure - but that's not an assumption used in the theory itself.
The age of the Earth had nothing - zip, zilch, nada - to do with his theory. Neither did special creation or the origin of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 10-12-2009 10:05 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by slevesque, posted 10-13-2009 12:29 PM greyseal has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 19 of 32 (530403)
10-13-2009 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by slevesque
10-12-2009 10:05 PM


When is the last time someone asked a question like this: can the small changes that we observe today be extrapolated to big changes with enough time?
The assumption would be that there is some unknown mechanism that would stop this. Assuming the non-existence of an unknown is not exactly an assumption, it's an evidentiary based belief, and would only require the tiniest bit of evidence to change minds. The fact that we haven't found any indication that little changes CAN'T build up to large changes is, in fact, an indication that one doesn't exist.
Or when the new field of genetics was being discovered, did anyone ask if their was a barrier between species or families, that would prevent such thing from happening?
Again, the defualt position is that such things do not exist until any sort of evidence emerges to favor it. Why would we wonder if something for which we have no evidence exists? Should we also hold experiments to test whether there is an invisible gargoyle that eats any animal that has more than X number of mutations from it's founder population? Why is the fact that no one considers that not an assumption of the ToE as well?
A second assumptions is that the earth is old.
I think this is the third assumption, but then again, it's not really an assumption of the ToE. The ToE doesn't NEED long times to work, but the fact that geology has all but proven that we HAVE long times makes evolution's job easier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 10-12-2009 10:05 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 10-13-2009 12:43 PM Perdition has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 20 of 32 (530425)
10-13-2009 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by greyseal
10-13-2009 2:37 AM


They don't collect data to prove or validate so much as to work out whether their hypothesis is potentially true or definitely false.
As I and many others have said, a definite negative is in many ways better than a weak positive. As long as you meant that then I think there's no real issue there.
I agree totally, this is what makes Popper's falsification criterion so powerful. Unfortunately, this is only what happens in theory. In the practice of science, a scientist will almost always try to support his theory, not the contrary.
The ones that will try to prove it false will be the people who already think the theory is false (in other words, they presuppose it to be false).
If you haven't read the origin of species, you should make the effort. It's surprisingly readable.
What led Darwin to his theory isn't that things change - because they did and do - but the idea behind how this change could occur.
The theory has nothing to do with the origin of life and everything to do with how come nature could effect change on the scale that it was apparent it already had.
It is only apparent it 'already had' only through a naturalistic mindset. But Darwin wasn't a naturalist at this time, and so this is why his assumption is not that special creation isn't an option, But rather that the small changes he saw in nature could accumulate to explain the vast diversity he say in the animal kingdom, and so this was a viable alternative to the current 'special creation' idea at the time.
If you do not think this is true, how then did he hypothesis that human and apes had a common ancestor ? How did he build his tree of life ? None of these things could have been the result of any observations he made. It was the result of this assumption. (here there is a secondary daughter-assumption to the first, which is that morphological similarity is evidence of common ancestry)
The age of the Earth had nothing - zip, zilch, nada - to do with his theory. Neither did special creation or the origin of life.
I disagree, it had a remarkable impact to Darwin and how he interpreted what he saw. There is a reason why Darwin was a geologist, and that he brought Lyell's famous book 'principles of Geology' on his voyage.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by greyseal, posted 10-13-2009 2:37 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by greyseal, posted 10-13-2009 2:44 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 21 of 32 (530426)
10-13-2009 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Perdition
10-13-2009 11:17 AM


