Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not science
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 305 (394245)
04-10-2007 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by JonF
04-10-2007 7:49 AM


Hi, Jon.
quote:
Conceivably there could be an alternative interpretation that accounts for all the evidence.
Indeed. But the point is that the theory of evolution is not just something people want to believe, and people aren't just forcing some interpretation onto the evidence to justify this. Evolution is a natural, reasonable inference based on the data that we have.
Unlike, say, young earth creationism. The evidence is pretty uniequivocal that the earth, the universe, and the history of life is billions of years old, that the species evolved from earlier species, and that there was no global flood that occurred in historic times. One has to force a different interpretation onto the evidence (and usually one has to ignore huge swaths of it) in order to maintain a belief in a literal Genesis that one is not willing to drop.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by JonF, posted 04-10-2007 7:49 AM JonF has not replied

City_on_a_Hill
Junior Member (Idle past 6192 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 04-09-2007


Message 17 of 305 (394337)
04-10-2007 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
04-10-2007 7:43 AM


Re: Refuted. (Again). Next PRATT?
And theory(ies), based on observation, and testing of the theory(ies), and refining the theory(ies) as evidence invalidates some concepts and validates others. This is the way science is done. When evolution does this it IS science -- by definition.
But, observation is the foundation for science and scientific theories. Whether evolution is based on empirical observation or mere interpretation has yet to be debated.
For instance the observation that there are variations within every population of every species, and that there are more offspring produced than needed. The theory of natural selection says only those best able to survive and reproduce will do better than those least able to survive and reproduce at the critical job of survival and reproduction. This is tested and validated.
Yes, the theory of natural selection is a scientific one. However, natural selection is not evidence for the Theory of Evolution.
Likewise we can state a theory of evolution that the hereditary characteristics within populations of breeding organisms change over time. This fits observations and tests and has been validated.
Biological evolution and the theory of Evolution are quite different things. Biological evolution is the change over time in the heritable traits of a population over a period of time.
The "Theory" of Evolution is an explanation of the origin of species of plants and animals.
We can also use the fossil evidence as a test of this theory: does the fossil evidence show change within species over time?
Geology Dept article 3
Transitional fossils are lacking (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
All this really shows is that Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa are varieties of the same kind of organism. The origin of spherical test is not a problem, even if it is truly a new feature. The spherical test is a less complex structure than the Globigerinoides shell and probably could have come from a degenerative duplicate copy of that gene. The other possibility is that the genetic information for the spherical test was present in earlier Globigerinoides but not switched on due to environment. In that case, the genes got past to Orbulina but may not have been passed to modern Globigerinoides. The intermediates would have resulted from a gradual environmental change.
In other words, we have evidence from the fossils that change in heritable characteristics within populations over time has in fact occurred.
That would support Biological evolution and not the general theory of evolution.
This simple element of the science of evolution is ignored by many creationists who deny evolution. Science does NOT limit its focus on the present.
Science is based on observable, repeatable, and testable phenomenon. You can't observe, repeat or test the past. You can only speculate.
Denial of evidence is not a re-interpretation. Ignoring parts of the evidence is not a re-interpretation. It is easy to make "interpretations" of things you want to believe - you can "interpret" evidence to show the sun orbits a flat earth if you want to - but the TEST of the "interpretations" is whether they explain all the evidence and whether there is evidence that contradicts the "interpretations" that is not dealt with.
All facts are interpreted. Evidence does not speak for itself. We make basic assumptions to explain the evidence. The question is which model best explains the evidence available.
For instance: the many layers of forams in their different sedimentary layers can be "interpreted" as being deposited by some mythic flood or other, but this does NOT explain the separation of the different species of foraminifera into specific layers within those sediments and the clear progression from species to species from layer to layer. This separation cannot be accomplished by sorting, as there are different density forams within each layer that span the densities of forams between layers, and the density of forams is different from the density of the sediments, some of which are very slow to settle in water. Thus the "flood interpretation" does not explain all the evidence nor does it explain the contradictory evidence of differential settling rates.
Forams generally live in deep sea levels. I can't imagine them being deposited by the flood. Where were the fossils found? Which layers? Do you have an article that elaborates on this?
Regardless, this thread is not about the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2007 7:43 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 04-10-2007 7:02 PM City_on_a_Hill has replied
 Message 23 by Coragyps, posted 04-10-2007 7:35 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2007 8:56 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied
 Message 43 by nator, posted 04-10-2007 10:22 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied
 Message 52 by Modulous, posted 04-11-2007 2:11 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 305 (394340)
04-10-2007 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by City_on_a_Hill
04-10-2007 6:29 PM


