Neither Evolution nor Creation are

Before we get deeper into the discussion of what science is & isn't. Could you furnish us with some examples of scientific theories.What ever dictionary definition you choose to accept on what science is, will have to be in the context of what you accept as scientific theory.Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:

​

Mark asks for an example of a Scientific theory? Einstein's General Relativity Theory.

​

---

Robert,My point regarding definition of science, is there are, as you are aware, more than one definition. What goes on in a physics class is science, even if nothing in particular is meeting the scientific method. However, when you bring in what you & I understand as scientific theories, we mean something else. Science applies a rigorous method to hypothesis', the scientific method. So, General Relativity would be science as it meets the standards of this method, so would Boyles Laws, Newtonian Motion, Quantum Mechanics etc. So when talking about evolution as a scientific theory, we must be in context with our definition. So, does the ToE meet the standard of the scientific method? The criteria that science itself applies to define a theory as scientific? Yes, it does. Ergo, The ToE is a scientific theory.It is dishonest to try to apply a non contextual definition to something. Not that I claim you did this deliberately, but other creationists do.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:

​

Gene wants me to be more clear about Evolutionary theory. OK. How does Evolution explain the jump from original single-celled animals in the primordial goo 10 billion years ago to multi-celled animsals. Can they (or you) demonstrate that such can happen? You say that there is an abundance of evidence for it - well? Show me!

​

---

Robert,You seem to have accepted that macroevolution won't be observed in our lifetimes, so I assume you don't want to see a single celled to multicellular transition occur under your nose?Assuming you don't, what would you accept as evidence of a single to multi-cellular transition?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:

I am glad to receive your kind response, and I can say that I mean no deliberate dishonesty in using the definition that I have used. However, I must disagree slightly with your post on the following ground.

​

Given as a hypothesis to the scientific method I would heartily agree with you that the theory of evolution can be considered scientific. But, is that how the theory is treated by most scientists? The American Association for the Advancement of Science has come out and said that evolution is a fact. Such a statement has put it beyond the realm of a simple hypothesis. The PBS series that I have referred to before has also made such a statement. Dawkins and Gould - the men at the highest pinnacle of evolutionary thought - have also stated that evolution is a fact.

​

In light of all of this I believe that the definition I use is not out of context, but a necessary test of evolutionary thought. In examining evolution from both "sides" (I think there are actually about 3 or 4 sides if you include non-creationists and theistic evolutionists as well) I have found evolution neither scientific nor factual.

​

This conclusion comes from a former evolutionist who has unbiasedly read the arguments from all of the sides involved.

​

Thank you for the clarification of your point. I hope I was as clear as you were.

​

Robert

---

Robert,I only wanted to show that the ToE is scientific, by sciences own standards. I also wanted to show you what we all think of scientific theories is true of the ToE. That you can exclude the ToE with some definitions means little, because the moment you start talking about scientific theories, the ToE is included again. "Evolutionists" claim the definition as I mean it, which incidentally is the hardest of all the definitions to fulfill. Also saying the ToE isn't science using one definition, when everybody else is using another is semantics. The most important, relevant definition of science would be one that fits all scientific theories, since that is the relevant context.Wouldn't you agree a dictionaries layman definition would miss the point, if you then started talking about scientific theories in general?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Greetings:

​

Mark again!

​

I am skeptical that macroevolution can be proved either by observation or demonstration in my lifetime since I have often been told that it takes millions of years for it to happen. However, I am openminded on this issue and would entertain any such proof you have to offer me.

​

What I am really looking for is the actual process that a single-celled animal undergoes in order for it to "transmogrify" (if I can use a Calvin and Hobbes reference) into a multi-celled animal.

​

I am looking forward to reading your reply

​

Robert

---

Robert, http://www.sdu.dk/Nat/Molbiol/research/exact/exact4.html"Multicellular development in M.xanthus: fruiting body morphogenesisThe grand theme in our research is "intercellular communication by signal molecules in the induction and coordination of multicellular development and cellular differentiation". We have focused on understanding how a particular intercellular signal molecule in the Gram negative bacterium Myxococcus xanthus induces a set of different responses during starvation induced development, including changed motility patterns, sporulation and altered gene expression. M. xanthus undergoes one of the most astonishing prokaryotic developmental programs upon starvation. Within 4 to 8 hrs after initiation of starvation, the cells begin to aggregate by gliding to foci where 105 cells build a fruiting body. Inside a fruiting body, the rod-shaped, motile cells differentiate into spherical, non-motile spores by approximately 24 hrs. Aggregation and sporulation are temporally separated, and sporulation does not occur until cell migration have led to the assembly of a fruiting body. So, initiation of sporulation represents a developmental checkpoint at which cellular differentiation is coupled to the morphogenesis of a multicellular structure."This is an example prokaryotes (& is all the more remarkable for it), which I don't advance as a "transitional" for eukaryotic multicellular evolution. I DO advance it as how multicellularity may have come about via colonial behaviour.The example above shows that under certain circumstances, organisms that usually live their lives purely as single cells, are able to find an advantage in a colony, to the point where there are cells responsible for reproduction.This is prokaryotes, if it occurred like this in sexually reproducing eukaryotes, the body would have specialised sex cells. If this body proved more successful than the single celled variety, the single free living cell could be dispensed with, leaving a body of cells capable of reproducing sexually.So, via a colonial intermediate a true multicellular organism can arise from a single celled existance. This is simplistic. To be sure, theres a lot of extra specialisation to evolve, but it is plausible. The hormone cascades that produce this specialisation already exist in SINGLE CELLED PROKARYOTIC BACTERIA!I understand the desire to see the process occur in a test tube, so to speak, but it just ain't gonna happen. This is why I ask you, instead of this, what would you accept as a single to multi cellular transitional? I wanted to avoid giving examples up front, as the people I have posted to before simply say "that's no good", so you see my desire to get you to state your own requirements.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Greetings:

​

In response to Gene I will reiterate the definition of evolution that I have given before:

​

Evolution is a process whereby life arose from non-living matter, and subsequently developed entirely by natural means.

​

---

I'll offer a different definition.Evolution is the changing of allele frequencies over time.This definition, without explaining mechanisms, covers all so called micro & macro evolution.The problem with your definition is that it includes abiogenesis. Biological Evolution can only act on living things, so the question of how that first living thing(s) arose isn't covered by the ToE. As such you need to strike "a process whereby life arose from non-living matter" from your definition.See Quetzals "Abiogenesis - Or Better Living Through Chemistry " thread.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-27-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Mark:

​

That was very interesting concerning M.xanthus, and I can see why you are excited about it. I am also interested in it. Does this new "organism" (if I can call it that) reproduce the same exact organism (or better)? I will not let my doubts try to modify your beliefs, but can this new multi-celled organism be considered a viable new species under the "survival of the fittest" mentality of Darwinism?

​

It is a very, very promising example, and I would like to hear more about it.

---

Robert,I'm not trying to show you an example of speciation, but of a potential transitional state (note, I'm not saying this is an ACTUAL transitional, leftover fron 2 bn years ago). In the case of M. xanthus, the offspring were M. xanthus. It only assumes this state when starving, so the offspring will be single celled, until such time as they starve too.But if the multicellular state gets selected for in an already sexual eukaryote........From your answer it seems you think I'm trying to provide a living example of macro evolution happening. I'm not. But, what would you accept as an example of a single to multicellular transitional state?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.