The assumption would be that there is some unknown mechanism that would stop this. Assuming the non-existence of an unknown is not exactly an assumption, it's an evidentiary based belief, and would only require the tiniest bit of evidence to change minds. The fact that we haven't found any indication that little changes CAN'T build up to large changes is, in fact, an indication that one doesn't exist.
This is more of a personal opinion on the subject than any related idea. But I think that if someone presupposed that such a mechanism existed, that he would in fact see enough evidence for it as to reserch on it. This may sound strange, but this is exactly what Einstein said in a discussion about science with Schrodinger: ''It is the theory who determines what one can see'' (from memory, may not be the exact quote).
I would find that the up and down variation we see in species would be good evidence that such changes cannot accumulate. This can be seen in finch beaks: They go from small to big during half the year, then from big to small the other half. No net accumulation. Also in bacteria, where you can make them adapt to a given environment at the lose of other properties, only to put them back in another environment where they lose their 'novel' adaptation to regain the previous one that was lost. Again, no net accumulation.
Again, the defualt position is that such things do not exist until any sort of evidence emerges to favor it. Why would we wonder if something for which we have no evidence exists? Should we also hold experiments to test whether there is an invisible gargoyle that eats any animal that has more than X number of mutations from it's founder population? Why is the fact that no one considers that not an assumption of the ToE as well?
If your argument was to be correct, then it would mean ''no assumptions allowed'' in science. Because if someone would assume something, than he would have to also assume everything that is 'assumable'. Clearly this is fallacious, and in fact is it the same type of fallacy as 'If you believe in God, then you have to believe in pink unicorns''.
I can readily assume something that I find plausible, and in this case the existence of such a genetic barrier is very much plausible, in order to go out and look if it is a reality.
I think this is the third assumption, but then again, it's not really an assumption of the ToE. The ToE doesn't NEED long times to work, but the fact that geology has all but proven that we HAVE long times makes evolution's job easier.
See previous post. I'll add that evolution does need a lot of time in order to go from original cell to thinking human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Perdition, posted 10-13-2009 11:17 AM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 10-13-2009 12:57 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 24 by Perdition, posted 10-13-2009 1:57 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 22 of 32 (530428)
10-13-2009 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by slevesque
10-12-2009 10:05 PM


quote:
When is the last time someone asked a question like this: can the small changes that we observe today be extrapolated to big changes with enough time?
It's a valid question. The evidence is that they can.
We know now that all differences between organisms (with some marginal exceptions) are accounted for by differences in DNA sequence. Between two kinds of organism - say chimps and humans - there is always a series of changes to DNA that will transform one into the other, a vast number of such in fact.
There is clearly no constraint on how many changes can take place over time, so that's not a problem, and we know that these changes take place at the right rate according to estimated dates of divergence.
The only question is - is there pathway in which each of those intermediate steps is viable, ie will successfully reproduce? Or more accurately, for a given degree of difference is there always some step in the path between the two organisms such that a single step (point mutation, duplication, indel etc) is not going to be viable?
There is no evidence that this is the case, and no proposed mechanism that would enforce this kind of limitation.
Evidence from genetics, on the other hand, particulary the strong evidence of common descent, shows that change on this scale HAS occurred.
Therefore we are justified in saying that small changes can add up to large.
Edited by Peepul, : Clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 10-12-2009 10:05 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 23 of 32 (530429)
10-13-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
10-13-2009 12:43 PM


Assumptions?
I would find that the up and down variation we see in species would be good evidence that such changes cannot accumulate.
To claim this you have to ignore a huge amount of evidence for transitionals, as well as laboratory experiments that show speciation.
That evidence shows speciation happened and that it is not just an assumption. That evidence also shows that the claim of no speciation, based on the biblical "kinds," is false.
No adequate mechanism has been ever proposed by creationists to show that speciation cannot take place after a certain number of changes have occurred. That there is such an (unknown) mechanism is an (unsupported) assumption based on religious belief rather than scientific evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 10-13-2009 12:43 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 24 of 32 (530441)
10-13-2009 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
10-13-2009 12:43 PM