Re: Refuted. (Again). Next PRATT?
Whether evolution is based on empirical observation or mere interpretation has yet to be debated.
There's no debate. Evolution is accepted as consensus science because of the vast weight of evidence in its favor; evidence that necessitated the conclusion of evolution.
However, natural selection is not evidence for the Theory of Evolution.
The theory of evolution is that natural selection and random mutation are responsible for the history and diversity of species on Earth; as such, the observation that natural selection and random mutation give rise to new morphology and new species is, indeed, evidence for the theory of evolution.
Science is based on observable, repeatable, and testable phenomenon.
The physical evidence is observable; the tests we perform on that evidence are repeatable. The study of evolution is science by any definition.
Evidence does not speak for itself.
There's such a vast weight of evidence that, indeed, it does almost speak for itself. Evidence, however, does not support an infinite variety of interpretations. The scientific interpretation of that evidence is the evolutionary model.
The question is which model best explains the evidence available.
Indeed. But there is no question - evolution is the best explanation of all the evidence we have available. And arriving at the best explanation - of any phenomenon - is definitely science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-10-2007 6:29 PM City_on_a_Hill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-10-2007 7:19 PM crashfrog has replied

City_on_a_Hill
Junior Member (Idle past 6192 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 04-09-2007


Message 19 of 305 (394343)
04-10-2007 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
04-10-2007 7:02 PM


Re: Refuted. (Again). Next PRATT?
There's no debate. Evolution is accepted as consensus science because of the vast weight of evidence in its favor; evidence that necessitated the conclusion of evolution.
This sites is called Creation versus evolution. If there is no debate, I hardly think the forum would exist. Do you see any forums that debate on whether or not Mars exists.
The theory of evolution is that natural selection and random mutation are responsible for the history and diversity of species on Earth; as such, the observation that natural selection and random mutation give rise to new morphology and new species is, indeed, evidence for the theory of evolution.
Natural selection can only select from existing traits, not create new ones. Natural selection does not lead to the kind of evolution which would allow an uni-cellular organism to evolve into man over billions of years.
Furthermore, despite the fact that almost all mutations are harmful, mutations cannot produce new traits if the potential for variation did not exist. Slight modifications can only go so far. For example, no mutations or any series of mutations will ever produce legs in a legless creature or produce legs from fins.
The physical evidence is observable; the tests we perform on that evidence are repeatable. The study of evolution is science by any definition.
The alleged EVIDENCE is observable. But do you have a time machine? Did you actually SEE the evolution of an unicellular cell to the modern man?
There's such a vast weight of evidence that, indeed, it does almost speak for itself. Evidence, however, does not support an infinite variety of interpretations. The scientific interpretation of that evidence is the evolutionary model.
"almost" is the operative word.
when dealing with the past, assumptions must be made for the evidence to support a specific model.
Indeed. But there is no question - evolution is the best explanation of all the evidence we have available. And arriving at the best explanation - of any phenomenon - is definitely science.
If there IS no question, there wouldn't be a controversy today. Saying that there is no question that evolution is the best explanation when there is a controversy, even with evolution being taught in classrooms, is pretty arrogant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 04-10-2007 7:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by kuresu, posted 04-10-2007 7:29 PM City_on_a_Hill has replied
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 04-10-2007 7:31 PM City_on_a_Hill has replied
 Message 24 by Doddy, posted 04-10-2007 7:36 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 04-10-2007 8:00 PM City_on_a_Hill has replied
 Message 32 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-10-2007 8:05 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2007 6:13 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 20 of 305 (394345)
04-10-2007 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by City_on_a_Hill
04-10-2007 7:19 PM


Re: Refuted. (Again). Next PRATT?
If there is no debate
there's no debate among biologists that evolution happens, and that natural selection plus random variation are responsible.
the debate is between the scientists and the creationists. And it only exists because creationists repeat the same mantras over and over again, no matter how many times they are refuted.
Natural selection can only select from existing traits, not create new ones
wow! really!!??
if you'll read closely, crash said
crash writes:
natural selection and random mutation
he did not say "only natural selection".
it is the random mutations that create the new traits.
mutations cannot produce new traits if the potential for variation did not exist
what do you think a mutation is? take the line AAACCCGGGTTT. a mutation might make it AAACCCTTTGGG. You now have two variants.
mutations create variations.
as to your final point (i'm not even going to touch on the past observations, other's are handling that quite well), there is no controversy among biologists, except for the odd one here and there. I garuntee that you will not find a single biologist who rejects the basics of the ToE [(natural selection + random mutation) / time ] for evidentiary reasons. If they do, it will be over religious reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-10-2007 7:19 PM City_on_a_Hill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-10-2007 7:42 PM kuresu has replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 21 of 305 (394346)
04-10-2007 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Adequate
04-10-2007 1:36 PM