I would find that the up and down variation we see in species would be good evidence that such changes cannot accumulate. This can be seen in finch beaks: They go from small to big during half the year, then from big to small the other half. No net accumulation. Also in bacteria, where you can make them adapt to a given environment at the lose of other properties, only to put them back in another environment where they lose their 'novel' adaptation to regain the previous one that was lost. Again, no net accumulation.
This is an assumption, on your part. We've seen mutations accumulate, we've seen bacteria lose an ability, then gain the ability back...but through a different process, showing that two mutations (at least) have happened which have accumulated. The fact that it can do the same thing doesn't mean it does so in the same way. Doing something in a novel way is indeed an accumulation of mutations.
If your argument was to be correct, then it would mean ''no assumptions allowed'' in science. Because if someone would assume something, than he would have to also assume everything that is 'assumable'. Clearly this is fallacious, and in fact is it the same type of fallacy as 'If you believe in God, then you have to believe in pink unicorns''.
No, you can make an assumption as a starting point in an experiment or hypothesis, but you then have to state that as an assumption, or even better, go back and find some basis on which to hold the assumption. Abiogenesis research often relies on assumptions about the early atmosphere of the Earth. These assumptions are stated outright, for example, "In a reducing atmosphere, such and such a reaction will lead to X amino acids." It is understood that if it turns out Earth didn't have a reducing atmosphere, this probably didn't happen...though it could be useful if we find another planet with a reducing atmosphere.
I can readily assume something that I find plausible, and in this case the existence of such a genetic barrier is very much plausible, in order to go out and look if it is a reality.
Very true. You can make an assumption...or hypothesis...and then look for evidence of it. But if I, as another scientist, don't take your idea into account until you provide evidence for it, I'm not making an assumption, I'm refraining from making one. Without evidence, the assumption is the statement of existence, not the statement of exclusion. Excluding a process or agent may turn out to be wrong, but I wouldn't call it an assumption...othewrwise, everything we do is based upon an infinite array of assumptions, making the whole argument pointless.
See previous post. I'll add that evolution does need a lot of time in order to go from original cell to thinking human.
Not necessarily, that's an assumtion. I could imagine a 1-in-a-gajillion shot where a single cell spontaneously mutates with the exact DNA sequence of modern humans and happens to be in an environment so nutrient rich that the fetus can grow and develop...or maybe there is a larger mutation that creates a womb-like environment inside this nutrient rich area...unlikely, but I would never venture to say that it requires a lot of time, it just so happens that the path taken is one that used a lot of time, and since we see there was a lot of time, there's no contradiction here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 10-13-2009 12:43 PM slevesque has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 25 of 32 (530448)
10-13-2009 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by slevesque
10-13-2009 12:29 PM


you may be on to something there
this is what makes Popper's falsification criterion so powerful. Unfortunately, this is only what happens in theory. In the practice of science, a scientist will almost always try to support his theory, not the contrary.
well...some do, I'm sure. And others will read the data and check it out for true or false, others will pick it apart and find the holes where it doesn't match up, still others will do meta-analysis and come up with data you didn't know you had.
That's why peer review is so terribly, terribly important.
The best scientists though work from the data, through to a hypothesis and finally arrive at a theory. If you're setting out to specifically prove your pet theory (lesser meaning here) true, you'll probably not end up doing good science.
It is only apparent it 'already had' only through a naturalistic mindset. But Darwin wasn't a naturalist at this time, and so this is why his assumption is not that special creation isn't an option, But rather that the small changes he saw in nature could accumulate to explain the vast diversity he say in the animal kingdom, and so this was a viable alternative to the current 'special creation' idea at the time.
If something's not apparent because you're not ready or willing to look for it, does that mean it's not apparent, or that you're not ready or willing to look for it?
Seriously though, if he wasn't a naturalist until he looked at the evidence, and even through the bias of a creationist' mindset saw "the truth" (yes, we're arguing about that, forgive me) then that must have been some pretty powerful evidence.
I'm not sure if he thought man and monkey had a common ancestor - I do know he said right there in the book (I have the penguin edition from 1985, apparently) that he doesn't know the origin of life itself, and even if they didn't, it doesn't stop evolution from having occured.
And finally, you may have something on the age of the Earth in that I'm reasonably convinced that learned men of the time already knew the Earth was older than 6000 years - but then you're missing what I mean in that evolution had occured even before we knew what it was. the timescale helped, but isn't a barrier (it just reinforces the old-Earth view gleaned from the evidence).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by slevesque, posted 10-13-2009 12:29 PM slevesque has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 26 of 32 (530460)
10-13-2009 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by subbie
10-09-2009 3:19 PM


quote:
imo you cant have evolution without some form of abiogenesis which is why i include that aspect into my definition...although im aware that evolutionists dont consider abiogenesis as part of the theory.
  —peg
This strikes me, not so much as an assumption of the ToE, as an assumption of the PeG.
I think that Peg's assumption is not stand-alone, but rather it is indicative of a deeper, more pervasive assumption: the assumption that evolution is atheistic. After all, what is their synonym for "evolutionist" (a creationist term applied to anyone who accepts the idea of evolution)? "Atheist". They describe their "evolution model" as atheistic.
Now if we assume no creator-god, which would be most atheists' position (atheism covers a wide range of thought; let us please not drift there here), then some form of abiogenesis would be needed to explain the origin of life itself. Hence this probable syllogism of Peg's:
quote:
Premise A: Evolution is atheistic.
Premise B: Atheists need abiogenesis to explain the origin of life.
Ergo Conclusion C: "you cant have evolution without some form of abiogenesis"
Of course, C does not follow, because Premise A is false. Evolution is not atheistic, but rather non-theistic, just as all of science is. Science doesn't depend on God not existing; rather, science cannot attempt to use any gods to explain natural phenomena.
I would submit that Premise A is one of the key assumptions that creationists make concerning evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 10-09-2009 3:19 PM subbie has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 27 of 32 (530478)
10-13-2009 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by slevesque
10-12-2009 10:05 PM


Assumptions and the scientific community
There is a wide variety of errors in your post, but for the time being, I'm going to focus on what I consider to be your major error. You confuse the work of individual scientists with the work of scientists as a whole.
You mention two specific examples of assumptions that Darwin made: small changes can accumulate from generation to generation and, with enough time, produce "major changes" such as new organs or new proteins; and the earth is old. (I think you are wrong even that Darwin assumed these things, but I'll leave that for another time because it's not important to my point.) Even if you are correct that Darwin made these assumptions, that doesn't mean that all scientists made them, or that they are assumptions that scientists now make to support the ToE.
I would accept without argument the proposition that individual scientists adopt certain assumptions in the course of developing particular hypotheses. However, before any such hypothesis is accepted by the scientific community, those assumptions are tested to see if there is evidence to support them. If evidence conflicting with the assumption is found, the hypothesis is rejected. If neither confirming nor conflicting evidence is found, the hypothesis may still be accepted tentatively, pending the confirmation or refutation of the assumption.
A real world example of this process in action can be seen in the history of Wegener's theory of continental drift. Wegener saw various indicia that suggested to him that the continents were at one time all part of one land mass, and eventually separated. An assumption behind this theory would be that the continents were capable of moving across the surface of the planet. However, that assumption conflicted with that what known about the make up of the continents and the crust of the Earth. The continents are lighter than the crust, and ultimately Wegener was unable to provide an explanation for how the lighter continents could move through the heavier crust. Thus, his theory was rejected. Later, when it was discovered that the continents actually rode on plates that moved, Wegener's theory was vindicated and accepted by the scientific community.
I can in fact name an assumption that Darwin did make. He assumed that there was some mechanism by which characteristics could be passed from one generation to another. The scientific community was unaware of any such mechanism, but the strength of evidence behind Darwin's theory was enough for the scientific community to provisionally accept it. As you know, eventually the mechanism of inheritance was found, and the assumption was confirmed. But, at no point in time did the scientific community simply accept the accuracy of the assumption. Instead, it was investigated. And that is the key thing you should learn from this discussion.
Science, as a whole, never accepts any assumption necessary to support any theory. Scientists investigate to determine if there is evidence to support the assumption.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 10-12-2009 10:05 PM slevesque has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 28 of 32 (530481)
10-13-2009 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by slevesque
10-12-2009 10:05 PM