Dr. A. writes:
Evolutionist: This man has been shot.
Creationist: How do you know? You weren't there.
A bit of an aside, but it demonstrates this point well, is a skit of the same theme written by a fellow member of EvoWiki.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/a_parable.htm
quote:
A Parable
by Michael E. Suttkus, II
Once upon a time....
Two cops, Henry and Phillip, are called to a house on Evidence Street. A neighbor has called and reported a break in. Arriving at the house, they find that the front door has been knocked off of it's hinges and a man wearing a ski mask and holding a bag of jewellery and a bloody knife is leaving.
"Excuse me, sir," says Henry. "A break in has been reported at this residence. We're here to investigate."
The masked man glances around. "Looks fine to me, but I've really got to get going..."
"Sorry, sir, but we've really got to investigate," says Phillip.
The two cops and the masked man walk up to the front door. It is hanging by only the bottom hinge and the deadbolt has clearly been forced out of the doorframe.
"Sir," says Henry, "Can you explain why your door appears to have been forced in if there hasn't been a break in?"
"Well," says the masked man, "When I bought this house, they explained to me that the builder was a little worried that if the house looked too new, people would be afraid to live in it, being afraid to damage it. So, he built in an appearance of age, of a history that never happened, damaging it before hand."
Meanwhile, Phillip has stepped inside. He notices what looks like signs of a struggle. He asks, "Sir, can you explain why your sofa is on it's back?"
"It was that way when we moved in, our interior decorator put it there."
"On it's back?"
"Yes. He was a great designer, the best ever."
"Why would he place it like that? Isn't it hard to sit on?"
"A little, but intelligent placement doesn't mean optimal placement. I can still sit here." He demonstrates this by sitting on the front of the couch. "See? It works."
Henry, meanwhile, had walked through the living room and into the bedrooms. From there, he called, "Hey, there appear to be two dead bodies in here." Phillip and the masked man go to see. Indeed, two dead bodies, both with obvious knife wounds.
"Well," asks Henry, "How can you explain this?"
"Well," says, the masked man, "Obviously the two bodies can't have just formed from the floor boards, right? That is obviously impossible. They are too complicated for that. They must have been created here by a magical fairy that poofed in here, created two dead bodies magically, and then vanished, leaving no trace of his presence."
Phillip and Henry walk out of the house. "Well," asks Phillip, "What did you think?"
"Hmm, well, appearance of age, a history that seems to have happened, but didn't, obviously inferior design attributed to great intelligence, refutations of a straw man argument nobody made and a false dichotomy, followed by dependence on unevidenced supernatural events to fill in any gaps, it all leads to only one conclusion."
"Quite right," says Phillip. He calls dispatch. "Nobody was here to see what happened. We're going back on patrol."
And the moral of this story is, if you commit a crime, pray you get creationist cops.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-10-2007 1:36 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 305 (394348)
04-10-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by City_on_a_Hill
04-10-2007 7:19 PM


Not a good point at all.
quote:
The alleged EVIDENCE is observable. But do you have a time machine? Did you actually SEE the evolution of an unicellular cell to the modern man?
We accept the existence of many things that we do not, or cannot, see directly based on evidence. You may have noticed, I was the first to respond to your OP and I responded to this very point.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-10-2007 7:19 PM City_on_a_Hill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-10-2007 7:54 PM Chiroptera has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 23 of 305 (394349)
04-10-2007 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by City_on_a_Hill
04-10-2007 6:29 PM


Re: Refuted. (Again). Next PRATT?
Forams generally live in deep sea levels. I can't imagine them being deposited by the flood. Where were the fossils found? Which layers? Do you have an article that elaborates on this?
Forams live in all depths, surface to bottom. They are used to correlate zones in the oil-producing formations in South Louisiana to at least four miles deep, to my own work-related knowledge. Bolivina mexicana, for instance, occurs at about 15,000 feet deep at Rayne, Louisiana. Other species occur in other strata up to near-surface.
Foraminifera is an overview - I can't seem to find the Gulf Coast correlation chart that I once had though. I Googled in before, so surely it's out there. Or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-10-2007 6:29 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2007 9:02 PM Coragyps has not replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 24 of 305 (394350)
04-10-2007 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by City_on_a_Hill
04-10-2007 7:19 PM


Re: Refuted. (Again). Next PRATT?
City on a Hill writes:
Did you actually SEE the evolution of an unicellular cell to the modern man?
Yes. See my post here.
Edited by Doddy, : link

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-10-2007 7:19 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

City_on_a_Hill
Junior Member (Idle past 6192 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 04-09-2007


Message 25 of 305 (394351)
04-10-2007 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by kuresu
04-10-2007 7:29 PM


Re: Refuted. (Again). Next PRATT?
there's no debate among biologists that evolution happens, and that natural selection plus random variation are responsible.
the debate is between the scientists and the creationists. And it only exists because creationists repeat the same mantras over and over again, no matter how many times they are refuted.
With evolution taught universally in America, and with bias towards creationists in higher education and in the field, what do you expect? And there are many creationist scientists and many more who question evolution
wow! really!!??
if you'll read closely, crash said
crash writes:
natural selection and random mutation
he did not say "only natural selection".
it is the random mutations that create the new traits.
If you've read on just a little further....
what do you think a mutation is? take the line AAACCCGGGTTT. a mutation might make it AAACCCTTTGGG. You now have two variants.
mutations create variations.
I did not say mutations cannot create new variation. I said mutations cannot lead to new traits when the potential for variance did not exist before. You will never see mutations producing a leg in a legless creature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by kuresu, posted 04-10-2007 7:29 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by kuresu, posted 04-10-2007 7:49 PM City_on_a_Hill has replied
 Message 28 by Chiroptera, posted 04-10-2007 7:51 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied
 Message 30 by Doddy, posted 04-10-2007 7:56 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied
 Message 49 by Modulous, posted 04-11-2007 8:27 AM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 26 of 305 (394352)
04-10-2007 7:43 PM


The big foram chart - but it only goes back 164 million years:
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/papers/biochart.pdf
Added by edit: Bol. mex is the oldest Chattian index fossil....
Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.
Edited by Coragyps, : kant spel

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 27 of 305 (394354)
04-10-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by City_on_a_Hill
04-10-2007 7:42 PM


Re: Refuted. (Again). Next PRATT?
with bias towards creationists in higher education and in the field
i don't think this is what you meant to say.
I said mutations cannot lead to new traits when the potential for variance did not exist before
I read that. It's nonsensical. mutations are variations. if you have mutations happening, you have variation being created. what you're stating is nonsense.
and:
You will never see mutations producing a leg in a legless creature.
why not? we'll be looking for evidence, not assertions.
And there are many creationist scientists and many more who question evolution
give us the names of some, if you don't mind. also, how many question evolution over evidentiary reasons, and not for religious/faith reasons?
everyone I'm aware of who's a biologist who questions evolution does so for faith/religious reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-10-2007 7:42 PM City_on_a_Hill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-10-2007 8:05 PM kuresu has replied
 Message 99 by inkorrekt, posted 08-01-2007 10:43 PM kuresu has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 305 (394355)
04-10-2007 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by City_on_a_Hill
04-10-2007 7:42 PM


Re: Refuted. (Again). Next PRATT?
quote:
And there are many creationist scientists and many more who question evolution
And not one of them understands either the theory of evolution or the science that supports it.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-10-2007 7:42 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

City_on_a_Hill
Junior Member (Idle past 6192 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 04-09-2007


Message 29 of 305 (394356)
04-10-2007 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Chiroptera
04-10-2007 7:31 PM


Re: Not a good point at all.
We accept the existence of many things that we do not, or cannot, see directly based on evidence. You may have noticed, I was the first to respond to your OP and I responded to this very point.
Of course we do, such as black holes, gravity, etc.
Nevertheless, the general theory of evolution is not observable, testable OR repeatable. The composition of the Earth, however, can be concluded by the observation of the transmission of waves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 04-10-2007 7:31 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 04-10-2007 8:06 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 30 of 305 (394358)
04-10-2007 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by City_on_a_Hill
04-10-2007 7:42 PM


Re: Refuted. (Again). Next PRATT?
City on a hill writes:
...and many more who question evolution
If the scientists are doing their job right, they should be questioning evolution every day.

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-10-2007 7:42 PM City_on_a_Hill 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