Inferences aren't assumptions.
slevesque writes:
The first assumption is the one that I have mentioned in the other thread, and it is also the one that Darwin made in his time. That the small changes in today's species from generation to generation can accumulate, with enough time, as to produce major changes such as new organs, new proteins, etc.
Small changes adding up to large changes is something well evidenced and well documented. It is the norm. Do you really expect your country to be the same as it was in the year 1800 at some time in the future? If you found a new cave with a stalagmite in it, and you observed the stalagmite grow a few millimetres over a few years due to the addition of material from a dripping cave roof, wouldn't you infer that this observed micro-stalagmite formation was the process responsible for the macro-stalagmite formation which had taken place before your discovery of the cave?
slevesque writes:
This was very much an assumption in his time, and it was what permitted him to construct his famous 'tree of life'. I think it is still an assumption today, and here is why. When is the last time someone asked a question like this: can the small changes that we observe today be extrapolated to big changes with enough time ?
Darwin put forward the hypothesis that the small changes accounted for the diversity of life we see today, everything having descended from one or several original organisms. That hypothesis makes predictions and can be falsified. Its current status as a very strong theory is because many of its predictions have been shown to be true, and it has yet to be falsified. No assumptions required.
If the small changes add up to large changes, then there must have been proto-humans, proto-horses, proto-whales, etc. And, on a grander scale, there must have been proto-mammals, proto-reptiles, and proto-amphibians. We have found all of those things, slevesque, and unless you're a great believer in one-in-a-billion sets of coincidences, Darwin must have been right. That's just on the fossil record alone, without starting on molecular and other lines of evidence.
Discoveries related to the formation of complex organs are being made all the time. Last weekend, for example:
Another mammalian ear transitional
slevesque writes:
Or when the new field of genetics was being discovered, did anyone ask if their was a barrier between species or families, that would prevent such thing from happening ? Personnally, I do not think that any question of the sort was ever adressed, and so the answer was assumed to be yes for both questions. My personnal opinion was that it was assumed to be yes because the 'fact' of evolution was a certainty.
In your personal opinion, what is the limit to the number of mutations that can go to fixation across a population, and why is there a limit, and why haven't creationist scientists identified that limit?
And in your opinion, is there not obvious evidence of speciation in the wild around us that could easily have been observed when the new science of genetics was getting underway? What would you expect to see if groups of organisms were diverging from recent common ancestry?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 10-12-2009 10:05 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 29 of 32 (530484)
10-13-2009 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by slevesque
10-12-2009 10:05 PM


The assumptions that aren't assumed
The first assumption is the one that I have mentioned in the other thread, and it is also the one that Darwin made in his time. That the small changes in today's species from generation to generation can accumulate, with enough time, as to produce major changes such as new organs, new proteins, etc. This was very much an assumption in his time, and it was what permitted him to construct his famous 'tree of life'. I think it is still an assumption today, and here is why. When is the last time someone asked a question like this: can the small changes that we observe today be extrapolated to big changes with enough time ?
The question was asked, and studied in depth both experimentally and mathematically through much of the middle part of the last century. The findings of the biologists working at that time form the basis for much of modern evolutionary theory. So, no, you don't find much discussion about it in the current literature, but that's because the issue was settled decades ago not because it's being assumed by modern evolutionists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 10-12-2009 10:05 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by subbie, posted 10-13-2009 5:49 PM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 30 of 32 (530488)
10-13-2009 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Jack
10-13-2009 5:39 PM


Re: The assumptions that aren't assumed
quote:
So, no, you don't find much discussion about it in the current literature, but that's because the issue was settled decades ago not because it's being assumed by modern evolutionists.
This, I think, is exactly what creationists mean when they talk about "assumptions." There are certain facts that have been established beyond any reasonable question (in the absence of future contradictory evidence) that scientists seem to "assume" are correct, because scientists are aware of the massive body of evidence supporting them.
Nobody is doing basic research into the existence of a mechanism limiting the ability of mutations to change one species into a completely different species because of the wealth of evidence showing exactly that kind of progression. It is universally accepted as a starting point for any hypothesis, not because scientists assume it's true, but because of the evidence.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dr Jack, posted 10-13-2009 5:39 PM Dr Jack has seen this message but 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